The Instigator
Pro (for)
5 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

The Planet Earth will eventually end

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/17/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,156 times Debate No: 60584
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (13)
Votes (1)




I saw this earlier and found it really interesting, and was hoping someone would challenge my point of view, which is that Earth will end one day.

Anyway, first round can be for acceptance or clarifying terms or even your beginning arguments if you wish.

Earth - This should be obvious, but we are referring to the planet we currently live on, 3rd rock from the sun.

End - Cease to exist. Not just uninhabitable, but completely torn apart into at least chunks of rocks; not resembling Earth or a planet at all.

One day - Some people get confused when I say this, and assume I'm talking about next week or in our life times. I'm talking about at least 10^303 in the future. Or before that, it's not like I have a date set for when Earth will cease to exist.

Obviously since I cannot prove for 100% fact that something will happen in the future, (just like I can't prove for 100% fact that God does not exist) I would appreciate it if you were open to calculated estimations or predictions. To disregard something because "you can't prove it 100%, let's see some evidence" is just (I hate this word but I have to use it) pure ignorance.

My main argument is that the chance of Earth being destroyed ever is so incredibly likely that we might as well say that it will happen.

I've been challenged in person before so I'm hoping to at least have a documented debate on this subject.


The reason why our planet ending is such a big deal would not quite be what you were expecting. The planet is a very powerful emblem of our own inner Universe, ideologically speaking. People are not necessarily fearing the planet we live on, but rather their inner planet, so to speak, by the image of our planet in our head being misinterpreted as us thinking of Earth itself.

That's why people do not care about the Earth - they just care that the Earth may end. It doesn't make sense because the planet in their head is not earth - it's a symbol of their inner Universe being threatened psychically.

Earth, the planet itself, should not end considering that the photo receptors in our eyes existed at the beginning of the Universe prior to the existence of stars. I sincerely cannot believe that a Universe would take 16,000,000,000 years to create human life so it can end in less than a billion years after. That does not sound like a sensible design to the Universe after it's clearly shown its ability to evolve and expand from its old self, which is to say that if I am correct and the Universe is still young, there is no sense of ending itself when it has full control over itself and spent all this time reaching this point. If anything, the fear of the planet dying is an internal issue, not an outward issue. Doomsday concerns have failed every time - the media simply likes to keep the sheep busy from breaking down the actual issues of this damned society in every country through every ruler.
Debate Round No. 1


"The planet is a very powerful emblem of our own inner Universe"

I am referring to our planet Earth, no metaphors, no similes, no "emblems." Although I see what you mean, I am not referring to our personal thoughts on what Earth represents, I am talking about the planet itself.

I am also not considering the planet ending a "big deal." I embrace death, and I embrace life, and everything in between. I am simply arguing the fact that it will end some day, which (for the purpose of this debate) doesn't have any significance to our "fears" of the planet being uninhabitable or just dying altogether.

I agree that people care more about themselves ceasing to exist if Earth does, but once again, that isn't the topic. Good point, though.

I thought you would bring up something like that. For sure, we can say that because matter cannot be created or destroyed completely (according to our current understanding of matter and anti-matter) then Earth, or anything for that matter, can not be completely destroyed (taken out of existence) by any means we know of today. But that doesn't change the possibility (a very good one) that eventually, an astronomical event can in fact create anti-matter, or take existing matter out of this existence.

To say the universe "took 16,000,000,000 years to create human life" is incredibly (I hate this word) ignorant. We have absolutely no idea if life has spawned on other planets in other galaxies in other constellations, billions of light years (one light year is 5,878,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles) away.

Nobody said it will end in a billion years, if you have a source that claims that, I'd love to read up on it. I have nowhere seen that Earth will cease to exist in a billion years; the only thing I understand (that is widely accepted by scientists and astronomers/cosmologists) is that in about a billion years, our sun's luminosity (amount of energy generated by a star) will have increased by about 10%, and turned Earth into basically a huge greenhouse gas planet. Simpler life forms will most likely still survive at the poles, so the eradication of all life on Earth most likely will not even happen in a billion years.

