• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Natural Disasters: Increasing or Decreasing?

TinfoilCat

Thinker
TinfoilCat
Joined
Sep 5, 2008
Messages
127
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 have it in one.
More people, more reporters, fewer areas where anything can happen that doesn't kill somebody.
Sure the biblical prophecies are coming true. They are always coming true.

But the world hasn't ended yet.

Even if it does- or at least the human world does- let's say 99% of all known people die tomorrow- how would this in any way actually matter? (Apart from being a bloody nuisance).
 
I recall a headline I saw on one of those tabloid newspapers while waiting in the grocery line to check out:

WHY THE WEATHER'S GONE CRAZY!!

This was at least 20 years ago. Every so often since then I have been reminded that that headline could be printed nearly every single day and still be true.
 
I was sure I'd seen a thread discussing this recently, either here or at the snopes.com message board, but now I can't find it. IIRC, the crux of it was that weather-related disasters seem to have increased in the last 20 years, both in number and in severity, while other kinds of natural disasters (earthquakes, volcanoes, etc.) had not increased in either number or (population-adjusted) severity. This info came from a reputable source, but now I can't find it and my google-fu isn't good enough to help.
 
I remember reading an article the other day that said that natural disasters only appears as if its increasing because we only consider violent weather a natural disaster if it affects people and therefore there are more people so it seems as if there are more natural disasters. But infact there are fewer and are also less violent when compared to the flooding in China that may have killed millions in the early 1900's.
 
I think a lot depends on what you consider a natural disaster. Planet formation? Continental drift? The Ice Age? The dinosaur wipeout? The Biblical great flood? Pompii? A tornado that tears up a storage shed?

I don't think on a historically global scale that there would be a less tumultuous time than now.

-Maus
 
...snip...
The average annual percentage of the global population killed by natural disasters decreased 10-fold from the period 1964 to 1968 compared with the period 2000 through 2004, from 0.01 percent (roughly one killed for every 10,000 people) to 0.001 percent (one in 100,000) respectively. At the same time, the average annual number of recorded disasters increased five-fold between 1964 through 1968 (64 per year) and 2000 through 2004 (332 per year). The events that continue to result in the major number of fatalities are the relatively small percentage of events that occur with large recurrence intervals, such as massive floods, strong earthquakes and direct strikes from intense hurricanes, or events that are unusual in the area in which they occur.
...snip...
Click to expand...

I found this article at http://www.geotimes.org/oct07/article.html?id=feature_democracy.html

It states "recorded disasters", does this mean that natural disasters actually increased that much, or that our technology became more advanced so we could track down more disasters?

I think a lot depends on what you consider a natural disaster. Planet formation? Continental drift? The Ice Age? The dinosaur wipeout? The Biblical great flood? Pompii? A tornado that tears up a storage shed?

I don't think on a historically global scale that there would be a less tumultuous time than now.

-Maus
Click to expand...

Any natural disaster that does not include any man made catastrophe.
 
As a kid I recall my Gran blaming bad weather on Sputnik.

The fact is the World population has increased considerably over the last 100 years. We have built on flood plains and population density in cities has risen dramatically. There are simply more people to suffer during a drought, earthquake, hurricane etc., In the past if such a thing hit a sparsely populated area it barely got reported. Now we have minute by minute TV reporting of a storm's every gust.
 
Christ said that some of his contemporaries would see teh end of teh whirled

Instead of trusting your bible teacher, find a >1900-year-old and ask them
 
Last edited:
Christ said that some of his contemporaries would see teh end of teh whirled
Click to expand...

Many Christians believe he was referring to his spirit, not his actual physical return, but I rather prefer to stick to the topic.
 
If it helps your teacher, this site offers a Rapture INdex and an Armageddon Clock.

I dated an evangelical girl back in the mid-90s. Her entire church was convinced that the End Times would occur before the year 2000. We broke up before 1995, so I have no idea if she and her church are still on the planet or have been lifted bodily to heaven. <shrug>

ETA: Crime indexes have also shown a general downtrend overall, which the expected ebbs and flows. This is the FBI Violent Crime Report.
 
Last edited:
What facets of the topic have yet to be addressed?
Click to expand...

