Slashdot Mirror


Four Millennia Old Noodles Found In China

mollten writes "According to BBC News, the world's oldest noodles have been found at the Lajia site in China. Carbon Dating has found the remains to be over 4000 years old." From the article: "Prior to the discovery of noodles at Lajia, the earliest written record of noodles is traced to a book written during the East Han Dynasty sometime between AD 25 and 220, although it remained a subject of debate whether the Chinese, the Italians, or the Arabs invented it first ... Our discovery indicates that noodles were first produced in China."

264 comments

  1. Lajia U? by yagu · · Score: 3, Funny

    They should keep digging. I'm betting they've stumbled across an old Lajia University dormitory and discovered students' supplies of Ramen. (Well at least that's what we lived on in college.)

    1. Re:Lajia U? by OakDragon · · Score: 1
      I'm betting next they'll find an ancient pizza box made from papyrus, with a couple of slices of fig -n- date pizza.

      Just pop it in the microwave, should be good.

    2. Re:Lajia U? by rob_squared · · Score: 5, Funny
      Nah, couldn't have come from a university, everyone knows that there would have been *roaches around to clean the place of food.

      *Not the kind you smoke.

      --
      I don't get it.
    3. Re:Lajia U? by slideroll · · Score: 5, Funny

      MSG, the ultimate preservative.

    4. Re:Lajia U? by unixbugs · · Score: 1

      If it is really Ramen noodles I bet they are probably still good.

      --
      You are about to give someone a piece of your mind, something which you can ill afford...
    5. Re:Lajia U? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      This is something I've wanted to know for ages... Is 'Ramen' the same thing that is marketed in Australia as "instant noodles" and "two minute noodles" (by companies such as Maggi)? Or is ramen different somehow?

    6. Re:Lajia U? by ozmanjusri · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's the same thing. If you ever feel like giving them up forever, try some of the recipes here http://mattfischer.com/ramen/

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    7. Re:Lajia U? by bn557 · · Score: 1

      Nah, I'm pretty sure there'd be smokable roaches too. After 4 years, you gotta be REALLY high to still eat ramen, and getting really high costs so much, you can only afford ramen

      --
      Humans are slow, innaccurate, and brilliant; computers are fast, acurrate, and dumb; together they are unbeatable
    8. Re:Lajia U? by Arandir · · Score: 1

      Oooh, good site. I especially love the Quick Ramen in a Cup recipe. Wow, quick ramen in a cup. I am overwhelmed by the creativity.

      --
      A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
    9. Re:Lajia U? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The product marketed in the US as "Ramen" is just packet noodles, but ramen in general is a Japanese interpretation of Chinese noodles (e.g.: miso ramen, shio ramen, shoyu ramen...).

    10. Re:Lajia U? by WillWare · · Score: 3, Funny

      But the world's oldest beanbag chair and the world's oldest lava lamp ought to have been safe.

      --
      WWJD for a Klondike Bar?
    11. Re:Lajia U? by dolphin558 · · Score: 1

      Whatever happened to "Oodles & Noodles"? All I see in the grocery store are Ramen noodles. I have about 70 packets in my kitchen in fact. Ahh, the life of a bachelor. :-)

    12. Re:Lajia U? by ScoLgo · · Score: 1

      The Michael Schenker Group?

      I don't get it...

      --
      "Michael, I did nothing. I did absolutely nothing - and it was everything that I thought it could be."
    13. Re:Lajia U? by Enti · · Score: 1

      Indeed! I'm convinced that open flame is by far the safest of heating elements. I'm using this method for all of my dungeon - lighting purposes, and not a single fire yet. Some of the prisoners complain about eye strain due to prolonged exposure, but they should have thought of that before falling into my spike traps.

      --
      In these days, bleeps and bloops mean something more
    14. Re:Lajia U? by fbjon · · Score: 1

      If we're talking about the pre-packaged, instant kind, then yes. However, these are almost, but not completely unlike the ramen you get in a good ramen restaurant. This is because the noodles are but a small part of the food: the actual dish is in the soup and what things are put in it, and every restaurant have their own way of making it.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
  2. Was it Ramen? by notthe9 · · Score: 5, Funny

    That stuff lasts forever. Bet it was.

    Probably still good.

    1. Re:Was it Ramen? by Jambon · · Score: 1
      That stuff lasts forever.

      Ya, those noodles were sure gone for oodles of time.

    2. Re:Was it Ramen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does anyone know if you can contract the bird flu from this stuff?

      The reason I'm asking is because I ate some for dinner tonight and am starting to feel bad.

    3. Re:Was it Ramen? by notthe9 · · Score: 1

      Bird flu is caused by the avian influenza virus, not ramen.

    4. Re:Was it Ramen? by StarDrifter · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The article says they resemble La-Mian noodles. And according to Wikipedia, the name Ramen was probably derived from "la mian". So maybe not exactly ramen, but it could be the ancestor of the modern noodle.

    5. Re:Was it Ramen? by notthe9 · · Score: 1

      Interesting. I did not RTFA before posting, else I wouldn't have gotten the coveted SP position, so I hadn't fully considered the ramifications of the suggestion.

      Of course, since this is the oldest noodle we have recorded, we might take it to be the Mother Noodle, in which case it would be the ancestor of not only Ramen but all other modern noodles from linguini to udon.

    6. Re:Was it Ramen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Finally! Something Asians invented and the West improved upon!

    7. Re:Was it Ramen? by ben0207 · · Score: 1

      Linguini's a pasta though. They're different.

      Unless for my whole student life I was living a lie, and the times I treated myself to Italian I was just eating repackaged noodles.

      --
      cmd-q.co.uk - some sort of stupid fucking internet bullshit
    8. Re:Was it Ramen? by CameraChimera · · Score: 2, Interesting

      La Mian literally translates as pulled noodles. They're a specialty of northwestern China and incredible delicious, but to really appreciate them you have to see them made.

      The noodle chef starts with a well worked ball of dough, rolls it into a rope like thing, takes one end in each hand, pulls it as wide as his armspan while swinging it up and down, doubles it over between his hands and repeats until it's been stretched thin enough. I realize my description doesn't do it justice, but to see it is to be amazed. It's usually served in a bowl of beef broth with meat, cilantro and onions, but you can get 'em fried too. There's nothing like handmade noodles.

      Pictures:1 2 3(this one's not your ordinary la mian) 4 (the first frame gives a good feel for the process)

    9. Re:Was it Ramen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are many such things. Almost as many as those things which Asians invented and Westerners have never been able to improve upon, like noodles for instance.

    10. Re:Was it Ramen? by notthe9 · · Score: 1

      According to wikipedia (not written by me, random that both my examples are there), "A noodle is a thin strip of pasta, usually cut or extruded from some kind of dough. It is the basic unit in dishes like spaghetti, linguine, soba, and udon."

      Though pasta differs from ramen or udon or soba or lo mein noodles, pasta is also a type of noodle (sheet pastas shape pastas might not be, but for my example, I don't see why it should not be a noodle.)

      I'm not sure why you mean by "the times I treated myself to Italian I was just eating repackaged noodles." Dried pastas are not repackaged in the sense that something like ramen is, if that is what you are suggesting, as they are still raw.

    11. Re:Was it Ramen? by fbjon · · Score: 1

      Yes, even instant noodles are better if you make them yourself. I've had the opportunity to make a pack myself, and fry them into a chicken-flavoured niceness, without any preservatives.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    12. Re:Was it Ramen? by sydres · · Score: 1

      I used to watch the old "yan can cook" show and one episode these were being made it was simply amazing that dough can be stretched that much without it tearing

  3. First Prime Factorization Post by 2*2*3*75011 · · Score: 0, Funny

    4000 = 2*2*2*2*2*5*5*5

  4. Translation of text found with noodles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    1. heat 1 cup boiling water
    2. peel back lid on cup and pour water to line
    3. cover for 3 minutes

    1. Re:Translation of text found with noodles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      " 1. heat 1 cup boiling water
      2. peel back lid on cup and pour water to line
      3. cover for 3 minutes"

      You forgot some:
      4. ???
      5. GUNPOWDER!

    2. Re:Translation of text found with noodles by Celsius+233 · · Score: 1

      4. For microwave directions, see inside for details.



      MICROWAVE INSTRUCTIONS:
      Due to variance in microwave heating, and for safety reasons, we do not recommend microwave cooking.

      --
      Denham's Dentrifice, Denham's Dentrifice, Denham's Dandy Dental Dentrifice, Denham's Dentrifice Dentrifice Dentrifice.
    3. Re:Translation of text found with noodles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      why would you heat a cup of boiling water?

    4. Re:Translation of text found with noodles by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      So you can use your hot water heater.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  5. mmm by Kickboy12 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Wonder what the expiration date was.