You're also giving the impression that you believe the Universe was designed, or created, with purpose, or reason. You're also giving the impression that it has a conscience, something I obviously cannot "prove" wrong, but if you are to make a claim like that, I'd like to see a source that backs that claim up. As far as we currently understand, the Universe consists of gases, solids, and liquids, as the "main" materials. We have not found any sign that it is an intelligent mind or thought process or conscience yet.

I appreciate your last statement, that all the doomsday scenarios produced by the media and superstitions do distract us from what's really going on, economically.

When people talk about the end of Earth, dozens of scenarios go through their head. Black holes(1), meteor impact(2), with a high chance that (within 100,000,000 years) a meteor will strike Earth much like the one that caused the extinction of the dinosaurs 65,000,000 years ago(3), the Andromeda galaxy colliding with the Milky Way (4), and so on.

Supervolcanoes(5) are currently alive and well on Earth, and with evidence of past supervolcanic eruptions(6)(7) well supported, there is no reason to rule out the possibility that one of them won't erupt in the future.

With evidence of large asteroid impacts(8), we also cannot rule that possibility out.

To top if all off, if nothing manages to destroy the Earth, meaning our sun doesn't swell enough to ever burn Earth to a crisp, a meteor bigger than a couple kilometers doesn't smack into us, any of our active large volcanoes don't erupt in billion, trillions, quadrillions of years, our moon stays in orbit the right amount to not severely disrupt our oceans, any collisions on a grand scale in our galaxy doesn't happen, or doesn't affect Earth, and the collision with Andromeda either never happens or doesn't have any negative effect on our entire solar system, we still need to take into account the constant loss of solar energy. A theory called the "Heat Death(9)," simply put, is the idea that once there is no more consumable energy in the Universe, the stars will die, the planets will lose all life, and the current black holes will eventually destroy everything. However; the chance that quantum fluctuations(10) create another Big Bang are high in approximately 10^56 (1 followed by 56 zeros, aka 100 nonillion) years.

The main thing I'm saying is that no matter what happens to Earth, the Universe will collapse in on itself, or expand to such a great distance that gravity will have no relevance and after the stars die out, black holes will take over and erase everything from existence. If a physical catastrophe doesn't happen to Earth (the sun expanding to burn Earth to a crisp is incredibly likely, and has been recorded to happen to other stars (11) ) it will be eradicated via black hole or the Universe collapsing in on itself; a theory for what happened before the Big Bang, 13.4 billion years ago. Mind you, this is said to happen in 10^10^120 years, which is (correct me if I'm wrong) 1 followed by 120,000 zeros. So we have some time.













It's extremely - extremely, extremely important to understand what's really being communicated underneath the surface of doomsday concerns. It is very relevant because all the information on "the earth will be doomed as X year" has been done over, and over, and over throughout mankind - every time, it was wrong; but people forget after years, then repeat the same scare tactics. This is why you need to know the true details behind all of it in order to understand that the entire faculty of doomsday rests upon people's fear - there's no real "evidence". These aren't real "scientists". They are the same "scientists" that "support global warming", "aliens" and "science and religion mutuality". So yes, I will be wrapping up the poetry behind doomsday along with the practicality - it's extremely important to do so.

The Universe is indeed a design - there's just no reason for there to be an astronomical event. If you haven't noticed, the entire foundation of the Universe can be experienced individually via our own human experience (our entire mind is in itself a miniature Universe). Stars exploding does not mean that the sun is going to explode - the sun created life - actual life. The Universe wanted this - it planned it after it kept evolving: matter > amoeba > bacteria > fungi > plant > bug > fish > animal > Man. Everything that we are is governed and defined by the Universe - but no matter how much we become selfish and foolish, nobody seems to care that their actions may or may not affect the Universe's astronomical event like the dinosaurs' experience. It's quite clear that the asteroid which sent the earth into green house mode was planned by the Universe. Everything the Universe is doing, is how it evolves through a variety of creation, destruction and reaction.

