At the risk of ruffling feathers for interjecting my opinion where some may think it doesn't belong, I'd like to point out that it seems to me that each of you are using the phrase "earthquakes can't be predicted" with different meanings, thus leading to an unnecessary argument.

It appears to me that Roger simply means that as yet, earthquakes have not yet provably been predicted, but not necessarily that they can never ever be predicted. (Roger please correct me if I am wrong)

Whereas the other side seems to think that that is exactly what scientists are saying, that earthquakes can never ever be predicted no matter what.

With possible rare exception, my impression is that scientific consensus would agree with my interpretation of Roger's meaning.

Brian