2012: The Truth!

[Luigison]

It wasn't destroyed by a flood the first time.  It also was not, nor will be, destroyed by a volcano. 

So far Chup's answer seems best, but I guess this all depends on how you define "world" and according to other posts, what movie you have most recently seen.  Oh, and, just because the "Earth" is destroyed doesn't mean the human race would end.  At least not billions of years from now.  Who knows what humans could accomplish in that amount of time.  Or, maybe we'll just kill ourselves.  Me, I hope to live forever, and I don't mean by some religious or spiritual means.  I guess the same methods that could conceivably radically extent our life expectancy could also kill us.  Image every living thing on Earth being consumed by nanobots or a virus transmitted cancer. 

[PaperLuigi]

I think it's ironic that this thread was kind of supposed to dispel one of the largest end-of-the-world theories... and now the apocalypse, by any means, is all anyone can talk about.

Any topic that tries to disprove something will inevitably bring about those who will try to prove it (and vice versa).

I do not want to live forever in this world. It is simply too much to bare for even one lifetime. If we ever figure out how to extend the human life expectancy beyond what anyone thought possible, I will die knowing that I did what I could with the time I was given to begin with.

[Chupperson Weird]

I'm just waiting to go full cyborg.

[Zarkanthesmasher]

I didn't realize the earth can be destroyed twice.

If you've read the flood story, you'll know what I mean. :P

[Glitchy]

Personally, I think this is much more likely than an asteroid collision, both scientifically and spiritualy. Scientifically, because there still is little likelyhood that an asteroid will hit the earth in any reasonable period of time. Spiritually, because since I don't believe the earth will be destroyed by a flood again, a fire related destruction makes a lot more sense.

If this is the cause, however, then somehow humans will cause it themselves.

[PaperLuigi]

If you've read the flood story, you'll know what I mean. :P

*facepalm*

Dude, the world wasn't destroyed. A great deal of humanity was wiped out by the flood, but the actual planet survived.

[Luigison]

If you've read the flood story, you'll know what I mean. :P

At the time of the flood story the size of the Earth was not known.  Therefor, the destruction of the entire Earth could not have been certain.  It seems more likely that the flood was a massive flood of a small region of the Earth (as known today) even though it caused vast destruction for the time it occurred.

[PaperLuigi]

Exactly. Even though the flood killed off a good number of people and caused mass destruction, the size of the Earth was much larger. The only way to truly end the world is by getting rid of it entirely. This will take something like a black hole or a super nova star, and even then it's likely that a little piece (at an atomic level) of the Earth will survive.

I think the problem here as that some members can't distinguish between the end of the world and end of humanity. They are two totally different things.

[Glorb]

I think the only way a flood could physically destroy the planet would be if we lived on a giant piece of bread right next to a giant 7-Eleven Double Gulp cup full of Mountain Dew.

[ShadowBrain]

Two words: False vaccuum. I'll let you all fret over that.

[Zarkanthesmasher]

*facepalm*

Dude, the world wasn't destroyed. A great deal of humanity was wiped out by the flood, but the actual planet survived.

Well, the  "the world" doesn't necessarily mean the whole planet. The world can also just mean "civilization." Back in ancient times, geology didn't exist, so if you wiped out the whole surface, you were wiping out the known world. In Genesis, it DOES states that the entire world was destroyed by a flood, which makes sense if you use that definition. Also, a great deal of humanity is a bit of an understatement - everyone was wiped out except for the 8 people on the ark, which is eight out probably millions.

At the time of the flood story the size of the Earth was not known.  Therefor, the destruction of the entire Earth could not have been certain.  It seems more likely that the flood was a massive flood of a small region of the Earth (as known today) even though it caused vast destruction for the time it occurred.

Keep in mind that the earth may have very well been just one continent back before the flood - and after the flood, it broke apart. Before than, covering the entire earth with  a flood probably wouldn't have been as big a feat as it would be now.

[PaperLuigi]

Two words: False vaccuum. I'll let you all fret over that.

Yeah dude, that is a scary thought. Our destruction could be 8 seconds away and there'd be no forewarning.

[ShadowBrain]

I worry about it even less in that case, because then it'd just be so fast that no one would have any time to suffer or fret over it.

Bring on the universe-sized needle!

[Luigison]

Well, the  "the world" doesn't necessarily mean the whole planet. The world can also just mean "civilization." Back in ancient times, geology didn't exist, so if you wiped out the whole surface, you were wiping out the known world.

I know "the world" can have different definitions. 

In Genesis, it DOES states that the entire world was destroyed by a flood, which makes sense if you use that definition. Also, a great deal of humanity is a bit of an understatement - everyone was wiped out except for the 8 people on the ark, which is eight out probably millions.

The book of Genesis also has two opposing creation stories so I don't know how much validity a destruction story would have.  Besides, there is evidence that the region Noah probably lived was flooded, but no evidence that the whole world flooded nor that only eight survived.  There's actually archeological and genetic evidence contrary to that.

Keep in mind that the earth may have very well been just one continent back before the flood - and after the flood, it broke apart. Before than, covering the entire earth with  a flood probably wouldn't have been as big a feat as it would be now.

I suggest studying some historical geology.  Besides, rearranging the continents would make very little difference on how much water would be required to cover all of them.  

[Zarkanthesmasher]

I know "the world" can have different definitions. 

The book of Genesis also has two opposing creation stories so I don't know how much validity a destruction story would have.  Besides, there is evidence that the region Noah probably lived was flooded, but no evidence that the whole world flooded nor that only eight survived.  There's actually archeological and genetic evidence contrary to that.

I suggest studying some historical geology.  Besides, rearranging the continents would make very little difference on how much water would be required to cover all of them.  

Okay, I dunno where you're getting the "multiple creation stories" from - there's only two chapters in Genesis that deal with creation, and neither contradict each other. The real problem is that we're getting into another debate - and they are never really resolved on here. I don't want to spend pages and pages arguing with people if none of us can end it - so I'm not going to post in this topic after this.