It's not ignorant at all. I have reasons to suspect that we are the only ones that exist and that the sun is the core of a greater atom. If there was life out there, we would have found it by now. There's simply no life thus far - to want life to be there is being ignorant of how grand the life is here.

It's just not true. You are referring to fake science studies to keep the tautological wheels turning. A true scientist simply does not know anything about where the earth's next stage will take it, just like the weather man on TV actually do not know what they are talking about most of the time - they just do it for the entertainment value.

To say the Universe is not conscious, when we are conscious and based entirely off of its rules and physics, you'd really be behind grand understanding of it all. If anyone wants to know what conscious really is, look no further than water. It has all the answers for what consciousness is and fits right into the concept that human life is built on subatomic particles.

You truly underestimate the design of the Universe. This is why you are so caught up in this fear that you do not realize that you're playing tug o' war with a black hole.

Again, you do not understand the Universe on the level that I do. You are simply begging the question on a level that's ungrateful to the grand Universe. None of this is at all true - it's all speculation scattered across the entire internet solely because of people who live their lives making up scare tactics for money, attention or distraction. What you are reading is blatantly a lie; no real scientist will ever speculate foolishly, vaguely ambiguously.
Debate Round No. 2


The difference between previous doomsday "predictions" and what I'm saying is huge, though. I'm not giving an exact date. I'm saying within a certain time period because after 10^10^120 years, we have sufficient understanding that the Universe will have collapsed in on itself, or will have dissipated, by measuring how the galaxies have spread apart, and even by measuring the different changes in rotation and orbit within our own solar systems, even with Earth and our moon. We have sufficient reason backed with strong examples that support an idea of the Universe either entering a "Big Bang" state, or being completely destroyed altogether.

What I'm saying is basically an approximate end date of how far our Universe can expand or contract or survive, which will in turn destroy Earth, if it hasn't been destroyed in another way (which is incredibly likely) already. I'm not saying "in the year 57,098,999,741, a lone planetoid 6019Km in diameter will strike Earth in what is currently considered Italy, shattering the planet in half. I'm saying judging by how the Universe is currently changing, expanding, and twisting, it is reasonable to hypothesize that the Universe will come to an end in the distant future.

The majority of doomsday predictions have been done by Religious people. Priests, Pastors, Ministers, Preachers, or simply religious followers make up most "theories." The most recent and commonly referred to one is the 2012 December 21st "prediction" by the Mayans. However, science and scientists do not back this theory up at all. Taken directly from Wikipedia - "The so-called Mayan apocalypse at the end of the 13th b'ak'tun. The Earth would be destroyed by an asteroid, Nibiru, or some other interplanetary object; an alien invasion; or a supernova. Mayanist scholars stated that no extant classic Maya accounts forecast impending doom, and that the idea that the Long Count calendar ends in 2012 misrepresented Maya history and culture.[88][89][90] Scientists from NASA, along with expert archaeologists, also stated that none of those events were possible." There is a huge list of predictions(1), you can see for yourself most are Religion-based, and the rest are not backed up by scientists at all.

Regarding global warming, aliens, and science and religion mutuality, this is off-topic. If you are against the idea of global warming and aliens, I would be more than happy to debate you on that, as I believe both exist. Regarding religion and science mutuality - I'm not sure what you're saying. I don't believe religion and science should be taught or explained as fact mutually, as there is nothing at all that says any religion is anywhere close to 100% accurate or reasonable.