  6. Arrr matey! by geeber · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yet more proof. He Lives!

    1. Re:Arrr matey! by mctk · · Score: 1

      or is it lived?

      --
      Paul Grosfield - the quicker picker upper.
    2. Re:Arrr matey! by Associate · · Score: 5, Funny

      Behold, the Second Helping.

      --
      Someone hates these cans.
    3. Re:Arrr matey! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, no, no! Behold! The Second Serving! ;P

    4. Re:Arrr matey! by aklix · · Score: 1

      This is slashdot. To many of us, a helping is the whole damn package.

    5. Re:Arrr matey! by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 1

      Sauce be upon him!

    6. Re:Arrr matey! by henrygondorff · · Score: 1

      Of Course! Word says He had a son born from the Immaculate Rice Noodle Soup, just about four thousand years ago. He was boiled and eaten. And He shall come down again to save us pirates all. And his Reign shall last forever. Arrr!

      Pastafarian pilgrims of the world, go and build a temple in Lajia. We do know who invented them...

      (Man, I must quit on this crack thing...)

  7. Ancient ramen? by Bananatree3 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    While Ramen was technically invented in the 1970's, I just can't help thinking about how ramen would have tasted 4000 years ago. Would it be plain, or maybe chicken flavored? How about beef flavored? I really wish I knew, but all we have now is a microscopic noodle-shaped, tubular shriviled up mass that would probably taste horrible if mixed with water. :/

    1. Re:Ancient ramen? by notthe9 · · Score: 1

      but all we have now is a microscopic noodle-shaped, tubular shriviled up mass that would probably taste horrible if mixed with water.

      Doesn't that describle all ramen?

    2. Re:Ancient ramen? by king-manic · · Score: 1

      I just can't help thinking about how ramen would have tasted 4000 years ago. Would it be plain, or maybe chicken flavored? I really wish I knew, but all we have now is a microscopic noodle-shaped, tubular shriviled up mass that would probably taste horrible if mixed with water. :/

      This differs fromt he modern version? how?

      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    3. Re:Ancient ramen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would it be plain, or maybe chicken flavored?

      Given where it was found, I guess "Oriental Flavor" would be appropriate.

    4. Re:Ancient ramen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      all we have now is a microscopic noodle-shaped, tubular shriviled up mass that would probably taste horrible if mixed with water

      That's what she said. Thank you! I'll be here all week.

  8. This is the proof we needed! by origamy · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is irrefutable archeologycal proof of the existance of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

    This may have an impact on the holy books, but I'm sure the clergy is already handling the matter.

    1. Re:This is the proof we needed! by FSM · · Score: 2, Funny

      Did anyone doubt I exist?
      FSM

    2. Re:This is the proof we needed! by PakProtector · · Score: 1

      I'm an ordained minister, and have been so for about 4 years now. On days that begin with M and W, I spend my time in thinking about a Tail-swallowing universe. On days beginning with T, I think about an Enternal Universe. On Days starting with S, I eat Spaghetti. On days that start with F, I just give out to sheer solopsist debauchery and say I'm a Christian.

      --

      Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
      man: no entry for woman in the manual.
      "Qua!?"

    3. Re:This is the proof we needed! by MegaFur · · Score: 1

      Wow.

      May I be forever touched by Your Noodly Appendage.

      Hail! (and eat noodles)

      --
      Furry cows moo and decompress.
    4. Re:This is the proof we needed! by Omnieiunium · · Score: 1

      You would not believe how many people posted this on the venganza forums. I've found it at least 6 or 7 times in different topics. Inrefuteable proof!

      May the noodly appenedage guide you - Omnieiunium

    5. Re:This is the proof we needed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought you were just a finite-state machine. Can you recognize context-free languages?

    6. Re:This is the proof we needed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if your uid was below 100 we'd be impressed.

      but this is just lame.

    7. Re:This is the proof we needed! by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      Of course! The FSM can do anything!

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
  9. IN OTHER NEWS by DavidLeeRoth · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    A slashdot story was unearthed days after it was published by the bbc.

  10. The inventions of noodles was in question? by king-manic · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I thought it was a concrete fact that the chinese invented it and it migrated west. The italians haven't had them for all that long.

    --
    "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    1. Re:The inventions of noodles was in question? by notthe9 · · Score: 1

      Some of them claim to have had them longer than anyone else. Also, some have suggested that the Arabs were the first.

    2. Re:The inventions of noodles was in question? by worst_name_ever · · Score: 1
      I thought it was a concrete fact

      You're right, those noodles are probably pretty dried out after 4000 years.

      --

      In Soviet Rush, today's Tom Sawyer gets high on you.
    3. Re:The inventions of noodles was in question? by pancake_lover · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's not a concrete fact. There is a commonly told story that Marco Polo brought pasta back to Italy, but there is quite a bit of evidence that pasta existed in Italy before MP. There is also evidence of pasta in Roman and Greek times. Further evidence shows pasta existed in the middle east. And we know that pasta existed in China (from TFA).

      One theory is that pasta was invented in several different regions independently. Considering the ingredients it seems plausible. Ground grain, water, maybe some eggs. Not exactly rocket science.

      --
      Homer no function beer well without.
    4. Re:The inventions of noodles was in question? by MMaestro · · Score: 2, Insightful
      You can chalk this one up to the fact that almost all modern history is written from a Western point of view (read: European and occasionally Middle Eastern outlook).

      Who invented gunpowder first? The Chinese (although primarily used for bombs and fireworks.)
      Who developed rule by divine right first? The Chinese (see: Chinese Mandate of Heaven.)
      Who developed (or adopted) the idea of education as a high priority for all its citizens? The Chinese (see: Confucius.)

      Who 'discovered' North and South America first? The 'Indians'/'Native Americans', Inca, Mayans, and others.

    5. Re:The inventions of noodles was in question? by diersing · · Score: 1

      I think we'll need to see how the whole Blackberry lawsuit settles to see if independently developed and derived technology, err... recipes are legally allowed.

    6. Re:The inventions of noodles was in question? by Arandir · · Score: 1

      I don't seem to recall any modern history books written from a Western viewpoint disputing ANYTHING you mentioned.

      --
      A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
    7. Re:The inventions of noodles was in question? by king-manic · · Score: 1

      I don't seem to recall any modern history books written from a Western viewpoint disputing ANYTHING you mentioned.

      They just don't tend to mention it very much. Asian achievments that is. Their ussually hevily focused on European history. At leats high school texts. And often the facts in high school level texts are off.

      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    8. Re:The inventions of noodles was in question? by Jeremi · · Score: 1
      Who developed rule by divine right first? The Chinese


      Rule by diving right is considered a cultural advance now??? I'd say at best it's a crude propaganda tool to keep the superstitious proles in line....

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    9. Re:The inventions of noodles was in question? by typical · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You can chalk this one up to the fact that almost all modern history is written from a Western point of view (read: European and occasionally Middle Eastern outlook).

      You mean most *Western* history is written from a Western point of view. Go to China and I suspect that you'll find somewhat different history texts.

      --
      Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
    10. Re:The inventions of noodles was in question? by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      But now we know the Flying Spagetti monster favored the Chineese first with the fruits of his noodly appendage.

    11. Re:The inventions of noodles was in question? by eluusive · · Score: 1

      Chinese history doesn't mention chinese advancements much. Everytime a new dynasty came in everything got all munged up.

    12. Re:The inventions of noodles was in question? by MMaestro · · Score: 1
      The Opium Wars, the European imperialism, the turning of Chinese against Chinese citizens followed by the invasion of the Japanese in World War II didn't help either. The fact that this dates back to the early 1800s (read: Industrial Revolution) doesn't help either.

      By the time you get to the late 1940s with World War II ending, you've got a nation literally divided upon itself: western China was largely untouched, but eastern China was a demolished warzone not to the fact that Nationalist Chinese forces were already fighting Communist Chinese forces. There hasn't been a stable government in roughly 100 years (all prior ones were more or less puppet governments after losing the Opium Wars). And the country STILL doesn't industrialize until the late 1900s (and even then, some can say they're still technically a developing country). Given the horrid mess Europeans left Africa (and to a lesser extent, South America), its no suprise China has become a Communist, censored nation more or less despising the rest of the world. (Europe and North America exploited it, Asia has repeated tried to destroy it, Australia SHOULD be its best friend but isn't and Africa is a giant war raging example of what 'could' happen if they try switching to a capitalist imposed Western system as so many African countries have done and collapsed.)

    13. Re:The inventions of noodles was in question? by MMaestro · · Score: 1
      Great Britain and France used this method of 'crude propaganda' from the early 1600s in Great Britain to the late 1700s in France. If the Chinese got over this cultual advance centuries, it makes you wonder what were the Europeans thinking so late in the game...

      And then of course theres the laundry list of reasons why it didn't last as long in Europe as it did in China (Industrial revolution, colonization of North and South America, religious intolerance, American followed by the French revolution, etc.)

    14. Re:The inventions of noodles was in question? by king-manic · · Score: 1

      Chinese history doesn't mention chinese advancements much. Everytime a new dynasty came in everything got all munged up.

      The last one lasted 600 years. Although civil unrest was common. As well, China takes great pride in teaching it's children about itself. Much liek Europe, America, Canada ect...

      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    15. Re:The inventions of noodles was in question? by kuom · · Score: 1

      The last one lasted 600 years

      Actually the last dynasty (Qing) only lasted 266 years, and the one before that (Ming) lasted 275 years.

      http://www-chaos.umd.edu/history/time_line.html

    16. Re:The inventions of noodles was in question? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This proves nothing about who invented noodles. This just proves that we have found noodles that our best dating methods say are 4000 years old. So, what we think are the oldest noodles ever found, are from Asia. Other than that, it means nothing. Those noodles could be from outer space, or they could have been invented in Iceland in 20 000 BC for all we know. One pouch of noodles means NOTHING.

    17. Re:The inventions of noodles was in question? by Arandir · · Score: 1

      I'm going to have to call bullshit on this one. I learned all of those things as a kid in school, thirty years ago.

      --
      A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
    18. Re:The inventions of noodles was in question? by Arandir · · Score: 1

      Africa is a giant war raging example of what 'could' happen if they try switching to a capitalist imposed Western system as so many African countries have done and collapsed

      Mentioning capitalism as the source of Africa's problems is, let's say, a unique perspective. Many of Africa's problems can be attributed to Western colonialism, but that is NOT capitalism.

      --
      A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
    19. Re:The inventions of noodles was in question? by MMaestro · · Score: 1
      Actually, almost all educational services, medical services and public works have mostly been privatized in Africa (read: laissez faire). The results being a vastly poor citizenry which can't afford beyond food, let alone pay for a (private) school education, pay for expensive high tech medical services (HIV vaccines and medication), or something as simple as indoor plumbing (you have to pay to have the pipes connected to your home.)

      Egypt and South Africa are the exceptions. Egypt is more or less accepted as a Middle Eastern country for its proximity and oil deposits. South Africa was largely dominated by a rich, all-white minority until recently. Other than those two, you'd be hard pressed to find a success story in Africa. We all know about the failure called Somalia. The Congo, Kenya, Liberia and Algeria are all fighting wars/conflicts/civil wars/civilian unrest. And then theres the fact that you have unreported 'spillovers', 'border skrimishs' and 'civil disputes' which more or less ends with a no-name, no-importance village disappearing from the map.

    20. Re:The inventions of noodles was in question? by Arandir · · Score: 1

      First, "privatized" does not mean "laissez faire". Second, attributing Africa's problems to a lack of anti-capitalism is harmful to Africa as it ignores the real problems. When you look at those nations with the highest amount of capitalism and economic freedom you'll find them with far far less poverty than Africa.

      --
      A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
  11. At the shop around the corner by Wizzmer · · Score: 2, Funny

    I can find that at the shop around the corner. It even includes a coupon to go and see where they're building the Egyptian pyramids...

    1. Re:At the shop around the corner by tiggles · · Score: 1

      So that's where they are: the store next door doesn't have any noodles with expiry dates between 2500 and 2000 BC.

      Disclaimer: IAAIC (I am actually in China... and to be fair, we don't have stuff more than 2-3 years past expiration on the shelves).

    2. Re:At the shop around the corner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What? No Twinkies at all?

  12. Article Continued by MBCook · · Score: 1
    ...

    This finding replaces the previous record, 270 years, previously held by "Uncle Joe's Authentic Chynees" (sic) on 3rd Street. While the restaurant (closed since August under order of the local health department after reports of patrons teeth chipping while eating the "Egg-Foou-Youngings") no longer holds the record, it maintains its distinction as the restaurant serving the oldest noodles. When asked for comment, "Uncle Joe" continued to defend his cuisine stating that his establishment has a policy of never serving food older than he is.

    When asked, "Uncle Joe" said he was born March 23rd, 1723.

    You'd think they would have found something between 270 years and 4000 years, huh? ;)

    --
    Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
  13. One more proof.... by dracken · · Score: 3, Funny

    ....that we were all created by his noodly appendage .

  14. Are they Still Tasty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they were Ramen, they would still be edible.

  15. Oh oh! by Comatose51 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Pour some hot water on it and let it sit for about 1 minute! Maybe the skeleton is the remains of an ancient Chinese college student about to make a nice bowl of Ramen after a night of spending laboring away at his abacus, trying to find the bug in his algorithm for doing this new thing called multiplication.

    --
    EvilCON - Made Famous by /.
  16. Heard days ago. by lunaticmaster · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I heard about this days ago on NPR. Between the duplicates, late reports, and things more interesting than this being rejected... What is going on here at Slashdot?

    1. Re:Heard days ago. by rdoger6424 · · Score: 1

      you mean yesterday, the thirteenth. I heard it too.

      --
      "Hello 911? I just tried to toast some bread, and the toaster grew an arm and stabbed me in the face!"
    2. Re:Heard days ago. by lunaticmaster · · Score: 1

      It's very busy this time of year at work but I could have sworn it was farther back than yesterday... If yesterday was the earliest that it was played, then that is business as usual here.

    3. Re:Heard days ago. by Fallingcow · · Score: 1

      Yeah, first mention of it on Fark.com was the 12th.

  17. If They're Looking For Old Food... by Ginnungagap42 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Hell they should have dug in the back of my refrigerator; I've got noodles WAY older than that back there...

  18. Shortly after... by UltimaL337Star · · Score: 2, Funny

    The world's oldest flavor sauce and oil packets were found.

  19. old noodles by coredump-0x00001 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    sounds delicious

  20. Re:Four Millenia -- Four Millenium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Um...
    Yes, you do.

  21. Ramen? Pah! Mr. Noodles is where the flavour lives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    While Mr. Noodles share the short cooking time of ramen noodles, they distinguish themselves with flavours such as Spicy Curry and Spicy Beef. Here's a treat for all you undergrads: boil up two bricks of Mr. Noodles' noodles, and combine 'Oriental' and 'Spicy Beef' flavour packets in your bowl. You'll be rewarded with a symphony of well-balanced tastiness!

  22. Too bad they didn't find the spice packet. by SumDumFloridaGoy · · Score: 1

    That way we could know if it was the spicy thai kind.

  23. That sound you hear... by winkydink · · Score: 4, Funny

    is 58 million Italians crying out in anguish

    --

    "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    1. Re:That sound you hear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Porca Puttana! Merda!

    2. Re:That sound you hear... by Coeurderoy · · Score: 1

      No this just proves that the Italian noodles are better, they ate them all. that is the rational explanation for the abscence of 4000 year old noodles in Italy.

      But of course Spaetzle are better ;-)

  24. Non sequitur by Elf-friend · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Our discovery indicates that noodles were first produced in China

    Although I would tend to agree with that theory, this is badly worded, to the verge of being a logical fallacy. It would be better to say that the discovery "rules out the Italians and Arabs," since those cultures post-date these noodles (assuming the accuracy of the dating, despite radiocarbon's vulnerability to contamination). The discovery does not prove that some earlier culture didn't have noodles first. We can only say we have no evidence for an earlier existence.
    1. Re:Non sequitur by CosmeticLobotamy · · Score: 1

      It would be better to say that the discovery "rules out the Italians and Arabs," since those cultures post-date these noodles

      Best sentence ever.

    2. Re:Non sequitur by Yurka · · Score: 2, Funny

      Three scientists are walking across countryside when they see a cow.

      "It is a Bos taurus," - says the biologist.
      "It is black," - says the physicist.
      "It is black on not less than one side," - says the mathematician.

      --
      I can assure you, the best way to get rid of dragons is to have one of your own.
    3. Re:Non sequitur by The+Ape+With+No+Name · · Score: 1

      Thank you, Karl Popper.

      --
      Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
    4. Re:Non sequitur by the+phantom · · Score: 2, Informative

      ...despite radiocarbon's vulnerability to contamination...

      In most cases, contamination of C14 samples can come from one of two places: either newer material is introduced or older carbon is absorbed from the matrix. If newer material was introduced (either by the archeologists, or by natural processes), then the date will come out more recent, thus the noodles are older than the dates suggest. On the other hand, older material is generally introduced from the sediment matrix itself, and that is fairly easy to control for. Why does everyone have such problems with radiocarbon dating? The method has been shown to work, and has been correlated with other methods, such as dendrochronology and archeomag dating. Relax.

    5. Re:Non sequitur by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fundementalest christians think the earth is like 6000yrs old.

    6. Re:Non sequitur by Elf-friend · · Score: 1

      I wasn't taking issue with the date, I was simply mentioning, as an aside, that there has been controversy surrounding radiocarbon. You're right, in most cases, especially this recent, it's a good estimate.

    7. Re:Non sequitur by BrainInAJar · · Score: 1

      Why does everyone have such problems with radiocarbon dating?

      Theological concerns. If C14 dating is correct, then the earth is older than 6000 years ago, and it would anger the sky wizard to have errors poked in a book some guy wrote.

    8. Re:Non sequitur by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My only problem with radiocarbon dating is not reading something like this sooner. It's just a bit annoying that in the many different courses that I've had radiocarbon dating discussed, I've never heard an actual explanation on why exactly it is believed that C-14 concentrations in the atmosphere have been relatively constant. Radioactive elements within rocks don't move around a whole lot, even in the course of millions of years, so it's a lot harder for them to become contaminated somehow or somehow leak off their daughter products. But CO2, the means by which C-14 enters living tissue, is a fluid gas, and without some concrete evidence behind which production is established it becomes unclear how one can be assured of much of anything regarding consistent concentration and hence a metric by which to establish age.

      At least, that's my viewpoint.

    9. Re:Non sequitur by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1
      I've never heard an actual explanation on why exactly it is believed that C-14 concentrations in the atmosphere have been relatively constant

      They aren't, and your article itself says the reason RC works is that

      Suitable corrections are available
      That is, if you have objects of a known age (datable by a different method, such as dendrochronology...) you can use those to calibrate RC.

      This still limits range of RC dating, because it works only as far in the past as there is calibration available. Beyond that, it has indeed to rest on hypothesis of past carbon concentration, and does indeed become less precise.

    10. Re:Non sequitur by eluusive · · Score: 1

      That's an absurd argument. The point is that once the material "died" the amount of C-14 entering it's system stopped, thus the initial ratio is whatever it was when the poor thing died. How can you possibly calibrate it unless you know how old it was to begin with?

    11. Re:Non sequitur by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [nitpick]
      Not *more* than one side.

      And yes, I *am* a mathematician, you insensitive clod! :)

    12. Re:Non sequitur by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1
      That's an absurd argument.

      You post proves that you have no grasp at logic at all ;-)

      The point is that once the material "died" the amount of C-14 entering it's system stopped,

      Yes, and that's a good thing too. How else do you think RC dating works? (Hint: if exchange of material didn't stop at death, the C-14/C-12 ratio would be at same level as everything at the time it was found, and you couldn't measure anything useful at all...)

      thus the initial ratio is whatever it was when the poor thing died.

      Seems to be pretty much the definition of initial. The initial foobar of whatever is what it was at whatever time you consider to be the beginning of the process...

      How can you possibly calibrate it unless you know how old it was to begin with?

      You take an item of a known age A (by whatever other method you've got available), and you measure its C-14/C-12 ratio. Now, whenever you find another unknown item which has roughly the same C-14/C-12 ratio, you know that this also has roughly the same age A. (Or in short: the item that you use to calibrate RC is obviously not the same as the unknown item that you try to date...)

      The method used to calibrate is very often dendrochronology: weather determines relative widths of tree rings for each year. Each sample found gives a succession of ring width during its life. If the sample contains bark, that's where it died (obviously). By matching samples with overlapping lifetimes against each other, you can have a continuous succession of ring widths going on from the distant path until now. Using that succession, you can date any sample that has enough tree rings to unambiguously locate it.

      You might naively ask the question "then why not use dendrochronology directly on all objects". Simple: not all objects are wood, and most of those that are wood don't contain enough rings to allow unambiguous dating.

    13. Re:Non sequitur by Rakshasa+Taisab · · Score: 1

      Your high-school called, they want the math grade you stole back.

      --
      - These characters were randomly selected.
    14. Re:Non sequitur by jc42 · · Score: 1

      I've never heard an actual explanation on why exactly it is believed that C-14 concentrations in the atmosphere have been relatively constant

      They aren't, ...


      Actually, they are, if that relatively means comparing with things like CO2, methane, or ozone. That is, over a period of decades or centuries, you can get 5% or 10% variations. But you don't get 1000% variations, at least not in the past 100,000 years or so.

      Suitable corrections are available

      Yeah, but there's a small additional qualification: The correction tables are somewhat different for, say, Sweden, Kamchatka, and southern Chile. Not a lot different, of course, since the major source of variation comes from off-planet. But if you want the best accuracy, you want tables from your part of the world.

      As usual, there's a good introductory article on the topic at wikipedia, including lots of links that will explain more than you ever wanted to know on the topic. The correlations tables are fairly easy to track down.

      One interesting tidbit is that we're in now in a period of abnormally low C-14 in living things. This is because of the recent mining of geological carbon (coal, oil, natural gas) and conversion to atmospheric CO2. There's no C-14 in this CO2, so plants growing now appear to have a C-14 age of several millenia without a correction.

      (Now we can expect zillions of followups from the global-warming denial crowd. ;-)

      But this isn't all that unusual. There are places in the world where the local carbon supply has long included a lot of geological carbon. These are mostly places with limestone under the soil. For example in the Valley of Mexico there's a well-understood problem with Aztec remains. The area is rich in limestone, and much of the ground water is high in CO2 from this source. This makes C-14 dating in the area very difficult, and C-14 dates aren't trusted without confirmation by other methods. There's a similar problem with dates in the Karst region in the Balkans. Any archaeologist here can probably rattle off a list of other such problematical areas.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  25. 4 Millennia? That's all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hell, I've eaten ramen that's been in my dorm cabinet longer than that.

  26. Also found nearby... by coupland · · Score: 1

    Also found nearby was the world's oldest chicken ball, and world's oldest heat lamp.

    1. Re:Also found nearby... by Walt+Dismal · · Score: 1

      Archeologists also announced the discovery of an ancient 7-11 nearby, which had been buried under lava for millennia. Inside it were fresh Twinkies and a primitive wooden machine mysteriously labeled 'Apple 0'.

  27. Re:Four Millenia -- Four Millenium by bonehead · · Score: 1

    Yes, actually, I do.

  28. Re:Four Millenia -- Four Millenium by Guppy06 · · Score: 2, Informative

    They found four noodles.

  29. Of course! by joemawlma · · Score: 0

    Even ancient Chinese people needed their vitamin ramen.

  30. not conclusive evidence of invention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This doesn't necessarily mean noodles were invented in china... It is just the oldest known evidence of noodles. Ancient chinese could have gotten them from ancient russians or whomever.

  31. Did the noodles have MSG? by saturndude · · Score: 2, Funny

    Strange, I read the article, and I wanted to read it again twenty minutes later.

    1. Re:Did the noodles have MSG? by srussell · · Score: 1

      If I'd only had mod points... dude, that was waaay funny.

  32. did it come in a pot ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  33. Re:Carbon dating is inaccurate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Care to provide peer-reviewed literature to backup your anecdotes? I didn't think so.

  34. Have you ever seen a B.C. sell-by-date ? by this+great+guy · · Score: 1

    Hum, those archeologist must have never explored my kitchen.

  35. Condiments? by ElectricOkra · · Score: 5, Funny

    What they didn't say is that they also found 30 unopened packets of Duck Sauce...

    --
    Great Spirits have always encountered violent opposition from Mediocre Minds - A. Einstein
  36. 4000-year old noodles, found... by mbstone · · Score: 1

    ...on a room service tray in the hallway of a 3000-year old hotel

  37. Cool, but don't forget the beer! by fak3r · · Score: 1
    I'm always facinated to see what stands the test of time, obvious good food stays around, just take beer (just not mine!) for example:
    More than 6,000 years ago, the refreshing qualities of beer were recognized and enjoyed, and ancient peoples have left records to indicate that they took the brewing of this thirst-quenching beverage very seriously. The Chinese, Inca, African, Babylonian, Assyrian, Egyptian, Hebrew and Saxon are just a few civilizations in which beer has been associated with family life, friendship, romance and celebrations. Through the years it has been immortalized in songs, stories, poems, and legends. Although the taste of beer has changed over the last few thousand years, the enjoyment has remained constant. Other than water and tea, beer is the most popular beverage on earth. When today's beer drinkers lift a frosty mug of their favorite brew, they can do so knowing that they are in good company, sharing a kinship with pharaohs, kings, queens, statesmen, literary giants and explorers.

    Today, as in the past, beer has no cultural boundaries. Its long tradition of providing enjoyable refreshment to consumers continues.
    Read more details here: Ancient Beer
    1. Re:Cool, but don't forget the beer! by Glowing+Fish · · Score: 1

      That depends on what you mean by "beer". If you mean "fermented grain", then yes people have been drinking it a long time. If you mean hops, water, wheat and yeast, than not so long.

      I don't understand what the hype about beer is. I have never thought to myself "I could use a nice, refreshing glass of wheat juice", so I am hardly about to think "I could use a nice, refreshing glass of rotten wheat juice". Beer tastes bitter and thick, and its alcohol content is so low that I have to sit drinking it til I feel a headache to get any effect.

      --
      Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
  38. Jurassic... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    We should extract the DNA and start a Jurassic Bark Park ...

    Oh, noodles, not poodles...

  39. "What is going on here at Slashdot?" by Anomalyst · · Score: 1

    Business as usual.

    You must be new here.

    Nothing to see, move along.

    I observe your ID and can only assume you are an infrequent lurker or perhaps the question was rhetoric.

    --
    There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
  40. This story... by mary_will_grow · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...is as old as those noodles!

    ha!!

    --
    Why stick up for big business?
    1. Re:This story... by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 1

      True, but it's not as old as the current poll for crying out loud.

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
    2. Re:This story... by Ratbert42 · · Score: 1

      Slashdot is great for history fans. You get to read last week's news today.

  41. Freshness? by ZenPirate · · Score: 4, Funny

    I bet they're not as tasty as four millenia old twinkies would be.

    1. Re:Freshness? by Skreems · · Score: 1

      I've seen 5-year-old twinkies... trust me, you don't want them. Something starts to go bad, and they begin breaking down into an oily liquid...

      --
      Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
      The Urban Hippie
    2. Re:Freshness? by typical · · Score: 1

      Honey lasts forever.

      Well, a long time.

      There is a mild antibiotic in honey, and the sugar content is too high for anything to live in it unless the honey becomes diluted.

      --
      Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
    3. Re:Freshness? by Redwin · · Score: 1

      Yeah, if I remember correctly honey was used by the ancient Egyptians to cover wounds to stop them getting infected.

      --
      Warning, comments may not have been passed by the sanity department of my brain.
  42. Or, you can take your sour puss attitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and shove it up your tight ass. Had any diamonds come out of there lately?

    Oh, I forgot, this is slashdot, any argument has to have a "you're stupid" in it.
    So, you're stupid.

    1. Re:Or, you can take your sour puss attitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YHBT HAND

  43. Must be stale by Rogue+Jedi+X · · Score: 1

    Wow. 4000 years, now that's something. I wonder what tools they used to make those and how they cooked them. Who knows, maybe they will discover a 5000 year old hamburger, consumed by native Americans while enjoying their weekly sacrifice to their favourite god.

    1. Re:Must be stale by rhetoric · · Score: 1

      they suck.

      --

      "where words meet intent, lies rhetoric's lament"
  44. No, it's not by JoeBuck · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Creationists (especially the "young earth" kind that compute the age of the earth by counting up the "begats" in the Bible) claim that carbon dating is inaccurate, because they need it to be inaccurate. They also think, wrongly, that if they can kill carbon dating, they can kill all evidence that the world is older than they say it is.

    Also, carbon dating isn't used for anything as old as dinosaur remains, so sorry, tossing out carbon dating won't let you put a younger date on dinosaur fossils.

    1. Re:No, it's not by LeonGeeste · · Score: 1

      Okay, how do they date dinosaur remains, and against what is the method calibrated? i.e., what thing do they use that they *know* is 65 million years old to know if they're "doing it right"?

      --
      Rank my idea: http://www.sinceslicedbread.com/node/531
    2. Re:No, it's not by Hannah+E.+Davis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      IANAEBGOA (I am not an evolutionary biologist, geologist or archeologist), but...

      For Carbon dating, "the current maximum radiocarbon age limit lies in the range between 58,000 and 62,000 years" (from wikipedia). So... pretty recent, in the grand scheme of things.

      Wikipedia also has an article on radiometric dating in general which outlines some types of radiometric dating that work for much older samples.

      Also, when we're dealing with dinosaur remains, even IF we're off by hundreds or even thousands of years, it's not going to affect our data very much. We're dealing with such a large time scale that determining roughly when a creature died is often good enough -- usually we just want to know when some species existed compared to some other species, and species are usually pretty good about lasting for at least a few thousand years.

      In any case, if we determine that something is... say... roughly 60-65 million years old, that huge error range doesn't change the fact that the evidence blatantly contradicts Young Earth theory ;)

    3. Re:No, it's not by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      I believe that most of the rock dating is based on the decay of radioactive elements. The decay of elements, for example U -> Pb, is at a standard half-life. If that varies, then that is a very fundamental challenge to current physics theories.

      Carbon dating varies due to a varying of the amount of C14 in the atmosphere during different times in the past. One science teach I had in high school pointed out the obvious question to me: when we are dating rocks using radioactive decay, how do we know it was originally all parent? So, in any sample, if there is 7% U in a most Pb sample, how do we know that 74 MYA (or whatever) is was all U? What if a volcano went of and mixed a bit of U with a bit of lead?

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    4. Re:No, it's not by waltznumber3 · · Score: 0

      Tell that to the T-rex that won't get off my couch.

      --
      If you just took anything I said seriously, read it again.
    5. Re:No, it's not by LeonGeeste · · Score: 1

      That doesn't answer anything. Has anyone ever taken a painting whose age is known, tested it, and compared the results with the known age? What if you had three scientific teams, none of which recognized the painting, and had them independently test it and see if their results were consistent BEFORE checking with each other.

      Has anyone done this very simple, very basic test?

      --
      Rank my idea: http://www.sinceslicedbread.com/node/531
    6. Re:No, it's not by Cadallin · · Score: 1
      Because that's not how it works. You don't find solid lumps of pure elements very commonly in nature.

      (That occurs occassionally with metals, from a chemists standpoint I'd say this occurs due to a precipitation mechanism. That is, you have a hot mixture of "stuff" as it cools, things that are particularly heavy, or light, sink or rise to the top, and if they have noticibly lower Bp than the rest of the mixture they'll precipitate out as reasonably pure substances, and so we get copper, iron and other things in a reasonably pure ore. But this is a guess) Geologists study rocks, their composition, processes of formation, etc. So you can take a rock, and geologists can identify what it is. And you can measure the amount of U and the amount of Pb, the point where you go wrong is that it isn't just U->Pb, its

      U(238)->Th(234)->Pa(234)->....->Po(210)->Pb(206), Lead 206 being the stable end product

      It's a decay series with over a dozen distinct intermediary species. Most of which can be measured and identified in a sample (some have VERY short half-lives, and may not exist in detectable quantity) You date a sample by doing an analysis measuring all of these.

      So then you know, from geology what a rock SHOULD contain, and you know what the decay product impurities are, and how much of these impurities exist. You also know from studies what the rate of natural occurance of all the elements is. From all of this information you can then deduce what the original U concentration a rock was, you measured what it is now, and simple math tells you how many times the original quantity was halved, go yield the current amount. Then you multiply by the half-life and have the age of the original sample.

      The simple answer is that you can tell the original concentration of U by analyzing the other decay intermediaries. For Uranium that largely means measuring the concentrations of the long lived ones, so you need to know U(238), U(234), Th(230), and Ra(226). Their relative concentrations will tell you the original total amount of U(238).

      Radiometric dating was developed by very smart people, who then submitted it to rigorous testing and analysis by the rest of the scientific community. It isn't their fault if teachers can't manage to properly teach the material. If somebody managed to show that there was a flaw in the way these studies are done there'd be a Nobel prize in it for them. Same for someone showing that that there are "magical" forces that affect the strength of the Weak Nuclear Force (Which is what governs radioactivity) making it vary over time.

    7. Re:No, it's not by LnxAddct · · Score: 1

      There are many other ways of dating fossils. I don't major in paleontology, but I've taken some courses in it out of interest. The discussion on dating methodologies and how they are used and why they are accurate is far beyond the scope of a slashdot post, but suffice it to say that things are always dated using more than one, usually more than two, methods, and those methods are completely unrelated as to avoid any kind of "contamination".

      Methods like carbon dating (using other elements of course) on dinosaur bones are often useless anyway because it is rare for you to find bones that are bone, what I mean is that they've usually been replaced with sediments, just like petrified wood.

      One of the most trivial methods of dating a fossil is to look at the rock it was found in. Each rock forms a variety of ways, one of the easiest areas to see this is in prehistoric coastal areas (Egypt for example). Every phase of the moon moves the tide in opposing directions, and as such the sediment collects in different directions, forming a new layer each phase. You can tell just by looking at the stone, which phase the moon was in, whether the tide was coming in, going out, or standing still, and how fast this all was happening. (Most rock formations have some kind of similar "fingerprint" to them) You can literally count the layers and know that each one is a phase (they are very thin layers so you may notice a directional grain in a distant picture, but distinct layers must be examined a bit closer), from this you can gather how long a period of time that piece of rock was made. Its no different then counting rings on a tree stump and figuring out how many seasons it lived, and how much rain fell during those seasons.

      Anyway... it is trivial to tell if the rock had been cracked or altered anyway that would let fossils magically fall into its depths. This method of dating isn't used often, but it can be helpful, if for nothing else then checking your other measurements, and it was the most trivial example that I could think of right now. Alot of people don't understand nuclear science, the techniques of carbon dating are above their level of intellect, but noone can really argue with something that is akin to counting rings on a tree stump.

      As for another argument that God created the world so that it was old, well I hate to tell you but if you believe in God then you believe that he controls everything including time and if he designs it so that it is 13.5 billion years old, even if it was actually assembled 6,000 or however many years ago that they claim, its still 13.5 billion years old because thats how God designed it and he controls time. Not sure if I worded that right, but hopefully I got the point across.

      All of the intelligent design nonsense that I've been hearing about is absolutely ridiculous and incase you were wondering, I'm not an atheist, I am a Roman Catholic. I'm sick of people throwing well founded science out the window because they don't understand it. Many species have literally thousands of transitional fossils, almost looking like a flip book of evolution, and to hear intelligent design people say that there are no transitional fossils found makes me cringe because it is just a blatant lie, or an uninformed statement. Study paleontology, learn for yourself, not what some moron wants to tell you, and make the decision yourself, but don't speak on matters that you don't fundamentally understand.
      Regards,
      Steve

    8. Re:No, it's not by LeonGeeste · · Score: 1

      So you're saying if I carried out the experiment described in my post here http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=165373&cid=137 95972 , the result wouldn't embarass anyone? Has that experiment been tried before?

      --
      Rank my idea: http://www.sinceslicedbread.com/node/531
    9. Re:No, it's not by Frogbert · · Score: 1

      I find it ironic that Creationists are themselves evidence that evolution does not exist.

    10. Re:No, it's not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For very old samples, they don't date the bones themselves, they date minerals found in the area, or in the strata of the rock in which the bones were found, and it's generally accepted that certian layers have certian properties. There are a number of radiological tests, mostly the measurement via mass spectrometry of "extinct" elements, i.e. radioactive elements that have long since reduced to the more basic, but still rare, higher elements that don't typically occour in the same area by other means. Certian (greater than atmospheric) levels of argon and helium trapped inside bubbles in obsedian can also be quite helpful.

      Besides being a very good and informative guide for how scientists derive dates from various materails, this article is also written from the perspective of a Christian, telling fellow Christians (potential non-beleivers of science) specifically why they should trust what the labcoats have to say. It's worth a look. Also, take a community college Geology class or two, with any luck you'll have as good as a time as I did.

    11. Re:No, it's not by LnxAddct · · Score: 1

      Exactly. That experiment is performed all the time, often by college students.
      Regards,
      Steve

    12. Re:No, it's not by LeonGeeste · · Score: 1

      No, it isn't. It really isn't. It is not something college students could simultaneously do, really. They would need to find an old painting none of them know the age of, test it *without knowing who the others are* and then compare with a secret authority. Name the time this has been done.

      --
      Rank my idea: http://www.sinceslicedbread.com/node/531
    13. Re:No, it's not by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      I'm sick of people throwing well founded science out the window because they don't understand it. Many species have literally thousands of transitional fossils, almost looking like a flip book of evolution, and to hear intelligent design people say that there are no transitional fossils found makes me cringe because it is just a blatant lie, or an uninformed statement.

      The reason creationists love the whole 'transitional fossils' thing is that you can keep going forever.

      Suppose we have fossil A, and also fossil E. E looks a lot like A, but with modifications, and was found in a later rock layer. We reckon E is a descendant of A.

      Right, now to satisfy these creationists we need to find a transitional fossil between the two, do we? Very well. Here's fossil C, found in a rock layer intermediate in time between where we found A and E, and it looks a lot like A, with some of the modifications we saw in E, but not all. Perfect, right?

      Nope. Now we've got two missing transitionals, instead of just one! Gotta find B and D now!

      This can, of course, go on forever. Which is why they love it so much.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    14. Re:No, it's not by LnxAddct · · Score: 1

      Yes it is, there is plenty of "junk" out there from centuries ago, you typically only hear and see about the stuff worth keeping, alot of it can be dated with minimal or no impact on the material regardless. I didn't specify painting, it can be anything (assuming that particular object can be dated using whatever methodology you are testing). The only one who would know the age is the professor, there is no real benfit to not knowing who the others are as you stated in your post as long as you don't contaminate eachother's work (in which case the professor would probably make you fail that lab excercise, or start over). After the lab you see how accurate you were. I'm not sure where you're from, but in the U.S. this isn't all that uncommon if your in the right major. You don't just expect kids to leave a university having never dated something before, do you? That would be pretty dumb. Believe what you want but this is a well understood and well tested science, so well that yes it is a common lab excersice in academia, I've rarely heard anything even close to the truth come out of the mouths of intelligent design supporters so please stop believing them. Common practices like this are true of nearly every science, if you attend any reputable universtiy they don't just throw information at you, they make you verify it through experiment.
      Regards,
      Steve

    15. Re:No, it's not by LeonGeeste · · Score: 1

      I'm in the U.S. I've been to college. I graduated with an engineering degree (in under 3 years straight from high school, but ignore that because I'm an idiot). I never dated anything (except women). Okay, fine, you meant biology students.

      Apparently, you missed the point about segregating the teams because you're too high in the clouds the even think of the idea that maybe two groups of scientists would get different results, but consult to "get their stories straight" so that carbon dating appears to be more accurate than it really is.

      So, for a fair test, you would need an item that historical records confirm as being a certain age, then take a sample of it, so the students don't know what it is, divide it between three teams who do not know of each other (so they can't cheat and get their stories straight) and they would all get the same correct answer within the margin of error?

      Well, I'm a betting man. Name your price. If you're so confident...

      --
      Rank my idea: http://www.sinceslicedbread.com/node/531
    16. Re:No, it's not by LnxAddct · · Score: 1

      I said that keeping the teams separate wasn't important, and I still say it isn't important. No teacher in his/her right mind would grade based on how accurate you were, although your accuracy can be a factor in determining how well you followed the procedure. There are these crazy things called lab reports... you know they have a process, hyptothesis, conclusions, etc. Your grade would most likely come from how well the procedure was done and documented, finding out how close you actually were would be purely out of interest.

      If you attend a university where cheating is that rampant, you've got bigger problems. If two people can't work side by side without sharing results, you need to reevaluate the type of people entering your school. A perfect example is Caltech, every test is taken outside of class, is open book, you take it on your own time when you want, but the test is still timed. If the teacher says, take this test in an hour and 15 minutes, the teacher trusts that when you do decide to take the test that you will time yourself and stop after an hour and 15 minutes. That is a university wide policy. Academia needs trust systems like that, if you're that worried about cheating then you've got bigger problems on your hand and should deal with the immaturity of your students first and foremost. Students at Caltech abide by the polict very strictly, and it is everyone's responsibility to ensure that the policy is not taken advantage of. The teachers respect the students and in turn the students respect the teachers.

      So, assuming that you're working with respectable people, it is completely fine for them to not be separated, I simply assume that one would only work with other respectable people because any intelligent person would walk away from a situation where they will most likely be taken advantage of. Anyway... the conversation has become completely sidetracked now (its completely my fault :) ), but I can guarantee that the results from a known piece of some historical artifact would match labratory results. I've seen it with my own damn eyes, you don't seriously think that scientists one day said "This sounds like it'd work, lets start using it without any verification." You're not giving the scientific community enough credit.
      Regards,
      Steve

    17. Re:No, it's not by Max+Threshold · · Score: 1
      Not with a painting, obviously, because a painting was never alive. But yes, it has been done with things like wood. In fact, the calibration standard for radiocarbon dating used to be pieces of wood grown before 1890, when modern pollution started screwing with the results.

      One important fact that some would-be debunkers of radiocarbon dating fail to note (or deliberately ignore) is that different sources of organic carbon will naturally yield different ages. Living things which draw their carbon from soil around active volcanoes, for example, can appear to be much older than if their carbon was sourced from "average" conditions. And the radiocarbon age of anything that lived after 1900 or so will be skewed by all the ancient carbon being dumped into our atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels.

    18. Re:No, it's not by LeonGeeste · · Score: 1

      Wow, you are really deluded. You think that when testing someone's trustworthiness, you should just "trust that they won't cheat"? (btw, I'm familiar with Caltech's policy, I had a friend who went there who privately admitted to me he flouted the rules by +5 mins or so).

