Why the Christmas Tsunamis?
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
- Status
Zakath
Resident Atheist
The comment was quoted as being made by "John", not Bob.
Besides, it's more likely that this earthquake was as devastating as it was because of it's location, not merely its magnitude.
"Natural" disasters (or "acts of God" as they used to be known) can be horribly devastating in relatively low-tech cultures with poor infrastructure... insufficient roads and vehicles to evacuate popluations, poorly constructed shelter, insufficient medical care, insufficient emergency response, etc. All those combine with poor communications to create staggering loss of life.
If the same event occurred off, say the California or Japanese coast, the resulting damge and loss of life would probably have been significantly lower.
Chileice
New member
Not so much for technology as for topography. It is much easier to get to high ground anywhere on the west coast of the two American continents. Granted that early warning would certainly help. But if a large slip-strike quake along the plate convergence zone hit just outside the Straight of Juan de Fuca, all the warning systems in the world wouldn't save low-lying areas of Seattle, Victoria or Vancouver. Within minutes they would be underwater. The waves move at about 700 miles per hour, faster than a jet at cruising speed. A bit tough to out run if you don't have a very big headstart!
Yes and John said, "Do you realize that if the earth is younger, then as geologists, we should warn governments that the earth is not as stable as we have been claiming. And that future earthquakes could occur in more locations and they could be more devastating than we would otherwise predict."
The Christmas quakes were more devastating than "old earth" theorists like John had been predicting. Hence, the Christmas quakes are evidence that Enyart (and all the other "young earth" theorists) is right.
The quakes were more devastating because they were big ones, big ones happen from time to time, and because of their location.
I suggest that Enyart perhaps might check with John Nicoll (sp?) now to see if he agrees with Enyart's interpretation of their earlier conversation. Absent that one comment there was nothing in Enyart's presentation about the Christmas quakes that indicated any knowledge of geology other than what he may have gleaned from his own interpretation of the Bible, which "knowledge" remains abysmal but still enables him to pontificate to his true believers.
- Status