Natural Disasters: Increasing or Decreasing?

[RobRoy]

Originally Posted by TinfoilCat

So what exactly is your opinion on this matter? Do you think Jesus was lieing or wrong?

Neither. The problem is in assuming that Jesus was speaking at all. The author of Mark was writing for a particular audience (probably Greeks living in Roman controlled areas). He was a believer in Christ and in Christ's quick return, and he put words in Jesus' mouth in an attempt to portray that belief to potential Christian converts. I think Matt just copied Mark.

Quote:

(Just honestly curious because I have never heard of this opinion before)

Well, it wouldn't be a popular opinion amongst Christian believers, now would it? This isn't something a Sunday school or Bible study teacher is going to be too objective about. Biblical scholars, neither inclusive or exclusive of believers, tend to be a bit more circumspect when providing their theories. But you're asking the right questions, and please, ask on.

As an asside: It helps if you keep the name of the person you're quoting in your response.

Quote:

Does anyone actually have any link to any charts or graphs showing the amount of natural disasters (earthquakes, hurricanes, etc.) in the past years?

USGS for earthquakes.
NOAA for hurricanes and storms.

What other disasters would you like?

[TinfoilCat]

Thanks for all of your opinions/answers, it was helped me greatly.

Originally Posted by RobRoy

Neither. The problem is in assuming that Jesus was speaking at all. The author of Mark was writing for a particular audience (probably Greeks living in Roman controlled areas). He was a believer in Christ and in Christ's quick return, and he put words in Jesus' mouth in an attempt to portray that belief to potential Christian converts. I think Matt just copied Mark.



Well, it wouldn't be a popular opinion amongst Christian believers, now would it? This isn't something a Sunday school or Bible study teacher is going to be too objective about. Biblical scholars, neither inclusive or exclusive of believers, tend to be a bit more circumspect when providing their theories. But you're asking the right questions, and please, ask on.

Your opinion is extremely interesting, but I'm not sure if i have made up my own opinion just yet.

Quote:

USGS for earthquakes.
NOAA for hurricanes and storms.

What other disasters would you like?

I performed a quick look at both sites and what struck me as interesting is that the magnitudes of the earthquakes seem to be larger in earlier years than later.

Quote:

I know you weren't asking me... but what the hey?

I can't accuse him of lying, simply because I see no reason to accept that the gospels represent an accurate record of what (if anything) was said by/happened to him

Me neither . I am researching and studying to find the answers and hopefully I shall find them.

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by TinfoilCat

Last Sunday I had a little chat with my Bible teacher about the End Times prophecy. She claimed that MANY of the so called biblical scholars agree that our generation shall see the biblical apocalypse. I disagreed with her. She said that the prophecies of Daniel and Revelations were coming true at rapid rates. I disagreed with her. I'm not a futurist fear-monger, and believe that the book of Revelation is mostly symbolical. She said that natural disasters are increasing at rapid rates, but I questioned that statement when I remembered a scientist saying that natural disasters were in fact, decreasing. Is their any evidence to support either of our claims? It seems as if natural disasters are increasing, but that maybe the cause of larger populations living in natural disaster prone areas or the spread of the word by media.

Thanks,
TinfoilCat

You pretty much nailed it in your OP. Recently there were bad storms on the East Coast of New Zealand which caused extensive damage, washed away an entire town, and racked up a bill in the $billions (which is enormous for a little country).

There was much talk about how storms were getting "worse" and this was rated as the "worst" storm to ever hit the country.

Except in the 1980s Cyclone Bola hit the country and was a substantially more powerful storm, but it affected less people (because there were less people to affect) and more importantly it caused substantially less $ damage due to inflation, increasing value of general property, and so on.

As another example, the Boxing Day Tsunami. The Tsunami inflicted substantially more damage than the Tsunami from Krakatoa, despite the fact that the latter Tsunami was 4x the size. The reason?

1) Lower population density

2) The local population had previously predominantly lived on high ground and only came to the lowlands to fish etc. However the explosion of western tourists had drawn most of the population into the low lying beachfront areas in order to work in the tourism industry - tourists being predominantly interested in the beaches and water rather than the inland areas.

