Its oh so quiet Shh Shh

[ConcinusMan]

Still trying to determine how to interpret "the end will come like a thief in the night" or if I should even try. I mean, what the heck does that mean? If I am to take it as "Suddenly and unexpectedly, as a robber breaks into a dwelling. A thief comes without giving any warning, or any indications of his approach."

Then *FAIL*

Any idiot can see it's coming or already happening. Even if it's a sudden impact of an object from space, we'll see it coming well in advance. For example, if calcuations are correct, there will be an impact or very near collision with earth in the year 2040.

"Specifically, those odds are currently at 1 in 625 for an impact on Feb. 5, 2040. But like most odds, these are fluid. From 2013 to 2016, the asteroid will be observable from the ground, and that will give NEO watchers a better idea of its orbit and future trajectory"

They'll probably call "false alarm" by 2016

[Stefan-A]

Still trying to determine how to interpret "the end will come like a thief in the night" or if I should even try. I mean, what the heck does that mean? If I am to take it as "Suddenly and unexpectedly, as a robber breaks into a dwelling. A thief comes without giving any warning, or any indications of his approach."

Then *FAIL*

Nothing good can come of this.

Any idiot can see it's coming or already happening. Even if it's a sudden impact of an object from space, we'll see it coming well in advance. For example, if calcuations are correct, there will be an impact or very near collision with earth in the year 2040.

"Specifically, those odds are currently at 1 in 625 for an impact on Feb. 5, 2040. But like most odds, these are fluid. From 2013 to 2016, the asteroid will be observable from the ground, and that will give NEO watchers a better idea of its orbit and future trajectory"

They'll probably call "false alarm" by 2016

The passage you referred to doesn't refer to extinction-level events or natural disasters. Your point is moot.

[ConcinusMan]

Yeah, I realized that after I posted it. That reminds me of lyrics from a song, Eeels - Novicaine For The Soul. "..Jesus and his lawyers are coming back". Cracks me up.

OK, how about this one from Revelations: “I saw a large ball of fire, with a long tail that descended rapidly from the sky and fell before our incredulous eyes,”

or, "the stars will fall from the sky"

or "The third angel sounded his trumpet, and a great star, blazing like a torch, fell from the sky"

Digressed a little there anyway. I just think the "end of the world as we know it" , that is, the world we know since recorded history, isn't just going to end one day. It's already happening. There very well may be an extinction level event in the future, perhaps an object hitting the earth, but probably not before "the world as we know it" is a thing of the past.

The truth is, there is a current mass extinction taking place. It began before humans had any influence on global change and continues to accellerate.

[Stefan-A]

Yeah, I realized that after I posted it. That reminds me of lyrics from a song, Eeels - Novicaine For The Soul. "..Jesus and his lawyers are coming back". Cracks me up.

OK, how about this one from Revelations: “I saw a large ball of fire, with a long tail that descended rapidly from the sky and fell before our incredulous eyes,”

or, "the stars will fall from the sky"

or "The third angel sounded his trumpet, and a great star, blazing like a torch, fell from the sky"

What about them?

[ConcinusMan]

Just that it sounds a lot like a natural disaster that would probably have global consequences.

[Stefan-A]

Just that it sounds a lot like a natural disaster that would probably have global consequences.

Not really. Asteroids and meteoroids, which I assume you refer to, hit the atmosphere pretty frequently without any significant consequences.

Still, it's just a vision.

[ConcinusMan]

Yeah, just a vision/prophecy. Still, hitting the atmosphere is not what I would call "falling from the sky". The sky is above, obviously. If something falls from the sky, then logic dictates that it hits the earth.

I do get your point. We should just dismiss it. I apologize if this offends anyone but my true belief is that the Bible is complete hogwash anyway. If you get a chance, read this month's "Science News" magazine. There's a fascinating article on recent human evolution. Very recent new information based on some fossils and DNA.

Oh, cool! it's available online. You can read the entire article. It's a good read. Tangled Roots - Science News

"Clear signs of interbreeding have left archaeologists and other students of the Stone Age scrambling to revisit existing ideas about Homo sapiens’ evolutionary past. A dominant theory holding that humans evolved in Africa and left on neat one-way routes to Asia and Europe has to be revised"

"An ancient finger bone recently landed a genetic sucker punch on scientists studying human evolution"

I just love it when that happens. When you discover that much of what you (or science) thought was truth must be re-examined based on new information.

[guidofatherof5]

Offense taken.
As I believe.

[ConcinusMan]

I believe in the values presented. I believe in a creator. Beyond that, I don't have much, if any faith in the translation or that it hasn't been "tweeked" or messed with before we had the chance to read it. Let's just say that God really did create man and all the life on earth. Well then, if that is true, then why does that have to conflict with evolution theories? It doesn't have to. I think that evolution does occur, but it is a creative process that takes time. Lots of time. It doesn't happen in 7 days.

Just for shits and giggles, read the link I posted above. One cannot just completely dismiss it, unless of course, you're one of those people for which "believing is seeing" rather than visa-versa, and that you believe that science is wrong about everything. The thing about the human ego is that it dismisses evidence that is contrary to what you fully believe to be the truth. The ego cannot handle being wrong, so it will dismiss clear evidence if it conflicts.

With that said, I can admit that my earlier statement about the Bible could be completely wrong. I am completely willing to say I was wrong if one could ever show me the evidence to prove it.

As Stefan stated earlier, friends should not discuss religion or politics. I'll leave it at that. Read the article. Not trying to "convert" or take you from your beliefs (as if I could) Just a fascinating article. Take it as you wish.

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feat.../Tangled_Roots

[Stefan-A]

Still, hitting the atmosphere is not what I would call "falling from the sky".

It's exactly what I'd call it.

The sky is above, obviously.

Obviously the sky doesn't really exist. It's just a term we use for vertical distances we can't reach even if we stand on our tippy toes.

If something falls from the sky, then logic dictates that it hits the earth.

With a high probability, anything that will hit the atmosphere, will eventually hit the earth if it doesn't burn up on its way down. A possible exception in history could be the Tunguska event, which was at one point suspected of having been a meteoroid that pretty much just "bounced" off the atmosphere. But last time I heard, the notion was it blew up in the atmosphere, before ever hitting the ground.

I apologize if this offends anyone but my true belief is that the Bible is complete hogwash anyway.

This is the issue I was referring to when I said nothing good can come of this. It's a touchy subject and either you're forced to keep your beliefs to yourself, or you offend someone.

I just love it when that happens. When you discover that much of what you (or science) thought was truth must be re-examined based on new information.

Science doesn't deal with truths, it deals with facts, which are used to form hypotheses and theories. I wouldn't say that this was "much", either. It doesn't change much at all.