      Let me explain this again: the purpose of my test is to make sure scientists get the right results without relying on each other. It would defeat the purpose of the test if you didn't have any barriers to scientists relying on each other. This is not a difficult concept, I'm sure you can grasp it if you think about it. It's just that I caught you flat-footed with my allegation that *gasp* scientists may not be as rigorous as you or I think! That maybe people try to bend the rules!

      But apparently, you haven't been aware of the monthly reports appearing that 1/3 of scientific journal X's findings are questionable. Or you didn't hear of the Sokal affair.

      Btw, 12345*6789=83810205. I just did that in my head. You trust me... right? What motive would I have to lie?

      *burying face in hands*

      --
      Rank my idea: http://www.sinceslicedbread.com/node/531
    19. Re:No, it's not by LeonGeeste · · Score: 1

      Wow, that was a good finesse: handwaving dismissal of the problems of radiocarbon dating (it's "okay" for the predictions to be inaccurate) combined with rabid environementalism! Good show!

      I take it you agree with me that my experiment (using whatever sample you claim radiocarbon dating applies to) would be rather embarassing?

      --
      Rank my idea: http://www.sinceslicedbread.com/node/531
    20. Re:No, it's not by Max+Threshold · · Score: 1

      Umm... what? You make no sense whatsoever. No, the experiment would not be embarrassing. Radiocarbon dating has been repeatedly proved itself accurate and reliable on organic objects of known age. I never said it was "okay" for it to be inaccurate, because it isn't; I explained some of the many factors that have to be taken into account to make it accurate, most of which have been deliberately ignored by young-Earthers in their feeble attempts to discredit it.

    21. Re:No, it's not by LeonGeeste · · Score: 1

      Awesome. So how much would you bet if we set up that experiment that at none of them would get it wrong beyond the margin of error?

      --
      Rank my idea: http://www.sinceslicedbread.com/node/531
    22. Re:No, it's not by Max+Threshold · · Score: 1

      It depends how you define the experiment. If, for example, the test subject were a 500-year-old piece of wood grown in Europe, then I would expect the results to be extremely accurate and consistent. If the test subject were something modern, or inorganic, or from a peculiar environment, then the results would be unpredictable.

    23. Re:No, it's not by LeonGeeste · · Score: 1

      If you think it's a rigorous scientific experiment to tell the scientists we're only using 500 year old wood grown in Europe, you really don't understand the point of the experiment.

      Let's say there was a painting that was framed a few hundred years ago. I take a sample from it and lock three teams of scientists in three rooms with no communication with the outside world. I have them test it and not let them out until they have an answer. What will the variance in their answer be, how far would it be from the date that the historical records show, and how much would you bet on that?

      --
      Rank my idea: http://www.sinceslicedbread.com/node/531
    24. Re:No, it's not by Max+Threshold · · Score: 1
      Did I say to tell the scientists what the sample is? No.

      But your continued use of a painting as an example shows that you have absolutely no idea what carbon dating is and how it works. It only works on living things that contain carbon sourced from their environment. So why don't you go read up on the theory before you try to debunk it, mmm-kay?

      Damn creation "scientists."

    25. Re:No, it's not by LeonGeeste · · Score: 1

      Really? Wood in the frame of a painting was never living? (I guess I should have mentioned why I mentioned the framing.)

      --
      Rank my idea: http://www.sinceslicedbread.com/node/531
    26. Re:No, it's not by Max+Threshold · · Score: 1

      If the sample tested wasn't contaminated with varnish or anything like that, then yes, I'd expect the results to be very consistent.

    27. Re:No, it's not by LeonGeeste · · Score: 1

      Ah, okay, cool, I gotcha, so we gotta make sure the samples are non-contaminated with anything to get radio-dating to work. So, hey, um, what method do they use to verify 65 million year old samples weren't similarly contaminated?

      Yeah, that's what I thought. You're sure carbon dating works, just, you know, not enough to put your own, actual money on it.

      Circular reasoning: justifying radio-dating since it was first invented.

      --
      Rank my idea: http://www.sinceslicedbread.com/node/531
    28. Re:No, it's not by Max+Threshold · · Score: 1
      Ah, okay, cool, I gotcha, so we gotta make sure the samples are non-contaminated with anything to get radio-dating to work.

      That's right. Pretty standard procedure when you're doing sensitive tests of any kind.

      So, hey, um, what method do they use to verify 65 million year old samples weren't similarly contaminated?

      If contamination produces an age older than the sample, it only means one thing: the contaminants were older than the sample. The contamination doesn't invalidate the technique, and it certainly doesn't support young-earth theory. (Not sure if you're a young-earther, but they're about the only ones who attack radiocarbon dating...) The bottom line is that if something tests to be 50,000 years old, then it's either 50,000 years old, or it's a mixture of materials averaging 50,000 years old.

      You can keep trying if you want, but you haven't even scratched the surface with your weak, illogical arguments. Since I'm a good sport, I'll give you a tip: the biggest (and, really, only) hole in the theory of radiocarbon dating is uniformitarianism. The entire theory depends on the assumption that Carbon-14 has always been created in our biosphere at approximately the same rate. If there was a period of stronger cosmic radiation, samples from that period would appear younger. Conversely, if there were a period of weaker cosmic radiation, samples from that period would appear older. Good scientists acknowledge this possibility. So if you want to attack carbon dating, you'll have to come up with some evidence that cosmic radiation has not been uniform over the past ~100,000 years.

    29. Re:No, it's not by LeonGeeste · · Score: 1

      Wow, you're too oblivious to even realize when you've been beaten. Let's go over this one more time.

      I asked how they can calibrate radiodating.

      You said it can be verified with things whose age we know.

      I asked to test that out by seeing if scientists "get it right" when we know the answer i.e., that the dating method matches historical records.

      You refused this simple, basic test on the grounds that contamination might throw off the answer.

      I said if contamination invalidates the answer, how do they check the contamination of 65 million year old samples.

      You said, well, even if it's contaminated, the average age is whatever the dating method gives, 50,000 years or whatever.

      *burying face in hands*

      This assumes the method is valid to begin with! But since you refuse simple double-blind calibrations of the method, we can't even validate it for young (under 500 year old) samples! How do we even know it's valid for anything? Oh, that's right. We assume it's right for the average material in the sample. What was I thinking?

      Circular reasoning: justifying radiodating since its inception.

      --
      Rank my idea: http://www.sinceslicedbread.com/node/531
    30. Re:No, it's not by Max+Threshold · · Score: 1
      You refused this simple, basic test on the grounds that contamination might throw off the answer.

      No, I most certainly did not. I said it would work if the scientists were careful to avoid contamination. Yes, I would agree to a double-blind test provided that condition is met. Is that clear enough for your kindergarten-level reading comprehension?

    31. Re:No, it's not by LeonGeeste · · Score: 1

      Oh, *I* get it. For you to agree to my double-blind test, we "just have to" include some mechanism by which the scientists testing the sample can "make sure" they take the sample carefully and don't introduce their *own* contamination. So I guess to do that, we have to let them see the painting itself. And golly gee, if one of those scientists happens to recognize the painting and thereby help "massage" his test results, that's just a risk we'll have to take.

      *banging head on keyboard*

      The fact is, as you seem to agree, scientists can't reliably use carbon-or-whatever dating unless they already know the answer. That's not science; it's religion. If scientists have to be *given* the (unobtainable) knowledge that the sample is not contaminated, that's not a very reliable method, is it?

      How about this: one team that's good at extracting samples (who won't introduce their own contamination) will extract the samples. They will, through an intermediary, give the sample to three separate teams of scientists, who must test the sample without communicating with anyone.

      You really think they'll get the painting's date right within a margin of error? Name your margin and your wager, or admit you're wrong.

      --
      Rank my idea: http://www.sinceslicedbread.com/node/531
    32. Re:No, it's not by Max+Threshold · · Score: 1
      How about this: one team that's good at extracting samples (who won't introduce their own contamination) will extract the samples. They will, through an intermediary, give the sample to three separate teams of scientists, who must test the sample without communicating with anyone.

      That's how I would design the experiment, yes. I thought that was a given, since you already specfied a double-blind test, and I agreed.

      You really think they'll get the painting's date right within a margin of error?

      If you mean the date the wood used to make the frame was cut down, yes. These kinds of tests have already been done many times.

      Name your margin and your wager, or admit you're wrong.

      What is up with you and betting money? Anyway, the margin of error would be 5%.

    33. Re:No, it's not by LeonGeeste · · Score: 1

      If you mean the date the wood used to make the frame was cut down, yes. These kinds of tests have already been done many times.

      Really? They did a double blind experiment in which three or more teams of scientists who had no idea from what the sample was drawn and could not communicate with each other, all ran the tests and their answers all matched historical records to 5%?

      Not that I don't trust you or anything, but can you give me a citation for when this test was performed?