The "practicality" of a doomsday is very high. You look at past "predictions," most are ridiculous religious claims, and the ones that are not, are ridiculous claims in general. Y2K? It's people thinking that when the 999 passes back into the 000's that all the computers will reset the time to 000 and we will be back in the stone age. Realize how ridiculous that is. Not many people believed predictions like that. Scientific predictions are absolutely nothing like that; they are predictions made for the distant, DISTANT future. Trillions of years+. Based on purely scientific research and findings. Previous doomsday "predictions" were strictly superstitions.

"Stars exploding does not mean that the sun is going to explode"

It does not guarantee that the sun will explode. However, witnessing other stars (our sun is a star) exploding after time, leads to a very high possibility that ours will some day, too. Also, we have observable evidence that our sun has in fact grown(2).

The sun was not the only factor in the spawn of life. It's 20oC (70oF) in the "Summer" on Mars, yet we haven't found life there. We need many more factors to create life.

Once again, I'd like it if you could give me a source for your claims about the Universe choosing to do something. Because the way most people (especially scientists, astronomers and cosmologists) see it, is the meteor that killed the dinosaurs was a random event. It was a rock floating through space, and happened to cross Earth's path at the right the time. Because it is changing does not mean the Universe can think for itself.

We aren't really on the topic that the Earth will end one day - we've switched to how humans interpret what "universe" means, something I don't believe is relevant in this debate, as this debate has to do with the physical Universe and our Earth as a part of it, not how we act according to it, or because of it, or how it shapes our actions.

This is completely irrelevant, but were you the one I had a discussion with about how to tell if someone is 100% ignorant?

By saying we would have found life by now implies we have looked in so many places that it is reasonable to say there isn't other life forms in the Universe. I think you're missing how big the universe is and how little we've explored of it. In 1977 we launched Voyager 1(3) and last year (2013) it left our Solar System. That is currently the farthest we have sent something into space, with the ability to track and take pictures of everything. To put into perspective of how much we have explored, Voyager 1 is approximately 19,200,000,000km(4) from Earth. The distance from Earth to, let's say the closest Galaxy, Andromeda, is approximately 24,000,000,000,000,000,000km(5) from Earth. You know what that means? We've explored .00000008% of the distance from here to Andromeda. If you consider a complete straight, direct line from Earth to Andromeda to be how far away it is. We aren't accounting for anything other than directly toward the Galaxy; no planets or anything anywhere other than what's in our direct line toward Andromeda. And we've gone .00000008% of the distance, and you say if there was life out there, we would have found it by now? I wouldn't even be able to fit enough zeros into this reply if I told you the percentage of the entire Universe we've explored thus far.

I'm not saying scientists know for a fact that something will or won't happen to Earth. But judging by the way the Universe is expanding, the way the galaxies are moving, the background radiation, the way stars and planets act when passing through black holes, the way "dark-matter" acts, etc, they can come to possible conclusions, but no 100% absolute certain conclusion. And by examining the evidence we have of past mass extinctions, it is highly possible that it can happen again. And if a meteorite can hit Earth, who's saying another planet can't? Saying a "true" scientist does not know is ridiculous. Of course they don't know for a FACT, but that's the reason they exist - to examine everything around them and the Universe and draw up ideas or scenarios or hypotheses on what CAN happen, what is very likely to happen, or what is not likely to happen. To say "I don't know, so I don't look into it" does not happen with scientists.

Great ideas you've got, but you're toying with the semantics. I can say "what the dog feels is what I feel because his actions make me think he feels this way but in reality I am feeling this way and projecting my feelings by making it seem to me as though the dog is feeling that way." I am not talking about how we act or feel or view the universe; I am talking about space - not how we act based on it or anything. The planets. Nothing to do with a conscience - humans are not involved in this debate.

I can say "you don't have as much knowledge as I do, therefore I'm right, and you're wrong" too. But you haven't shown anything that says what these scientists are doing is foolish. To study a phenomenon (say a star growing and expanding before letting out gamma bursts and dying) then use that experience and evidence combined with the fact that the sun is growing, to come to the conclusion that our sun (star) very well might act like all the other suns (stars) is reasonable, and not foolish at all.







