buzzsaw writes:
The timeframe, as I've been stating all along is from 1948 and we've been using some data, mostly from 1900 to get an overview of the trend. I suppose it's not feasable to go back too far because of the lack of accurate data available. I assume that historically, it's been relatively stable over the centuries from the information we have.
I have followed this thread long enough and it seems that you have summed it up with your "suppose" and "assume."
Suppose and Assume are not a valid basis for a position. You appear to hold the position that disasters have been increasing, but I have not seen any justification to your statement. I see you have over 3300 posts so rather than attempt to go through them, please tell me why you think disasters are on the increase and where you substantiated that position. Where have you defined what you mean by the concept of disasters are incresing? I need a clarification.
While I have not read all of this thread, I have not seen where anyone takes into consideration that the population has been constantly incrasing. For example, the earthquate in New Madrid in, I think the late 1800s was not a disaster. If that same intensity earthquate occured today, it would be carnage. Would that mean that disasters are becoming worse, or just that there are more people to be hurt? A biblical prophet is not needed to predict that when the population increases similiar events will cause more death.
Lets conclude with two questions:
1: Assume there are two idendical events and the second causes more people to die that the first because there are more people there to die than before. Do you define that as a greater disaster?
2. The question asked of you is valid and correct: As comparted to what? When you say someting is more or less then you must state your reference point. If not, the statement has no meaning.
Truth fears no question.
bkelly
™ Version 4.2
