Dec. 21: End of the World? Scholars, NASA Respond
Find out what the experts are saying about the Dec. 21, 2012, Doomsday prophesies, the end of the Mayan calendar and their potential impact on Troy.
Don’t make any rash decisions: Experts say 12/21/12 is going to be just another typical winter solstice.
Killer solar flares aren’t expected. Another planet isn’t on a collision course with ours. And the Mayan “long count calendar” ending on this date has no real significance — they had to end it somewhere!
What is All the Fuss About?
There are a number of theories and predictions that call for earth’s demise on Dec. 21, 2012. They include:
- The ending of the Mayan calendar. The Mayans, according to a Sarasota Patch article, kept three separate calendars. The “long calendar” ends on Dec. 21. Some say this constitutes a Doomsday prediction; many do not.
- Nostradamus. That famed French seer from the 1500s has been credited with predicting several end-of-the-world scenarios that some believe will take place in 2012. The website December212012.com points to the potential sparking of World War III on this date.
- The collision of Earth and the supposed planet Nibiru. This supposed space catastrophe was initially predicted to strike in 2003. The planet in question was supposedly discovered by the Sumerians, according to NASA. When the world didn’t end in 2003, the date was moved to December 2012 for the deadly collision with earth.
What are the Experts Saying?
The intrigue created by multiple end-of-the-world predictions has made many scholars and even NASA stand up to make statements debunking the claims. From professors at Tampa Bay’s own New College to the scientific minds at NASA, they’re all saying the same thing: Go ahead and pay that mortgage bill and wrap those holiday presents.
In regard to the ending of the Mayan calendar, New College’s Gabrielle Vail told Patch:
There are many misconceptions about the Mayans. If you look at their calendar alone, the Mayans kept three calendars. The one that has prompted the end of the world predictions was their "long count calendar" — a 5,125 year calendar. The calendar began August 11, 3114 B.C. and ends Dec. 21, 2012.
She said the Mayans wrote about dates beyond Dec. 21, 2012 "well, well into the future, trillions of years." They also wrote about dates before the 5,125 year calendar began.
Here’s what NASA has to say about all of the collective Doomsday prophesies:
The world will not end in 2012. Our planet has been getting along just fine for more than 4 billion years, and credible scientists worldwide know of no threat associated with 2012.
What do you think? Is the world coming to an end in a few days, or are you making sure those bill payments go out on time? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
Dale Murrish
5:31 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
The Bible has four major end-times theories, with some credible modern-day scholars preferring each of the four, since it’s not clear which one is correct. No one knows for sure when, but the Bible (best-selling book of all time) teaches that history will draw to a close and the Author will step on the stage.
As British historian H.G. Wells famously said, “I am an historian, I am not a believer, but I must confess as a historian that this penniless preacher from Nazareth is irrevocably the very center of history. Jesus Christ is easily the most dominant figure in all history.”
Jesus will return one day as He promised. The Bible teaches that no one knows the day or the hour. My bets are against it being 12/21/12, just as other end of the world predictions have come and gone. It could just as easily be today or tomorrow – the trumpet will sound for a never-ending day. There are four major views of the earth’s origins:
http://troy.patch.com/blog_posts/origins-of-life-four-major-views
Dale Murrish
5:31 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
The most prevalent view is that the earth is very old (not all scientists agree) and that it will go on for millions more years unless we humans use up all its resources or do something drastic like nuclear war or lately global warming, now morphed into “climate change.”
It wasn’t too long ago (1970s) climate scientists were worried about another Ice Age, so maybe climate change is more accurate. Whenever weather patterns happen, it can be a crisis used for more government control over individuals and groups in the name of saving the planet.
For sure, we ought to work to conserve resources and prevent nuclear weapons from getting in the hands of rogue nations and terrorists, but we do not need to worry about the future. Plan for it and work for a better tomorrow, but not worry about it.
The Bible does not teach an infinite cycle with the world going on forever. History is linear and will someday come to a close, with a new heaven and a new earth, where a loving God will restore His creation to its original intent – a good earth with no more thorns, pain or death. I’ll place my confidence in the Bible and its Author, not the other experts, who only have opinions like me.
Daffy Noodnicks
6:49 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
I am rousing myself because these especially ridiculous pieces of drivel.
There is no science that does not support the world being really (billions of years) old. Period. Anything else is religious dogma. Feel free to go ahead and believe the world is 6 or 10 thousand years old if you need to, but there is no real science behind it. Dale, you should not keep repeating this lie.
I won't go into the enormous number of other inaccuracies that Dale has regurgitated again. It does no good. He will just keep at no matter how many times he has been shown to be wrong. (How about that hopelessly deadlocked "divided" council that really isn't.)
Daffy Noodnicks
9:56 am on Thursday, December 20, 2012
Btw, I don't have any issue with the expressions of faith, although I don't share them. whatever gets you through.
The distortions of scientific facts are completely ridiculous. I just picked one because I don't have the time or inclination anymore to correct all of Dale's far right extremist talking points.
Dale Murrish
12:30 pm on Thursday, December 20, 2012
Daffy, I’ve not been shown wrong on the scientific evidence for a young earth. It’s there; you just don’t recognize it as credible. There’s evidence for both young earth creation and old earth creation. I’ll put Evidence for a Young Earth on my list of blog posts to write with references.
For now, you could check out some of nationally syndicated talk show host Bob Dutko’s materials or go to the website of Answers in Genesis. I’m not fully convinced either way and it’s not a hill I’m willing to die on. I do disagree with theistic evolution and much more so with atheistic evolution, but there are more important things to debate.
Your belief system allows you only to look at certain data. Neither of us was there. I started out with your belief system, based on billions of years, and combined it with my belief in God to get theistic evolution. In the last thirty years I’ve gradually began to consider that the Bible might be right until proven otherwise and started looking at things that way. It speaks the truth on every other issue of life; why not origins? Have you looked at all four sets of data with an open mind?
Btw, I'll let your "whatever gets you through" insult go. We're used to it. You're free to not believe. We don't insist everyone believe the way we do, but we would like an open forum and not be disrespected for our old-fashioned beliefs in a 2000 year old book (that speaks the truth on all subjects where it speaks).
Daffy Noodnicks
1:34 pm on Thursday, December 20, 2012
It is not a matter of whether I accept "scientific" evidence of a young earth. It is matter of the entire community of real scientists having settled the issue long ago. There isn't anything close to controversy or even the slightest question within the scientific community, because there simply isn't real scientific evidence for a young earth. If you are saying otherwise, you are either deluded, have been hoodwinked willingly, or are not telling the truth.
Why don't YOU Google "young earth debunked" or something like that and look at the information objectively. Don't look at one source either, check many. Check the citations and see if they point to actual scientific literature. I am familiar with young earth arguments, and they aren't science.
My worldview allows me to accept evidence. When evidence contradicts what I previously believed, I change my beliefs. You don't know much about my worldview or what I believe, although you pretend to know what everyone does. An example is how you label certain CMs 'liberals': an illogical sweeping generalization.
"Whatever gets you through" was not meant as an insult, sorry you took it that way. I sincerely am glad for whatever gives someone peace. Religious faith isn't science though.
BTW, a quickly decided 4-2 vote is not a deadlock. And I don't believe Mr. Slater intends to run in May. You said repeatedly there would be paralysis regarding picking a new CM and there was absolutely none.
Dale Murrish
12:32 pm on Thursday, December 20, 2012
The council was deadlocked on whether to take the advice of the Secretary of State. State Election Law prevailed over the liberals’ interpretation of the City Charter.
I’ll bet you a quarter Ed Pennington votes conservative more often than not, which will prove my point that the conservatives on council are better card players than the liberals.