I admit, all of them have been addressed, but there are so many different answers.

If it helps your teacher, this site offers a Rapture INdex and an Armageddon Clock.
Click to expand...

No can do. She believes that no one can predict the actual time or date, but we can know when its approaching... but the thing is, I doubt its approaching.

Well, you can see how well apocalyptic predictions have done in the past...

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/9941/index.html
Click to expand...

Are we dead yet? :D
 
:D

My favorite bit from that site is the section concerning the Black Plague as an End Time herald.

Exorcising Poor Last Judgement said:
1346 CE - The Black Death was spreading across Europe, decimating the population by a daunting 1/3rd. In keeping with the spirit of the times, a new religious movement appeared on the scene: The Flagellants. Today they might be labeled as S&M street theatre, but back then they were seen as your friendly neighborhood soul cleaners, who'd whack themselves up a storm with iron-spiked whips to absolve people - even whole communities - of their sins. Certain that the End Times were upon them, the Flagellants not only happily beat themselves to bloody pulps, but also called for such charming group activities as killing all the Jews in Europe in the name of the Merciful, Just and All-Loving God. (already a major team sport in many places, thanks to the Church) After a few really good massacres, though, they started getting full of themselves and began calling for similar acts of violence against priests and the rich. No longer amused, (and noticing that the End just wasn't a happenin' thing) the Church quickly put the kibosh on the movement and dubbed them all a bunch of weenie little heretic nasties.

1347 CE - The Black Plague continued to roar through Europe like a freight train, mowing down millions and causing apocalyptic prophesies to fly thick and fast. As the Bubonic virus infected people's bodies, so the End Times virus infected their minds. 1347 they believed, would surely be the end of everything.

1348 CE - Unless, of course, this year was to be the end of everything.

1360 CE - No, wait! Make that this year.

1365 CE - Pardon me, my mistake, I meant this year...

1370 CE - No, sorry, sorry, this year...

1375 CE - Oops! My bad. It's this year...

1387 CE - Wait, wait! This year, definitely...

1396 CE - Or possibly, this year...

1400 CE - Or this...

1417 CE - Or this...

1418 CE - Or even, um... never mind...
Click to expand...
 
TinfoilCat said:
She believes that no one can predict the actual time or date
Click to expand...
Please ask her why she believes this

TinfoilCat said:
but we can know when its approaching...
Click to expand...

In the unlikely event of her providing a concise and coherent answer (ie not simply some woo-affirming woo) to the first bit, please ask her how we can recognise/identify the signs of impending doom


TinfoilCat said:
but the thing is, I doubt its approaching.
Click to expand...
The sun is dying, as we live and breathe


TinfoilCat said:
Are we dead yet? :D
Click to expand...
Some of us are...

Many of us hardly qualify as ever being alive...

Me... I aim to be immortal. So far, so good :D
 
Here is another good bit on prophecy (specifically Revelation) in general.

Source: http://www.theotokos.org.uk/pages/appdisce/poulain.html

article said:
At the beginning of the sixteenth century Italy experienced a regular epidemic of politico-religious prophecies. This effervescence began with those made by Savonarola in Florence. Religious and hermits swarmed over the country, and while commenting upon the Book of Revelation, they announced from the pulpit or in public places revolutions in the temporal and spiritual governments, to be followed by the end of the world. Peasants and young girls alike fell to prophesying. In the fifth Lateran Council, in 1516, Leo X was obliged to publish a Bull by which public prophecies by preachers were prohibited (Pastor, History of the Popes, edited by Fr. Antrobus, Vol. V, end of Introduction; also Mansi, Collection of Councils).
Click to expand...
 
H said:
Exorcising Poor Last Judgement said:
1346 CE - The Black Death was spreading across Europe, decimating the population by a daunting 1/3rd
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

<pedant>
decimation
1549, from L.L. decimationem, from L. decimare "the removal or destruction of one-tenth," from decem "ten." Killing one in ten, chosen by lots, from a rebellious city or a mutinous army was a common punishment in classical times. Earliest sense in Eng. was of a tithe; decimate has been used (incorrectly, to the irritation of pedants) since 1663 for "destroy a large portion of."
Click to expand...
</pedant>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom