Sure you can say that and be all logical and stuff but next will be human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together … mass hysteria!
Then what what will you say, huh? Then what, Mr. Smarty-Pants?
It’s started! Already we have heard that two cats who can’t abide one another have been seen lying down together. It’s only a small step from there to cats and dogs living together, lions lying down with lambs, and so on and so forth.
And it looks like we have taken that step! Here’s evidence of cats and dogs living together!
We’re doomed, I tell you! DOOOOOOOOMED!
Have you ever been doomed before?
Lots of times. I don’t like it much.
Everyone’s already pointed out how ridiculous OP is, so I don’t need to say that again. Let’s look at your earthquakes then. Basically, you claim that world’s going to end, because there have already been four earthquakes this year. So, first of all you’re actually forgetting some, there was a 7.0 magnitude quake near Japan just before the big one in Chile, a week earlier a 6.9 in China-Russia-North Korea border region (but with depth of over 500 km so no damage) and in early January a week before the Haiti quake three of about the same magnitude in Solomon Islands, plus a 6.5 near California just before Haiti. It’s easy to concentrate in the recent events and forget those a bit older, isn’t it? There are a lot of earthquakes, according to USGS statistics on average per year there’ll be about 1 with magnitude 8.0 or more, 10-20 between 7.0 and 7.9 and over 100 between 6.0 and 6.9, so the 6.4 in OP is something that happens every week somewhere in the world, and has been happening through recorded history. You can see it yourself by studying earthquake listings on USGS or Wikipedia.
What’s unusual this time is that one of the most catastrophic earthquakes in history and one of the most powerful earthquakes in history happened within a period of two months. But the earthquake in Haiti was, in terms of energy released, nothing special, and even though the Chile one was big, it was only the second 8+ quake after 2007, on the other hand in 2007 there were four with magnitude over 8 in a single year. Even then, this is just a coincidence. For example, according to aforementioned lists, there were no 8+ quakes at all in early 1980’s, while there were a lot during 1940’s, and two biggest ones of the whole 20th century occurred quite near from each other in 1960 and 1964.
Apart from apocalypse, it’s an interesting question if earthquakes taking place shortly after each other but on the other side of the world are always just coincidences or if there’s some relation. This time it seems they aren’t related.
The point about news media is also important. Because of the devastation in Haiti and the powerfulness of the Chile one the earthquakes are now a hot topic, and every new one is going to get big headlines for a while. Normally an almost weekly event of a 6-7 magnitude quake in a foreign land with no fatalities and little damage caused wouldn’t be such big news. You are simply overreacting and the world isn’t going to end.
(Just kidding. Of course the end is near and we’re all DOOOOMED.)
Earthquakes in Taiwan are quite routine. There’s this really cool new technology called a “search engine.” From this site: http://www.treif.org.tw/treif/content/earthquake/earthquake.htm
Taiwan is located at the intersection of the Philippines Sea Plate and the Euraisian Plate, which are part of the circum-Pacific volcano and seismic zone. The Hualian-Taitung Valley is the boundary of these two plates. Over the years, the Philippines Sea Plate has moved to the north-west at the average velocity of 7 cm/year. The northern arc of Luzon Island, which is located in the west Philippines Sea Plate, collided with the edge of the Euraisian Plate 6 million years ago and elevated the Euraisuan Plate rapidly to form Taiwan’s Central Mountain Range. It’s like an extra large bulldozer, which is pushing the western Hualian-Taitung Valley and bending and arching the stratums, leading to even greater destruction and earthquakes.
Even atheists do believe in a form of an apocalypse in the form of the “Big Crunch” theory.
Also I do not think the world is going to end anytime soon-I do not believe in 2012 at all.
Also there has been an earthquake off the coast of Sumatra: http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/03/05/indonesia.earthquake/index.html?hpt=T2
First; Atheists aren’t a uniform group that share the same beliefs.
Second; The atheists that do believe in the “Big Crunch” theory don’t believe in it in an “apocalypse” sort of way, they believe in it in a
Third; Not only Atheists believe in the Big Crunch theory, I’m sure some Scientifically minded religious types do as well.
Fourth; Most Atheists don’t believe in the Big Crunch theory.
Do we go from 2011 to 2013? 
There’s also a thunder storm off the coast of Africa… dozens of them over the past few weeks… does this indicate an increase in thunderstorm activity?
It’s not “apocalyptic” in the religious sense but it is in the sense it is the destruction of the cosmos. Also I was using it as a example because an above poster thought only religious fanatics believed in an “apocalypse”.
Thunderstorms are relatively common and mundane but this is literally 6.0 earthquakes happening everyday!
No, he specifically mentioned “apocalypse” theory. Which you took to mean as in, “God comes down in his space ship and beams all the believers up to heaven” (hehe, I loved Jack Rudolph from Studio 60) in the Rapture, then leaves all of us non-believers to suffer in hell and torment on Earth while a large lizard eats our naughty bits for 7 years until the Antichrist leads an army across the (now empty) tigris and euphretes rivers to battle Jesus which will result in 6 feet deep of blood covering the entire plane, after which all the survivors which are left will be divvied up to Jesus’ left and right hands, those of us on the left to be cast into eternal damnation in a pit of fire and those of us on the right to live with Jesus in a large golden cube for a millenium of happiness!
Only one part of that was made up, by the way. I’ll let you guess which one it was. I took it to mean exactly what it said, unless you’re saying he was calling you one of those religious nutbars (like Babe Ruthe candy bars!), in which case I think you took it too personally, he seemed to be only directly referencing your OP.
By the way, there’s a difference between Rapture and Big Crunch, as it comes to “theory,” one is based in science, the other is… well, I posted it above.
Whoooptie friggin’ doo.
Tell me when it’s statistically significant.
