Why

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
proportionately 59 percent have occurred in the twentieth century, take your medicine
PK, it will only be bitter for a moment.

I thought you didn't want to look at the "proportion" of things that happened? Pointedly: the proportion of people killed. Proportions are ok sometimes?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
whether its complete or incomplete i cannot say, we can only go on the data we have at
hand.

Well, from a historian's point of view, the data is without doubt incomplete. So where does that leave the prediction that you are basing upon it?

Originally posted by FMF
Why would you be content to be "biased" about a prediction like this? Do you want it to be true?

I have already stated that i have sought empirical evidence (which you have attempted
to dispute on the flimsiest of grounds) for my faith and no i dont want anyone to die in
earthquakes.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
killing 10,000 people or more is not great enough? I see.

This has to be looked at in the context of population densities and distributions. The demographic curve of world human population shows a dramatic hockey-stick upward curve in recent years and it may be that crowding has disproportionally increased the population in quake-prone areas (This latter is speculation on my part.) The potential for increased death tolls due to these factors may dominate the statistics and might explain an increase that some people might want to consign to a Biblical narrative of history. Of course those people can say that the population and distribution influences are part of what is foretold by the Biblical narrative.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I have already stated that i have sought empirical evidence (which you have attempted
to dispute on the flimsiest of grounds) for my faith and no i dont want anyone to die in
earthquakes.

You are dodging the point blank question: Why would you be content to be "biased" about a prediction like this?

Originally posted by FMF
Well, from a historian's point of view, the data is without doubt incomplete. So where does that leave the prediction that you are basing upon it?

without doubt, really? such useless speculation will not save you FMF, we have data at
hand of the worlds most lethal earthquakes dating back to 800's.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I have already stated that i have sought empirical evidence (which you have attempted
to dispute on the flimsiest of grounds) ...

The paucity of historical data from the 9th C when compared to that from the 20thC is not "the flimsiest of grounds" for disputing your "conclusions" about a comparison between those two centuries.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
without doubt, really? such useless speculation will not save you FMF, we have data at
hand of the worlds most lethal earthquakes dating back to 800's.

And of the top fifteen only one has occurred in the last ten years.

Originally posted by JS357
This has to be looked at in the context of population densities and distributions. The demographic curve of world human population shows a dramatic hockey-stick upward curve in recent years and it may be that crowding has disproportionally increased the population in quake-prone areas (This latter is speculation on my part.) The potential for increased death t ...[text shortened]... e population and distribution influences are part of what is foretold by the Biblical narrative.

Yes indeed one may look at the reasons for the potentiality of the quakes destructive
force in terms of population densities and distributions, never the less, its much harder
to state why the actual number have occurred since the beginning of the 20th century,
for clearly there were large cities as far back as the 800's.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
And of the top fifteen only one has occurred in the last ten years.

59 percent PK, 59 percent a huge proportion have occurred since the beginning of the
twentieth century, are you willing to state that this is simply the result of population
densities, even so, it hardly invalidates the data, does it.

Originally posted by FMF
The paucity of historical data from the 9th C when compared to that from the 20thC is not "the flimsiest of grounds" for disputing your "conclusions" about a comparison between those two centuries.

Its useless speculation that's what it is.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
without doubt, really? such useless speculation will not save you FMF, we have data at
hand of the worlds most lethal earthquakes dating back to 800's.

This brings us back to a question you dodged on the previous page: here it is again -

Do you think that all earthquakes and their death tolls were recorded in the 800s? Do you think that all the records that were made survive to this day? Do you think the survival rate of the records from the 9thC is more or less than the survival rate of data from the 20thC?

Originally posted by FMF
This brings us back to a question you dodged on the previous page: here it is again -

Do you think that all earthquakes and their death tolls were recorded in the 800s? Do you think that all the records that were made survive to this day? Do you think the survival rate of the records from the 9thC is more or less than the survival rate of data from the 20thC?

cant say, its useless to speculate, we have data at hand from as far back as the 800's,
its good enough for me. You speculate about what might have been recorded and what
might not have.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Its useless speculation that's what it is.

And you drawing conclusions based on indisputably incomplete and lopsided (towards more modern times) data is not "speculation"? I am asking this in an intellectual sense. Intellectually speaking, you think your admittedly biased juggling of the data is not "speculation"?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
cant say, its useless to speculate, we have data at hand from as far back as the 800's,
its good enough for me. You speculate about what might have been recorded and what
might not have.

What's the data from the 700s? What do you make of the earthquakes from that century?