In other words, the problem is not so much that disasters are getting more frequent, but that more humans, and a greater value of human property, is in "danger areas". Couple that with a sensationalist media that eats up this disaster stuff like it was ambrosia sent from the Gods, and you have your doomsday.

News Corporations are the modern equivalent of the disheveled bum rambling along the street crying "The end is nigh!"

[RobRoy]

Originally Posted by TinfoilCat

Your opinion is extremely interesting, but I'm not sure if i have made up my own opinion just yet.

You should know that I'm not an authority by any means. It's not just my opinion, it's pretty much a known among Biblical scholars. The nuances are debateable, such as Markan Priority versus the Augustinian Hypothesis. But solving the synoptic problem shouldn't daunt you. Your more concerned with what truths there are in the Gospels. Dig on, and feel free to ask here. There are some very good scholars on this forum.

Quote:

I performed a quick look at both sites and what struck me as interesting is that the magnitudes of the earthquakes seem to be larger in earlier years than later.

That makes sense. I believe Hokulele said something similar.

Quote:

Me neither . I am researching and studying to find the answers and hopefully I shall find them.

Excellent. Keep studying, and keep asking.

[TinfoilCat]

So the amount of earthquakes are decreasing, but the severity of them are increasing? I wonder if this is better or worse.

Hurricanes also seem to be increasing in numbers, but not severely.

[MG1962]

Something to be taken into account is some types of natural disasters can trigger other events. The 2004 Tsunami was an absolute bell ringer for the planet. There are now reports of volcanic activity in the Arche province and Sumatra started directly by the earthquake

So to someone watching on - Oh no calamities are on the rise, when in reality they are continuations of the same specific event

[six7s]

Originally Posted by six7s

Originally Posted by MG1962

Open mouth - insert foot

http://clavius.as.arizona.edu/vo/R1024/VO.html

It seems that you are assuming that the Vatican astronomers have faith in the bible. If so, why?

@MG1962: Have you simply overlooked this question? Or am I right in inferring that you acknowledge the absurdity of your knee-jerk reaction?

[RobRoy]

Originally Posted by TinfoilCat

So the amount of earthquakes are decreasing, but the severity of them are increasing? I wonder if this is better or worse.

Hurricanes also seem to be increasing in numbers, but not severely.

I believe if you read some of the reports, you'll see that the experts agree there isn't enough data to support conclusions regarding severity increases or numerical decreases. They can only state that for the reliable data, they've seen certain trends.

Just keep in mind what Beerina wrote earlier. Even if you're a Young Earth Creationist, we only have about 100 of reliable data and another 50 years of shaky data to compare to the overall geological history. That's less than a 0.05% sample (please correct my math). No statistician worth his/her salt would rely on those numbers to make draw a meaningful conclusion for overall trends.

[slingblade]

Originally Posted by TinfoilCat

Last Sunday I had a little chat with my Bible teacher about the End Times prophecy. She claimed that MANY of the so called biblical scholars agree that our generation shall see the biblical apocalypse. I disagreed with her. She said that the prophecies of Daniel and Revelations were coming true at rapid rates. I disagreed with her. I'm not a futurist fear-monger, and believe that the book of Revelation is mostly symbolical. She said that natural disasters are increasing at rapid rates, but I questioned that statement when I remembered a scientist saying that natural disasters were in fact, decreasing. Is their any evidence to support either of our claims? It seems as if natural disasters are increasing, but that maybe the cause of larger populations living in natural disaster prone areas or the spread of the word by media.

Thanks,
TinfoilCat

I am not the Ancient of Days, but I can assure you that the End of the World has been imminent for the entire 50 years of my life and longer, according to the same people.

I heard that the formation of Israel after WWII was the signal of the pending apocalypse. Any minute now. Yep. It could start any time. Any second....

I heard this in every decade. I read Hal Lindsey and others. So did my mom, and she never stopped as I did. Couple of weeks ago, I held a yard sale of some of her things, and among her books were several about the Coming Apocalypse, the Rapture, the End of the World. Some were older, and used dated examples of the turmoil and strife supposed to precede The EotW, and some were much newer, and used many different examples that hadn't existed when the first books were written.

...and yet, still no rapture, no anti-christ, no Armageddon, no massive armies killing so many people that the blood runs red through the streets, even to the horses' bridles...

Fear-mongering is a great way to exert control over large groups of people.

