Religion and Supervolcanoes

[cindybubbles]

According to science, we have another threat to all life on Earth now: supervolcanoes.

Click here if you want to see the entire slideshow.

Click here to see the slide where I saw the ignorant comments about God and the supervolcanoes and posted my rebuttal.

One commenter went so far as to say that the God created earth and man 6,000 years ago, not the 4.6 billion years ago that science has proven true (at least to me). And all because this article was posted on a religious site.

My rebuttal went like this: I told them that they could go stick their heads in the sand, and that this article makes sense to me.

Your thoughts?

[Sarah Valentine]

I just don't get how some people can just ignore scientific facts, there are cultures that are older than 6,000 years.

[Bloodsoul]

To be quite honest I've been fascinated by the Yellowstone Caldera for the last decade or so; really, the news regarding supervolcanoes isn't "new" at all. Granted, even the caldera is a far cry from the Siberian Traps that aided in the Permian Extinction 250 million years ago.

Still, when it does erupt… and I've no doubt that it will… it will *%#@ over the USA for decades to come.

(Although if it doesn't occur for thousands of years and Earth, as we know it, is still around, it'd be amazing if new technology could harness that power, instead)

[Talon]

I'm a Catholic who believes that God created the universe through evolution, so to me, this article makes sense.

Bit of a nitpick, the rebuttle is incorrect. Evolution theory explains the diversity of life, not the origin of the universe.

I just don't get how some people can just ignore scientific facts, there are cultures that are older than 6,000 years.

What really boggles the mind is this same science-denying faith-over-facts brigate is only too happy to enjoy all the benefits of secular science.

[Hyena Dandy]

They don't hate all science. In fact, many of them do like science. They just consider the Bible infallible and so deny any scientific conclusion which goes against it.

It's a minor difference, but it is an important one. It's not that they hate science, it's that they hate scientific conclusions that make them feel uncomfortable.

I'm not saying that they're right, or that I agree with them. I'm explaining why using lights isn't hypocritical.

Bit of a nitpick, the rebuttle is incorrect. Evolution theory explains the diversity of life, not the origin of the universe.

Unless God created a BUNCH of universes and destroyed the least shitty ones, and then made the other ones have hot universe sex. :P

[Panacea]

One commenter went so far as to say that the God created earth and man 6,000 years ago, not the 4.6 billion years ago that science has proven true (at least to me). And all because this article was posted on a religious site.

I see a lot of comments like this on Ars Technica when ever they do an article that touches on evolution or religion.

I don't know why some people feel the need to assert these kinds of claims on science and technology sites, but they do. They seem to like feeling defensive when the militant atheist crowd sees it and blows holes in their arguments.

[cindybubbles]

Bit of a nitpick, the rebuttle is incorrect. Evolution theory explains the diversity of life, not the origin of the universe.

I was thinking about the evolution in general when I made that rebuttal. Things that get better over time.

I was also thinking about the big bang theory (the theory, not the show), and how big things were created by starting small. That's how I believe evolution works; we are bigger (greater, but not literally) than our ancestors because we evolved.

[SongsOfDragons]

To be quite honest I've been fascinated by the Yellowstone Caldera for the last decade or so; really, the news regarding supervolcanoes isn't "new" at all. Granted, even the caldera is a far cry from the Siberian Traps that aided in the Permian Extinction 250 million years ago.

"Supervolcano? Bah. Come back when it's a flood basalt."

[Rageaholic]

I remember hearing some theories that the Yellowstone super volcano would erupt 2012.

So much for that theory.

[Gravekeeper]

=
Unless God created a BUNCH of universes and destroyed the least shitty ones, and then made the other ones have hot universe sex. :P

Well, actually, if you replace universe with galaxy, that's actually fairly accurate ;p

The Milky Way is currently having hot galaxy sex with several smaller galaxies as we speak which will inevitably be destroyed by its love. Then, in about 4 billion years, we have a huge date with Andromeda. But Earth will be dead by then anyhow.

Science!

Also, as a minor nitpick, super volcanos are by no means a new threat to all life on Earth. They've already happened quite regularly through out the history of the Earth. The last one was about 26,000 years ago and we'll be due for another one in about 100,000 years or so. Long before another super death asteroid hits us ( Which should occur around 500,000 years or so ).

If you look at the Toba super eruption, about 75,000 years ago back or so. Its theorized that wiped out about 80% of human life on Earth at the time causing a genetic bottleneck and a 1000 year cooling period in the climate.

[Bloodsoul]

I think they're referring to them as being "new" in that nobody ever really talks about them outside of the occasional Discovery Channel documentary.

[Gravekeeper]

I think they're referring to them as being "new" in that nobody ever really talks about them outside of the occasional Discovery Channel documentary.

Nah, I remember it popping up before. Most doomsday scenarios come up in the news once every so often because it was a slow news day so they had to talk to a scientist. Then it floats around for a bit and fades out of the public consciousness. Only to re-emerge next year when the news has nothing better to do again.

Giant asteroids are the same. They only come up on slow news days or when NASA reports discovering one. Giving the news a chance to push the everybody panic button for a couple of days for ratings. Same with solar flares.

You can pinpoint the cycle using the archaeological evidence of terrible made for TV movies that were hastily made to cash in on the topic before everyone forgot.

Hence the movie Supervolcano ( 2005 )....annnnd then the Supervolcano miniseries in 2007. Solar Flares? Supernova ( 2005 ), Solar Attack ( 2006 ). Meteors? Too many to list. Climate change / Global warming? Tons of disaster movies and series about that too.

[Seshat]

I remember hearing some theories that the Yellowstone super volcano would erupt 2012.

So much for that theory.

I seriously doubt any vulcanologist (as in, qualified, actively working vulcanologist) posited that as a theory. Perhaps one made an offhand remark like 'It could erupt next year, it could erupt a few thousand years from now' and was misunderstood or misquoted. But not as a serious theory.

Predicting eruptions, even for the most well understood volcanos, is extremely difficult. Even when our scientists get the time correct (to within a few months) as they did with Mt St Helens; they can get the type of eruption wrong. (Sideways, not pure vertical.)


As for supervolcanos/caldera volcanos ... we just don't know enough. At all.

[draco664]

Predicting eruptions, even for the most well understood volcanos, is extremely difficult.

No it's not. I predict that Yellowstone will erupt at 10:42 am UTC on the 23rd November 2013.

There you go. Easy peasy.

Accurate predictions however, are a whole other story...

[Rapscallion]

You do realise that if your prediction comes true, the lawsuits will be legendary? Proof that you caused it or something.

Rapscallion