Exoretroforming .VS. Terrafroming

Proposals for terraforming have been around for a good while now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming But based on a scientific
and realistic view which continues to be ignored and censored, here is
a superior concept: I call it "Exoretroforming," because a Google
search on this term turned up nothing, while "Retroforming" has
existing definitions.

The scientific-biblical view of hundreds of fully qualified scientists
holds that God had the power to create the Universe in the twinkling
of an eye; however, He chose to take six calendar days to do it for
symbolic reasons of His own.

The original natural Creation was perfect. At the Fall of Man, all of
Creation - the entire Cosmos - was cursed and set on the road to self
destruction. Further implications gathered from the biblical account
of Earth history are that a second calamity befell at least the entire
inner solar system at time of the Flood of Noah. It is reasonably
extrapolatable that this "Second Curse" may have Universe-wide.

Before the Flood, Earth was NOT PERFECT but much MORE UTOPIAN than
after. It is proposed that this applies to all the worlds, systems and
galaxies across the entire Cosmos, as well.

Seeking to TERRAFORM planets meens trying to give them EARTH-LIKE
environments. I propose that is more rational and responsible to seek
to understand what the PRE-FLOOD-OF-NOAH/PRE-LOCAL-CATACLYSM
environment of each planet was, and to RESTORE THE ORIGINAL
ENVIRONMENT OF ***THAT*** PLANET, for each planet. NOT to TERRAFORM
it, which would give it an alien environment it never had and was
never meant to have!

Some planets probably WERE quite Earth-like, Others quite likely were
NOT, even if they had ecosystems! If, given enough time in a distant
future, we develop terraforming capabilities, we should Exoretroform,
instead. We would be restoring planets and any ecosystems to the way
they were supposed to be, NOT necessarily making them like Earth!



http://groups.google.com/group/sci.b...296ca48e48aa66

You mean that Mercury, Venus and Mars were all amenable to life like
the Earth, and later destroyed by some cataclysm?

Have you read Velikovsky? lmao! How about the Moon being lifeless?

I hate to burst your bubble, but those planets were not destroyed.
They were made close to the way we see them now.

Only the Earth was amenable to life, period.

The six days of creation are just a reflection of the men who wrote
the bible. They thought in days and that's what god had to use.

If god didn't like it, he could have burned every one of those words
in every bible ever written/printed! Since he didn't, what does that
tell you?

See what you get when you BELIEVE in religion? More WACKO theories!

Saul Levy


On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 17:16:43 -0700 (PDT), giveitawhirl2008
wrote:

Proposals for terraforming have been around for a good while now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming But based on a scientific
and realistic view which continues to be ignored and censored, here is
a superior concept: I call it "Exoretroforming," because a Google
search on this term turned up nothing, while "Retroforming" has
existing definitions.

The scientific-biblical view of hundreds of fully qualified scientists
holds that God had the power to create the Universe in the twinkling
of an eye; however, He chose to take six calendar days to do it for
symbolic reasons of His own.

The original natural Creation was perfect. At the Fall of Man, all of
Creation - the entire Cosmos - was cursed and set on the road to self
destruction. Further implications gathered from the biblical account
of Earth history are that a second calamity befell at least the entire
inner solar system at time of the Flood of Noah. It is reasonably
extrapolatable that this "Second Curse" may have Universe-wide.

Before the Flood, Earth was NOT PERFECT but much MORE UTOPIAN than
after. It is proposed that this applies to all the worlds, systems and
galaxies across the entire Cosmos, as well.

Seeking to TERRAFORM planets meens trying to give them EARTH-LIKE
environments. I propose that is more rational and responsible to seek
to understand what the PRE-FLOOD-OF-NOAH/PRE-LOCAL-CATACLYSM
environment of each planet was, and to RESTORE THE ORIGINAL
ENVIRONMENT OF ***THAT*** PLANET, for each planet. NOT to TERRAFORM
it, which would give it an alien environment it never had and was
never meant to have!

Some planets probably WERE quite Earth-like, Others quite likely were
NOT, even if they had ecosystems! If, given enough time in a distant
future, we develop terraforming capabilities, we should Exoretroform,
instead. We would be restoring planets and any ecosystems to the way
they were supposed to be, NOT necessarily making them like Earth!



http://groups.google.com/group/sci.b...296ca48e48aa66

DUDE! REALLY!


Some planets probably WERE quite Earth-like, Others quite likely were
NOT, even if they had ecosystems! If, given enough time in a distant
future, we develop terraforming capabilities, we should Exoretroform,
instead. We would be restoring planets and any ecosystems to the way
they were supposed to be, NOT necessarily making them like Earth!



http://groups.google.com/group/sci.b...296ca48e48aa66

Mark F Planets and our Moon that are rock covered with dry sand can
have little change. What can they evolve into? bert

On Aug 30, 6:03 am, (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
Mark F Planets and our Moon that are rock covered with dry sand can
have little change. What can they evolve into? bert

Badly eroded land with little if any vegetation, little if any
sustainable snow pack or new ice at the poles or on local mountains,
livable dry but not too dry of land down to roughly 5% of Earth's
surface, oceans of dead zones populated by mostly jellyfish along with
that pesky Selene/moon doing its 2e20 N/sec worth of tidal flexing our
98.5% fluid Earth.

Make room for 1e10 humans that'll need energy, food, fresh water,
housing, medical care and much higher education in order to break
even.

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

Sounds like a NEW Florida, BEERTbrain! lmao!

Any hurricanes there?

Saul Levy


On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 09:03:07 -0400, (G=EMC^2
Glazier) wrote:

Mark F Planets and our Moon that are rock covered with dry sand can
have little change. What can they evolve into? bert

On Aug 30, 6:03 am, (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
Mark F Planets and our Moon that are rock covered with dry sand can
have little change. What can they evolve into? bert

Earth is still cooling and shrinking, plus having somewhat recently
obtained that nearby Selene/moon that's continually (every second by
second) into contributing its 2e20 N worth of tidal flex.

There's all of 5% of Earth's surface that's dry enough but not too dry
or too hot and/or cold to live on.

Accommodate 10 billion hungry souls that'll each want to use up their
fair share of terrestrial energy, and to otherwise play around (taking
advantage of others and trashing our environment in the process), as
such isn't looking all that great unless you are from a rich and
powerful republican Mafia family to start off with.

Perhaps the end of good times is sooner than you think.

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

Cactus saul Florida was built up by man. Its swamps were made dry.
Global warming has changed all that,and its surface is swamp again. We
must learn not to fight mother nature. In 2 million years from now man
will place Pluto and Sharon to melt on our Moon It will make it have 20
miles of water. It will add to the Moons gravity,and give it an
atmosphere of oxygen. We love water We love our Moon We love to fish
We will sing Water Water every where,and the Moon is just an hour
away,but watch out for all that traffic go figure Bert

On Aug 31, 7:44 am, (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
Cactus saul Florida was built up by man. Its swamps were made dry.
Global warming has changed all that,and its surface is swamp again. We
must learn not to fight mother nature. In 2 million years from now man
will place Pluto and Sharon to melt on our Moon It will make it have 20
miles of water. It will add to the Moons gravity,and give it an
atmosphere of oxygen. We love water We love our Moon We love to fish
We will sing Water Water every where,and the Moon is just an hour
away,but watch out for all that traffic go figure Bert

Icy Sedna would be another good one to impact our physically dark as
coal moon, Impacting on the back side would tend to minimize the
secondary shards of ice and moon rock that could potentially
traumatize Earth.

Of course keeping the Selene/moon interactively parked at Earth L1
would be the ultimate win-win solution, especially for sustaining all
of that surface ice on the cool side facing Earth.
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

OH MY GOD! MORE

DOOM AND GLOOM FOREVER!

Nice, BradBoi! lmfjao!

You are now in the lowest level of posters here.

Saul Levy


On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 05:50:34 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
wrote:

Earth is still cooling and shrinking, plus having somewhat recently
obtained that nearby Selene/moon that's continually (every second by
second) into contributing its 2e20 N worth of tidal flex.

There's all of 5% of Earth's surface that's dry enough but not too dry
or too hot and/or cold to live on.

Accommodate 10 billion hungry souls that'll each want to use up their
fair share of terrestrial energy, and to otherwise play around (taking
advantage of others and trashing our environment in the process), as
such isn't looking all that great unless you are from a rich and
powerful republican Mafia family to start off with.

Perhaps the end of good times is sooner than you think.

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth