20 Million Year Old Spider Found

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

20 Million Year Old Spider Found

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Saturday October 1, 2005 @01:55PM from the complete-with-drivers-license-and-birth-certificate dept.

evil agent writes "BBC News is reporting that Paleontologist Dr. David Penny has found a spider, and two droplets of blood, perfectly perserved in amber. He was able to extract the blood and determine its age: 20 million years old. Since it is thought to be the first time that spider blood has been found perserved in amber, it is hoped that DNA could be extracted."

413 comments

blah! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 13:57 · Score: -1, Offtopic

Frist prost! O_O
1. Re:blah! by mfh · 2005-10-01 14:16 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  First all those dinosaur bones and now this!
  
  While we both know you're kidding, I have to wonder about the authenticity of carbon dating proceedures in general. I'm sure lots of scientists believe in them wholeheartedly, but I'm of a more humble seed. If they say this is a 20mil yr old spider, then I would agree under the stipulation that it's 20mil yrs in relation to everything else we've carbon dated. ;-)
  
  --
  The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
2. Re:blah! by LordoftheWoods · 2005-10-01 14:19 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Well in that case, its definately 20 million years old. Because... uhm... we can carbon date stuff thats not dead yet. Thats how they figured out what the 'normal' amount of C-14 was.
3. Re:blah! by BushCheney08 · 2005-10-01 14:20 · Score: 1
  
  Mod parent down! If he'd ever actually read the Bible he'd know it was closer to six thousand years. After all, there were far too many people who lived to be 200, 300, and 400 years old. And some were even 100 when they were busy begatting! I guess God must've liked people better back then, cos he certainly let them live a lot longer...
  
  --
  Be a real patriot: Question authority. Think for yourself. Formulate your own conclusions.
4. Re:blah! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 14:21 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Yeah, must be only the pre-beta version of that intelligent design... You know how release dates tend to slip. A few years here and there to improve and stabilize. In the end, you end up missing the target by a few billion years.
  Or maybe it's just the demo that God presents at fairs to attract VC. I wonder if he sells licenses or subscriptions...
5. Re:blah! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 14:22 · Score: 0
  
  Uh, so you're questioning decades of work by people smarter than you? Oh yeah, REAL humble there, champ!
6. Re:blah! by ergo98 · 2005-10-01 14:27 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  Uh, so you're questioning decades of work by people smarter than you?
  
  History is littered with the overturning of decades of work by smarter people...who were all wrong. Even when you accept the foundation of carbon dating, it is remarkable how repeated testing on the same object can yield many magnitudes of time differences.
  
  Of course this really is all sort of funny - Many Christians believe in evolution, and the Vatican even released a statement saying that Darwin's observations were consistent with the bible. The whole "6000 year" thing is figment of a particular brand of Christianity in the US, owing to a particularly literal interpretation not shared elsewhere.
7. Re:blah! by ZakuSage · 2005-10-01 14:32 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Carbon dating just checks how much of a sample of Carbon-14 has decayed. It's not as if they take some carbon from the organism and do some weird shit to it, like putting it next to a TV and then throwing it in boiling water to see what happens.
8. Re:blah! by operagost · 2005-10-01 14:32 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Funny how this 20 million year old spider species exists in identical form today. It must be a perfectly adapted design; why else would it not have changed in all that time?
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
9. Re:blah! by Henry+V+.009 · 2005-10-01 14:33 · Score: 1
  
  I have to wonder about the authenticity of carbon dating proceedures in general.
  
  Why? Something that you know about nuclear physics that I don't? Share.
10. Re:blah! by Gulthek · 2005-10-01 14:34 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  The Earth is actually 5,000 years old and was created by the great Flying Spaghetti Monster. But in His infinite wisdom, he created it old.
  
  I.E. He created a world that was millions of years old 5,000 years ago.
11. Re:blah! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 14:37 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah for Bill Hicks!!!
12. Re:blah! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 14:38 · Score: 0
  
  Kinda like cockroaches, eh? And crocodiles. And extremophiles. Lotsa perfectly adapted designs... and yet we're only a few million (some argue a few tens of thousands, brain-wise). Stupid spiders, thinkin' they're so much better'n us. =p
13. Re:blah! by LnxAddct · 2005-10-01 14:42 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  A) 20 millions years isn't that old, its 100 times older than humans, big deal. Thats why the form hasn't changed that much, but it may also be because the design really is that well. Most spiders have few predators but quite a selection of prey.
  
  B) Some animals did evolve to what is considered pretty optimal, some examples being sharks, crocidiles and squid. If you follow the genetic chains of living things you'll see that some tend to have fewer changes. Often times the case is that the animal has few or none predators.
  
  Regards,
  Steve
14. Re:blah! by LionKimbro · 2005-10-01 14:45 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Dr David Penney didn't use carbon dating. Carbon dating only works to roughly 60,000 years ago. Beyond that, the radioactivity of the little C-14 that remains falls can't be told from background radiation.
  
  I don't know what technique was used to date the spider; The article only says they used the blood in the spider to do it.
15. Re: blah! by Black+Parrot · 2005-10-01 14:46 · Score: 1
  
  > I have to wonder about the authenticity of carbon dating proceedures in general. I'm sure lots of scientists believe in them wholeheartedly, but I'm of a more humble seed. If they say this is a 20mil yr old spider, then I would agree under the stipulation that it's 20mil yrs in relation to everything else we've carbon dated. ;-)
  
  FYI, carbon dating is only good for the past 50,000 years.
  
  Also, notice that TFA doesn't mention carbon dating.
  
  --
  Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
16. Re: blah! by Black+Parrot · 2005-10-01 14:53 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  > Funny how this 20 million year old spider species exists in identical form today. It must be a perfectly adapted design; why else would it not have changed in all that time?
  
  TFA mentions that it's a new species. I.e., not identical to any known spider.
  
  (Presumably "new species" means "newly discovered", since the specimen is rather old.)
  
  --
  Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
17. Re:blah! by Pharmboy · 2005-10-01 14:56 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Or maybe it's just the demo that God presents at fairs to attract VC. I wonder if he sells licenses or subscriptions...
  
  I think subscriptions. 20+ years ago when I actually went to church, I would always see them pass around a metal plate, and everyone was expected to put money in it.
  
  --
  Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
18. Re:blah! by LnxAddct · 2005-10-01 14:57 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Well please let me know what science you've discovered that conflicts with all known, tested, and proven nuclear theory. Regardless, carbon dating is only good for up until about 60,000 years old. After that many other methods can be used, most of those methods are proven and extremely accurate. Please also keep in mind that scientists rarely, if ever, only use one method of dating something. By using two or more completely unrelated methods to date a specimen you can get its age to within extremely small margins of error.
  
  Carbon dating, and similar methods, tend to often be most useful for mummies and humans or recent dead animals. Methods like those can't be used on dinosaur bones because most of the time the bone has been replaced with a different material (one example would be in southern south america, some major finds have been found but the bones were hard to move because they were nearly pure iron and bigger than a man.) You should read up on the science, its a very mature and well understood thing. The media does shitty research and doesn't check any facts that various religious groups tell them. Learn for yourself, you can probably take a class in it at your local college.
  
  The intelligent design folk tend to be ignorant and ignoring facts. They can't accept the truth because they want more to their life, they want to believe that God designed people after himself (which in my eyes is a pretty conceited view, and also an insult to God considering how crappy and fragile we are designed, not to mention the numerous unused organs... I guess God just wanted to weigh us down.) I am a religious man, but some people associate evolution with meaning there is no heaven (not necessarily a true relation) and can't go through life not thinking that there is some higher meaning for them living. Its really all a case about people not being as important as they want to be. Its always been that way (hell, for centuries we claimed we were the center of the friggin Universe) and some people just need to wake up and accept the truth.
  Regards,
  Steve
19. Re:blah! by The+Madd+Rapper · 2005-10-01 15:05 · Score: 1
  
  Did I misread the article?
  
  It is a new species from the Filistatidae family commonly found in South America and the Caribbean.
  
  I interpret this to mean that the 20-million-year-old spider species does not exist today.
  
  --
  That's the shit that feds me up
20. Re:blah! by Stiletto · 2005-10-01 15:09 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Ahh, but you were fooled again!! The DAY-VIL encased that spider in amber just to TEST YOUR FAITH! Just like all the dinosaur bones and all those gamma rays that supposedly come from that fictonal outer space! Yup all the DAY-VIL'S work!!! PRAAAYZZZ JEEEEBUS!!! PRAAAYZZZ JEEEEBUS!!! [gurrgle] Blaaarrrgghhhannnnn! [froth] [epileptic fit]
21. Re:blah! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 15:10 · Score: 0
  
  Or maybe it's just the demo that God presents at fairs to attract VC.
  Now, that's what I call a pet project.
22. Re:blah! by Tony+Hoyle · 2005-10-01 15:25 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  It's a testimony to the continuing influence of the US that people treat the 6000 year thing as a mainstream position.. it's a tiny minority outside the US (1% I'd guess.. seems to be near 100% of christians in the US.. didn't one state mandate teaching it as science? Scary stuff...).
  
  The Flying Spagetti Monster has more credibility to it though (we *know* spagetti exists - what more proof do you need?)... IMO Christianity has a lot going for it, without the lunatic fringe screwing everything up.
23. Re:blah! by DAldredge · 2005-10-01 15:40 · Score: 1
  
  It isn't anything near 100% in the USA. It is just those that belive the 6000 year 'theory' are very vocal when it comes to their beliefs.
24. Re:blah! by ironwill96 · 2005-10-01 15:43 · Score: 1
  
  So if all the ages in the Bible add up to X years ago, all that would imply is that people were made then. Last time I checked in Genesis God waited to make people last and the common belief by most Christians is that "7 Days" could refer to millions of years (evolution for ya), because a biblical day has often meant more than what we now consider to be a 24-hour time period. So basically the spider could have been made on day "3" which is 20 million years ago, and day 4 may have been 10 million years ago etc all the way up to when humans were created. Also, the ages in the Bible may not be years as we determine years now either.
  
  Just a thought..
  
  --
  "To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." - Tennyson
25. Re:blah! by Junior+J.+Junior+III · 2005-10-01 15:45 · Score: 1
  
  They don't know that yet, do they? RTFA, they are HOPING to be able to extract DNA from this spider.
  
  --
  You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
26. Re:blah! by NitsujTPU · 2005-10-01 15:46 · Score: 1
  
  Here's some fuel for the fire.
  
  http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Carbon_dating_give s_inaccurate_results
27. Re:blah! by Legion303 · 2005-10-01 15:46 · Score: 1
  
  "It's not as if they take some carbon from the organism and do some weird shit to it, like putting it next to a TV and then throwing it in boiling water to see what happens."
  
  Hey, don't disparage the proven techniques of Intelligent Design like that!
28. Re:blah! by BioCS.Nerd · 2005-10-01 15:47 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure what's funnier... an appropriate, and funny remark about our Lord, the Great Spaghetti Monster, or that you were modded as interesting?
29. Re:blah! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 16:01 · Score: 0
  
  You're a fucking moron try reading the fucking article why don't you.
  
  1) they say they think its a new species which means it DOESNT exist today
  
  2) they haven't done DNA tests on it yet.
  
  So where are you getting your information from? God? Bahahahahahahahaha Santa Claus has a better chance of existing. It's mathematically impossible for god to exist in eternity. Heaven could not possibly exist. PERIOD!
30. Re:blah! by KingPrad · 2005-10-01 16:02 · Score: 1
  
  I wonder why facts and discussion presently coherently was marked troll. How weird
  
  --
  Stop the Slashdot Effect! Don't read the articles!
31. Re:blah! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 16:20 · Score: 0
  
  Well, if anyone's studied the way the Bible was put together, they know that Moses (the ten commandments guy) wrote the book of Genesis - after he got the ten commandments from God. In the ten commandments, one of the commandments is about keeping the sabbath, which is the seventh day. So the theory is that God used the word DAY before Moses even wrote the book of Genesis. Moses used the same Hebrew root word as was used in the ten commandments concerning the sabbath day. Most people don't think that it says "120 million years shalt thou labor and do all thy work and on the 7th 20 million years, you take a sabbath 20 million years." Just another thought to counter the theory of "theistic evolution."
32. Re:blah! by Moridineas · 2005-10-01 16:35 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Wowza!
  
  it's a tiny minority outside the US (1% I'd guess.. seems to be near 100% of christians in the US.. didn't one state mandate teaching it as science? Scary stuff...).
  
  Where do you get this stuff? A tiny minority outside the US? Do you happen to know fundamental (or even mainstream semi-educated) Islamic views on evolution? What about tribal Africa religious views? What about South American religious? What about fundamental Christians in Africa? I guarantee you that many, many people across the world have never heard of evolution, would think it's nonsense, and/or disbelieve it today. But that is neither here nor there.
  
  Seems to be near 100% of Christians in the US? Well, something like 80-90% of Americans would identify themselves as Christians. Even non-observant ones. Not like in Europe. I don't go to church, but I consider myself a Christian. It's a cultural thing. I think many Europeans don't understand this. Anyways, long story short, there's NO WAY anywhere remotely near 100% of Christians believe the Earth was created 6000 years ago. I have no idea how many people actually believe that, but I can say I went through public schools in North Carolina (ie, Bible Belt!) and never met a fellow student who has believed that. Didn't one state mandate it? definitely not. Arguments have been made over whether religious views (ie, 6000 years, intelligent design, etc) are even ALLOWED to be taught in schools, not mandated.
  
  I know as an American, I find almost every BBC article that touches on faith in the US as blatantly wrong. Hah, it's kind of like modern-orientalism. We can't really get past our biases and our own preconceptions and our own beliefs. It's easy to see the US as a seething hotbed of fundamentalism. Compared to Europe, maybe so. Compared to many parts of the world, definitely not.
  
  And getting either further off topic, the argument can be made that socialism and environmentalism are the new religions of Europe, with fundamentalisms and lunacies all their own.
33. Re:blah! by Assassin+bug · 2005-10-01 16:37 · Score: 1
  
  He may have also used nuclear magnetic resonance to date the specimen. I'm currently describing a new bug in amber and plan to use an NMR technique. All of the Dominican amber mines have been dated according to a paper that I don't have handy at the moment. Anyway in it, they describe the NMR resonance of the ambers from several Dominican mines. This manuscript is often referenced in Dominican amber dating as a relative reference to date a newly described specimen. Additionally, if he knows from what mine the amber was taken he may not need to date the specimen himself because some of the mines (e.g., the La Toca mines) have been dated several times by several techniques. To the fossil dating critics out there, you really need to read some of this research yourself before spouting of your thoughts. As is true for much as science, no one puts all of their wait on one technique to make a conclusion. There are a few ways to date amber and if they all point to approx. the same age they are probably about that age.
34. Re:blah! by Fussen · 2005-10-01 16:38 · Score: 1
  
  lol-putting it next to a TV... Awesome.
35. Re:blah! by grolschie · 2005-10-01 16:41 · Score: 1
  
  > Everyone knows the earth is only 3,000 years old
  
  Uhh..... biblically speaking it's closer to 6,000 actually. You were only out by 100%. Not a bad try though, thanks for playing.
36. Re:blah! by benw1979 · 2005-10-01 16:53 · Score: 1
  
  The theory of Creation clearly indicates a mature universe being brought into existence almost instantaneously (six days). When I say "mature", I mean that life forms were fully developed, and light from the stars had already reached earth. This created world appeared fully mature, in every way. Therefore, scientific dating methods are not a threat to this theory. If you believe in Creation, you should have no problem believing that God created fossils and what not to appear "old", just like he created everything else to have apparent age.
37. Re:blah! by mark-t · 2005-10-01 17:08 · Score: 1
  
  Now do you *REALLY* believe in the flying spaghetti monster? Or are you merely utilizing that legend to mock other peoples sincere beliefs that you don't happen to share?
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
38. Re:blah! by LnxAddct · 2005-10-01 17:13 · Score: 1
  
  Good to see everyone on /. hasn't lost their mind :) Thanks.
  Regards,
  Steve
39. Re:blah! by ChuckleBug · 2005-10-01 17:17 · Score: 1
  
  I have to wonder about the authenticity of carbon dating proceedures in general. I'm sure lots of scientists believe in them wholeheartedly, but I'm of a more humble seed.
  
  First, carbon (C14) dating doesn't work past about 6000 years, so that wasn't the method. Why did you leap to the conclusion that it was?
  
  Second, belief don't enter into it. If you have good reasons to believe well-established scientific procedures are wrong, state them. There's not a lot of intellectual oomph to just feeling like you'd rather not accept it. But if you have a good reason to criticize a method, let's hear it - that's how science is supposed to work.
  
  Third, making patronizing comments about what scientists "believe" isn't very humble. Maybe you should find out what technique was used and learn how it works before you act as if scientists just pulled it out of someone's butt and decided randomly that it must work out of arrogance.
  
  Sheesh.
40. Re:blah! by hfis · 2005-10-01 17:20 · Score: 1
  
  I love it how a criticism of carbon dating is modded down as a 'troll', whereas this flamebait comment goes unnoticed.
  
  Not flamebait, you say? Tell that to a Christian browsing Slashdot.
41. Re:blah! by deglr6328 · 2005-10-01 17:23 · Score: 1
  
  How can you use NMR to date objects?! You must mean ESR, electron spin resonance.
  
  --
  - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
42. Re:blah! by laughingcoyote · 2005-10-01 17:25 · Score: 1
  
  Parent is an on-topic, cogent argument, NOT a troll. Someone please correct this.
  
  --
  To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
43. Re:blah! by benjamindees · 2005-10-01 17:25 · Score: 1
  
  I wonder the same thing about Christians sometimes.
  
  --
  "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
44. Re:blah! by joelleo · 2005-10-01 17:51 · Score: 1
  
  The Flying Spagetti Monster has more credibility to it though (we *know* spagetti exists - what more proof do you need?).
  
  It's true, as evidenced by the dramatic drop in the number of pirates over the course of the past century!
  
  In all seriousness though, people will take which facts and "facts" present themselves and support their position, regardless of how tenuous a manner, then bend them to their beliefs anyway. Anything which outright controverts their belief is either bent to fit their view or disregarded as propaganda. God, I hate zealots (pun intended ;) )
  
  --
  "In the end, there is simply no weapon more devastating than the truth, delivered in just the right way." - tnk1
45. Re:blah! by amliebsch · 2005-10-01 18:22 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Whatever, just make sure you get that sample to the test chamber on time. The Administrator was most insistent that we proceed on schedule. The chance of a resonance cascade scenario is surely remote...
  
  --
  If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
46. Re: blah! by Black+Parrot · 2005-10-01 18:39 · Score: 1
  
  > He may have also used nuclear magnetic resonance to date the specimen. I'm currently describing a new bug in amber and plan to use an NMR technique.
  
  Do you think that technique could be applicable to bugs in programs?
  
  --
  Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
47. Re:blah! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 18:43 · Score: 0
  
  "1) they say they think its a new species which means it DOESNT exist today"
  
  So you're claiming that all spider species currently alive have been discovered?
  