The Universe cares about us. It planned our existence throughout its entire evolution. Why would it reset itself if it created human life? What point would it have to destroy itself? Our intelligence is so powerful, that we can legitimately achieve exiting out of our planet - it's so intelligent, that people truly still believe that all events of exiting the planet is faked by the government. We are legitimately the Universe observing itself. Why would it kill us off? Did it ever occur to the scientists that dinosaurs served a purpose before being killed off of this planet? No? Just dinosaurs that do dinosaur things, right?

Basically what you're saying is, you're begging the question - a question that is on top of billions of other questions that have yet to be answered. It must be easy to think about these things, while ignoring the actual reality in front of you. When someone told me that the moon was slowly moving away from earth - I did not think anything of it, as I have no reason to assume the worst like you and basically everyone on this god forsaken planet do. Where is the enthusiasm? You never see a wise man saying the world is going to end - start practicing it.

You're using Wikipedia - you have already lost all credentials. This is just toying with your fear. Cannot take it anymore than that, I'm afraid (the irony).

You're crazy. That's all there is to it. People like you are the reason why nothing gets done in this world. You keep chasing cosmic tails and wonder why it lead you nowhere - it lead the people before you nowhere - and will lead the people in the future nowhere. It's called begging the question - so nice to know that you're a dog.

You read sources based on fake science. I'm not going to waste my time debating with this idiocy.

Guess what, we are made from stars, like the sun is made from the star - just because that is so, does not mean they will behave in the same manner.

I don't see any productivity in sources. It's bias paradise.

You're talking about nonsense that was fabricated by psychopaths that make a living off of people like you think think... too much.

The Universe is a design - these psychopaths act like the Universe is a cosmic jungle of chaos and randomness, when that's just their own psychopathy talking. It's the same all the alien apologists that keep making up stories that involve aliens crashing. People make it very easy for me to see that these fools do not know the difference between reality and their ideology.
Debate Round No. 3


Apologies for late reply.

This is a debate regarding the idea that Earth will be destroyed and be unable to sustain life one day. I'm sorry, but discussing out separate thoughts on the reason the Universe is the way it is, or even what it is, should be irrelevant to this debate, as the Universe is what is all around us, the Galaxies, Solar Systems, etc. Not a conscience presence.

You saying I'm pessimistic is not an argument. Also, I am not pessimistic; I do not look for bad things, nor do I only see the bad in situations. I have taken into account that the moon IS in fact moving farther away from Earth, and simply accepted that as just that - a fact(1).

I haven't only used Wikipedia for sources. And even then, you have zero. I at least have other people saying something to back me up. If the only proof you're willing to accept is watching the world "end" with your own two eyes, then we might as well create a time machine(2).

So for me to "get nowhere," you would have to know what our ultimate goal is - as humans. Do you?

Calling science "fake" and running away is not... it's not anything.

They will most likely behave in similar manners.

You're going way off course, come back and talk about if Earth will ever end. Because right now, you're just talking about the idea that the Universe has a conscience.




The Universe is conscious, but you're too arrogant and naive to understand this. The Universe cannot speak - cannot feel - cannot be anything more than a consciousness emerging into physical functions of experience. Humans don't exist - they are merely the Universe's observing tools based solely on the Universe's physics and governing laws. The only way of explaining why wisdom is accessible; how we are able to bond with the Universe, or why there is a concept called "oneness"; why we can only define ourselves by referencing aspects of the Universe in relation to how we feel at that current moment; how our emotions are related to Newton's Laws of Motion; why we do not know anything at all, but react to an already built-in algorithm that allows some freedom through the power of a level over observation (omni-observation; my term to describe the ability to observe through more than just the eyes via other senses); is that we are the Universe - no questions, no if's and no but's.

The moon moving away does not mean anything. That's you assuming the worse case scenario because you are a fool - only fools toy with death.