I found the list I had of Malachy’s predictions I started with 1963 ( that was the year I copied it);
John xx3
Flower of Flowers
From a half moon
Toil of the sun
Glory of the olives
and the last one… Roman Peter!
One can make of it as they wish…I guess. That list should include the Pope who was just Pope for a short time.
That’s not what the Big Crunch is. It’s not a rapture type of event and it would not in any way be connected to an increase in earthquakes and such. It’s an idea about the existence of the universe- that at some far-off point in the future, the expansion of the universe will reverse itself, resulting in a crunch and then eventually another Big Bang. At the moment, evidence suggests there is not going to be any such event.
Curtis LeMay, you haven’t answered my question. Why do you insist on making posts that show no understanding of your audience? How could you possibly think that SDMB posters care or believe about the world supposedly ending in 2014 or about St. Malachy or about Harold Camping or about the generational cycle or about the occurence of earthquakes that you should realize is no more than average or about your confused explanation of the Big Crunch? Again, I’m not concerned about the truth of these. I’m wondering why you have no idea of your audience. The SDMB is a conversation, and in a conversation you have to think about the people you talk with. Do you think that you’re talking to yourself, so it doesn’t matter what anyone else thinks about what you write? Why don’t you just do a blog, where you don’t have to care whether anyone else reads your posts?
“Big Crunch”? isn’t that that the favourite cereal of Atheists everywhere?
“Big Crunch big, yeah, yeah yeah, it’s not small, no, no, no!”
Damn, now I’m hungry for a heaping bowl of Big Crunch now, thanks a lot Todderbob
Big Crunch, endorsed by leading Geologists, try some today!
Big Crunch isn’t an atheist belief; it’s a scientific theory. It has nothing to do with apocalypse, which is most certainly a religious belief.
Science, though, isn’t trying to beat anyone over the head with morality. Even if Big Crunch was a demonstrable scientific fact, it’s really not going to make a difference if you are a puppy-kicker or a puppy-saver. As The Doors famously remarked, nobody gets out alive.
But do you believe in the Apocalypse, as laid out in the Christian bible? Because really what I find amusing is that you find the beliefs of one (albeit long-dead) religion laughable, but the beliefs of your chosen religion serious, while seemingly not realizing that your beliefs are laughable to a fair number of Dopers who don’t subscribe to your religion (or any at all).
What *are *we supposed to make of the recent devastation that is all to prevalent in nature and well-understood scientifically? Not much, really. It’s what the Earth does.
I said it wasn’t a religious apocalypse but it is an apocalyptic event since if it happens it will be result in the destruction of the present universe.
Since this is a subforum dedicated to mundane pointless stuff, I can’t see what’s so wrong with noting the fact of several recent earthquakes in a date close to various supposed great disasters/apocalypses.
[QUOTE]
Well theoretically if humanity survives for several billion years can’t it develop tech to prevent the Big Crunch?
Well how about atheists who believe like people of religion that no other possbility is true?
It’s not a “belief,” though. Not in the same way that Revelation’s Apocalypse is a belief.
You’re comparing them like “Creationism” versus “evolutionism”. Except it’s not “evolutionism” because belief in evolution is not synonymous to faith in evolution, and belief in the Big Crunch is not synonymous to faith in the Big Crunch.
And yet, you’ve failed to note that there’s a significant statistical drift between normal and this.
That doesn’t currently seem like a possibility. If the Big Crunch theory is correct (which current evidence seems to indicate it isn’t), the several billion (several, several, several – as in lots and lots and lots of billions) years that intercede now and then likely wont allow us to break the laws of physics. Of course it’s possible we’ll find a way to avoid our personal demise from a big crunch, but it’s astronomically unlikely.
In the same way that we can’t accelerate past the speed of light now, we wont be able to accelerate past the speed of light then (subverting the letter of the law excluded).
How about we reference another obscure group that has no meaning to the conversation at hand?
Curtis LeMay writes:
> Since this is a subforum dedicated to mundane pointless stuff, I can’t see
> what’s so wrong with noting the fact of several recent earthquakes in a date
> close to various supposed great disasters/apocalypses.
I’m not complaining about your noting the occurence of several earthquakes. I’m complaining that you seem to be making the following argument:
There have been more earthquakes recently than one might expect. (This isn’t true, but forget that for the moment.)
There have been other signs of the Apocalypse like the following:
St. Malachy’s predictions
Harold Camping’s predictions
The 2012 prediction
The generational cycle
So doesn’t this all add up to something?
If you had just said, “There have been a lot of earthquakes recently. Are there more than expected over this period?”, then we could have debated this reasonably. By throwing in all those other supposed signs of the Apocalypse, you have simply made your argument worse. How could you have been on the SDMB so long and not realize that virtually no one here accepts those signs? What you have done is start with a shaky but still plausible statement about earthquakes that you might have gotten people here to discuss. By throwing in all those other things, none of which have you made any attempt to support, you simply make sure that no one takes your initial statement seriously.
But it’s a religious concept. You probably know the word apocalypse comes from the word for “revelation” in Greek. The Big Crunch concept also has nothing to do with a final judgment or a lot of other religious concepts, and not all atheists believe in this. It’s a scientific theory that, for now, appears to be wrong. If you want to discuss the idea of the destruction of the world or the universe in a nonreligious context, you’re talking about natural disasters, not “apocalypses.” At which point the whole thing starts to sound less supernatural.
I don’t think anybody can give a meaningful answer, but you’re talking about technology that would control the contraction of space throughout the universe.
Looks like they think an earthquake is an earthquake.
I experienced last week’s earthquake. I will say that it seemed to go on for an unusually long period. Earthquakes in the city of Taipei in particular are always fun, as the place is built on a sediment-filled valley that makes things roll back and forth like a bowl of jello.