  Jackass.
48. Re:blah! by FidelCatsro · 2005-10-01 18:46 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Religious tolerance is allowing people to freely express their beliefs and supporting their rights to hold those beliefs .
  There is nothing wrong with parodying them and having a laugh about how silly they are .
  Religion is something you choose and should be free to choose. It should also be something we are free to mock .
  
  He sincerely believes that the spaghetti monster is a good parody , he sincerely believes that their religious ideas are a load of bunkum . Is there any difference ? Should he be disallowed from expressing those beliefs in this manner , especially with a crowed in which many share those beliefs .
  
  Even though we all know its partially twaddle .. the word was created by the invisible pink unicorn and that the Spaghetti monster is in fact the great Evil .
  
  --
  The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
49. Re:blah! by ProKras · 2005-10-01 18:48 · Score: 1
  
  Everyone knows the earth is only 3,000 years old, they added up all the people's ages in the bible and proved it!
  The bible does NOT say that the earth is 3,000 years old.
  What the bible actually says is...
  that the earth is 6,009 years old.
  i.e. 4004 years from Creation to the birth of Jesus (The first day of Creation was, of course, Sunday, October 23 4004 B.C.)
  2005 years from the birth of Jesus to today.
  Nevermind that the guy who first officially dated the birth of Jesus was six years off, give or take.
50. Re:blah! by ndansmith · 2005-10-01 19:06 · Score: 1
  
  ...because of course the "normal" amount of C-14 in a Spider is a universal constant, which could never change over 20 million or even 6,000 years.
51. Re:blah! by ultranova · 2005-10-01 19:53 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Well in that case, its definately 20 million years old. Because... uhm... we can carbon date stuff thats not dead yet.
  
  No we can't. Carbon dating tries to determine how long something has been dead from the ratio of radioactive versus stable carbon in its tissues; it is assumed that as long as the thing lived, it exchanged carbon freely with the surroundings (getting into its tissues tiny amounts of radioactive carbon produced in the upper atmosphere among the stable isotope), and when it died, this exchange stopped, leading to the radioactive isotope being depleted from those its tissues through radioactive decay.
  
  In any case, Wikipedia claims that carbon dating can only be used to measure times some 60 000 years back, so this seems rather irrelevant for the discussion at hand.
  
  --
  Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
52. Re:blah! by renoX · 2005-10-01 20:15 · Score: 1
  
  > I don't go to church, but I consider myself a Christian. It's a cultural thing. I think many Europeans don't understand this.
  
  Uh, what makes you think that Europeans wouldn't understand?
  In France only something like 10% (don't know the exact figure but it is low) of Christians goes to Church.
  
  For the US/Europe comparison, well let's just say that Europe is not homogenoeous in this respect: Italy or Ireland (where women don't have the right to do an IVG because of religion) are very different from France, for example.
53. Re:blah! by Nonoche · 2005-10-01 20:16 · Score: 1
  
  You know to us wastelanders it's pretty scary to see the intelligent design "theory" gaining momentum in the US, up to the point of being teached in school as an alternative scientific theory, up to the point as being kind of supported by your President. It sure doesn't make it sound as an epiphenomenon that only a small fraction of the population supports.
  
  I don't have numbers but those two facts sure don't make it look as irrelevant (socially speaking, that is ;)
54. Re:blah! by coopaq · 2005-10-01 20:34 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  What about South American religious?
  Well we all know where Alabama, Georgia and Texas stand on this issue.
  What's your point?
55. Re:blah! by Grismar · 2005-10-01 20:35 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Although our EU overlords may work hard on a worldwide marketing campaign to make it seem otherwise: there's no such thing as "a European" in a cultural sense. Views, both religious and political, differ strongly across national borders. So do the demographic makeups of European countries. Europe is an economic union and a judicial and political one in some ways.
  
  Some European countries would qualify as more religious than the United States, in my experience, take Roman Catholic Italy for instance. While other countries like the Netherlands are counted amongst the most secular nations on the planet.
  
  As "an American", I'd suggest not attributing opions or cultural attributes to "a European", unless you're very sure it actually hold across national borders. It's similar to calling Canadians and Mexicans Americans. I know from experience that isn't taken too well either.
  
  Just thought I'd let you know.
  
  And about Europeans not understanding that someone would call himself a Christian even if he stays out of church: in most European countries, churchgoing has seen a steady decline, while the same amount of people as about 20 years still calls themselves Christian. So, I think that most Europeans can identify perfectly well with that standpoint.
56. Re:blah! by owlstead · 2005-10-01 20:52 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  "And getting either further off topic, the argument can be made that socialism and environmentalism are the new religions of Europe, with fundamentalisms and lunacies all their own."
  
  Aw, first you make an exelent speech about how Americans view religion in comparison to the beliefs shown by Europe's media. And then you end with a sentence to make it plain that you've been completely indoctrinated by your own government & media. At most it can be said that the average European is slightly more worried about the current state of affairs (unfortunately).
57. Re:blah! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 21:04 · Score: 0
  
  I'm of a more humble seed. If they say this is a 20mil yr old spider, then I would agree under the stipulation that it's 20mil yrs in relation to everything else we've carbon dated. But probably not a "more knowledgable seed". Carbon dating wasn't used.
58. Re:blah! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 21:20 · Score: 0
  
  I list some points others may find interesting:
  
  According to The Bible, the Earth is 6000+ years old.
  
  Bible did talk about dinosaurs
  Book of Job 40:15-24 behemoth,
  Leviathan Job 41,Psalm 104:25,26 and Isaiah 27:1
  http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/dinos.shtml
  mapping between Bible names and current names
  tanniyn -> dinosaur 1841 AD
  behemoth -> brachiosaurus 1903 AD
  Leviathan -> kronosaurus 1901 AD
  
  Something interesting of similar nature happened in 1997 look up "The real Jurassic Park", Earth June 1997. Red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some unfossilized dinosaur bone. Please look up estimates how long red blood cells can last.
  
  C14 method doesn't work for >50-60000 years due to the lack of C14 past that amount of time
  
  General problem with isotopic ratios dating is that outside factors can influence amount of C14 found such as we don't know how much C14 was originally in the organism. Think of it as an hourglass where you have two containers, one initially full and another empty, if that wasn't so (some sand was at the bottom container) it would take less time to fill the bottom container. Also we do not know if the rates were constant, after all observations have only been made within last 100 years or so. Also we do not know whether the system has remained closed. Think of it as some sand being added in aforementioned example to one of the containers. Clearly, calculated ratios would be different.
  
  Also there are known anomalities with using radioactive dating (for rocks at least)
  *1986 dactite lava (solidified) at Mount St. Helens volcano has been dated (by K-Ar method) to be 0.3-0.4 million years old
  *5 cases in Mt.Ngauruhoe in New Zealand. Lava flows occured 1 in 1949, 3 in 1954 and one in 1975 they were ranged from less than 0.27 to 3.5 million years old. Likely explaination for such huge range is retention of Ar40 during solidification ofthe rock. The excess appears to have come from the upper mantle so the argon had little time to escape; [A.A. Snelling, "The cause of anomalous Potassium-Argon 'Ages' for Recent Andesite Flows at Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand.............]
  
  This is consistant with Bibles presentation of young age of the Earth. This brings up a question if such factors can cause large exaggerations for rocks of KNOWN age, then why should you trust the method for items of unknown age?
  
  Another issue is conflict between methods of dating. Example from Australia of a piece of wood was burried by the basalt lava flow. The wood was dated by C14 method to be 45000 years old, basalt was dated by K-Ar method and was dated to be 45 million years old.
  
  Also if C14 disintegrates within 50-60000 years how can a fossil wood from Upper Permian layers have been found with C14 still present. Commonly accepted age for the Upper Permian layers is around 250 million years old. Judge for yourself.
  
  I recomend to all to read a book "Refuting Evolution" by Jonathan Sarfati. You may not agree with what he says, but it gives you good examples of what is commonly unquestionably accepted needs to be questioned.
  
  Best regards,
  
  ~omi
59. Re:blah! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 21:23 · Score: 0
  
  Don't you belive in a 20 million year old spider? How do you explain the fact that my car is older?
60. Re:blah! by Dr.+Evil · 2005-10-01 21:38 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  It sure beats an omnipotent, omnisentient judge with a poorly communicated sense of morals and a tendency to attribute unpleasantness to other entities of his design.
  I can respect people's love of tradition, I can respect what the church has done in the past to assemble communities, but ultimately, I think a bunch of guys made up this whole God thing to use people's existentialist angst to steal their land and money.
  Nobody's killed anyone in the name of the flying spagetti monster. It will no doubt happen one day, but until then, it is a far less corrupt vision of the universe.
61. Re:blah! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 22:46 · Score: 0
  
  Hello Steve, few things to say in regards to your comment.
  
  Please look up my previous post about inconsistancies of dating methods and other inaccuracies. There is nothing wrong with nuclear physics or mathematics involved and logic to produce justify how you go from measurement to the estimate of age. What is wrong is set of assumptions regarding the data. We assume the amount of C14 remained untouched after the animal died (except decay, but I'm stressing the issue of other possible sources of removal of C14 from the sample) as well as long long long ago the background level of radiation was the same as today (within 50 years or so), as well as other assumptions. This is entirely going on faith so please do not blast those who are faithful in other ways.
  
  And we are designed very efficiently actually. Look no further than eye or liver. Human eye is far the best optical instrument in terms of range of detection. As well how optical nerves grow towards eachother and connect. Liver is amazing for being a chemical factory that can analyze and produce enzymes to break down foods within 10-12 second interval, so far humans are not likely to produce something that is even relatively close.
  
  A while ago I heard that appendix which is rich in infection fighting lymphoid cells might play a role in immune system. So please do not rush to immediate conclusions.
  
  I agree with you that there are a lot of folks who simply run around screaming ignorant things (many people who call themselves christians are not such or if they are - they must be very confused), but there are also those who do research and put forward reasonable questions.
  
  Well who says that the truth is such as you perceive. Other people may have different oppinion then you, the beautiful thing about an oppinion is that it cannot be proven wrong.
  
  The reason why it is either The Bible or Evolution is that books in the Bible (as claimed by Christians) were written under the influence of Holy Spirit. Since the Holy Spirit is God, and God is omnipotent, omnipresent and allknowing He cannot be wrong. If the Bible is wrong that implies that the Holy Spirit was wrong in providing information for those who wrote their accounts which contradicts the deffinition of God. If you accept different versions to be true at the same time then you need to do some reading and researching to clear up some major confusion.
  
  Implications from Evolution are such that we were an accident, universe pulled a lottery and we evolved from lesser creatures. Which further implies that God did not create us. Since there is no authority higher then self, we can allow ourselves whatever we desire.
  
  Implications from the Bible is that God created us and lesser creatures within short time. Bible teaches that humans were created to worship him. Worship is not just going to church on sundays or singing. Worship is a lifestyle (which is not understood. Since people never question their actions how can they).
  
  You cannot mix and match the above.
  
  Steve, please bother to read the history surrounding Galileo controversy. You might find that Catholic Church supported his efforts. Astronomers of the Jesuit Order, "the intellectual spearhead of the Catholic Church," even improved on them. Only 50 years later, they were teaching this theory in China. They also protected Jahannes Kepler , who discovered 3 Laws regarding heavenly bodies. Eventhe Pope, Paul V received Galileo in friendly audience. The leading Roman Catholic theologian ofthe day, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine said it was "excellent good sense" to claim that Galileo's model was mathematically simpler and " If there were a real proff that the Sun is the center of the universe, that the Earth is in the third sphere, and tat the Sun does not go round the Earth but the Earth round the Sun, then we should have to proceed with great circumspection in explaining passages of Scripture hwich appear to teach the contrary, and we shoul rather have to say that we did not understand them than declare an opi
62. Re:blah! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 23:21 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  So you're claiming that all spider species currently alive have been discovered?
  
  Jackass.
  
  I'm pretty sure that's not what he was claiming. It's just generally accepted that in the absence of evidence that a species currently exists, we assume that it does not. Every now and then we're proven wrong when a species that was thought to be extinct turns up somewhere, but that doesn't happen all that often. Since this is a species that currently, as far as we know, only exists in a lump of amber, we assume that it is extinct. It's possible that we'll be proven wrong at some point, but it's not likely.
63. Re:blah! by DrSkwid · 2005-10-01 23:31 · Score: 1
  
  What is this "spagetti" of which you speak ?
  I need more proof
  
  --
  There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
64. Re:blah! by BushCheney08 · 2005-10-01 23:49 · Score: 1
  
  Nobody's killed anyone in the name of the flying spagetti monster.
  
  I did it for the pasta!
  
  --
  Be a real patriot: Question authority. Think for yourself. Formulate your own conclusions.
65. Re:blah! by golgotha007 · 2005-10-02 00:03 · Score: 1
  
  obviously some bible thumper with mod points, duh.
66. Re:blah! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-02 00:15 · Score: 0
  
  Everyone knows the earth is only 3,000 years old,
  
  Your ignorance is showing. Usher puts creation at 4004 BC, making the earth 6010 years old. Approximately.
67. Re:blah! by golgotha007 · 2005-10-02 00:21 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  yes, but but in the Christian faith, you're hoping not to be touched by His Noodly Appendage.
68. Re:blah! by golgotha007 · 2005-10-02 00:26 · Score: 1
  
  hold on a second, bible believers actually think the earth is only 6000 years old?
  
  You're not serious are you?
  man, just when I thought I heard the stupidiest thing ever, something new like this comes along... amazing.
69. Re:blah! by bxbaser · 2005-10-02 00:44 · Score: 1
  
  Its definatly more than a small fraction.
  I am not sure of the percentage , however whatever fraction it is it sure is vocal about it.
70. Re:blah! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-02 01:06 · Score: 0
  
  It's Satan who's fucking with us. Satan planted the scientific evidence. God just wrote a book that refutes it.
71. Re:blah! by jabuzz · 2005-10-02 01:28 · Score: 1
  
  As CRT's are weak generators of soft X-Rays...
72. Re:blah! by eqisow · 2005-10-02 01:29 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I also went to public school in North Carolina, pretty far out in the country even. I have met one person that I know for sure believes in a "young earth" (though I would bet there are more) and scores upon scores that think evolution is bullshit. It is truely scary.
73. Re:blah! by Mr.+Capris · 2005-10-02 01:41 · Score: 1
  
  Mod parent up. Please. I actually scared the dog with my laughing.
  
  --
  Have you seen the arrow?
74. Re:blah! by jafiwam · 2005-10-02 01:46 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Also note;
  
  Even sub-optimal biological systems can not-change for a long time under these and other conditions;
  
  - adaptions prevent or correct mutations
  - long lifespan
  - many breeding partners over a wide area
  - no predators (like sharks)
  - stable environment in the relevant parts (sharks that I know of do not specialize in foods for example)
  - large population
  
  So it isn't suprising that some animals don't change much over time.
  
  ps. WTF is it with the ID people spreading from Fark to here... I figured that Slashdot had somewhat of a higher standard.
75. Re:blah! by jafiwam · 2005-10-02 01:49 · Score: 1
  
  Hersay!
  
  He created it el dente
  
  Everybody knows that different shapes and parts took longer to be perfect.
  
  The fact that everything el dente suited to its environment is PROOF in FSM's greatness!
76. Re:blah! by jafiwam · 2005-10-02 01:53 · Score: 1
  
  Nobody's killed anyone in the name of the flying spagetti monster. It will no doubt happen one day, but until then, it is a far less corrupt vision of the universe.
  
  Well, that solves my problem of what to do today. Thanks for the idea.
77. Re:blah! by Oligonicella · 2005-10-02 01:56 · Score: 1
  
  You win the blue ribbon. The article is pretty shallow, stating that he used the blood droplets to date the specimen. It then goes on to state he hopes to extract DNA. I don't see how the two are contradictory. My guess is it was dated by context.
78. Re:blah! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-02 02:00 · Score: 0
  
  plenty of countries deny a large section of their population a decent education. In many countries, the only education available to many is an ignorant and religious-based one.
  But in both of these cases, hardly any science is taught at all.
  
  The US is the only country on Earth that both teaches a modern scientific curriculum, and treats evolution specially (in a significant number of its schools) on religious grounds.
  
  The US is unique in having schoolchildren taught modern maths, modern physics, modern chemistry, and modern biology in every respect except for evolution where a confused and religiously influenced nonsense is taught in some schools.
79. Re:blah! by Nonoche · 2005-10-02 02:04 · Score: 1
  
  er to explain what the "IVG" acronym stands for for non-french speaking people, it's "interruption volontaire de grossesse" (voluntary interruption of pregnancy) = abortion.
80. Re:blah! by Kent+Recal · 2005-10-02 02:10 · Score: 1
  
  mmmmmmm. soft and cuddly x-rays. yeah baby!
81. Re:blah! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-02 02:11 · Score: 0
  
  Ah, yes, the "Omphalos" argument--the name comes from the title of a 19th century book setting forth this theory, which argued that Adam even had a navel so as to maintain the consistency of the Universe. The Omphalos theory is generally ignored, though, as it can similarly be argued that the Universe was created with evidence of a full history 20,000 years ago. Or ten milliseconds ago, for that matter.
82. Re:blah! by fimbulvetr · 2005-10-02 02:22 · Score: 1
  
  Hilarious! Good thing I wasn't sipping on the coffee - learned my lesson with my last laptop.
83. Re:blah! by fimbulvetr · 2005-10-02 02:25 · Score: 1
  
  We use the same irrationality and absense of logic that Christians do when choosing our religion, I don't see anything wrong with that.
  If anything, most of them are probably just jealous because we're more creative than the people who made up christianity 2000 years ago. Afterall, we have beer volcanoes and strippers.
84. Re:blah! by IdleTime · 2005-10-02 02:26 · Score: 1
  
  The great Designer must have been Slartibartfast!
  
  --
  If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
85. Re:blah! by nanoakron · 2005-10-02 02:32 · Score: 1
  
  Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant.
  
  -Nano.
86. Re:blah! by penguinoid · 2005-10-02 03:03 · Score: 1
  
  As I understand it, carbon dating gives wildly wrong dates for things that are still alive, and different dates for different parts of the same animal. And isn't accurate past a few tens of thousands of years. But maybe I am just partial because a pig that was supposed to be extinct for over 20 million years was found alive and kicking in my home country (Paraguay).
  
  --
  Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
87. Re:blah! by Verteiron · 2005-10-02 03:05 · Score: 1
  
  Even if the amount of C14 changed dramatically over 20 million years, it wouldn't matter much because it isn't used to date anything older than about 50,000. And during that time, we can be pretty confident that the amount of C14 in the atmosphere did stay relatively constant. Since C14 is formed by cosmic radiation interacting with the upper atmosphere, any significant increase in C14 concentration would probably also involve an increase in radiation bombardment leading to (another) global extinction event.
  
  --
  End of lesson. You may press the button.
88. Re:blah! by lukewarmfusion · 2005-10-02 03:17 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  "I don't know what technique was used to date the spider"
  
  Well, my guess is that he got to know the spider a bit before he finally asked it out. Then it could be a nice dinner, some wine, and a walk on the beach. If it was a more "casual" date, it might have involved a movie or Putt-Putt.
  
  We may never know.
89. Re:blah! by ShadowOfMe · 2005-10-02 03:32 · Score: 1
  
  But who really need the FSM when there are already so many stories to choose from
  Check out:
  http://www.randi.org/jr/062405silly.html#2
  Actually you should read the entire site, I'm sure you'll feel much better afterward
90. Re:blah! by KarmaMB84 · 2005-10-02 03:38 · Score: 1
  
  The church up the street expects people to pay 10-20% of their income to the church...
91. Re:blah! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-02 04:00 · Score: 0
  
  Tell that to a hypersensitive, Bible-thumping, utterly humorless and clueless Christian and I might agree, if you could even find such a person browsing Slashdot. All the Christians I know would find it as funny as the original poster intended.
92. Re:blah! by Assassin+bug · 2005-10-02 04:12 · Score: 1
  
  No, I do mean NMR and its a relative dating technique. The NMR profiles of amber turn out to be unique to certain mines in the Dominican Repuplic. I'm sorry I don't know the details of the analysis, I'm not a physical scientist, but the work is published and does state that the proceedure was NMR. The dates of these mines have been surveyed using other techniques. So, if you have a specimen of Dominican amber and apply NMR analysis to it you can infer or confirm both its collection locality and date. Again, based on previous studies.
93. Re:blah! by Delphiki · 2005-10-02 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  Is carbon the only radioactive chemical they can use to date biological material? I know they use an element with a much longer half-life to date rocks. My guess would be they used radioactive dating, just not carbon dating.
  
  --
  Feel free to mod me "-1 - Angry Jerk".
94. Re:blah! by LordoftheWoods · 2005-10-02 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps I did not make myself clear, because you do not really disagree with me. What I meant by the "normal amount" was the ratio that we are comparing the dead organisms' ratio to, the one that should be stable while it is alive because of the exchange you mention. My whole point was that the gp was saying that he thought it was perhaps 20 million years old relative to other things that were carbon dated, when radiocarbon dating (or any radioactive dating) is inherently relative; by using the ratio in living organisms and the ratio in dead organisms, the date calculated is relative to the present.
95. Re:blah! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-02 04:42 · Score: 0
  
  Wow, that is an air-tight argument if I've ever heard one! When will the scientific community realise that they have no clothes on when it comes to ancient history?
96. Re:blah! by elgatozorbas · 2005-10-02 04:48 · Score: 1
  
  Regardless, carbon dating is only good for up until about 60,000 years old. After that many other methods can be used, most of those methods are proven and extremely accurate.
  How can they know? Unless someone planted an artefact 60000 years ago (and dated it), how can they know these methods are proven and accurate (in the +60000 years range)?
97. Re:blah! by swimmar132 · 2005-10-02 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  If you have, say, ten methods for dating something, and all of them give you the same age back, I'd say that's fairly conclusive evidence.
  
  Do you also ask "if someone hasn't walked to the sun, and counted every step that they took, how do we know that the sun is 8 million miles away"?
98. Re:blah! by ergo98 · 2005-10-02 05:08 · Score: 1
  
  Where do you get this stuff? A tiny minority outside the US? Do you happen to know fundamental...Islamic views on evolution?
  
  Wow. Apparently the anti-evo's have mod points for this sort of nonsensical reply to be moderated up (while the parent and grandparent were moderated trolls or flamebait). You might have missed it, but we were talking specifically about Christianity, not about fundamentalist Islamist, or even Voodoo worshippers. Christianity. The reality, and let the anti-evo's feel comfortable moderating me down for saying the truth, is that the anti-evolution correlation with Christianity is almost an entirely US thing.
99. Re:blah! by onepoint · 2005-10-02 05:15 · Score: 1
  
  you all seem to forget his Holiness FSM ( Flying Spaghetti Monster ). There is an entire section in our mythos about his ability to change c14 dating, All this done with his holy Noodle Appendage. So Please see the reference http://www.venganza.org/
  
  Onepoint
  
  --
  if you see me, smile and say hello.
100. Re:blah! by Moridineas · 2005-10-02 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  I based my comment on http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches _quote05.html which at the very least is a quite interesting read.
101. Re:blah! by Moridineas · 2005-10-02 05:42 · Score: 1
  
  I appreciate your comment. I will say that a certain part of my post was deliberate hypocrisy -- this is after all what we get when we make vast generalizations like "100% of Christians in America" and "in Europe..." Thanks for seeing my flaws :)
  
  Though I would also argue that even in countries like Italy the numbers of people identifying themselves as Christians are falling.
102. Re:blah! by Moridineas · 2005-10-02 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  No you missed the point. The point was the author claimed 100% of Christians in the US did not believe in evolution while 1% of anyone else outside the US agreed with them. I find that viewpoint silly. I would also be willing to bet a substantial sum of money that more than 1% of "Christians" in Europe do not believe in evolution.
103. Re:blah! by LnxAddct · 2005-10-02 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  The science is not something to be explained in a post on slashdot. It can be a pretty complex science, but the basis relies on the half-life of nuclear materials. The half-life can easily be measured and from that, you can come to many other conclusions. But let me repeat, there are plenty of other dating methods that have nothing to do with carbon dating or even nuclear phsyics at all. A simple example would be akin to counting the layers of certain tidal areas (or areas that were once tidal). Each cycle you can tell just from the way the rock formed, what the cycle of the moon was and other facts about the tide... the moon circles the earth on a pretty constant cycle and you can tell how long ago a certain layer of that tidal area is from. It is easy to determine if that layer has been tampered with or not, but if a fossile is in that layer and the surrounding sediments are consistent with typical tidal patterns than that fossil died during that period (Of course you would confirm your finding with a few other completely unrelated dating methods). Its just like counting rings on a tree, not only can you tell what rings are from which seasons but you get other information like how much rain was during that season.
  Regards,
  Steve
104. Re:blah! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-02 06:33 · Score: 0
  
  The reason many people dislike the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" has to do more with the fact that it is simply a poor piece of satire, and yet people who use it seem to think it's the most witty, ingenious thing since "Candide" or "A Modest Proposal." Come on, surely you can think of something a little more original and subtle than the "Flying Spaghetti Monster."
105. Re:blah! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-02 06:45 · Score: 0
  
  SFW, baby. SFW. Ask yourself why so many of us are in a mocking mood before you bust out your kneejerk petty moral outrage. Before you make such a pathetic show of your inability to comprehend why everybody seems to be so mean all of a sudden. You'll excuse my being frank with you here -- admittedly that's a bit unfair, as you're only the Nth million dittohead to utter the very same words you just used.
  
  Tolerance can only go so far before being mystically transmuted into stupidity.
  
  IDiots (Intelligent Design idiots) won't be saved by the nice, mindless and obedient "tolerance" espoused by people like you from the mocking they so richly have earned. Sorry -- them's the breaks in a grownup world. They should be thankful they are getting the REAL tolerance (no being killed in mass concentration camps; no being forced through torture to confess crimes they didn't commit, then burned at the stake, etc) that they have so often failed to display towards others throughout history.
106. Re:blah! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-02 06:51 · Score: 0
  
  nonsense.
  
  the major world christian churches (Roman Catholic, Lutheran and other Protestant denominations, and CofE) have all publicly accepted the evolution by natural selection of all modern species including mankind.
  
  very few followers of these churches (which makes up nearly all European christians) believe otherwise.
  
  almost all Europeans who don't believe in evolution are those who've taken up newer Christain doctrines emerging from the US, often by evangelical groups setting up churches, and TV networks.
  
  just accept it, the US is, in this regard, unique. this doesn't make europeans any better or worse, or smarter or anything. just that this particular debate rages only in the USA.
107. Re:blah! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-02 07:00 · Score: 0
  
  if they have large stable populations and few prey, then I'd say they were optimal. at least in their environment, and if that stays stable then they stay optimal.
  
  by what criteria are you labelling these stable species 'sub-optimal'? squid are too ugly?
108. Re:blah! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-02 11:52 · Score: 0
  
  "What the bible actually says is...
  
  that the earth is 6,009 years old. "
  
  I searched through the whole thing and nowhere does it say anything about the age of the earth. And this goes without mentioning how a publication based on a foundation of faith is supposed to be used like an encyclopedia to determine a fact like the age of the earth. Use it to determine your faith if you want but leave the facts to the unbiased or at least those who can show hard proof instead of insisting that the earth is flat because of some obscure passage and then turning out to be wrong about it. The bible is not a manual of facts -- if anything in it is true it is because of your faith in it. If it were fact you would have to be able to prove (not merely express belief in) the existence of the spirit you claim created the earth. You can't prove that with uncontested evidence so forget about claiming that is a fact, OK?
109. Re:blah! by gordgekko · 2005-10-02 12:09 · Score: 1
  
  That's "heresy" and "al dente". Our Lord, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, is displeased.
  
  --
  You want to know who isn't running Firefox 2.x? They spell it "definately" and "rediculous".
110. Re:blah! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-02 12:48 · Score: 0
  
  That was not the issue. The issue is hop you can _know_ something which you cannot really verify is true.
111. Re:blah! by ZiggyM · 2005-10-02 16:20 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, the problem with carbon dating is not with nuclear theory. Some fungi and bacteria can produce C14, and can throw off the calculations of decay. This link to the talk.origins newsgroup talks about it: http://tinyurl.com/bwwfk/
112. Re:blah! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-02 16:54 · Score: 0
  
  Some people say "know" when they mean "state with confidence."
113. Re:blah! by doza · 2005-10-02 22:50 · Score: 1
  
  Ok
  
  20 million years ago this spider was trotting around the planet. I would love to see the evolutionary changes in the spider. That would be fantastic! Is noone else excited about this?
  
  I am sure there are many changes in the old spider when examined, and compared, to today's spiders.
  It would also give us a little more information about how long spiders have been around. When we look at how basic the spider was 20 million years ago, how natural selection has acted on the particular species of spider.
  I would imagine this particular species would be ancestor to many other spider species.
  It would also be fantastic if there are any of the spiders surroundings, at the time, were trapped in the hair of the spiders legs - if the spider infact had/needed hair on its legs 20 million years ago.
  
  Also, I find "20 million years" a bit of a rough estimate. Could they not be more specific in regards to the dates? Maybe - twenty million seventeen hundered thousand years ago.
  They could quite easily have been out a few million years.
  
  --
  ---
114. Re:blah! by kipple · 2005-10-03 02:46 · Score: 1
  
  It sure beats an omnipotent, omnisentient judge with a poorly communicated sense of morals and a tendency to attribute unpleasantness to other entities of his design.
  
  ...do we share the same boss at work?
  
  --
  -- There are two kind of sysadmins: Paranoids and Losers. (adapted from D. Bach)
115. Re:blah! by Gulthek · 2005-10-03 03:29 · Score: 1
  
  I have already displeased our Spaghetti Lord by teaching his concepts while NOT wearing full pirate regalia.
116. Re:blah! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-03 16:13 · Score: 0
  
  Some fungi and bacteria can produce C14
  
  Some fungi and bacteria can do nuclear transmutation? Oh, joy, then perhaps the legend of the goose who laid the golden eggs is true after all!
117. Re:blah! by Nonoche · 2005-10-04 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  Okay, I found the numbers : according to a survey from Harris in June 2005, 55% of the americans think that their kids should learn both "theories". Scary, indeed.
118. Re:blah! by Moridineas · 2005-10-04 06:28 · Score: 1
  
  I've found competing numbers--but ultimately if we want to make this a discussion of numbers--check out Wikipedia. They have numbers and statistics from around the world--for instance creationism is MANDATORY in Pakistan and Turkey. Large percentage of germanspeakers believe in creationist theories as well. It's all in wikipedia.
119. Re:blah! by Nonoche · 2005-10-04 07:05 · Score: 1
  
  you're getting OT there, I'm perfectly OK with creationism on its own, as a religious belief. It's just that some people in the US are trying to push a religious belief as a scientific alternative theory, in total discord with secularism, and to my knowledge that's the only place in the whole world where this is happening.
120. Re:blah! by Moridineas · 2005-10-04 12:16 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry if I was unclear--it's illegal to teach evolution in Pakistan. In Turkey, evolution is not taught in schools, creationism is mandatory. I'm sure MANY other countries are similar to this. The belief in creationism is not limited to the US. Yes, some FEW people in the US are attempting to have Intelligent Design or other theories taught in addition to evolution. I think this is silly, but, it hasn't made much traction either, and judging from numbers, isn't too terribly popular. That's my point.
121. Re:blah! by Moridineas · 2005-10-04 15:29 · Score: 1
  
  Forgot to mention in my other reply--it's mention on wikipedia also, but apparently there were movements afoot to pass a dutch law to allow teaching of ID.
122. Re:blah! by Nonoche · 2005-10-04 19:12 · Score: 1
  
  Well you're just giving more weight to my point : Pakistan is an Islamic Republic! Islam is the state religion, there's no secularism there, so of course it is illegal to teach evolution over there. (see http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2004/35519.htm) Turkey is supposed to support secularism, as church and state have been set appart since Ataturk, but lately there has been a religious pressure over there, and Turkey is well-known for its problems with human rights. I wouldn't say that you have chosen the best countries to compare with the United States of America...
  
  At any rate, would you have found more recommandable countries in the same situation, it wouldn't change anything : as you said the whole thing is just silly. It's really worrysome that such a thing could happen, as we expect much better from the USA we know and love (I know this would never, ever happen here in France. This couldn't even be considered a single second. Evolution is even taught in religious private schools here, while the creation is only taught where it belongs : in religious education. And even there, it's only being depicted as a metaphor!)
123. Re:blah! by Nutria · 2005-10-04 19:56 · Score: 1
  
  I have met one person that I know for sure believes in a "young earth"
  
  Doesn't sound very scary to me.
  
  --
  "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
124. Re:blah! by T0mWil5on · 2005-10-05 14:14 · Score: 1
  
  If you look at things objectively, you'll see that science is its' own little religion.
  
  Besides, it's not like the definitive answer of where we came from is all that important.
  
  Better to be concerned about where we are *now* and where it will lead us in future.
  
  It's too trivial a subject to even debate.
125. Re:blah! by Nonoche · 2005-10-05 20:22 · Score: 1
  
  I think that saying such a thing is only a way to dismiss the seriousness of the situation. If you look at things in a specific way, and only at things that can confirm that point of view, yes, science can be seen as a religion. The thing is, science isn't just about theories. There are theorems, axioms, postulates, experiments, demonstrations, hypothesis, proofs, analysis, etc... Science isn't about faith. Theories themselves aren't about faith. They're probabilities, and are there to be challenged by the scientific community to be confirmed or invalidated. And theories never come out of the blue : according to what we currently know, they are more or less probable, and compatible with what we hold for scientific facts. Things are always at least double-checked. The evolution theory has been challenged just as well, and still stands today. It is backed by facts and evidences, and evolution in itself has been used practically to improve technology : robots move optimally thanks to generations of computer programs born randomly, breeded, and selected, just like in nature and according to Darwin's theory. The same applies for artificial life, see this for instance : http://www.spiderland.org/breve/
  
  I know that in science sometimes what we held for true yesterday can be wrong tomorrow. For instance the earth was believed to be flat before... But by then science had nothing in common with today's science, and furthermore, that theory was based on faith, just like the intelligent design "theory" is nowadays... which is precisely why such theory is unworthy of our era. And I think that moving the subject onto science is just a spin.
  
  So basically the intelligent design "theory" tells us that the earth is 6000 years old, and that all living things were created at once (well maybe not at once, I guess it should rather be in 6 days?...) What's next? Will they put the Earth back in the center of the universe, with all other celestial objects rotating around it?...
  
  You know I'm perfectly OK with creationism as a religious belief. I just can't stand to see that some try to disguise that as a scientific theory. What facts led to the creation of such theory? What scientific mind wrote a thesis about it? Is there even one? And if there is, will those who support such a view ask the Nobel prize for him? Isn't it troubling to see that this theory has been written nearly word for word in the Bible even before the birth of science as we know it? Is there a scientific collegiate that supports this theory and is working on it? Why is it that those who support this so-called theory do it on a religious basis and not on actual scientific facts? Isn't it worrysome that secularism has to undego such heavy fire, when lobbies put the pressure on schools to make sure that something which has nothing to do there is being taught? Where's the respect for other beliefs? Where's the respect for those who do not believe in God?
126. Re:blah! by fm6 · 2005-10-10 06:09 · Score: 1
  
  I seem to be saying this a lot lately: you make some good arguments, but they don't apply to the post you're replying to. The dude didn't say that his religious rights were being abridged. He simply accused the FSMer of mocking his religious beliefs, Which, in fact, he was.
  Now, making fun of somebody's beliefs is indeed protected free speech. And using deprecating humor (also known as satire) to make a serious point is a time-honored rhetorical device. But it's also a tad rude and offensive. Sometimes you have to be rude and offensive to make a point, but when you do, you shouldn't be suprised when the object of your mocking takes offense. Religious tolerance, or lack of it, has nothing to do with the conversation.
is it just me by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 13:58 · Score: 5, Funny

Or does this sound like the intro narrative to a horror sci-fi flick...
1. Re:is it just me by Cerdic · 2005-10-01 14:02 · Score: 1
  
  Oh... You might want to rush out and write the movie script before someone beats you to the idea. But you might want to try writing a book first, though, and hope that some big producer buys the rights to make the movie.
  
  --
  Advice for my fellow geeks: before seeking out that threesome you dream of, you might see what a TWOsome is like first.
2. Re:is it just me by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 14:03 · Score: -1, Offtopic
  
  BRING ON THE CLONES!!!! *evil laugh* muuhahhhahaah
3. Re:is it just me by A+Brand+of+Fire · 2005-10-01 14:25 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Or does this sound like the intro narrative to a horror sci-fi flick...
  
  A really cheesy Sci-Fi Channel Original sci-fi/horror flick at that. Give 'em about six months and I'm sure they'll already be a week into filming Frankenspider III - After the Armageddon. Has anyone seen the crap they've been funding these last few years? Absolutely atrocious -- riddled with poor acting, casting, writing, and CGI just for the sake of having it in there (it sometimes seems).
  
  --
  [End of Line]
4. Re:is it just me by aschran · 2005-10-01 14:30 · Score: 1
  
  Sounds a lot more like the plot of Jurassic Park to me... extract spider DNA from preserved blood in amber, and... Arachnid Park?
5. Re:is it just me by cmacb · 2005-10-01 14:37 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Or does this sound like the intro narrative to a horror sci-fi flick...
  
  Yes but, fortunately for most of us, these things always go after Tokyo first. Fortunately they are always able to take care of the situation over there, although we may have to send some B52s to get swatted down while they work on that new ray-gun thing.
6. Re:is it just me by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 14:42 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  That is a genuine policy. Low budge films are being intentionally produced, 30 movies for 20 million USD planned for this year by memory, by the Sci-Fi channel to create new generation of b-grade sci-fi movies.
7. Re:is it just me by kfg · 2005-10-01 14:49 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, the first thing I thought when saw I the headline was, "Hey, who's been poking around behind my refridgerator when I wasn't looking?"
  
  But, yeah, now that you mention it, my life pretty much has been a horror sci-fi sort of deal.
  