All six are good, honest people. We’ll see if Dane Slater wins the election in May. I predict he’ll face a tough battle, but hey, I’ve been wrong before.
mark otto
8:44 am on Friday, December 21, 2012
Dale, please name who who believe are the "liberals" on City Council and specific policies that they have adopted that make them liberals.
Linda
2:41 pm on Thursday, December 20, 2012
Once again, Mr. Murrish continues to paint certain council members with the same brush as "liberals" without any fact.
Dale, It's getting old - or should I say IT IS OLD!
Dale Murrish
8:24 pm on Thursday, December 20, 2012
Daffy, if you Google "evolution debunked" you will get a different set of facts and inferences based on observations of the data. We both are stating facts about the age of the earth and the votes on the city council. Just have different views and interpretations of the facts.
Conservatives can generally see things from multiple points of view; it's harder for some others to see both views since the mainstream media leans to the left. We'll have to agree to disagree and leave it there.
Plenty of other people agree with me (including reputable scientists) on matters of faith and what really happened 2000 years ago in Bethlehem: God became incarnate through a young virgin named Mary. The world has not been the same, and it has by and large been changed for the better as a result of this one solitary life: the central figure in human history. What became worse is our human failings, not His. He had no sin, and paid the penalty for our sin for all who would believe in Him.
Daffy Noodnicks
10:47 pm on Thursday, December 20, 2012
As you often do Dale, you completely missed my point or are (more likely) choosing to ignore it. Your sources are completely debunked and not credible. That is a fact, not a point of view. The only support for creationism comes from discredited fundamentalists trying to shoehorn the bible into this or that scientific study while ignoring the enormous amount of evidence to the contrary. That's not science.
Creationism and the young earth thing are not science. It is theology masquerading as science. These are not issues in dispute by scientists. That is not a point of view. That is a rock solid fact. Your implication otherwise is absolutely not based on facts, it is based on ignoring facts that you find uncomfortable.
Your nonsense about "conservatives" is utterly preposterous and wrong. It is another instance of you falling back on illogical, false, sweeping generalizations because you have no real factual argument. There are tons of conservative Christian people who understand that you can't ignore contrary science and consider your conclusion valid. I'm not relying on the 'mainstream media', I'm relying on overwhelming scientific evidence.
I was in no way imputing your faith, just your false claim the young earth is supported by science because it absolutely isn't. Again, that isn't an opinion or an interpretation: it is a fact.
Regarding your little sermon at the end there that has nothing to do with creationism: I sincerely hope you have a Merry Christmas.
Dale Murrish
11:17 am on Friday, December 21, 2012
Thanks for the kind Christmas wishes, Daffy/Matt. I hope you and your family enjoy the holidays, too. We’ll leave the young earth / old earth debate for another day. It’s not that important in the big scheme of things, in my opinion. Others have strong views both ways, and all of the four major views of earth’s origins should be respected.
You’re right that young earth creationists like Bob Dutko and Ken Ham start with the Bible and assume that it is true as written, trying to fit the observed data into its framework. Old earth creationists like Hugh Ross start with billions of years and work from there. Two different views of the Bible, that’s all, and lots in between, and also valid opinions like theistic evolution and atheistic evolution that disagree with the Bible. One day we’ll find out the truth; it’s probably not a central issue to where people spend eternity.
Daffy Noodnicks
11:46 am on Friday, December 21, 2012
Once again, you miss the point: A view to be respected does not equal supported by science. Misuse of science for ideological reasons is important. Saying something is supported by science when I isn't, when in fact the opposite is true, is not honest. Scientific illiteracy is a huge problem and it should not be promoted for ideological reasons.
Anyhow, I'm sure this is falling on deaf ears. It isn't what you want to be true so I'm sure you will disregard it, no matter how wrong you are. I'm going back to not wasting my time again. Have a Happy New Year.