nly possible ones. Would their world end in a violent apocalyptical fire or a glacial ice age? It is never positively acknowledged which is definite and which is absurd.
             Fire and ice do not share the same characteristics. There is nothing similar in their molecular make-up at all, and it is absurd for both to exist at once. Fire is a plasmatic substance that can increase in heat by the consumption of certain basic elements. Fire feed off of almost all things organic and inorganic, incinerating and destroying with utmost indiscretion, and leaving absolute annihilation in its wake. It is almost animalistic in its mannerisms in that that it spreads and grows while indiscriminately feeding on its victims. This is where the incongruity of the dueling literal forms clash, because ice does not consume as fire does. It is slow in its onslaught and festers its victim, whereas fire obliterates in the blink of an eye. Ice solidifies and hardens and is in fact a solid itself, unlike fire, which takes on almost fluid mannerisms.
             Assuming when some say that an astronomical force will destroy the world in fire or ice, the two opposing theories of global warming and the reoccurring ice age are brought to contrast. An associate and a close friend of Robert Frost claimed to have inspired him to write "Fire and Ice". Harlow Shapley was a Harvard professor and one of the most prominent astronomers in America at the time. He had claimed that Frost while filling the position of poet-in-residence at Harvard, had met Shapley at one of the faculty meetings. According to Shapley, Frost approached him and asked "Now Professor Shapley. You know all about astronomy. Tell me, how will the world end?" Shapley
             ...