  KFG
8. Re:is it just me by Cruciform · 2005-10-01 14:57 · Score: 0
  
  It's these damn talkies! There's life in vaudeville yet, I tell ya!
9. Re:is it just me by chigun · 2005-10-01 15:15 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  I just read an article about these new "B" movies on Sci-Fi network. Aparrently they have around 30 in the can for the year and they do very well (relatively). Each one has a very low budget (I think I read 1 million), and given that SciFi is one of the more popular networks on cable right now, I'm sure they make that money back quite handily and then some.
  
  Personally, I think it's great that they're bringing back the cheesy sci-fi movies. That means we might have a MST4K one day.
  
  --
  swanker than you
10. Re:is it just me by Ucklak · 2005-10-01 15:31 · Score: 1
  
  As 'bad' as those cheap movies are, they're being made, giving people jobs, and will make an impression on some people.
  Think Roger Corman and we have Jack Nicholson, James Cameron, Joe Dante, Rob Bottin just to name a few from his school of low budget production.
  
  Although these weren't the best, my memorable list of films from him are:
  Rock and Roll High School
  Pirahna
  Humaniods from the Deep
  
  Who cares if the acting is bad, the special effects are bad, the lighting is bad, and the camera blocking is a 1-take shot.
  The fact is that they're being made and will be shown ad-infinitum and people will watch them because they are so damn many of them that eventually there will be nothing on tv and someone will want to have the tv on with some junk on it ust to have background noise.
  
  --
  if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
11. Re:is it just me by Chowderbags · 2005-10-01 15:33 · Score: 1
  
  They have to have them ready for a new version of MST3000.
12. Re:is it just me by Doc+Ruby · 2005-10-01 15:39 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The cheesy SF B-movies I like are the ones which are cheap because they skimp on the special effects, but get a good story, and/or good acting/directing. These SciFi Channel movies spend most of their $1M budget on CGI, and nothing on the "drama". It's all eyecandy, empty calories. C-movies.
  
  --
  --
  make install -not war
13. Re:is it just me by ViX44 · 2005-10-01 15:39 · Score: 1
  
  Has anyone seen the crap they've been funding these last few years? Absolutely atrocious
  Hey, that MST3k funding has to go somewhere. Look at it as an investment toward MST3k's potential return. After all, if Sci-Fi owns the movies, they don't have to worry about the licensing nightmare MST3k's always been.
14. Re:is it just me by qwerty+shrdlu · 2005-10-01 16:13 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Actually CGI is cheaper than even poor acting, casting, and writing. Unless there's some point in doing it well.
15. Re:is it just me by Walt+Dismal · 2005-10-01 16:41 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Do you realize that if that 20 million year old spider had deposited even ONE PENNY in a savings account long ago, he'd be richer than Bill Gates by now.
16. Re:is it just me by TheGSRGuy · 2005-10-01 17:18 · Score: 0, Offtopic
  
  I call it......Billy and the Cloneasaurus.
17. Re:is it just me by TheoMurpse · 2005-10-01 18:24 · Score: 0
  
  I for one welcome our cloned prehistoric arachnid overlords!
18. Re:is it just me by legallyillegal · 2005-10-01 19:23 · Score: 0
  
  how the fuck does this shitpost get a +1 in soviet russia, spiders SHUT THE FUCK UP i for one welcome our new SHUT THE FUCK UP all your base are SHUT THE FUCK UP
  
  --
  ?giS
19. Re:is it just me by xcham · 2005-10-01 21:00 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  "Jurassic Park. But with spiders!"
  
  And it's still a better title than this.
  
  --
  When life gives you lemons, you CLONE those lemons, and make SUPER-LEMONS. -- Dr. Cinnamon Scudworth, Ph.D
20. Re:is it just me by antime · 2005-10-01 21:31 · Score: 1
  
  Call it "Spiders in a Park" and you'll get Samuel L. Jackson to do it for free.
21. Re:is it just me by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-02 00:12 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  And well on the way to affording his dinner at Milliways.
22. Re:is it just me by doctorfaustus · 2005-10-02 04:17 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, the Sci-Fi channel's "movies made for television," are C grade all right. Not really worth watching. Empty of all the elements you expect from good science fiction -- that is they have nothing to expand the mind, meaning they have no engaging stories or effects.
  
  The reason 1950's B pics are fun to watch is because they're retro, and speak of a different time's view of the subject matter. And of course, the poster above is right--some of them have quite good stories, even though you can see the strings.... Sci-Fi Channels so called "B" pics are nothing -- bad stories, dressed up with a giant shark or bee or whatever.... A waste of time.
  
  --
  
  DAILY ROTATION
23. Re:is it just me by Doc+Ruby · 2005-10-02 04:29 · Score: 1
  
  Science Fiction is not really about "the future"; it's always about the time in which it is produced, and that time's vision of its future, which reveals quite a lot about that time's "now". "The future ain't what it used to be." 1950s SF reveals quite a lot about that time's preconceptions, undefended by the usual spin that conceals the truth. These SciFi Channel craporamas probably will be viewable in the future as mere testaments to fear and materialism, with little of the hope and confidence of pre-1960s SF, or the deprecatingly humorous post-Kennedy-assassination craporama. Hardly entertaining, and only repetitively educational.
  
  --
  --
  make install -not war
24. Re:is it just me by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-02 13:22 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  Actually ... it IS Bill Gates!
25. Re:is it just me by IWTB · 2005-10-03 03:56 · Score: 1
  
  Here in Brazil it would probably have a bigger debt than Bill Gates' fortune for not paying the taxes to mantain the account...
blah! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 13:58 · Score: 5, Funny

God continues to fuck with us! First all those dinosaur bones and now this! Everyone knows the earth is only 3,000 years old, they added up all the people's ages in the bible and proved it!

Looks like /. has been tricked by the atheist science lobby, again :)
I can see it now by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 13:59 · Score: -1, Redundant

Spider Park ! Coming soon to a cinema near you.
Clone it? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 13:59 · Score: 4, Funny

Oh boy I hope they clone it. 'Cause that's all we need is more spiders... :/
1. Re:Clone it? by aussie_a · 2005-10-01 14:10 · Score: 1
  
  I know, they can clone the spiders and put them all on a remote island. Cause it's not like Australia has too many spiders.
2. Re:Clone it? by yobbo · 2005-10-01 14:15 · Score: 1
  
  It's unknown whether Tasmania is a suitable habitat. We'll have to wait for the DNA analysis to determine whether the Spiders had two heads.
Welcome... by jacen_sunstrider · 2005-10-01 13:59 · Score: 5, Funny

to Arachnid Park!
1. Re:Welcome... by eviljolly · 2005-10-01 14:06 · Score: 0, Redundant
  
  Arachnid Park or Jurassic Spider?
2. Re:Welcome... by jacen_sunstrider · 2005-10-01 14:08 · Score: 1
  
  20 million year ago != Jurassic Period. Park full of a spiders made from DNA extracted from amber = Arachnid Park.
3. Re:Welcome... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 14:16 · Score: 0
  
  Arachnid Fark, perhaps? Straight from the headline there.
  
  Excellent work.
4. Re:Welcome... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 14:16 · Score: 0
  
  20 million year ago != Jurassic Period. Park full of a spiders made from DNA extracted from amber = Arachnid Park.
  Pardon me, but I beg to differ. Park full of a spiders made from DNA extracted from amber = Shelobsville = time to soil myself.
5. Re:Welcome... by BushCheney08 · 2005-10-01 14:24 · Score: 1
  
  Miocene Park has a nice ring to it. It's either that or Tertiary Park (if you want to keep with the period names rather than the epoch).
  
  --
  Be a real patriot: Question authority. Think for yourself. Formulate your own conclusions.
6. Re:Welcome... by G-funk · 2005-10-01 14:31 · Score: 1
  
  ...To recycled Fark!
  
  --
  Send lawyers, guns, and money!
7. Re:Welcome... by Pneuma+ROCKS · 2005-10-01 15:16 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  Featuring... Arancnidus Google!
  
  --
  Favorite quote: "
8. Re:Welcome... by Deanalator · 2005-10-01 17:42 · Score: 0
  
  much safer than jurassic park. this time if the frog DNA takes over, they just end up eating themselves.
Breakthrough! by Gothic_Walrus · 2005-10-01 13:59 · Score: 1

We all know what this will lead to...
Jurassic Marvel Superheroes!

--
Goo goo g'joob.
1. Re:Breakthrough! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 14:27 · Score: 0
  
  ...or bad jokes ;)
Well by PunkOfLinux · 2005-10-01 13:59 · Score: 1

As an arachnophobe, i really don't wanna think about this. -giant spiders attacking everyone!-

--
Show this to your friends and family that don't know what a real hacker is
1. Re:Well by Cheapy · 2005-10-01 14:43 · Score: 1
  
  PunkOfLinux (Tou Hum Mal Law), 200000 points, killed by a giant spider.
  
  --
  Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?
2. Re:Well by russellh · 2005-10-01 15:03 · Score: 1
  
  As an arachnophobe, i really don't wanna think about this. -giant spiders attacking everyone!-
  
  are you an actual arachnophobe? this site suggests it is a european thing: it "began as misplaced fear during the plague (having historical basis), then was passed down through European families adding a cultural basis". And they report success treating it with virtual reality.
  
  --
  must... stay... awake...
3. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 22:56 · Score: 0
  
  Perhaps it's because of those creepy spiders found in sweden wich seems to teleport themselves from one location to another.
  They have such extreme acceleration and speed, I don't understand how they stay intact, the legs should fall off.
  
  They're impossible to kill, they just vanish out of thin air if you try to smash them.
Time Travel by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 13:59 · Score: 0

"He was able to extract the blood and determine its age: 20 million years old. "

I'm *assuming* that he was able to take into account any time-related changes that might throw off his results?
1. Re:Time Travel by allanc · 2005-10-01 14:05 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  ...
  
  Wouldn't the time-related changes *be* his results?
Sweet Jurrasic Park by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 14:00 · Score: -1, Redundant

Now all we need is an island in the Caribbean
1. Re:Sweet Jurrasic Park by aussie_a · 2005-10-01 14:13 · Score: 1
  
  How about one in the Tasman Sea?
In other news... by rhetoric · 2005-10-01 14:00 · Score: 5, Funny

Michael Crichton creams his pants in cybercafe after reading this report.

--

"where words meet intent, lies rhetoric's lament"
1. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 14:01 · Score: 0
  
  Michael Crichton creams his pants in cybercafe after reading this report.
  
  Why is Michael Crichton hanging out at a cybercafe?
2. Re:In other news... by rhetoric · 2005-10-01 14:08 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Michael Crichton creams his pants in cybercafe after reading this report.
  
  Why is Michael Crichton hanging out at a cybercafe?
  
  to pick up fat chicks duh!
  
  --
  
  "where words meet intent, lies rhetoric's lament"
3. Re:In other news... by mpathetiq · 2005-10-01 14:10 · Score: 1
  
  Sweet, sweet free wifi, of course.
  
  --
  Post-rock/Ambient/Drone and other noise.
4. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 14:52 · Score: 0
  
  *wonders if his next book will be about genetically cloned super-spiders taking over the world using environmental conservation policy.*
5. Re:In other news... by Bandwidth_ · 2005-10-01 19:09 · Score: 1
  
  He can even have the hero save the day by releasing the spider-egg eating ants in the /. story two before this one.
Worried soul here! by bogaboga · 2005-10-01 14:01 · Score: 0

I am worried that such specimen could be concealing deadly bacteria/viruses that man does not know how to handle. Mind you, there is a rumor that AIDS was a rogue virus that escaped from some American lab. Does the scientist know what he's dealing with? Why not just leave the creature alone?
1. Re:Worried soul here! by BlueCup · 2005-10-01 14:10 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not going to even touch on the AIDS thing... but, do you really believe that a virus that affects spiders would be able to harm humans? Those two evolutionary paths branched off a long long time ago.
  
  --
  WANNAWIKI Wannawiki WannaWiki WANNAWIKI!
2. Re:Worried soul here! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 14:11 · Score: -1, Flamebait
  
  grow a cock you faggot fuck.
3. Re:Worried soul here! by hey+hey+hey · 2005-10-01 14:15 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I am worried that such specimen could be concealing deadly bacteria/viruses that man does not know how to handle.
  I'm not. But to reassure you, he will be doing all his work in a sterile environment, to avoid contaminating the specimen. Happily, the precautions work both ways.
  Mind you, there is a rumor that AIDS was a rogue virus that escaped from some American lab.
  There are also rumors that the moon is made of green cheese, and that the rapture will be next Thursday. Do you plan on repeating them too?
4. Re:Worried soul here! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 14:15 · Score: 0
  
  You watch WAY too much TV. Do you *really* worry about this? Aren't there more important things to worry about than this?
5. Re:Worried soul here! by Nasarius · 2005-10-01 14:15 · Score: 1
  
  You've watched way too many bad sci-fi movies. Seriously.
  
  --
  LOAD "SIG",8,1
6. Re:Worried soul here! by ltbarcly · 2005-10-01 14:21 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Well, it's like this. You're an idiot. He's a scientist. Your post is the equivalent of:
  
  "How does Ford know that it's new Hybrid cars won't have a nuclear meltdown?"
  "I heard that cancer is cause by di-hydrogen monoxide."
  
  Why send rockets into space? Leave the vacuum alone!
7. Re:Worried soul here! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 14:32 · Score: 0
  
  I am worried that such specimen could be concealing deadly bacteria/viruses that man does not know how to handle.
  
  If man doesn't know how to handle it, it won't know how to handle man. Bacteria and viruses aren't some magical beings that automatically thrive no matter what the environment.
  
  Mind you, there is a rumor that AIDS was a rogue virus that escaped from some American lab.
  
  Mind you, there is a rumour that AIDS was a punishment from God that kills all the gays. What should you learn from that? That "there's a rumour" statements are absolutely worthless.
8. Re:Worried soul here! by Eradicator2k3 · 2005-10-01 14:32 · Score: 1
  
  "Mind you, there is a rumor that AIDS was a rogue virus that escaped from some American lab. Does the scientist know what he's dealing with?"
  
  My guess is that the scientist is dealing with just that, a RUMOR. And apparently he's got you for company in the rumor mongering business.
  
  Since you're an expert in the science of rumorology, my best friend's cousin's wife's brother's son has informed me that this rogue virus' name is bogabogabus bullshitus
  
  Make sure you spread that around when the ./ editors dupe this story in about 5 hours and 43 minutes.
  
  --
  Mr. T pitied this fool on 27 July 1992.
9. Re:Worried soul here! by vmaxxxed · 2005-10-01 14:35 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Hello Mr. BogaBoga
  
  Your concerns are valid. There is the small chance that previously extinct bacteria might be trapped there. Though, I would not be that worried. First, this is not an alien, and what ever is there has been here before. Secondly, its 20,000,000 years old, though preserved in amber in form, it, and all bacteria with it, is certainly dead. Actually, I would be surprised if they can find a complete set of DNA. It's probably all in pieces.
  
  Now, about the AIDS theory... AIDS is probably the most studied virus, and most scientists in the world, not only in the US, believe that this is a retrovirus that passed from monkeys to humans somewhere in Africa, about a hundred years ago. Actually, the origin of the two common HIV strains has been narrowed to specific species of African monkeys. The origin of HIV-2 has been established to be the sooty mangabey (Cercocebus atys), an Old World monkey of Guinea Bissau, Gabon, and Cameroon. The origin of HIV-1 is a chimpanzee subspecies: Pan troglodytes troglodytes. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_origin)
  
  If you are going to present such an extreme theory, it must be supported with extreme evidence.
  
  Thanks
10. Re:Worried soul here! by Ristol · 2005-10-01 14:39 · Score: 1
  
  .... and nobody's gonna make a comment questioning how an std was transmitted from monkeys to humans? Slashdot, what's happened to you? Oh well, I guess everyone's out watching Serenity...
  
  --
  What wouldn't Jesus do?!
11. Re:Worried soul here! by the_2nd_coming · 2005-10-01 14:51 · Score: 1
  
  hmm... perhaps some stupid ritual of eating raw chimp meat and monkey meat?
  
  --
  
  I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
12. Re:Worried soul here! by vmaxxxed · 2005-10-01 14:57 · Score: 1
  
  "mm... perhaps some stupid ritual of eating raw chimp meat and monkey meat?"
  
  Very interesting theory. I didnt think about this.
  
  I was thinking something else. I wonder what would Dr. Sigmund Freud have said about our suggestions....LOL...
  
  -v
13. Re:Worried soul here! by jcr · 2005-10-01 14:59 · Score: 1
  
  "I heard that cancer is cause by di-hydrogen monoxide."
  
  Caused? Well, we don't really know, but there is a very strong correllation. 100% of cancer sufferers have significant quantities of DHMO throughout their bodies. The tumor cells themselves are probably close to 90% DHMO by volume.
  
  -jcr
  
  --
  The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
14. Re:Worried soul here! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 15:01 · Score: 0
  
  Just because it is an STD, doesn't mean that is the *only* way it is passed. Which is why of course HIV is a problem with drug users, because many of them share needles.
  
  What if the monkey bit someone? The virus is present in saliva. I don't know what the chances are of transmission in such an event, but I imagine it is possible.
15. Re:Worried soul here! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 15:03 · Score: 0
  
  Be not deceived.. God is not mocked, whatsoever you sow, that shall you reap.
16. Re:Worried soul here! by GISGEOLOGYGEEK · 2005-10-01 15:05 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  No buddy,
  
  The rumour is wrong.
  
  AIDS was accidently created in africa in the 1950's by British scientists.
  
  The scientists were helping the people of Africa by vaccinating them against polio. ... a wonderful thing.
  
  BUT
  
  The dumasses used the kidneys of local monkeys to grow the cultures of polio vaccine.
  
  But the scientists didnt work under the same standards used in Europe and North America, so thousands of Africans were injected with a dirty mixture. Yes they were protected against polio, but they were exposed to viruses carried by the monkeys to which they had no immunity.
  
  Yes, AIDS was 'discovered' in the 1980's ... but research since has found people in the right part of Africa that acquired new unknown diseases in the right time period, with all the symptoms of AIDS. And there is a retro virus native to the monkeys in that area that are very closely related to the HIV virus.
  
  Of course the old British scientists deny it all, despite plenty of paperwork that still exists, and accounts from people who used to bring in the monkeys and work in the labs.
  
  --
  George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
17. Re:Worried soul here! by Arandir · 2005-10-01 15:13 · Score: 1
  
  Oh well, I guess everyone's out watching Serenity...
  
  Speaking of Serenity, did anyone see the credits? There were animal handlers, animal trainers, and a disclosure that no animals were harmed. What animals?!?! Other than brief glimpse of an iguana, I don't recall any animals. Was there a horse in the background of Haven that I missed? Or were they referring Adam Baldwin?
  
  --
  A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
18. Re:Worried soul here! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 15:19 · Score: 0
  
  Please... you must be new here. He's accusing the United States of an attrocity. Silly! No evidence, whether extreme or otherwise, is required.
19. Re:Worried soul here! by asavage · 2005-10-01 15:43 · Score: 1
  
  Not to mention we have had 20 Million years to adapt. Also bacteria/viruses can't survive for 20 Million years at presumably close to room temperature without light or food.
20. Re:Worried soul here! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 15:43 · Score: 0
  
  There are also rumors that the moon is made of green cheese, ...
  