Sources are for the weak-minded. I have the whole Universe living inside my head aspect to aspect. You have to run away and depend on old information that is prone to bias because you are not even remotely capable of discussing ideas on the level I can.

I do. I know the Universe more than you'll ever care to admit.

That's not Science because it's called Science. "What if" is the definition of fraudulent Science. They demonstrated nothing. They resorted to question begging. They are not real scientists - a real scientist would not resort to ambiguity - fools that pass themselves off as a scientist do. Learn the difference or leave these debates.
Debate Round No. 4


You haven't disputed anything I've said. All you've done is tell me I'm "toying with death" by talking about something that will happen 10^10^120 years in the future. Everything you've said is irrational, incorrect, and really just irrelevant. You've avoided most of what I have to say, and when you address what I have to say, you simply say it's me being pessimistic or fearing death or something.

So all in all, you haven't even disputed the subject at hand, you've explained what you believe "science" is, how I'm so "pessimistic" for thinking the world will end, etc. I'm surprised you haven't even said "show me video proof of the world ending," as that would actually make more sense than what you're currently saying.

Anyway, glad I could do some research and learn a couple things myself, hopefully you had the same experience here. Cheers!


Oh, that's normal. That's what happens when someone like you brings BS to the table and wonder why I have a giant water hose instead of a stack of papers to argue your BS.

Can't dispute stupidity, sorry. Your "sources" and your "questions" are based on hoaxes and monetary lies. People made money off of this - the "scientists" you refer to are not real "scientists". They are fake ones that air on television to fool people like you. I already told you that a real scientist would not leave us in the dark like your "scientists", so you can stop kicking the dead horse.
Debate Round No. 5
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Mister_Man 3 years ago
I didn't only post wikipedia. I used Wiki for a much larger explanation on what i was talking about, not so much to back up my claims. I backed up my claims with Nasa,, Harvard, etc.
Posted by Aerogant 3 years ago
People who use sources, are people who don't think.

I connected with the source Nikola Tesla knew about, the source which lead to Einstein's inventions - The Universe, via reverse-analysis and cosmic-reverse engineering. This site contains nothing but biased trolls and children that come on here to cherry-pick the most benign things to feed their precarious ego. It's depressing to see people so desperate, that they would rather worry about people voting them, instead of making actual arguments no matter if people do not support it or not.
Posted by LogicalLunatic 3 years ago
If I could vote then I might be tempted to give Con sources (Wikipedia is not a good source), if it wasn't for the fact that Con provided no sources at all.
Be very careful about this, Pro. Wikipedia is not a good source.
Posted by Mister_Man 3 years ago
"End - Cease to exist. Not just uninhabitable, but completely torn apart into at least chunks of rocks; not resembling Earth or a planet at all."

Completely torn apart into at least chunks of rocks. If my argument was that the matter that makes up Earth turned into anti-matter, or just was literally erased from time, you would have a point. However, I'm saying Earth will end, as in everything that makes it up will not be able to be identified as Earth.
Posted by Vajrasattva-LeRoy 3 years ago
Scientists claim (& I see no reason to disagree with them ) that matter/ energy can't be either created or destroyed.
Earth, therefore, can never cease to exist.
Posted by Mister_Man 3 years ago
What I'm surprised at is how fast he's replying... I'm at work, let me work lol I usually have to wait a couple days for a reply to a debate. So thanks for that I guess, ha.
Posted by Aerogant 3 years ago
Either I am a troll or a genius. There's been kids sent to Special ED for being genius.
Posted by LogicalLunatic 3 years ago
Surely Aerogant must be a troll. No serious debater can lose over 50 debates and not win even 1. The only debate that he didn't lose was one that he tied!
Posted by Mister_Man 3 years ago
haha as soon as I noticed he accepted I thought the same thing.
Posted by AlternativeDavid 3 years ago
How did I know that Aerogant would get his hands on this?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: aerogant did not contest anything