Jump to content

World Wide Increase In Earthquakes


Vance

Recommended Posts

Probably, depending where you fall on the last days belief spectrum....Let's just say, there's one of many reasons I don't live on the coast.

Link to comment

Everything east of the San Andreas Fault is going to fall off into Atlantic Ocean. ;)

 

Is your name Samuel Brannan?

 

Pretty sure that's west...and Las Vegas becomes beachfront property...

Link to comment

I personally do not believe there has been an increase in earthquakes, thus not a sign of the last days. Here’s why...

I hear people speak of this negative or that one increasing. I always ask them what makes them think this or that has increased. I always get the same answer back. I heard it in the media ( tv, web, so on ). Okay, than is it more likely that the only thing that has really increase in the access to common knowledge of things that have already been there rather than increased of such things? If you look into history in an investigated way, you will see such things have always been there at levels of highs and lows and highs again. The only increase is now we have easier access to knowing of them compare to before with limited media access.

Plus, signs are easily misinterpret and uncorrected accredit. Not everything is a sign and the ones that are must be carefully understood to avoid getting the wrong knowledge of. I see no increase in the last days signs ( yet ).

Oh, and I great up with earthquakes. Been in a few good ones. I scream, pee, duck and cover, and survive every time. Just my personal life experience with the buggers.

Link to comment

Is your name Samuel Brannan?

 

Pretty sure that's west...and Las Vegas becomes beachfront property...

 

For better or worse no that isn't my name.

 

Reno: Nevada is further west than Los Angeles: California. We're canted the wrong way to fall into the Pacific Ocean. We are slowly being pushed to the NNE into the North American Plate. Hope those that those living east of us can swim. ;)

Link to comment

Global Warming may also be a sign of the last days, but you don't seem to believe that. 

You quote non-climate scientists like Tim Ball, Tim Ball was a professor of geography, not a climate scientist. 

 

But he is smarter than the average college student.  Don't you think.

Link to comment

but I trust the experts, it is the evidence that convinces the experts, not wishful thinking.

Yes, experts can be challenged, so where is the evidence? Real evidence please.

but you really can't . . . scholars and researchers have to be careful about what they say or else be banned or shunned or denied advancement . . . be careful of the "framework" that you operate in . . . there are far more possibilities of interpretation for facts or physical evidences . . . if you love science, you must continue to question aggressively . . .

Link to comment

but you really can't . . . scholars and researchers have to be careful about what they say or else be banned or shunned or denied advancement . . . be careful of the "framework" that you operate in . . . there are far more possibilities of interpretation for facts or physical evidences . . . if you love science, you must continue to question aggressively . . .

 

I agree, scholars and researchers have to be careful about what they say, if they are going to challenge the consensus, they must have evidence.

Evidence, not confirmation bias.

Link to comment

Ok I must put this in...but it does have some foul language in it so if that bothers you, please don't go here. I'm not posting the actual link because it DOES have some language in it, and I don't want to get in trouble.

Having put in my disclaimers though, if you want a laugh-out-loud funny opinion of how the "end times" will occur, there is a great very short video on YouTube entitled "Ze End of Ze World".

It never fails to make me laugh until I cry.

Link to comment

And if I am sent to hell for going there, will you step in and get the brimstone dumped on you instead?

I've always said that the devil has a nice warm place for me reserved right by the campfire.
Link to comment
It "is" a sign of the times according to Christ in Matthew 24...the only question is when or at what percentage will it be the events that will soon follow the coming of Christ.
Link to comment

I agree, scholars and researchers have to be careful about what they say, if they are going to challenge the consensus, they must have evidence.

Evidence, not confirmation bias.

you should know better . . . consensus is NOT the Holy Grail of science . . . what is desired is "better understanding" than what we had previously . . . above all do NOT assume that science is always going in the "right" direction . . .

 

60% of universities have "Speech Codes" that wrongly infringe on First Amendment rights of students and other personnel . . . there is definitely a "chilling effect", see http://www.elbeisman.com/article.php?action=read&id=328

 

remember Mark Armitage?  He was NOT allowed to have peer review of his discovery of soft tissue in the horn of Triceratop fossil . . .

Link to comment

you should know better . . . consensus is NOT the Holy Grail of science . .

 

I agree,  but there is rarely a consensus of 97% in science, so you must have good evidence to challenge it. Good evidence is not pseudoscience.  You need good evidence that is not problematic. 

 

 

remember Mark Armitage?  He was NOT allowed to have peer review of his discovery of soft tissue in the horn of Triceratop fossil . . .

 

I don't think so 

 

http://freethoughtblogs.com/amilliongods/2014/07/28/mark-armitage-creationism-and-bad-science/

 

"Mark was suddenly terminated by the Biology Department when his discovery of soft tissues in Triceratops horn was published in Acta Histochemica. He is currently seeking relief in a legal action for wrongful termination and religious discrimination by the University. But here is the thing? I don’t think that’s why he is being fired. Scientists are seldom terminated for discovering something. Soft fibrillar bone tissues were obtained from a supraorbital horn of Triceratops horridus collected at the Hell Creek Formation in Montana, USA. Soft material was present in pre and post-decalcified bone. Horn material yielded numerous small sheets of lamellar bone matrix. This matrix possessed visible microstructures consistent with lamellar bone osteocytes. Some sheets of soft tissue had multiple layers of intact tissues with osteocyte-like structures featuring filipodial-like interconnections and secondary branching. Both oblate and stellate types of osteocyte-like cells were present in sheets of soft tissues and exhibited organelle-like microstructures. SEM analysis yielded osteocyte-like cells featuring filipodial extensions of 18–20 μm in length. Filipodial extensions were delicate and showed no evidence of any permineralization or crystallization artifact and therefore were interpreted to be soft. This is the first report of sheets of soft tissues from Triceratops horn bearing layers of osteocytes, and extends the range and type of dinosaur specimens known to contain non-fossilized material in bone matrix. That’s interesting. See bone is alive it contains cells called osteoblasts and osteoclasts that build and tear down bone in constant remodelling allowing it to deal with the stresses and strains of normal life and indeed fractures. To find fossil evidence of them is kind of cool. The prior notion was that millions of years should cause such soft tissue to degrade, however newer theories think that in specific cases the soft tissue can be mummified and preserved particularly if it is kept in an anaerobic state. Not one of these ideas pushes fort the fact that the Triceratops in question is 4000 years old by the way. A scientist has filed a lawsuit against the California State University, Northridge saying he was terminated from his job due to his religious views after he discovered soft tissue on a triceratops fossil which supported his creationist view. Creationism is not a religious world view any more than believing in a flat earth is a religious world view. NASA is unlikely to hire a flat earther or a geocentricist. Mark was hired specifically to operate an electron microscope and do science and to make the 4000 year old claim on this soft tissue is frankly astoundingly bad science... All Mark Armitage has discovered is soft tissue. It does not support his 6000 year old universe ... If this were true, Mark Armitage would be in line for a Nobel Prize. And it shows, Mark’s planning to sue for his termination. I disagree. Mark took a normal paper that he wrote and spun it to his creationist friends and is utilising actual science with additions to spread ... We also found soft tissue from a T-Rex that made the news a while back. So according to Mark (who seems to have forgotten that this isn’t the first discovery of soft tissue from a dinosaur) both T-Rex and Triceratops coexisted 4000 years ago. Yet we see absolutely no evidence of any such bones being kept with pride. Considering we mount deer heads with grandiose horns and the skulls of elephants on our walls with equal pride? Considering neandrathal art was quite explicit in their hunting of mammoth but not of any triceratops. It puzzles me that humans with our fascination for trophies from hunts and our pride and value in the remains of large predators… would not seek to prove ourselves by hunting a T-Rex. We see plenty of lions and tigers and bears and deer and buffalo and elephant but not one triceratops or stegosaurus or diplodocus or t-rex brought down by skill and artifice of mankind. Not one skeleton marked by the blades of our fore fathers. And yet Mark here is willing to claim that the mere existence of soft tissue is indicative of a triceratops surviving the Cretaceous and living in North America alongside other Dinosaurs and humanity. This is not science but a fantastic leap of applied religion. See the bones date back to the cretaceous but the soft tissue flies in the face of everything we know. So you have two logical steps. Either the bones are 4000 years old or so. Or there is a process to preserve soft tissue. The fact is the discovery of the first soft tissue evidence was a happy coincidence and told us where to look for more. However the bones are still 70 to 80 million years old"

Link to comment

I like earthquakes, why can't this just be an enjoyable thread about the possibility of life as we know it being destroyed by earthquakes instead another on climate change, rampaging dinosaurs and cavemen and pitched battles between men armed with sheaves of articles they use to spit wad each other.

Link to comment

I like earthquakes, why can't this just be an enjoyable thread about the possibility of life as we know it being destroyed by earthquakes 

 

Because we do not cause Earthquakes and most people do not deny that Earthquakes happen.  

I do not use the Mormon Dialogue just to enjoy it, I talk about the subjects that I feel are important, I do not have time for speculation. 

Link to comment

Because we do not cause Earthquakes and most people do not deny that Earthquakes happen.  

I do not use the Mormon Dialogue just to enjoy it, I talk about the subjects that I feel are important, I do not have time for speculation. 

 

Thanks for your time.  Perhaps you ought to cut your losses and get on with your most important life.  I think we can muddle through without you. 

Link to comment

This website appears to be an activist organ attempting to mold opinion. The author seems very anxious to preserve the "narrative" of a few scientific endeavors that are beset with "political" controversy (which is why I remain concerned about universities imposing a "chilling effect" on academic freedom). I found a very interesting comment at the bottom of that website:

"Gerald Apge says

September 25, 2014 at 7:08 AM

There is no grounds for asserting that a creationist doesn’t believe in biology. Saying that someone who points out something that appears to be concrete scientific evidence for dinosaurs having living in a radically different time period than the conventional scientific view “doesn’t believe in science” is the typical circular reasoning that is the foundation of evolution thinking.

The idea that soft tissues may mummify is one of those many many ad hoc explanations that evolutionists come up with to explain things that shouldn’t be there. It was probably devised just because of these discoveries. The one Armitage talked about isn’t the first such discovery. So rather than question the conventional evolutionist framework – Shazam! – a soft tissue mummification theory is devised and labeled “scientific”. What is the hard evidence for the theory ( such as lab experiments)? Probably nothing. So then why is it “scientific”? Because it confirms the evolutionist framework. Which is of course, blatant circular reasoning, as usual.

What’s absurd is how this circular reasoning is so embedded into the entire evolutionist framework."

The website is justifying its criticism based on this "new theory" concerning bone tissue - - -

 

" . . . That’s interesting. See bone is alive it contains cells called osteoblasts and osteoclasts that build and tear down bone in constant remodelling allowing it to deal with the stresses and strains of normal life and indeed fractures. To find fossil evidence of them is kind of cool. The prior notion was that millions of years should cause such soft tissue to degrade, however newer theories think that in specific cases the soft tissue can be mummified and preserved particularly if it is kept in an anaerobic state . . . "

If it does'nt fit the "narrative" those universities will brutally suppress contrary inquiries.  I ASK again, why can't "PEER REVIEW" continue its course?  Let the scientists fully examine the evidence that Mark Armitage discovered.  Let them justify their "dismissal" of this opportunity for new "perspectives" . . .  Why stand in the way of scientific work?  Why this attempt to control the dialogue?  Very suspicious, indeed.

Link to comment

A few years back I had heard of the increase in hurricanes and earthquakes so I went to a reasonable impartial source , the USGS , and poked around to see the number and magnitude of earthquakes in the last 100 years or so. It was amazing what I didn't find. Unless and until there is a sharp change in the frequency and size of earthquakes in the next couple of years, there is little reason to suppose that geologically it is not ' business as usual ' .

Link to comment

A few years back I had heard of the increase in hurricanes and earthquakes so I went to a reasonable impartial source , the USGS , and poked around to see the number and magnitude of earthquakes in the last 100 years or so. It was amazing what I didn't find. Unless and until there is a sharp change in the frequency and size of earthquakes in the next couple of years, there is little reason to suppose that geologically it is not ' business as usual ' .

 

This is the point I was trying to make in my reply to this post. There is no evidence from a legit sound source that there is an issue with earthquakes and the last days. Just more knowledge available about what has already been there. No reasons to worry or get concern, unless one has a need to hype things up and live upon unjustified drama.

Link to comment

"Gerald Apge says

September 25, 2014 at 7:08 AM

The idea that soft tissues may mummify is one of those many many ad hoc explanations that evolutionists come up with to explain things that shouldn’t be there. It was probably devised just because of these discoveries. The one Armitage talked about isn’t the first such discovery. So rather than question the conventional evolutionist framework – Shazam! – a soft tissue mummification theory is devised and labeled “scientific”. 

 

Why can't he take that explanation seriously? He doesn't seem too open minded about it. So what is his explanation for that soft tissue? Even if it's only 4,000 years old, it needs an explanation because dinosaur soft tissues are extremely rare. 

 

You said,

 

 remember Mark Armitage? He was NOT allowed to have peer review of his discovery of soft tissue in the horn of Triceratop fossil

See a 2007 National Geographic video, the conspiracy theories are problematic, nobody is trying to hide anything here. 

 

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...