[MG1962]

Originally Posted by six7s

@MG1962: Have you simply overlooked this question? Or am I right in inferring that you acknowledge the absurdity of your knee-jerk reaction?

When you give me something to respond to I will -

Of course, this assumes that there is someone who has faith in the bible AND the skills to operate a decent telescope

I have proved your above claim incorrect - As far as I see it, thats the end of the debate unless you feel you have evidence to the contray.

Maybe you could contact these people and argue their ability to operate a telescope

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micha%C5%82_Heller


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Gabriel_Funes

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally Posted by six7s

It seems that you are assuming that the Vatican astronomers have faith in the bible. If so, why?

Why wouldn't he? Or anyone else for that matter?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Gabriel_Funes

(D'oh! Should read the thred completely through before replying.)

[six7s]

Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner

Why wouldn't he? Or anyone else for that matter?

Because:

1. faith in the bible is absolute; no grey areas, no wishy-washy cherry picking to fit an agenda (e.g. a further understanding of reality)
   and
2. the bible is an absurdly ridiculous book of contradictions
   
   Skeptics Annotated Bible: Genesis 1
   
   Quote:

   (1:1-2:3) The Genesis 1 account conflicts with the order of events that are known to science.
   
   In Genesis 1:1, the earth and "heaven" are created together "in the beginning," whereas according to current estimates, the earth and universe are about 4.6 and 13.7 billion years old, respectively.
   
   In Genesis, the earth is created (1:1) before light (1:3), sun and stars (1:16); birds and whales (1:21) before reptiles and insects (1:24); and flowering plants (1:11) before any animals (1:20). The order of events known from science is in each case just the opposite.
   
   <snip/>
   
   (1:16) "God made the two great lights."
   "The greater light [the sun] to rule the day, and the lesser light [the moon] to rule the night." But the moon is not a light; it only reflects light from the sun. And why, if God made the moon to "rule the night", does it spend half of its time moving through the daytime sky?
   
   (1:16) "He made the stars also."
   God spends a day making light (before making the sun and stars) and separating light from darkness; then, at the end of a hard day's work, and almost as an afterthought, he makes the trillions of stars.
   When were the stars made?
   
   (1:17) "And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth."
   Then why is only a tiny fraction of stars visible from earth? Under the best conditions, no more than a few thousand stars are visible with the unaided eye, yet there are hundreds of billions of stars in our galaxy and a hundred billion or so galaxies. Were they all created "to give light upon the earth"?

[MG1962]

Originally Posted by six7s

Because:

1. faith in the bible is absolute; no grey areas, no wishy-washy cherry picking to fit an agenda (e.g. a further understanding of reality)
   and
2. the bible is an absurdly ridiculous book of contradictions
   
   Skeptics Annotated Bible: Genesis 1

Is this your opinion of how Catholics view the Bible, or are you in posession of some special knowledge that contradicts at least three Popes?

Or are you making the claim that somehow these Catholic Priests, who by the way have won awards for their astronomical research, do not have faith in the teachings of Christ

[six7s]

Originally Posted by MG1962

Is this your opinion of how Catholics view the Bible

No. Its not my opinion... its what the church teaches as the fundament of the church itself

Granted, it is circular (il)logic... but hey, it ain't my woo


Douay-Rheims Bible: Introduction

Quote:

Pope Damasus assembled the first list of books of the Bible at the Roman Council in 382 A.D. He commissioned St. Jerome to translate the original Greek and Hebrew texts into Latin, which became known as the Latin Vulgate Bible and was declared by the Church to be the only authentic and official version, in 1546.

Douay-Rheims Bible: A Catechism Of The Bible

Quote:

Foreword
There is only one true God. He took flesh and became man only once. When man, He founded only one religion and one Church, the Roman Catholic Religion and the Roman Catholic Church.

That Church is the divinely appointed guardian of the writings divinely inspired by God, known as the Bible. This Holy Bible is like no other book, because no other book has God for its principal author.

Nevertheless the Bible is not the foundation of the Church, but the Church is the foundation of the Bible. That is why Catholics need Mother Church as the guardian and interpreter of the Bible.

Douay-Rheims Bible: A Catechism Of The Bible:
Lesson 2: Inspiration Of The Bible

Quote:

1. Must we believe in the inspiration of the Bible?

Yes, the inspiration of the Bible is an article of Faith which cannot be denied without sin.

2. What is meant by inspiration of the Bible?

Inspiration of the Bible means, in the first place, that those who wrote the Bible were impelled to do so by God.

3. What else is meant by inspiration of the Bible?

Principally that those who wrote the Bible were protected from error while writing what God impelled them to write.

4. Is there a special name for that protection of the writer from error?

Yes, it is called "biblical inerrancy." It means that there are no errors in the Bible.

5. What proof have we that the Bible is inspired?

The Catholic Church, which is infallible, teaches us so.

<snip/>
8. Are all the parts of the Bible inspired?

"For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost ..." (Leo the XIII in Providentissimus Deus, E.B. 124, 127)

9. Does the inspiration apply to the originals only, or to the translations also?

Both: It applies absolutely to the originals, and to the translations insofar as they are faithful to the originals.

Douay-Rheims Bible: Book Of Genesis

Quote:

God createth Heaven and Earth, and all things therein, in six days.

1 In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. 2 And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters. 3 And God said: Be light made. And light was made. 4 And God saw the light that it was good; and he divided the light from the darkness. 5 And he called the light Day, and the darkness Night; and there was evening and morning one day.

6 And God said: Let there be a firmament made amidst the waters: and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7 And God made a firmament, and divided the waters that were under the firmament, from those that were above the firmament, and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament, Heaven; and the evening and morning were the second day. 9 God also said: Let the waters that are under the heaven, be gathered together into one place: and let the dry land appear. And it was so done. 10 And God called the dry land, Earth; and the gathering together of the waters, he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

6 "A firmament"... By this name is here understood the whole space between the earth, and the highest stars. The lower part of which divideth the waters that are upon the earth, from those that are above in the clouds.

11 And he said: Let the earth bring forth the green herb, and such as may seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after its kind, which may have seed in itself upon the earth. And it was so done. 12 And the earth brought forth the green herb, and such as yieldeth seed according to its kind, and the tree that beareth fruit, having seed each one according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13 And the evening and the morning were the third day. 14 And God said: Let there be lights made in the firmament of heaven, to divide the day and the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years: 15 To shine in the firmament of heaven, and to give light upon the earth. And it was so done.

16 And God made two great lights: a greater light to rule the day; and a lesser light to rule the night: and the stars. 17 And he set them in the firmament of heaven to shine upon the earth. 18 And to rule the day and the night, and to divide the light and the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And the evening and morning were the fourth day. 20 God also said: Let the waters bring forth the creeping creature having life, and the fowl that may fly over the earth under the firmament of heaven.

16 "Two great lights"... God created on the first day, light, which being moved from east to west, by its rising and setting, made morning and evening. But on the fourth day he ordered and distributed this light, and made the sun, moon, and stars. The moon, though much less than the stars, is here called a great light, from its giving a far greater light to the earth than any of them.

21 And God created the great whales,<snip/>

Originally Posted by MG1962

or are you in posession of some special knowledge that contradicts at least three Popes?

As it is obvious (to anyone with even half a brain) that contradiction is synonymous with all things papal, I infer that you are 'in possession of some special blinkers that distort reality'

Originally Posted by MG1962

Or are you making the claim that somehow these Catholic Priests, who by the way have won awards for their astronomical research, do not have faith in the teachings of Christ

Nope... close... but still nope...

Instead, I claim that 'these Catholic Priests, who by the way have won awards for their astronomical research, do not have faith in the bible', as to do so would be illogical

[shadron]

Originally Posted by TinfoilCat

Any natural disaster that does not include any man made catastrophe.

And as the other side of Hoke's list, consider:

- The iceball earth.

- Suspected global warming during the Jurassic.

- The late Cretaceous, when the Deccan traps were being laid down (and the previous period when the Siberian traps were laid as well).

- The period following the Chixchulub strike (the K-T disaster). Other strikes in Canada and elsewhere. The little strike in Arizona 25K years ago (just a minor, local one, that).

- In the western half of NA, the Eocene period when a huge volcano in Idaho blew up, laying ash in meters thick deposits over half the continent.

- The Yellowstone caldera explosions.