  Well we should all know that that rumor is false as proven by Google http://moon.google.com/
21. Re:Worried soul here! by MassacrE · 2005-10-01 15:44 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Based on the chances of transmitting aids via different mechanisms of intercourse, it is now believed that God's will is That Lesbians Shall Inherit the Earth.
22. Re:Worried soul here! by ltbarcly · 2005-10-01 15:52 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Damn your relentless logic! Personally, I believe that cancer is caused by 'intelligent infection'. Cancer is far to complicated to be anything but the work of a 'great doctor in the sky'.
23. Re:Worried soul here! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 16:08 · Score: 0
  
  Mind you, there is a rumor that AIDS was a rogue virus that escaped from some American lab.
  There are also rumors that the moon is made of green cheese, and that the rapture will be next Thursday. Do you plan on repeating them too?
  
  Yes, there are many rumours on the internets these days.
24. Re:Worried soul here! by nwbvt · 2005-10-01 16:34 · Score: 1
  Well, though its not a virus, malaria affects humans and and is spread by insects. Though in order for something like that to cause any problems, the following would have had to happen:
  
  The spider would have had to predate on mammalian blood.
  
  The infectious agent would have to be one durable son of a bitch.
  
  The scientist would have to inject himself with spider saliva (maybe he is trying to become Spiderman).
  
  Then, in order for it to infect more people, it would have to find an alternate transmission vector (I don't think it will be finding many more of these spiders going around biting people).
  
  To be honest, there probably are better things to worry about.
  --
  Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
25. Re:Worried soul here! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 16:35 · Score: 0
  
  http://www.wistar.org/
  
  This is the american institute that created the CHAT vaccine that has probably led to the death of 30 million human beings (and counting).
  
  There is complete denial on every front, but the facts continue to point square at their sloppy vaccine work in Africa in the 1950's.
26. Re:Worried soul here! by Dwarfgoat · 2005-10-01 17:06 · Score: 1
  
  I'm guessing it was the iguana. That's the only animal I saw, too. You'd think they'd be more specific in the credits. Say something like "Iguana Wrangler." Actually, I'm not even sure it was an iguana. I thought it looked like it was meant to be some sort of alien species...it sure looked a lot knobbier than any iguanas I've ever seen (and I've known some knobby iguanas, I tell you what). Great...now I have to go see it again, just to be sure.....
  
  --
  That? That was a pigeon.
27. Re:Worried soul here! by Arandir · 2005-10-01 17:43 · Score: 1
  
  But the iguana didn't DO anything! So what did they need an "Animal Trainer" for? Oh well...
  
  --
  A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
28. Re:Worried soul here! by LnxAddct · 2005-10-01 17:46 · Score: 1
  
  Woah... thats pretty interesting. 99% of all cancer patients also ate pickles at some point in their life.
  Regards,
  Steve (it's a joke, laugh)
29. Re:Worried soul here! by jcr · 2005-10-01 17:53 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, I'm sure the pickle/cancer correlation is much lower. Cancer is found throughout the world, but pickles aren't.
  
  -jcr
  
  --
  The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
30. Re:Worried soul here! by fabioaquotte · 2005-10-01 18:23 · Score: 1
  
  most scientists in the world, not only in the US, believe that this is a retrovirus that passed from monkeys to humans
  
  This goes to show the perils of unprotected monkey sex.
  
  --
  Fabio Aquotte
31. Re:Worried soul here! by SPY_jmr1 · 2005-10-01 18:28 · Score: 1
  
  Freud? I'm more worried about the fact that the phrase regarding a "monkey's uncle" and the song "Uncle Fucker" wafted across my brainspace just now...
  
  I need some sleep. Or more San Andreas. Or something.
  
  Perhaps falling asleep playing San Andreas with Uncle Fucker playing on the radio...
32. Re:Worried soul here! by rhetoric · 2005-10-01 19:46 · Score: 1
  
  Damn your relentless logic! Personally, I believe that cancer is caused by 'intelligent infection'. Cancer is far to complicated to be anything but the work of a 'great doctor in the sky'.
  
  that god is one sadistic motherfucker :(
  
  --
  
  "where words meet intent, lies rhetoric's lament"
33. Re:Worried soul here! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 20:14 · Score: 0
  
  How is this flamebate? There's pretty compelling evidence that there's at least something fishy about the early chat vaccinations. I for one would have expected the conspiracy theorists on Slashdot to mod this up.
34. Re:Worried soul here! by jafiwam · 2005-10-02 02:06 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Yeah, except the AIDS virus was found in samples of some dudes (again in Africa) from the 1920s.
  
  The best hypothesis so far as it's from bushmeat usage. I.e. killing, butchering and eating monkeys.
35. Re:Worried soul here! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-02 02:30 · Score: 0
  
  Oh CRAP! Next Thurdsay you say!?! Whew! There is still time.
  
  1) Go to church today.
  2) Throw out all stashed porn.
  3) Write a perl script to delete all online porn on Friday unless a password is entered.
  4) Write an email to Jack Van Impe 'predicting' the rapture this Thursday. Hah! That will be fun. That bastard has been santimonious for years and people have paid him to do it!
  
  That's all the biggies.
36. Re:Worried soul here! by GISGEOLOGYGEEK · 2005-10-02 08:55 · Score: 1
  
  Must be some DAMN IGNORANT BRITISH BASTARDS out there that can't the world knowing how their scientists have given the world AIDS.
  
  Thanks for the ignorant flamebait mods.
  
  --
  George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
37. Re:Worried soul here! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-03 08:04 · Score: 0
  
  There are also rumors that the moon is made of green cheese, and that the rapture will be next Thursday. Do you plan on repeating them too?
  
  uhhh, yeah...The Rapture happens every Thursday!
obligatory by tezbobobo · 2005-10-01 14:01 · Score: 0

I bow down to our ne dinosaur arachnid overlords (not those pissy googlel ants).

Peer pressure made me do it. I'm so sorry.
Wow by gellenburg · 2005-10-01 14:02 · Score: 0

Okay... that's just fucking cool.
Woot! by tuxedobob · 2005-10-01 14:02 · Score: 0, Redundant

Arachnic Park!
I hope to one day be fossilized by Brandon+K · 2005-10-01 14:07 · Score: 5, Funny

So one day, thousands (millions?) of years from now some scientists will be looking at my pale, naked body inside a shell of delicious hardened maple syrup, in which I died doing what I loved.

Then they'd bring me to some scientific symposium, and present me up on stage.

"Here you can see an ancient human, most likely in the 'geek' class. You can tell by his white skin, lack of muscles, and raw skin on his penis from over-masturbation"

*Audience oooh's and aaah's*
1. Re:I hope to one day be fossilized by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 14:12 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  So one day, thousands (millions?) of years from now some scientists will be looking at my pale, naked body inside a shell of delicious hardened maple syrup, in which I died doing what I loved.
  
  Having sex with maple trees?
2. Re:I hope to one day be fossilized by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 14:15 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe masterbating with the syrup, which may explain why his penis is so raw?
3. Re:I hope to one day be fossilized by LarsG · 2005-10-01 14:28 · Score: 1
  
  inside a shell of delicious hardened maple syrup, in which I died doing what I loved
  ...and raw skin on his penis from over-masturbation
  
  Me thinks you should switch to something with a bit less friction, like say K-Y.
  
  --
  If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
4. Re:I hope to one day be fossilized by Arandir · 2005-10-01 15:07 · Score: 1
  
  Dude! Use some lotion!
  
  --
  A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
5. Re:I hope to one day be fossilized by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 16:34 · Score: 0
  
  naked body inside a shell of delicious hardened maple syrup, in which I died doing what I loved.
  
  Let me guess: Humping a tree and poking holes into the trunk until the maple syrup covered your body?
  
  and raw skin on his penis from poking holes into the tree Fixed.
6. Re:I hope to one day be fossilized by derrith · 2005-10-01 17:12 · Score: 1
  
  No, reading syrupy romance novels
  
  --
  why does the porridge bird lay his eggs in the air?
7. Re:I hope to one day be fossilized by DamienNightbane · 2005-10-01 18:45 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks. I just spit iced tea all over my laptop. Fucker.
8. Re:I hope to one day be fossilized by hr+raattgift · 2005-10-01 19:32 · Score: 1
  
  Couple quickies:
  
  1) There are non-white geeks.
  
  However, to go a bit easy on you, melanogenesis leaves clear markers: the thymidine dinucleotides (four amino bases, two of which are T) from UV destruction of damaged DNA, alpha-melanin-stimulating-hormone which is produced in response to this, the binding products (other than melanin) of alpha-MSH to melanocytes, and the transport of melanin vesicles to the keratinocytes, and their consequent migration from lower layers of skin to higher layers. The last is likely to be the largest archaeological giveaway, other than studying your nuclear DNA. Pinker (with less melanin in melanocytes) flesh to darker flesh transitions in layers are what differ a suntanned pale person from a naturally dark person.
  
  Finally, the presense of melanin at all (or tyrosinase, for that matter) will distinguish a pale, unsuntanned person from an albino.
  
  A future in which nuclear DNA, even in scattered fragments, can be analysed for this sort of thing, is also a possibility.
  
  2) To make things even easier on you, there is no guarantee that your remains will fossilize. Fossils, even in amber-rich areas, are very rare compared to the number of things dying in the areas fossils are found.
  
  Most resin (amber) fossils *of animals* are generally only discoloured cavities, in which the organic structure is gone, and all that's left are chemical traces of chitin (in the case of insects and spiders), sometimes hair or feathers, or bits of bone.
  
  While the drying effect of really sticky maple syrup (osmotic dessication... water moves out of exposed cells, where it's in greater concentration, and into the syrup, where the water:sugar ratio is lower) kills off surface bacteria and the like, your insides are just teeming with bacteria which will gladly do their best to digest you from the inside out. Moreover, neither your epidermis nor the maple syrup is chemically inert and they aren't likely to be in a stable configuration.
  
  Your calcified bits (bones and maybe teeth) may well survive, but unfortunately that leaves future archaeologists with no direct evidence of what colour your flesh really was, since it will have long since changed into a mass of stained sugary crystal.
  
  I, for one, welcome our new resin cast fossil underlords.
9. Re:I hope to one day be fossilized by sa1lnr · 2005-10-01 23:05 · Score: 1
  
  "*Audience oooh's and aaah's*" Or, howls of derisory laughter and shouts of "He should have bought the patches" :P ;)
10. Re:I hope to one day be fossilized by fejikso · 2005-10-02 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  Dude, I bet they call you the joke assassin.
11. Re:I hope to one day be fossilized by triffidsting · 2005-10-02 17:22 · Score: 1
  
  Darn those dendropheliacs
  
  --
  Non, je ne veux pas coucher avec toi ce soir.
Cool! by Adult+film+producer · 2005-10-01 14:11 · Score: 0, Redundant

I'm anxious for the day that strange human/animal chimeras suddenly appear in society.. Or maybe animals like gorillas genetically altered so their voice box/trachea/etc are able to produce a human like voice. Lets accelerate their inevitable evolution,. Or dogs/cats grown with human brains & eyes.. Maybe even pets with designer colours, exotic colours like those parrots in the congo. We could mix all this stuff up, create some something wicked, a unicorn ? Hell ya.. or some other mythological creature. A horse/rhino hybrid.
1. Re:Cool! by dajobi · 2005-10-01 14:36 · Score: 1
  
  GTFO furry!
2. Re:Cool! by TheDarkener · 2005-10-01 15:12 · Score: 1
  
  I vote for a liger!
  
  --
  It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
3. Re:Cool! by MassacrE · 2005-10-01 15:37 · Score: 1
  
  I'm all for an antelope/basset hound hybrid.
4. Re:Cool! by Celsius+233 · 2005-10-01 16:39 · Score: 1
  
  I vote for chakats!
  
  --
  Denham's Dentrifice, Denham's Dentrifice, Denham's Dandy Dental Dentrifice, Denham's Dentrifice Dentrifice Dentrifice.
5. Re:Cool! by Crouty · 2005-10-01 19:19 · Score: 1
  
  Or maybe animals like gorillas genetically altered so their voice box/trachea/etc are able to produce a human like voice.
  Has been done before. Heck, they even voted him for president of the U.S.!
  Hmpf, www. seems to be partly down. Hacked by fellow chimps?
  
  --
  On se Internetz nobody noes your German.
This will make for a great horror movie by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 14:11 · Score: 0

Only instead of biting, enwombing, and slowing digesting their victims, these spiders will kill by slowing sucking the live of victims with really boring, interminably long stories of the really, really, really good old days. And lots of whining about how young spiders are lazy web builders and have it so much easier with the flat screen TVs and the antibiotics and such.
Don't Worry, Be Happy! (Not bloody likely) by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 14:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

"I am worried that such specimen could be concealing deadly bacteria/viruses that man does not know how to handle."

Any such bacteria/virus certainly wouldn't know how to handle us either. The ones that most affect us are those which have evolved to take advantage of our weaknesses. I'd say the risk is very low.

"Mind you, there is a rumor that AIDS was a rogue virus that escaped from some American lab."

There's also a rumor that man didn't land on the moon. My guess is that you believe that one too? With the distribution of aids cases and the fact that it's actually quite difficult to transmit, that's a pretty ridiculous rumor.
1. Re:Don't Worry, Be Happy! (Not bloody likely) by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 15:45 · Score: 0
  
  Oh, they landed on the Moon, but it's that other, secret, black painted moon parked on the other side of the Earth they landed on. Seriously, only easily fooled people think we've got only one moon.
2. Re:Don't Worry, Be Happy! (Not bloody likely) by rubberbando · 2005-10-01 17:11 · Score: 1
  
  "Mind you, there is a rumor that AIDS was a rogue virus that escaped from some American lab."
  
  Actually HIV was created to help people who recieved organ transplants not reject the organ.
  
  Originally it was thought that HIV couldn't spread, but the scientists were wrong and then it mutated, causing full blown AIDS in many people who contracted it....
  
  ...but you didn't hear that from me. ;-)
  
  --
  DEAD DEAD DEAD DELETE ME
Lies! Intelligent design world only 7000 yrs old. by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 14:13 · Score: -1, Redundant

This is a devil conspiracy to discredit intelligent design and the bible. My science teacher says you'll all burn in hell for your treachery.
Do the math... by jav1231 · 2005-10-01 14:14 · Score: 4, Funny

Since science articles are only 50% correct, it's 10 million years old.
BTW,it looks remarkably like spiders that are merely 20 days old.
Queue NOVA voice over: "20 million years ago, the Earth was a much different place...with much difference life forms!"
Kid: "Sir! What about this spider!?"
NOVA voice: "Okay! Okay! The spiders were all the same! But there were no humans to screw things up! GOT IT!"
Kid: "Sorry...."
1. Re:Do the math... by asavage · 2005-10-01 15:40 · Score: 1
  
  I don't see your point and you are totally wrong. From the article:
  It is a new species from the Filistatidae family commonly found in South America and the Caribbean.
2. Re:Do the math... by jav1231 · 2005-10-02 02:07 · Score: 1
  
  From my "point:"
  "BTW,it looks remarkably like spiders that are merely 20 days old"
  
  See, you've already found a huge mistake in the article! How could this be a NEW species if it's 20..er...10 million years old!? NYAH!
MOD DOWN, REDUDANT!! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 14:15 · Score: -1, Flamebait

This joke was and old and unfunny the previous 10000 times it was posted when a science-related story came up. This "joke" is as lame as the "in soviet russia", "korea" and the other crap running around.

Mods, stop using your points to make fun of Bible-worshipping Christians here. It's tired, move on.
1. Re:MOD DOWN, REDUDANT!! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 14:36 · Score: 0
  
  I would hope that even the Bible-believing Christians on here have enough maturity to be able to laugh at themselves every now and again! I fall under this category myself, and I thought the joke was funny :P
I'm sorry, but the bible says... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 14:16 · Score: -1, Troll

The bible says the world (and universe, for that matter) is only 6000 years old. As with all parts of creation, my religion requires strict interpretation of the text. As my religion is real (that is to say, my religion doesn't believe in some parts of the bible, but not others), I know that god put this spider in this amber just to fool us. He also made it look like it was 20 million years old.

I'm sorry, but all you other people are being fooled.
1. Re:I'm sorry, but the bible says... by plasmacutter · 2005-10-01 14:21 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  that's right.. the odds of molecules turning into a fully formed human are the same as that of an explosiion in a junkyard yielding a fully assembled 747. HEHEHEHE
  
  --
  VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
2. Re:I'm sorry, but the bible says... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 14:29 · Score: 0
  
  Well, give the situation a few billion years to develop, and maybe it'll happen.
  
  Even better, give the situation a few billion years to develop in a few hojillion star systems and see what you come up with. Even insanely bad odds could still provide results.
3. Re:I'm sorry, but the bible says... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 14:40 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, no. Humans are very astoundingly simple things. We're just the same basic form repeated over and over again. You could remove probably 20% of our constituent parts at a rate proportional to their occurrence and we could survive. Try that with a 747.
4. Re:I'm sorry, but the bible says... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 15:17 · Score: 0
  
  Umm.. Evolutionists don't believe humans just poofed out of the ether. Evolutionary thoery states that much simpler forms of life preceeded humans.. Well, I'm not a biologist who can explain or understand this, but it makes a hell of a lot more sense than a omnipotent God just willing all of the universe and humanity into existance because he commanded it so.
5. Re:I'm sorry, but the bible says... by DAldredge · 2005-10-01 15:42 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The Bible makes no statements as to the age of the Earth.
  
  Let me repeat that. The Bible makes no statements as to the age of the Earth.
  
  Just because some count the number of generations in the Bible to 'prove' the age doesn't mean they are correct.
6. Re:I'm sorry, but the bible says... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 16:04 · Score: 0
  
  Riiight, and I have 3 and 4 of something, not saying I have 7, just saying I have 3 and 4 of it...
7. Re:I'm sorry, but the bible says... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 17:31 · Score: 0
  
  God isn't trying to fool anyone. More probably... we are simply misinterpreting the data that we currently have in extrapolating the ages of these things.
  People will, after all, always make their observations fit their assumptions if they are frightened enough of the alternative that they don't wish to face it. The idea that God exists is by far a more terrifying proposition to people that do not believe in God than the notion that God does not exist is to people that do believe in God. So terrifying, in fact, that most people that do not believe in God will live in complete denial that there is anything to be afraid of in the first place, rather than admit to it. If there were no God, after all, people would simply cease to be when they die, and as frightening as this may be to some people, it is nowhere even in the same league as frightening as the notion that God exists, which implies that everyone has an immortal essence, and there are some very real eternal consequences for the choices that we make while we are alive.
8. Re:I'm sorry, but the bible says... by brit74 · 2005-10-01 20:44 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, you're right. At the beginning of Genesis the earth is "formless and void". However, A literal reading of the Bible does come up with a date of somewhere around 4000 BC for the *six days of creation* (where God creates the sun, stars, plants, animals, man - but not the earth). The date of 4000 BC is based on the Genesis information of each person's age when they "begat" a particular descendent. Using historical and Biblical information gives dates around 4000 BC for the six days of creation, and 2350 BC for the global flood (which, BTW, conflicts with known history which shows Egyptian dynasties going back to around 3000 BC, and plenty of pyramids predating 2350 BC).
9. Re:I'm sorry, but the bible says... by DAldredge · 2005-10-01 21:00 · Score: 1
  
  The Bible never stated that a Day is 24 hours.
10. Re:I'm sorry, but the bible says... by narcolepticjim · 2005-10-01 21:37 · Score: 1
  
  You think I'm afraid of that prospect? I would revel in it if I could believe it were true. If I were held to account for my life and my actions, I would have things I would be ashamed of, but I would not be ashamed of my beliefs (or lack of faith).
  
