Way back then, I noticed a distribution pattern in the earthquakes. They'd be fairly evenly scattered across the globe, with only occasional concentrations in one area, and then immediately going back to an even distribution across the globe. But recently, I noticed a change in this pattern.
I think you are attempting to make fact fit your theory.
They'd be fairly evenly scattered across the globe, with only occasional concentrations in one area, and then immediately going back to an even distribution across the globe.
That, my friend, does not work - in the land mass known as the USA, let alone the entire planet.
You are using - what? - as historical data for your proof. Suppressed giggle inserted here.
I've been doing it [monitoring the USGS] since I became computer literate, in 2000.
That is all well and good. Except for the fact that you are leaving out just a couple million years of recent history when it comes to geology and related events.
Tell me how your theory accounts for the Alaska quake in '64 - biggest in North America. Or the big plate bender in Chili. Or the 3 days of hell in New Madrid?
I would bet there were only a handful of Islamic followers in those three locations, at the time.
Do you understand the concept of time - from the geologic perspective?
Do yourself a favor and Google, "Ring of Fire" - then read.
SJackson, I'm not getting in your face - by any means, honest. But what you just said does not square with what we know about geologic events.
Now, with that said........
I hope you are right!
LVM
As I noted earlier, I considered the article tongue in cheek, but one that would give rise to interesting comments.