- The release of waters from lakes around the last glaciation; flooding of the Mediterranean basin; etc.

Any one of these occurring today would certainly get talked about on Fox news.

[MG1962]

Originally Posted by six7s

As it is obvious (to anyone with even half a brain) that contradiction is synonymous with all things papal, I infer that you are 'in possession of some special blinkers that distort reality'l

But now you have me confused - The above statement does not seem to sit well with you suddenly quoting from Pope Leo XIII

"For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost ..." (Leo the XIII in Providentissimus Deus, E.B. 124, 127)

Which is actually miss quoted

For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true.

Saint Augustine had his own thoughts on the topic

The Holy Spirit, Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things - that is the essential nature of the things of the universe - things in no way profitable to salvation"; which principle "will apply to cognate sciences, and especially to history,"[7] that is, by refuting, "in a somewhat similar way the fallacies of the adversaries and defending the historical truth of Sacred Scripture from their attacks."

I guess this is all water of a ducks back anyway. I have disproved your orginal claim, and your only response is a belief these Priests dont have faith in the Bible.

Seems a very strange tangent for a skeptic to rely on a belief to forward an arguement

[six7s]

Originally Posted by MG1962

I have disproved your orginal claim

And which claim is that?

Originally Posted by MG1962

and your only response is a belief these Priests dont have faith in the Bible.

Seems a very strange tangent for a skeptic to rely on a belief to forward an arguement

Please, resist the urge to tell make public pronouncements on what I believe

I make a concerted effort to not believe in anything, preferring instead to think*. In light of the palpable errors and contradictions in the bible, I think that your astronomical priests must be either lying or ignorant about their beliefs

____________
* Please note: I ain't saying my thinking is right on this and I sincerely invite anyone to show me where there are errors in my thinking on this (or any) subject

[MG1962]

Originally Posted by six7s

And which claim is that?

Please, resist the urge to tell make public pronouncements on what I believe

I make a concerted effort to not believe in anything, preferring instead to think*. In light of the palpable errors and contradictions in the bible, I think that your astronomical priests must be either lying or ignorant about their beliefs

____________
* Please note: I ain't saying my thinking is right on this and I sincerely invite anyone to show me where there are errors in my thinking on this (or any) subject

You probably need a good dictionary

From Webster online

1 a: to have a firm religious faith b: to accept as true, genuine, or real <ideals we believe in> <believes in ghosts>

2: to have a firm conviction as to the goodness, efficacy, or ability of something <believe in exercise>

3: to hold an opinion : think <I believe so>transitive verb1 a: to consider to be true or honest <believe the reports> <you wouldn't believe how long it took> b: to accept the word or evidence of <I believe you> <couldn't believe my ears>

I have highlighted the relevant definition to make it easier for you

Odd that you should accuse me of doing exactly what you yourself are doing to these priests. You have absolutely no proof about the theological position of these priests other than an opinion

[six7s]

Context ain't a disease... if you get it it won't hurt

[six7s]

Originally Posted by six7s

And which claim is that?

Did you miss this question, too?

[MG1962]

Originally Posted by six7s

Did you miss this question, too?

No - If you cant remember your orginal post on the subject, all you have to do is page back and read it

[six7s]

Maybe you're the one in need of a dictionary

Misunderstood != disproved

[TinfoilCat]

I re approached my Bible teacher and told her of the fulfillment of the prophecies. (Most of them have already occurred.) She stated that they just foreshadowed the TRUE end, which is going to be soon and even more devastating. No, she is not a crackpot. She is a sensible women, but I just do not agree with her views.

[RobRoy]

Originally Posted by TinfoilCat

I re approached my Bible teacher and told her of the fulfillment of the prophecies. (Most of them have already occurred.) She stated that they just foreshadowed the TRUE end, which is going to be soon and even more devastating. No, she is not a crackpot. She is a sensible women, but I just do not agree with her views.

She doesn't have to be a crackpot to believe this. There are some reasonably sensible folk who believe some outrageous things when it comes to religion. It's a kind of cognitive dissonance in that regard. They will readily scoff at almost any other kind of woo, but when it comes to their own, their adamant.

I would be curious about how "soon" is soon. I mean within a reasonable timeframe of a couple years, decades or centuries? Obviously, asking her for a specific timeframe would be out of the question.