  As Thomas Jefferson said, "Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear."
11. Re:I'm sorry, but the bible says... by moz25 · 2005-10-01 22:02 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  It is silly to make broad statements about people grouped only by not believing what you believe in because they may be a lot more diverse and intricate than what you expect. You cannot understand a person who believes other things if you express their thoughts in what you believe.
  
  There have been over 2500 deities recorded in human history. Maybe you subscribe to the notion of the Christian God, but that means you are in denial of the thousands of others. There is no way you're not going to go to some hell according to some religion's teaching. My guess is that most Christians are not in the least fearful of Allah or Wodan... how much of a mental leap is it then to understand that people cannot be fearful of entities they don't believe exist?
  
  I am not at all terrified by the concept of eternal happy life or absolute justice. What DOES terrify me is the idea that the most intelligent, logical and consistent being in the universe (and beyond) would require me to join a personality cult and accept that the worst sin possible is not rape or murder and so on, but to deny the validity of the religion. Remember that according to Christianity and Islam, even people who are the most loving, caring, law-abiding and humble will be punished, while unpleasant, bigoted and rude people supposedly get great rewards.
  
  It really does seem that some people like yourself cannot grasp (terrified perhaps) that their views are regarded as little more than baseless mysticism and personality reverence.
  
  --
  see a Text Widget
12. Re:I'm sorry, but the bible says... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-02 01:40 · Score: 0
  
  I've always looked at it this way. You have to either believe in a God that was always there and willed the universe into existance. Or you have to believe that the stuff that the Universe was already there or just came into existance. Both require you to believe something you cant 100% prove. So believe what ya want and work towards what you think is right.
13. Re:I'm sorry, but the bible says... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-02 02:14 · Score: 0
  
  Of course I am aware that my views are regarded as "baseless mysticism" by many people. That is largely irrellevant to me, however.
  What most people have a difficult time grasping is that humans were not created with the intent of being independant from God. We can choose to ignore God, if we wish... but this is not because it is what we are supposed to really be doing, it is because we have a free will, and can choose to excercise it for Good or ill, as we desire. Part of God's ultimate purpose in creating us was that we have this choice.
  It is worth noting that what many people (even many people that believe in God) have a hard time grasping is that going to hell isn't actually a "punishment", per se. It's actually the only thing God can justly do to sincerely respect the free choice one makes in life of rejecting him. If God simply accepted everyone into heaven regardless of whether or not they made a choice to follow him, how does that respect the choices that person may have made in life? How does that make our choices have any consequence? Sure, they may have consequence in this life, but if we are to exist eternally, what is the point of making any choices in this life at all if none of those choices will have any lasting consequences? The choices we make determine our character, the one thing we will take with us when we die, and God respects that character to an inconceivably high degree. God won't impose his will onto people, even to the point of letting our choices resulting in being eternally apart from him (which God doesn't want). This is in a very contrary manner to how most people (including most christians) would operate, where a so-called righteous human being might see the end (as being eternally with God) as more important than what we might want in the interim, and try to impose that we *HAVE* to follow God right now, believing that the ends justify the means. However, this is not God's way... the ends do not justify the means with God, but rather the means must justify themselves. God chooses to respect our choices, even if they are eternally damning. To do otherwise would be treating us like nothing more than little children that will never grow up, and ultimately would not be giving us the respect that is justly due, given that he saw fit to give us free will in the first place. God desperately desires for us to choose to follow him, but he will not ever force that desire upon anyone, even if that desire is ultimately for our own good, because again, it is paramount to God's purpose that we possess free will.
  The choice, as always, is yours.
14. Re:I'm sorry, but the bible says... by FlynnMP3 · 2005-10-02 02:51 · Score: 1
  
  Ok. Let me put it in words that'll be understood here.
  
  "Unfortunately. Nobody can be told what the matrix is. You have to experience it for yourself".
  
  Faith is like that. Everybody at some point in their life wants to believe in something that is higher than themselves. To extract some kind of meaning out of existance. We are all born hard-wired that way. It will happen regardless of how atheistic the individual's views are.
  
  When that moment happens, we have a choice. We can either believe in something or choose not to believe in a higher power. To swallow the 'red pill ' or the 'blue pill' as it were. The truth is out there. It only matters if you'll have faith.
  
  I have seen and heard of all types of religions. The ones that focus on teaching and not preaching are the ones to be part of - in my humble opinion. Put simply, the choice is our's. We merely have to swallow it.
  
  -FlynnMP3
15. Re:I'm sorry, but the bible says... by moz25 · 2005-10-02 03:23 · Score: 1
  
  Well, the point of my post was not to argue the validity of specific religions, but to point out that the claim that non-believers are "frightened" somehow is silly.
  
  --
  see a Text Widget
16. Re:I'm sorry, but the bible says... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-02 03:47 · Score: 0
  
  And did I not also say that they would live in denial of this? Thank you for illustrating my point so clearly.
17. Re:I'm sorry, but the bible says... by KarmaMB84 · 2005-10-02 03:55 · Score: 1
  
  What created God? What created God's God? What created God's God's God?
18. Re:I'm sorry, but the bible says... by moz25 · 2005-10-02 04:05 · Score: 1
  
  My argument was not against the Christian faith, but against the notion that people who do not follow this faith are still somehow fearful of its hypothesized deity. My point still stands unrefuted as you even show open disinterest in how those people regard your faith and only focused on preaching.
  
  I could even grant that the Christian deity exists in the exact way that you outlined and your point would still be invalid.
  
  How terrified are you of Allah?
  
  --
  see a Text Widget
19. Re:I'm sorry, but the bible says... by moz25 · 2005-10-02 04:10 · Score: 1
  
  I think you're misreading or misunderstanding or both... ? You clearly said their choice was based on fear and that they are in denial of your deity's existence as a result of being terrified of it... that means they implicitly accept the deity's possible existence. This is a logical thing to think for someone who is entrenched in his own views.
  
  --
  see a Text Widget
20. Re:I'm sorry, but the bible says... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-02 06:06 · Score: 0
  
  I show disinterest in how people regard my faith because one's own life is difficult enough without trying to be acountable for the feelings and attitudes of others. We all make our own choices. It saddens me deeply that people disregard my faith, but I know that there is nothing _I_ can personally do to change people's minds, so I do not give their disregard any further notice.
  And as for how fearful one is of this "hypothesized" deity, consider that denial of the existence of whatever one might be afraid of is almost always an effective way to cope with a fear. If one does not feel the possibility exists of ever having to confront something, then there is no reason to live in fear of it.
  But just because one is not living in fear of something (because they think its just make-believe), does not mean they are unafraid of it.
21. Re:I'm sorry, but the bible says... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-02 06:58 · Score: 0
  
  Remember that according to Christianity and Islam, even people who are the most loving, caring, law-abiding and humble will be punished, while unpleasant, bigoted and rude people supposedly get great rewards.
  
  I'm sorry, but where on earth did you get such misinformation about Christianity? (I refrain from mentioning Islam since I do not know enough about it.) The two commandments Jesus gave his followers were to love God above all else, and to love one's neighbor as oneself. Perhaps some Christian sects preach that only avowed believers can be saved, but you can rest assured that not all of them do. Also, being "law-abiding" has little to do with anything in this context.
22. Re:I'm sorry, but the bible says... by brit74 · 2005-10-02 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  That may be, but there are problems with saying that day = long period of time. First, you'll note that plants are created before the sun. Now it might be plausible to say that plants survived without the light of the sun for 24 hours, but if you start saying "one day = millions/billions of years", you run into trouble. Also, there's the heat issue. Without the sun, the temperature of the earth would be near absolute zero. (Although if you believed in literal 24 hours, you might get away with saying that God heated up the earth until the sun arrived 24 hours later.)
  
  Gen 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
  Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, [and] herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
  Gen 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
  ...
  Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also.
  
  Second, the sequence of creation is wrong when compared to evolutionary history. The Genesis story has sea creatures, whales, and birds created on the fourth day. It has land animals created on the fifth day. But, evolutionarily speaking, birds and whales are descendents of land animals - they should not appear until after the land animals.
  
  Gen 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
  Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
  ...
  Gen 1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
  Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
  
  In the end, I don't think you can get by saying that "day = millions/billions of years" because it does not resolve the differences between Genesis and evolution.
23. Re:I'm sorry, but the bible says... by moz25 · 2005-10-02 08:23 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sorry, but where on earth did you get such misinformation about Christianity?
  
  From the Bible. It outlines quite clearly that non-acceptance of the Christian deity equals going to hell, regardless of how nice or bad the person in question has been. I've spoken to various Christians over time and while they differ in many points of view and reasoning, they are without exception very clear about what happens to me if I don't accept the Christian deity as reality. Where I can be "saved" (i.e. joining the club) is not the issue.
  
  Are you claiming that Christian heaven is open to atheists, Hindus, Moslims and so on? If so, then your views fall in the category of "some Christian sects".
  
  --
  see a Text Widget
24. Re:I'm sorry, but the bible says... by moz25 · 2005-10-02 08:43 · Score: 1
  
  But just because one is not living in fear of something (because they think its just make-believe), does not mean they are unafraid of it.
  
  But here's the point: the common aspect of every major religion that ever existed is the denial of the unpleasant reality of death. You are the one who ducks the confrontation with death and thus require an afterlife to feel OK. You also indicate that you duck confrontations with other-believers because your life is hard (?), yet you make sweeping statements that attract their attention.
  
  I on the other hand welcome an afterlife with enthusiasm. How can you say I am fearful of it? It's unfortunate that the claims are unplausible in my eyes, because I'm actually biased in favour of it.
  
  You didn't answer my question on whether you fear Allah. As I understand, you are in denial of Allah's existence for some reason.
  
  The difference is that my views on life and personal philosophies don't center around denying the existence of 2500 deities. Your views on the other hand depend for a great deal on the denial of death. In fact, one of the most celebrated and most important events in Christianity is the alleged resurrection of Jesus.
  
  Fear seems to be more an inherent concept in Christianity as almost all Christians at some point mention Hell as the end-stop for me if I don't join the cult.
  
  --
  see a Text Widget
25. Re:I'm sorry, but the bible says... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-03 00:42 · Score: 0
  
  "We merely have to swallow it."
  
  As the Catholic priest said to the choirboy.....
On the bright side... by pmike_bauer · 2005-10-01 14:16 · Score: 3, Funny

If we bring back these creatures (a la Spielberg) and they get out of hand, we can just step on 'em.

--
I read /. for the (Score:-1, Conservative) comments.
1. Re:On the bright side... by PGC · 2005-10-01 18:31 · Score: 1
  
  haven't seen arachnaphobia, have you ? :P
  
  --
  The Dutch will inherit the earth. If not, we'll settle for a bit of ocean. Beta delenda est!
-1 Redundant by Phroggy · 2005-10-01 14:17 · Score: 0, Redundant

Great! Let's open a theme park. :-D

--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
1. Re:-1 Redundant by Raul654 · 2005-10-01 14:25 · Score: 1
  
  "Well...maybe it was for the best. Now I...I finally have time to do what I've always wanted: write the great American novel. Mine is about a futuristic amusement park where dinosaurs are brought to life through advanced cloning techniques. I call it "Billy and the Cloneasaurus." -- Principal Skinner, Episode 1F18
  
  --
  
  To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
  --E.C. Stanton
I'm surprised... by zappepcs · 2005-10-01 14:19 · Score: 1

That this story isn't already on this site
http://www.world-science.net/

All the wild science you ever needed....

--
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
How to stop a spider by thre5her · 2005-10-01 14:19 · Score: 4, Funny

edit your robots.txt
1. Re:How to stop a spider by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 14:54 · Score: 0
  
  It takes care of those nasty robots too. I guess this means that it'll take care of the spiderbots when they get around to evolving. Quite a handy little text file, that...
Big words against God? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 14:20 · Score: -1, Flamebait

Sir,
You speak big words against God. You will give account for that after you die. In the mean time, during the time that you are alive here on earth, do read some evidence that unbelievers don't want to see, and 'scientific' (where's the missing link?) magazines will not print - too painful! Like most truth is.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
Best regards,
Peter
1. Re:Big words against God? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 14:26 · Score: 0
  
  pfft. Why do you think I posted anon? Not even god knows who I am!
  
  I'm not an Anonymous Coward! I'm an Anonymous ... overconfident.. guy...
Interesting... by Kranfer · 2005-10-01 14:20 · Score: 1, Informative

For some reason I am hearing the Jurassic Park sound track playing... wait, I am playing it.

I think that this is awesome. I saw a special on the Discovery Channel called "Raising the Mammoth" where they went out into Siberia looking for a frozen Mammouth in the snow and such to get DNA and clone one using a Elephant from India as a Surrogate...

My only concern is... if we do get into cloning extinct animals and insects, what effect will it have on the ecosystem? Also is it possible to do at the present time?

But map that DNA :)

--
-- Josh
"Whoopie! Man, that may have been a small one for Neil, but that's a long one for me!" - Pete Conrad
1. Re:Interesting... by benjamindees · 2005-10-01 18:12 · Score: 1
  
  what effect will it have on the ecosystem?
  
  That's easy. Hopefully, if these animals can reproduce, they will immediately be granted "protected" status and allowed to roam freely in North America. Any land that our prehistoric friends need will be cheerfully appropriated under the "eminent domain for extinct species" power that the Supreme Court will surely find in the Constitution.
  
  Displaced humans will be herded into cities, to await terrorist attack, or catastrophic flood, peak oil, or bird flu. Politicians will constantly reassure us that these crises can be averted simply by working harder at our menial jobs.
  
  Years later, when the giant prehistoric spiders become an entrenched threat, a new administration will decleare "War on Spiders" and work to cover up and downplay any government responsibility in creating the spiders to begin with. This new administration will entreat us to "make sacrifices" while cutting taxes and increasing handouts to former spider-creators. Battles fought in the "War on Spiders" will include attacks on Lithuania and East Timor, and strong verbal threats towards Nicaragua (all members of the "Axis of Spiders"), yet no actual spiders will be harmed. After years of stalemate, victory will be declared and troops quietly returned home to "work harder" and "make sacrifices".
  
  --
  "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
this cracks me up by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 14:24 · Score: 0

"Dr Penney believes it was climbing up a tree 20 million years ago when it was hit on the head by fast flowing resin, became engulfed in the resin and died."

I think he's just taking this opportunity to make a story out of it. Come on, who can get that from a freakin' fossil?!
Nothing new? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 14:24 · Score: 3, Funny

Palaeontologist Dr David Penney, of the University of Manchester, found the 4cm long by 2cm wide fossil during a visit to a museum in the Dominican Republic.

"Oh, look! It's an amazing discovery! I found these T. Rex bones! And look, it's an ancient spider preserved in amber! Wow - there's a wooly mammoth entrapped in tar! This is the richest archeological find ever! Oh, wait... I'm in a museum."
So now we're looking at, what... by J.+T.+MacLeod · 2005-10-01 14:25 · Score: 1

Jurrassic Terrarium?

I'm curious as to what oh-so-reliable dating method they used.
1. Re:So now we're looking at, what... by Jon_A_Mnemonic · 2005-10-01 22:48 · Score: 1
  
  Quote: "I'm curious as to what oh-so-reliable dating method they used."
  "Hey baby, I'm a scientist with a focus on spiders. Wanna go out with me?"
Not this again by Quick+Sick+Nick · 2005-10-01 14:29 · Score: 0, Offtopic

I thought Frodo killed that thing!
OK - /. summary is wrong by AngryElmo · 2005-10-01 14:30 · Score: 1, Informative

Nothing is mentioned about using DNA (in fact i'm not even sure if it would be preserved for that amount of time). Also I don't know where the "two dropllets" of blood comes from - the scientist has been using "droplets" which could be any number larger than one... Picky aren't I? :) The find is seriously cool though..
1. Re:OK - /. summary is wrong by Xyrus · 2005-10-01 15:40 · Score: 1
  
  It might be possible that under the right conditions, DNA can last for quite awhile. DNA is a pretty rugged molecule. In the absence of metabolic processes and no other type external interactions, DNA could hang around for awhile.
  
  ~X~
  
  --
  ~X~
crap! they beat me to it! by plasmacutter · 2005-10-01 14:30 · Score: 0, Troll

well i'll find my own 20 million year old spider..

with 20 million year old blackjack, and 20 million year old hookers.

on second thought forget the 20 million year old blackjack, and the 20 million year old spider.. ...... wait.. that doesn't sound right.

--
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
1. Re:crap! they beat me to it! by fimbulvetr · 2005-10-02 03:01 · Score: 1
  
  Don't know how you got a troll...I laughed.
20 what? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 14:33 · Score: 0

Very few details as to how he's proving it was 20million. Anybody got more info on that?
Um.... by Spy+der+Mann · 2005-10-01 14:36 · Score: 1

Welcome... to Arachnid Park!

Are you sure you got that right? Our new arachnoid overlords thought they were welcomed to Human Park.
The Lord doesn't lie by tepples · 2005-10-01 14:37 · Score: -1, Flamebait

I know that god put this spider in this amber just to fool us.

BS. The Lord God doesn't lie to believers. What really happened is that the Great Flood of 1656 (post creation) led to rapid preservation of things in an anaerobic environment.

Learn more about creation science's position on fossils
1. Re:The Lord doesn't lie by The+Master+Control+P · 2005-10-01 15:19 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  There is no such thing as 'creation science.'
  
  Science is based on 3 fundamental assumptions: That the universe exists (is not a figment of my imagination), that it interacts with us in predictable ways (E=MC^2, PV=nRT, etc), and that the way it interacts with us does not change (E=MC^2 & PV=nRT today, they did yesterday, and they always will). If you believe that God exists and interacts with the universe, then you have to reject science because that invalidates the 3rd assumption as God could change the way the universe works (Hmm... I think I'll make E equal MC^1.5 for reasons that puny mortals cannot comprehend)
  
  If you want to believe that God popped the universe into existance 6000 years ago, that's cool with me. Just don't try to pretend it's scientific, because it isn't. And don't try to sneak it into science classrooms, because it isn't science.
2. Re:The Lord doesn't lie by Legion303 · 2005-10-01 15:24 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Linking to answersingenesis on Slashdot means you suck at life.
3. Re:The Lord doesn't lie by megrims · 2005-10-01 16:13 · Score: 0
  
  No. Those three fundamental assumptions do not exclude the possibility of an intelligent creator.
  In my opinion, it seems to be implied.
  
  You cannot say science cannot be practiced under the theory that the universe was created (by a creator)- it's a plausible theory, much like many of the others.
  Mockery doesn't contribute to your argument.
4. Re:The Lord doesn't lie by shmlco · 2005-10-01 16:15 · Score: 1
  
  And besides, it just pops the fundamental question up a level, from who made us... to who made Him?
  
  --
  Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
5. Re:The Lord doesn't lie by Jeremi · 2005-10-01 16:25 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The Lord God doesn't lie to believers.
  
  So the September 11th hijackers really are in heaven now, enjoying their 72 virgins and whatnot?
  
  --
  
  I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
6. Re:The Lord doesn't lie by InsideTheAsylum · 2005-10-01 16:45 · Score: 1
  
  Where from did the bing bang come from?
7. Re:The Lord doesn't lie by csirac · 2005-10-01 17:38 · Score: 1
  
  You cannot say science cannot be practiced under the theory that the universe was created (by a creator)- it's a plausible theory, much like many of the others.
  
  Indeed, most science can be practiced without fear of contradicting or confronting the "christian way" under that theory, however making arbitrary statements that contradict existing scientific evidence such as "the earth is around 6000 years old, it says so right here" (BTW I'd like to see where it does) is NOT scientific.
  
  I would actually argue that the core philosophy of "science" is that a statement must be derived from evidence and logic; if that evidence and "logic" (aka doctrine) becomes complicated and contradicts other arbitrary and complicated doctrine from different sources (like other religions), then you really cannot say it is "science".
  
  Saying that the earth is x years old because of an obscure reference in an abritrary 3rd-hand translation of genesis is about as scientific as saying Allah created man from the void...
8. Re:The Lord doesn't lie by shmlco · 2005-10-01 17:49 · Score: 1
  
  Silly mortal. The big bang was God, snapping his fingers...
  
  --
  Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
9. Re:The Lord doesn't lie by The+Master+Control+P · 2005-10-01 19:19 · Score: 1
  
  How so? The third assumption is that the way the universe acts doesn't change. If a supernatural being creates the universe, then interacts with it in ways such as parting the red sea, then it must have changed the way the universe operates: Because of gravity, water will never naturally leave the lowest available height.
  
  Any possible action is the result of the universe no longer working as predicted: A monopolar force came out of nothing, thin vortices of wind forced the water back, star-trek-style forcefields popped into existance. Since the universe would then demonstrably no longer necessarily act the same way from one moment to the next, science would become meaningless: Steam expanding would not do work on a cylinder if God willed otherwise.
  
  On the other hand, if a supernatural being created the universe and then completely and forever ceased interacting with it, letting everything take it's natural course, I can see no reason why we should speculate about the being or why we would believe it exists at all.
10. Re:The Lord doesn't lie by brit74 · 2005-10-01 20:50 · Score: 1
  
  The "Great flood of 1656"? I guess you mean the flood of 2350 BC (based on a literal reading of Genesis would put it around 2350 BC - which is during the sixth Egyptian dynasty - which was, strangely enough, never interupted by a flood!) I suppose you're going to tell me that the spider was preserved in the amber because the world was actually flooded by amber rather than water, too?
11. Re:The Lord doesn't lie by megrims · 2005-10-01 22:59 · Score: 1
  
  Whether or not the creator interacts with his creation is irrelevant. The Creator and his interaction are covered by the third assumption.
  
  You're viewing a theory from the outside, so it wont make sense. All theories are first based on the premise that they are correct. (All interpretation is influenced by one or another theory)
  
  Ideally, science is (just) based on observation of the natural order of the universe.
  
  On the other hand, I think it's silly to say that the universe is 6000 years old. We definitely don't know that.
12. Re:The Lord doesn't lie by tepples · 2005-10-02 00:44 · Score: 0, Offtopic
  
  So the September 11th hijackers really are in heaven now, enjoying their 72 virgins and whatnot?
  
  "Thou shalt not murder." Centuries later, Jesus said "Love your neighbor," even the sinners. People should be converted through love, not through violence.
13. Re:The Lord doesn't lie by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-02 01:44 · Score: 0
  
  Fine, but long after Jesus said that it was revealed in the Koran:
  [22:19-22] But as for those who disbelieve, garments of fire will be cut out for them, boiling fluid will be poured down their heads. Whereby that which is in their bellies, and their skins too, will be melted; And for them are hooked rods of iron. Whenever, in their anguish, they would go forth from thence they are driven back therein and (it is said unto them): Taste the doom of burning.
  
  So which is it? I suggest you religious types get your act together and finally come up with some definitive morals. In the meanwhile, the rest of us will continue to go along our merry way practising the our pragrmatic agnostic general rule of "be nice to people".
14. Re:The Lord doesn't lie by The+Master+Control+P · 2005-10-02 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  Ok, if we assume that a Creator is covered by the 3rd assumption, then wouldn't we have to assume that he/she/it always acts the same way under a given set of circumstances? Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to predict how things will necissarily work because the Creator and his/her/it's interactions would be unpredictable. Or would we be talking about something more like the ascended Ancients (if you're into Stargate)?
  
  On the other hand, quantum uncertainty makes things more interesting. On the subatomic scale, at least, things are generally unpredictable anyway - A creator could very well interact on that scale and it would be impossible to know one way or the other. Any thoughts on this?
Two questions... by Maxim+Kovalenko · 2005-10-01 14:38 · Score: 5, Interesting

1. Why is there no reference to how they know that the spider is that old?... and 2. Does the writer actually know that spiders have hemolymph instead of blood as us humans would look at it? Sigh...lazy science reporting strikes again.

--
Requiem
1. Re:Two questions... by Ogive17 · 2005-10-01 15:49 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe spiders 20 million years ago did have blood.
  
  --
  "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
2. Re:Two questions... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-04 19:24 · Score: 0
  
  Amber is common.
  Insects in amber are common.
  Baltic amber is 25 - 40 million years old.
  Anything in Baltic amber is 25 - 40 million years old.
  Pine tree resing creates a chemical similar to formaldehyde.
  You can buy specimens on eBay for not much money.
  
  Dictionary.com says of 'hemolymph,' "...analogous to blood in arthropods..." so using the term 'spider blood' is the same goddamn thing as saying 'hemolymph.'
  
  The article is on BBC NEWS, hardly a science journal.
  
  Sigh...lazy readers can't use google. *sigh*... s - i - g - h
Article by dorkygeek · 2005-10-01 14:39 · Score: 0, Redundant

Spider 'is 20 million years old'

A scientist has described a spider that was trapped and preserved in amber 20 million years ago.

Palaeontologist Dr David Penney, of the University of Manchester, found the 4cm long by 2cm wide fossil during a visit to a museum in the Dominican Republic.

Since the discovery two years ago, he has used droplets of blood in the amber to reveal the age of the specimen.

It is thought to be the first time spider blood has been found in amber and scientists hope to extract its DNA.

Dr Penney, of the School of Earth, Atmospheric and Environmental Sciences, said he had used the blood droplets to trace how, when and where the spider died.

It is a new species from the Filistatidae family commonly found in South America and the Caribbean.

Dr Penney believes it was climbing up a tree 20 million years ago when it was hit on the head by fast flowing resin, became engulfed in the resin and died.

He claims the shape and position of the blood droplets revealed which direction the spider was travelling in and which of its legs broke first.

"It's amazing to think that a single piece of amber with a single spider in it can open up a window into what was going on 20 million years ago," he said.

"By analysing the position of the spider's body in relation to the droplets of blood in the amber we are able to determine how it died, which direction it was travelling in and even how fast it was moving."

He first saw the fossil during a visit to the Museo del Ambar Dominicano, in Puerto Plata, Dominican Republic.

Dr Penney reports his findings in the latest issue of the journal Palaeontology.

--
Windows is like decaf - it tastes like the real thing, but it won't get you through the day.
I'm going to put hot amber down my pants by saskboy · 2005-10-01 14:46 · Score: 4, Funny

Maybe that old Slashdot troll was on to something when he started putting hot grits down his pants. Maybe he just wasn't advanced enough to realize that if he'd done it with tree sap, then he'd be naked and petrified with blood and DNA intact for at least 20 Million years, just like this spider!

I've been considering different ways I could preserve my body, and I think encasing myself in amber has shot to the top of the list, past deep freezing, and freeze drying.

--
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
1. Re:I'm going to put hot amber down my pants by nounderscores · 2005-10-01 17:36 · Score: 1
  
  Hmm. To complete the troll you would have to assert that the only specimine worth preserving was natalie portman.
  
  This feels bizarre. It's like we're unearthing a fossil troll.
2. Re:I'm going to put hot amber down my pants by Caraig · 2005-10-01 17:54 · Score: 1
  
  This feels bizarre. It's like we're unearthing a fossil troll.
  Only if he made a Beowolf cluster of himself. Though if you're really going into paleoslashdottery you'd be mentioning Mae Ling Mak.
  
  --
  "I am an Adept of Tantric VAX."
3. Re:I'm going to put hot amber down my pants by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-04 04:02 · Score: 0
  
  I work with a hot Amber, and she is most welcome down my pants.
faulty dates by Walzmyn · 2005-10-01 14:47 · Score: 0, Troll

I highly doubt that date. For one thing, does anybody believe that the blood really could have lasted that long no matter what it was preserved in? And not too long ago we had those millions of year old bones with blood in them.

From what I studied of the dating methods in College I put no trust in them.

This site has an in depth study of carbon dating. I know it's a biased site, but it does have good information.
1. Re:faulty dates by Waffle+Iron · 2005-10-01 15:15 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  For one thing, does anybody believe that the blood really could have lasted that long no matter what it was preserved in?
  Yes, blood is made out of atoms. If the atoms are embedded in a durable impenetrable container, they're not going anywhere as long as the container remains intact. The molecules that made up the blood may degrade, but the atoms all remain in place.
  Arguments like this don't matter anyway. If you believe that an invisible man is fscking with our minds by creating a young universe that he filled with all types of evidence that makes it look old (including fossils, geological features, astronomical phenomena, cosmic redshifting and background radiation, minerals on earth and other planets, and myriad other observations, many down to the subatomic level) then all bets are off. You don't need to argue that carbon dating is flawed: in that scenario all carbon samples were rigged when they were created, so worrying about the scientific validity of any dating technique is futile.
2. Re:faulty dates by ultranova · 2005-10-01 20:34 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, blood is made out of atoms. If the atoms are embedded in a durable impenetrable container, they're not going anywhere as long as the container remains intact. The molecules that made up the blood may degrade, but the atoms all remain in place.
  
  Except, of course, that the atoms inside the blood cells aren't held in place by the container, they are held in place by the structure of the blood cell. Similarly, the atoms inside any largish molecule are held in place by the surrounding atoms. If the molecule degrades, the bonds keeping the atoms in place break, and you are left not with blood but a mess with the same composition of elements than there was in blood.
  
  In short, dust is not blood, even if the remains are held in a container.
  
  That said, I have no idea how long it might take for blood to decompose beyond recognition when sealed in amber.
  
  --
  Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
3. Re:faulty dates by Walzmyn · 2005-10-01 23:46 · Score: 1
  
  the amber is not a totally sealed container. The way it is dated is measuering the rate carbon excapes it. 2) Lots of the stuff you mentioned point to an old earth but not THAT old. We have found fossilized sacks of flour with a 1940's date on them. It does not take THAT long for much of this stuff to form
4. Re:faulty dates by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-02 00:32 · Score: 0
  
  It is equally stupid to believe that the fossils were put there to "test our faith" as it is to believe that fossils took long to become what they are now.
  
  Does anyone know the name of the fossilized tree that was found with upper half being different material than the bottom. If fossilization takes millions of years, the upper part would not exist. Also please explain the concept of a jelly fish being fossilized over millions of years. There was an observable discovery of a hat being completely fossilized within time of 50 years in an abundonned mine.
  
  Just a question of personal oppinion, is it logical to suggest that if there was a global flood that sediments would have been massively moved around? Also have you heard many accounts saying there's lots of dead fish lying on the sea floor?
  
  Sad for you, the more scientists discover the more it agrees with the Bible. What doesn't agree is understanding. Facts are facts, but conclusions we draw from them can just be speculations at best. Also letting falacious logic off the leash doesn't produce good results either.
  
  Please take a look here, you might find a thing or two interesting. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i1/ho wold.asp
  
  4) Many processes, which we have been told take millions of years, do not need such time-spans at all.
  a) Coal formation.
  Argonne National Laboratories have shown that heating wood (lignin, its major component), water and acidic clay at 150C (rather cool geologically) for 4 to 36 weeks, in a sealed quartz tube with no added pressure, forms high-grade black coal.
  
  Just a comment regarding 4a 8 month is needed to produce something that resembles coal powder.
5. Re:faulty dates by Waffle+Iron · 2005-10-02 01:28 · Score: 1
  
  Lots of the stuff you mentioned point to an old earth but not THAT old.
  Believe what you want. Like I said, there's no point discussing it if the evidence was rigged.
6. Re:faulty dates by rthille · 2005-10-02 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  Does anyone know the name of the fossilized tree that was found with upper half being different material than the bottom. If fossilization takes millions of years, the upper part would not exist. Also please explain the concept of a jelly fish being fossilized over millions of years. There was an observable discovery of a hat being completely fossilized within time of 50 years in an abundonned mine.
  
  Probably wasting my time, but objects can be preserved by burying, and fosilized later (over longer time periods). Fosils are created by mineral replacement, usually when the object is submerged in a fluid carrying the minerals. An object could be burried by silt (to protect it), then submerged over long time periods in different solutions, resulting in different mineralization for different parts. Depending on the solution, mineralization doesn't have to take an exceeding long time. Just because fosils are old, doesn't mean they take a long time to become fosils.
  
  Sad for you, the more scientists discover the more it agrees with the Bible.
  
  I guess I'll ignore this, since it's so vague as to be impossible to refute.
  
  What doesn't agree is understanding. Facts are facts, but conclusions we draw from them can just be speculations at best. Also letting falacious logic off the leash doesn't produce good results either.
  
  Actually, conclusions can be more than speculations. They can be theories which can be tested using experiments. They can predict things. That's what's useful about science. Religion is useless because it doesn't allow us to predict anything about the world. Even if you're right and some guy in a white robe created the earth 6000 years ago, who cares? Believing that doesn't help me to predict anything about the world 'he' created. Can I use that belief when I build a bridge or engineer a drug to combat disease? Not to mention the whole 'stack of turtles' that creationists ignore. After all, if the world is so complex that it needed someone to create it, doesn't that make the creator so complex as to need something to create him?
  
  --
  Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
I'm sorry, but Russia says... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 14:55 · Score: 0

*rolls eyes*

Well if you all haven't figured it out by now? "Religious jokes" are the new season replacement for the tired old "In Soviet Russia" joke. Expect to see plenty more.*

*Make a mental note that there will be no "evolution jokes" until we all have gotten tired of the "religious jokes" (which may be never. Atheists are like Duracell in that regard)
1. Re:I'm sorry, but Russia says... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 15:37 · Score: 0
  
  Burn the Christians.
2. Re:I'm sorry, but Russia says... by CmdrTaco+on · 2005-10-01 15:44 · Score: -1
  
  I love the jokes. So does 95% of the other people here. So shut the fuck up.
  
  --
  saru mo ki kara ochiru
The last thing I want by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 15:00 · Score: 0

Is to EVER hear my dog tell me what his own poop tastes like.
Blood... In a spider?!? by bigmanjq · 2005-10-01 15:00 · Score: 2, Informative

You are correct, especially about your second point. As a Biology teacher, I emphasize the point to my students that spiders (and all arthropods) do NOT have blood (that term is reserved for animals with a closed circulatory system). Spiders and other arthropods have a fluid called "hemolymph" (as you mentioned) which contains the equivalent of our blood plus lymphatic fluids (hense the name "hemo"=blood + "lymph").

Do you actually expect any more from BBC News, though?
1. Re:Blood... In a spider?!? by KillerDeathRobot · 2005-10-01 23:12 · Score: 1
  
  No man, it's not called "hemolymph," it's called "ichor."
  
  --
  Thinkin' Lincoln - a web comic of presidential proportions
I for one... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 15:01 · Score: 0, Insightful

I, for one, welcome our 20 million year-old arachnid overlords.
1. Re:I for one... by slucid · 2005-10-02 07:20 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know why but I STILL laugh every time i hear this stupid joke!
Just out of raw curiousity... by QueenNina · 2005-10-01 15:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

From the article:
Palaeontologist Dr David Penney, of the University of Manchester, found the 4cm long by 2cm wide fossil during a visit to a museum in the Dominican Republic.
Since the discovery two years ago, he has used droplets of blood in the amber to reveal the age of the specimen.
Um, if he "found" it in a museum, doesn't that mean someone ELSE discovered it?
Just curious.
1. Re:Just out of raw curiousity... by Xeriar · 2005-10-01 17:28 · Score: 1
  
  This sort of thing happens, where a piece will reside in a museum or somewhere for a bit before someone realizes what it truly is. Someone else discovered the fossil, he discovered what it meant.
  
  --
  I am a science fantasy fan
2. Re:Just out of raw curiousity... by Phantasmo · 2005-10-01 18:48 · Score: 1
  
  Discoveries don't count until a white westerner announces them.
  
  Obviously!
  
  --
  
  The US Army: promoting democracy through unquestioned obedience
3. Re:Just out of raw curiousity... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 19:25 · Score: 0
  
  Don't be silly! Why just last month i found an amazing painting by Leonardo DaVinci in the Louvre. I was gonna call it "Maryjo Bobby-sue" but some vandal over the ages wrote "M. Ona Lisa" on it. so oh well.
If you... by Psionicist · 2005-10-01 15:13 · Score: 1

If you say that out loud it sounds like Iraqi Park - Where WMD's roam freely.

But then I'm from sweden AND i'm drunk, so my pronounciation is probably screwed up.
1. Re:If you... by Legion303 · 2005-10-01 15:36 · Score: 1
  
  It is my understanding that all the free-roaming Iraqi WMDs died out in the 90s.
They think the earth is only 6000 years old! by DAldredge · 2005-10-01 15:14 · Score: 0, Troll

Time and time again I have found that in both Christian and secular worlds, those of us who are involved in the creation movement are characterized as 'young Earthers.' The supposed battle-line is thus drawn between the 'old Earthers' (this group consists of anti-God evolutionists as well as many 'conservative' Christians) who appeal to what they call 'science,' versus the 'young Earthers,' who are said to be ignoring the overwhelming supposed 'scientific' evidence for an old Earth.

I want to make it VERY clear that we don't want to be known primarily as 'young-Earth creationists.' AiG's main thrust is NOT 'young Earth' as such; our emphasis is on Biblical authority. Believing in a relatively 'young Earth' (i.e., only a few thousands of years old, which we accept) is a consequence of accepting the authority of the Word of God as an infallible revelation from our omniscient Creator.

Recently, one of our associates sat down with a highly respected world-class Hebrew scholar and asked him this question: 'If you started with the Bible alone, without considering any outside influences whatsoever, could you ever come up with millions or billions of years of history for the Earth and universe?' The answer from this scholar? 'Absolutely not!'

That is from http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1866.asp
1. Re:They think the earth is only 6000 years old! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 15:24 · Score: 0
  
  Believing in a relatively 'young Earth' (i.e., only a few thousands of years old, which we accept) is a consequence of accepting the authority of the Word of God as an infallible revelation from our omniscient Creator.
  There's the root of your problem. You have no valid basis to accept that you've received an infallible revelation from anyone.
2. Re:They think the earth is only 6000 years old! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 16:25 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  You are wrong.
  
  You are not known as 'young earthers'
  
  You are known as idiots.
  
  I hope that clears everything up.
3. Re:They think the earth is only 6000 years old! by DAldredge · 2005-10-01 18:18 · Score: 1
  
  I do not agree with time. I was responding to the Parent Poster who used them as a ref.
  
  That is why the title of my post ends in a !
4. Re:They think the earth is only 6000 years old! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-02 12:36 · Score: 0
  
  > I do not agree with time.
  
  Hehe, yes. Mighty funny Freudian slip, that. You, sir, have been robbed of the "+5 Funny" mod you deserved. Both in this and the other post.
Any carbon date is technically "years before 1950" by jpellino · 2005-10-01 15:21 · Score: 3, Informative

The baseline concentration of carbon 14 is from a 1950 measurement - C14 is atmospheric nitrogen bombarded by naturally occurring radiation, the C14 is incorporated metabolically into living organisms - but only as long as you're alive and respiring.

As to accuracy, there are calibration curves for it against other known counters - tree rings etc.

As to precision, there was also a recalculation of the half-life - but they were only off by a few percent.

They're not off by an integral factor, they're not off by an order of magnitude. But after ten or so half-lifes, the differences become too small to be practically useful.

--
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Fascinating. Not. by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 15:21 · Score: 0, Troll

Having had to kill too many big potentially poisonous ones lately (no shortage of insects and spiders this summer) after bumping into their webs, I could care less. Waste them all.
Perserved??? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 15:22 · Score: -1, Redundant

Doesn't he mean "pREserved?"
$5 says... by ChePibe · 2005-10-01 15:24 · Score: 2, Funny

It was discovered by a scientist's wife, who demanded he come from the other side of the forest to squish it with his shoe...

(No, I'm not a sexit pig... just a married man with an aracnophobic wife...)
1. Re:$5 says... by MullerMn · 2005-10-02 22:00 · Score: 1
  
  Good thing too. Being a male "sexit pig" sounds anally hazardous.
Funny, the first thing which I thought was ... by ggvaidya · 2005-10-01 15:27 · Score: 1

Oooh .. Ahhh .. That's how it always starts. Then later there's running ... and screaming ... and bug spray ...
Journal Article by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 15:39 · Score: 2, Informative

Abstract from the paper

Note that this was submitted and accepted more than a year ago. If you have a subsciption (most universities), you can get it at this url

Abstract: Two spiders (Filistatidae) in Miocene Dominican
Republic amber, one newly identified and only the second
known fossil of this family, have autospasized legs (detached
at a predetermined locus of weakness when restrained by a
non-self-induced source) at the patella-tibia joint. In both
specimens, droplets of haemolymph (blood) are preserved
exiting the patellae. The autospasized legs and the presence
of haemolymph suggests that both spiders were engulfed in
rapid-flowing resin seeps of relatively low viscosity, rather
than having wandered onto a sticky exudate, becoming stuck
and then covered by a subsequent resin flow. These are the
first reported incidences of such fossilized blood droplets, the
shape, size and position of which provide clues to preservational
taphonomy, an understanding of which is necessary
for reliable conclusions concerning fossil communities and
ecosystems. In addition, haemolymph droplets may serve as
reservoirs for fossil DNA.
Key words: Dominican Republic, spider, Araneae, Filistatidae,
haemolymph, autospasy.
Oblig. Aqua Teen Hunger Force, perhaps by Dachannien · 2005-10-01 15:40 · Score: 2, Funny

Ignignokt: Did anyone see an eight-foot spider wearing a diaper in the parking lot anywhere?
Cybernetic Ghost of Christmas Past from the Future: I did see that spider, but when I was in that parking lot, it was about 375 thousand years ago....
And what do you bet.... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 15:47 · Score: 0

That GWB would screw that up as well.
A little word correction by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 15:48 · Score: 0

Just to let you know that it's 'preserved'.
FSM by sconeu · 2005-10-01 15:59 · Score: 4, Funny

Obviously, He reached out and touched the moderators with His noodly appendage.

--
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Re:blah! Big Bang, blah! by pbhj · 2005-10-01 16:04 · Score: 1

Next you'll be telling us there was a point singularity at which space and time itself were created out of nothing with no source and no existence beforehand ... pah! Pseudoscientific clap-trap!
When interviewed... by nastro · 2005-10-01 16:04 · Score: 4, Funny

The spider commented that it was cold, and that no one turns up the goddamned heat anymore. It went on to note that younger spiders ran all over his web yesterday, and left things quite untidy. "No sir, things ain't what they used to be 'tall."
offtopic sig post by Jeremi · 2005-10-01 16:06 · Score: 4, Funny

Advice for my fellow geeks: before seeking out that threesome you dream of, you might see what a TWOsome is like first.

Bah. I'm going to skip that amateur penny-ante stuff and go straight for the two-hundred-and-fifty-some. Sex is much more exciting when you need an HR department just to schedule it.

--

I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
1. Re:offtopic sig post by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-03 02:50 · Score: 0
  
  Were they 251 acts 'to completion', or 251 simple penetrations?
Maybe I'm just being an asshole by mr.mighty · 2005-10-01 16:29 · Score: 0, Redundant

Maybe I'm just being an asshole, but I dream of a day when slashdot runs its stories through a spellchecker. Perserved? WTF?
Well, sure they can clone it... by mlmurray · 2005-10-01 16:35 · Score: 2, Funny

...But the real question is can they use it's DNA to create a spider with four asses?
At least get the man's name right by grolschie · 2005-10-01 16:36 · Score: 1

FTA, it's Dr David Penney.
Another BS dating scheme by MichaelBoy · 2005-10-01 16:42 · Score: 0

20 million years? B.S! "Scientists" don't have any accurate way to date things ("hmm, this rock must be 10 million years old. The bones must be 10 million years old, because the rock is. How do we know that? Because the bones are. See, its simple")
1. Re:Another BS dating scheme by akac · 2005-10-01 19:16 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Why mod the parent down? He's right. If you truly believe in science, you'll research this and find out that all of our dating schemes are based on assumptions that we keep having to redefine because we find they are wrong every 10-20 years.
  
  All we know is - its old. Everytime somebody finds something that goes against the pillars of billions of years, its treated as an abnormality. Fact is - our great scientists that guzzle hundreds of millions of dollars for research based on assumptions don't know jack and are 100x worse than the Bush administration for cronyism. If only a tenth of the money spent on this junk would be spent on cures for cancer, alzhiemers, and other diseases - we'd probably be far more along and far more knowledgeable about ourselves.
2. Re:Another BS dating scheme by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 20:56 · Score: 0
  
  Do you understand radioisotope dating at all? http://www.turbulentplanet.com/Writings/Evolution/ RadionuclidesOnEarth/radionuclidesonearth.html
3. Re:Another BS dating scheme by MichaelBoy · 2005-10-02 01:18 · Score: 0
  
  My point was all dating schemes are based on assumptions - including this one! Quoting from the link: "The fourth column is the number of half-lifes which have taken place assuming that 4.5 billion years have passed since the atom's formation." "Assuming that the evolutionists are right in estimating the age of the earth to be 4.5 billion years old" Regardless of what you say about anything, assumptions have to be made. Don't give me junk science, don't tell me that anyone knows everything there is to know about "radionuclides" to be able to know for an absolute scientific fact that the world is 4.5 billion years old. I keep hearing words like "assume" and "expect" and I remain very skeptical.
4. Re:Another BS dating scheme by MichaelBoy · 2005-10-02 01:33 · Score: 0
  
  Thank you. Finally, someone saying something rational about how "scientists" have take their "religion" and stuffed it down our throats.
5. Re:Another BS dating scheme by rthille · 2005-10-02 07:05 · Score: 1
  
  Refining dating science to make it more accurate doesn't mean it was 'wrong' to begin with. It's a case of increasing precision. Not to mention that the parent was talking out of his ass. Early geologists didn't have ways of doing absolute dating. That's why geologic timescales are all based on the life forms within them. However, _modern_ science can use radioactive decay to date rocks with reasonable precision to absolute ages.
  BTW, what would be an example of 'something that goes against the pillars of billions of years'?
  
  --
  Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
6. Re:Another BS dating scheme by fluffy666 · 2005-10-04 20:28 · Score: 1
  
  Any actual examples of these 'assumptions that we keep having to redefine'? After all, if we are being scientific then we can hardly take your word for it.
  And as for your deranged ravings about how scientists waste all of their research funding, there is someone here who dosen't know jack, and I'd be looking in the mirror if I were you.
Yes, and allow me to add by JudgeFurious · 2005-10-01 16:43 · Score: 4, Funny

A whole hearted "Fuck That Noise!" to your insightful post.

I can't be the only person getting bad vibes from the idea of scientists recovering some 20 million year old spider DNA from this thing. We all know that once scientists get hold of 20 million year old spider DNA they can't just study it and compare it to modern spider DNA. Oh hell no, they're going to have to make some brand new "vintage" 20 million year old spiders out of it. Then those spiders will escape and breed with our spiders and shortly after that we're going to learn about the little tiny kind of spider who was really responsible for the Dinosaurs going away.

I'm going to be so pissed off when I'm proven right on this.

--
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
1. Re:Yes, and allow me to add by sik0fewl · 2005-10-02 07:16 · Score: 1
  
  I'm going to be so pissed off when I'm proven right on this.
  
  No, you'll be dead.
  
  --
  I remember when legal used to mean lawful, now it means some kind of loophole. - Leo Kessler
idiots above...idiots below by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 16:47 · Score: 0

A new news site is coming, it will be way better than this.
If you have lynx installed, you be not the idiots.

BTW,
waists is the stupid crap I have to type in to post this.
slashdot has been bought by AOL ,it happenned in '98.
noticed the spam for viagra and rubber dolls escalating?
Re:blah! Big Bang, blah! by butterbarrel · 2005-10-01 17:08 · Score: 0

Ahh ... the marinara-ity deep within the Lord FSM, from which all noodles doth emanate
How it died? by ReadParse · 2005-10-01 17:13 · Score: 4, Funny

Dr Penney, of the School of Earth, Atmospheric and Environmental Sciences, said he had used the blood droplets to trace how, when and where the spider died.

Was there a question about how the spider died? I could have saved you some time and money. I could have made a good guess on the "where" also if you told me where you found him.

RP
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2005-10-01 17:16 · Score: 5, Funny

Comment removed based on user account deletion
Arachnophilia by Ranger · 2005-10-01 17:30 · Score: 1

Well there were only 3 "I for one welcome our new Amber Arachnid Overlords" posts. 4 if you coun't this one. Why it was only yesterday we had the Tool Using Gorilla Overlords and the Giant Squid Overlords. Someone suggested we have an Overlords Championship. And we can't leave out the Poison Dart Dolphin Overlords nor the Acetylene Lifeform Titan Overlords. It must be Overlord envy. I have yet to see one post welcoming our current Neocon Overlords. I mean they must really have their feelings hurt. When everyone else is welcoming a new overlord at least once a day. There couldn't be anyone more deserving of our sympathy than Scooter The Libby, Donald the Rumsfeld, Cheney The Dick, Turd Blossom Rove, and SpaceChimp Bush. Can you feel the love? I'm sure people must have as much love for them as they do for spiders.

--
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
1. Re:Arachnophilia by nounderscores · 2005-10-01 17:38 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  The point is that we'd rather have a poison dart dolphin than Bush.
  
  Except when it comes to election time.
but what we really want to know is... by Tablizer · 2005-10-01 18:32 · Score: 1

...does it still taste like chicken?

--
Table-ized A.I.
How about a little experiment? by j3tt · 2005-10-01 18:49 · Score: 1

Why don't they try injecting some of that blood sample into a human. It may produce something like this
Nah you'd get something more like this... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 19:04 · Score: 0

http://www.jeffgoldblumiswatchingyoupoop.com/pages /flyers.html
20 million!?!?!? by east+coast · 2005-10-01 19:18 · Score: 0

He was able to extract the blood and determine its age: 20 million years old.

That's a lot of fucking candles on that birthday cake.

--
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
Discovery? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-01 19:26 · Score: 0

Hmmm.... he 'discovered' this during a trip to a museum. Riiight.....

Sounds like someone else discovered it and put it in the museum of amber in the Dominican Republic and he came waltzing in and bought the thing.

Great 'discovery' dude, well done.
big furry hands and feet, eyes real close together by FuriousBalancing · 2005-10-01 19:57 · Score: 1

I also love Bill Hicks. Good job, dude.
Awwwwwwwwww! by zrk · 2005-10-01 20:54 · Score: 1

Ladies and gentlemen
Ladies and gentlemen
Spider
He is our hero
Spider
Get rid of
Spider
Step on spider!!
Spider
We love you spider
I promise not to kill you
Spider
Spider
We love you spider
Spider
Get rid of
Spider
Must stop
Spider
He is our hero
Eeks by DinX · 2005-10-01 21:36 · Score: 0

In the Dominican Replublic ... spiders squash you !
I've got a bad case of gerontoarachnophobia by swotl · 2005-10-01 22:15 · Score: 1

... and would appreciate it if fewer such articles could be posted. Thanks.

--
- sig sig sputnik
Who found it? by innlegg · 2005-10-01 23:24 · Score: 1

From the article: "Palaeontologist Dr David Penney, of the University of Manchester, found the 4cm long by 2cm wide fossil during a visit to a museum in the Dominican Republic."

I've just discovered loads of egyptian sarcofags! In uhm.. British Museum!
Boo hoo by pxpt · 2005-10-02 00:06 · Score: 1

Awww - but I wanted DINOSAURS not freakin' SPIDERS !!!
Perserved? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-02 00:15 · Score: 0

3 times !
The Lord doesn't lie-Earth's age unknown. by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-02 01:17 · Score: 0

"Saying that the earth is x years old because of an obscure reference in an abritrary 3rd-hand translation of genesis is about as scientific as saying Allah created man from the void..."

The bible DOESN'T say how old the earth is. So I can only conclude that this 6000 years thing is Atheists trying to muddy the issue (Those christians said... Oops! No they didn't because I didn't actually read the damn book*)

*most atheists skim the book looking for stuff that supports their views, pulling things out of context.
1. Re:The Lord doesn't lie-Earth's age unknown. by cortana · 2005-10-02 04:07 · Score: 1
  
  The bible doesnt say "the earth is 6000 years old". However, you can add up all the periods of time that it mentions (example) and come up with a total of ~6000 years.
I, for one, by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-02 01:26 · Score: 0

welcome our prehistoric spider overlords.
~~~
Odd emphasis in article by PhotoGuy · 2005-10-02 01:33 · Score: 2, Interesting

Does it strike anyone else as odd, that the scientist quoted in article mentions the DNA possibility almost in passing, but rambles on proudly, at length, about how he figure out how it died from being hit with "fast moving resin"? (wtf?) Nothing like breaking your leg from being hit by maple syrup.

--
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
Please don't tell me... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-02 01:53 · Score: 0

... that they named it after google. World does not need another google bug.
Re: Jurassic Carl by rirugrat · 2005-10-02 02:15 · Score: 1

"I don't believe spiders ever existed." - Carl Everett
What about Duesberg & others thesis? by Wooky_linuxer · 2005-10-02 03:09 · Score: 1

People here at /. are funny in a funny way. While discussing Aragog's mum, people bash others for their misinformation about the origins of HIV. You're not an expert in the field, I hear the /. masses say, an so you're not even entitled to an fscking opinion. But people fail to realize that science is contraditory in its own nature.
For example, Duesberg simply denies that HIV even causes AIDS. He is a most respectable virologist, so I guess he is entitled to his opinion. People like Kary Mullis, Nobel prize winner, and a host of others, support him.
So the next time Joe-not-a-scientist says something, don't rule it out just because he is not en expert in the field, or just because there isn't "extreme evidence" available.

--
Where is that guy who'd die defending what I had to say when I need him?
True homage to Natalie Portman by jurv!s · 2005-10-02 04:42 · Score: 1

Hot maple syrup rub down until naked and petrified

--
sigs are for fools and trolls. no signature is *always* appropriate. you should turn them off in your preferences.
Vengeance is God's job, not man's by tepples · 2005-10-02 05:07 · Score: 1

in the Qur'an, Jesus said: But as for those who disbelieve, garments of fire will be cut out for them, boiling fluid will be poured down their heads.

This penalty is associated with a judgment by God, not a judgment by man.
1. Re:Vengeance is God's job, not man's by Jeremi · 2005-10-02 08:54 · Score: 1
  
  This penalty is associated with a judgment by God, not a judgment by man.
  
  That may be so, but God told Mr. Atta and his buddies otherwise. So either God made an exception in their case, or God lied to them.
  
  --
  
  I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
2. Re:Vengeance is God's job, not man's by tepples · 2005-10-02 11:44 · Score: 1
  
  That may be so, but God told Mr. Atta and his buddies otherwise.
  
  It's more likely that Mr. Atta and his buddies thought it up themselves, or somebody's confusing Satan with God.
  
  Now, about that spider...
Re:offtopic sig post Scroll down by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-02 07:48 · Score: 0

If you like this title, we also recommend...

The Battle of Brazil: A Video History (1996) (V)
I'll have to remember by callipygian-showsyst · 2005-10-02 09:38 · Score: 1

...on October 1, 2006, to celebrate its 20,000,001st birthday party!

--
Best Buy can have you arrested
So THAT is the origin! by rkuris · 2005-10-02 11:14 · Score: 1

This has got to be the oldest bug in existence!
Who knew we had DNA revision control that goes back that far!

--
Get rid of everything Micro and Soft: Buy Viagra and/or Linux
ancient spiders? by Oshkoshjohn · 2005-10-03 01:57 · Score: 1

Is this Shelob's mom? She waits.

--
Goddamned kids! Get off my lawn!
species modification by Oshkoshjohn · 2005-10-03 02:02 · Score: 1

It's gotta have six asses!

--
Goddamned kids! Get off my lawn!
Re:blah! Big Bang, blah! by pbhj · 2005-10-03 05:20 · Score: 1

marinara ... bleuch!

surely you know he's bolonaissey
Now Playing by g0bshiTe · 2005-10-03 05:31 · Score: 1

Arachno-Jurasic Park
Starring:
Laura Flynn-Boyle
Visit this park where instead of large dinosaurs spiders were cloned using giant tarantula dna. Nono this could even roll out into a sequel combining both Eight Legged Freaks and this one. Where the spiders grow even larger and jump at park attendees.

--
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
dammit, Jim by spepper · 2005-10-09 01:39 · Score: 1

Dammit Jim, he's dead-- I'm a doctor, not a miracle worker!