      Btw, I mention betting money because if you're not willing to bet your own money on a proposition, you probably don't seriously belief it yourself. Just a thought.

      --
      Rank my idea: http://www.sinceslicedbread.com/node/531
    34. Re:No, it's not by Max+Threshold · · Score: 1
      Oh, now we have three teams? OK. I have to admit I can't cite specific studies that were conducted as you describe. However, you might be interested to know that the earliest experiments designed to validate the theory of C14 dating were conducted on known-age samples. This page includes a chart showing how far off they were: http://www.c14dating.com/int.html. It also talks briefly about some of the more recent experiments which called C14 dating into question because it turned up ages that were younger than the known historical dates. But these have been explained (elsewhere) as contamination by newer material. For example, the Shroud of Turin was carbon dated to the mid-14th Century. However, we know that it was exposed to fire, and thus its fibers were impregnated with smoke particles containing more C14 than the linen itself. This renders the results of C14 dating inconclusive, and does not invalidate the belief that the Shroud was Christ's burial wrapping.

      You may be a troll, but this has been interesting. I learned a few things about C14 dating that I can use the next time I run into a young-Earthers in real life. For example, carbon dating is only effective to about 60,000 years at best, so anyone who talks about carbon dating and dinosaurs in the same context can automatically be dismissed as an idiot. I'm interested to know where you actually think the theory of carbon dating breaks down. I bet you can't do any better than demanding a very specific test be performed, and then claiming the whole theory is invalid if it hasn't or can't be cited. I challenge you to learn how C14 dating is believed to work, and tell me where you think the theory is wrong. I doubt you have the slightest idea; you just repeat nonsense you heard at Bible Study or on talk radio.

      And since we're on the Internet, I think it's rather ludicrous to talk about betting money to settle a scientific dispute. (It would be ludicrous in any context, actually.) But it makes you feel any better, I wager ten zillion dollars that I'm right!

    35. Re:No, it's not by LeonGeeste · · Score: 1

      First things first: I'm not a young-earther and I don't even go to church, let alone repeat what they say about carbon dating. I consider myself agnostic on the age of the earth, but believe that some of the estimates simply cannot be right - but that's for another time.

      Second, I'm not sure why you're even bringing up the Shroud. It's extremely dubious as an example of something "historical records confirm" as being 2000 years old; it proves neither side right or wrong.

      Third, the reason I talk about money is so that people can get serious. It's easy to say "oh I'm 10000000% sure that theory X is true". But when you have to put your own money on the line, that tends to make bullshitters (not that you are one of course, I'm talking about the principle here) shut up. I strongly suspect that a lot of (uncalibratable) long-term estimates of the age of things are heavily contaminated by scientists' prejudices about "what seems right" or "what other scientists said" or "what stuff was found in the area", which itself may have been based on error, which was based on error, and so on. The way to test this and keep scientists from contaminating each other is to use the method I outlined. If scientists were really sure about the validity of their methods, they would jump at the chance to take this test.

      And remember: the test involves no knowledge of the sample's source. It shouldn't be necessary if the method's accurate. They shouldn't even know that someone has the answer. They shouldn't even have a clue what geological era the sample comes from - again, it shouldn't be necessary. I seriously doubt scientists' answers would agree, which would throw a LOT of what they claim to know in doubt.

      --
      Rank my idea: http://www.sinceslicedbread.com/node/531
    36. Re:No, it's not by Max+Threshold · · Score: 1
      So what is the source of your doubt?

      Cosmic radiation converts N14 into C14 in our biosphere. That's a fact.

      Living things absorb C14 while they're alive. That's a fact.

      They stop absorbing C14 when they die, and the concentration of C14 in their remains decreases with time. That's a fact.

      The rate of decrease is known with great accuracy. That's a fact.

      It's such a simple theory. I really don't see how anyone can criticize it... except, as I mentioned, with the possibility that the C14 equilibrium in our environment hasn't always been constant.

      Which of these facts do you challenge?

    37. Re:No, it's not by LeonGeeste · · Score: 1

      That it's not been calibrated. Even if they know the "equations of motion" I don't think they know the "initial conditions" and a lot of what they claim is based not on the actual test but "scientific judgment" (other people's tests) I mean, they claimed oil takes "millions" of years to form, but they've made it in minutes in the lab. (And then there's the messy issue of how we've pumped more oil than the mass of the animals that should have been able to produce it, but that's neither here nor there.)

      --
      Rank my idea: http://www.sinceslicedbread.com/node/531
    38. Re:No, it's not by Max+Threshold · · Score: 1

      But it has been calibrated. Again, uniformitarianism is the huge assumption. However, we know exactly where the atmospheric C14 equilibrium stands today. By dating individual rings from tree cores, we know that it's been stable to within 5% for at least 2,000 years, right up to the beginning of the 20th Century. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, there's no reason to doubt that it has been just as stable for the past 50,000 years.

    39. Re:No, it's not by LeonGeeste · · Score: 1

      Oh, there's plenty of reason, but that's not the point. You're showing the exact example of the circular reasoning I'm trying to expose. How do they know the trees were that old? Do they have historical records? You can't just say, ah, it works in this tiny range, must work exactly this way for the long range. I just had a kid under a year ago. He doubled in weight in about a year or so. I guess, according to you, he's going to be a fucking giant at 20, right?

      I'm thinking I should go do my experiment and embarass a lot of people.

      --
      Rank my idea: http://www.sinceslicedbread.com/node/531
    40. Re:No, it's not by Max+Threshold · · Score: 1
      No, that is the point. C14 equilibrium is controlled by cosmic radiation, and when it comes to phenomena of that magnitude, 50,000 years is the blink of an eye. There is no evidence that there's been any significant variation in that time period. Now, there is an element of circular reasoning here: if the entire universe is actually much, much younger than we assume it to be, and we're currently on the shallow slope of some kind of negative exponential curve that affects ALL observable phenomena in the universe, then maybe you're right. But consider the possibility that, say, a million years ago the universe was aging at a much faster rate than it is now. This leads to some philosophical and metaphysical mumbo-jumbo. What does a "year" mean, if the entire universe was sped up and nobody was around to experience it anyway? Is there an absolute measure of time that isn't connected to space and matter? Either way, you still end up with the same answer: the universe has aged so many billions of years, even if it's not really that old. And as far as we're concerned, what difference does the distinction make?

      As for how old the trees were... they counted the rings. Duh. :o) Year by year, each ring tested within 5% of the age they obtained by counting.

  45. Holy pasta, Batman! by Captain+Lobotomy · · Score: 1

    " the world's oldest noodles have been found at the Lajia site in China. Carbon Dating has found the remains to be over 4000 years old."

    Bet they're crunchy....

    --
    Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
  46. Re:Four Millenia -- Four Millenium by MrFlannel · · Score: 1

    You mean Four-Millennia-Old, that's the adjective form. Otherwise, it would be "four years old", but it's not an adjective in that case ('years' is a noun, and it's a noun phrase).
    So, yes, the headline is 'wrong' technically, but headlines are usually abbreviated forms of sentences/phrases anyway.

    --
    Clones are people two.
  47. The 1980s called by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The 1980s called, they want their noodles back.

    1980 B.C.

  48. just how many days old does the news have to be? by iamrojo · · Score: 1

    This story is 2 days old. My god, It's no wonder that I'm going DIGG now. DAYS OLD. Maybe we can talk about what happened with Clinton next.

  49. Re:just how many days old does the news have to be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yah, this story feels as old as the noodles.

  50. 4000 Years and 7 days. by Aristophrenia · · Score: 1

    I saw this last week when it was actually News; Can't find the article offhand...Probably because they've moved on to something that actually is News.

    Besides, 4000 year old noodles arn't that big of a deal; The place I ate at tonight had bread that tasted twice that old.

    --
    "Yeah, but by we know yo mama gives EVERYBODY root privilege..." -jpetts (208163)
  51. Scientific theory by BrookHarty · · Score: 1

    We dont know where noodles where invented, just like we dont know alot about our history in the early ages of man. Just because they found some evidience doesnt make it fact that china was first. Its a theory, nothing can be proven as fact yet.

    Tired of all these new discoveries to be taken as fact, when they keep changing every few years...

    1. Re:Scientific theory by kesuki · · Score: 1

      Tired of all these new discoveries to be taken as fact

      You know, of course that nothing is ever 'proven' in science. Science is simply the art of observing the universe around you and making your best guess at why things happened a certain way etc. a simple formal standard to document and allow others to critizise your 'discoveries.'

      anyone who knows something 'for a fact' simply has stopped trying to look for better answers. take a simple test of dropping a feather and a coin, in normal atmosphere the feather will land much later than the coin, so some people mystically thought feathers would make you lighter.. but it's been shown that once the atmosphere is taken out of the picture that a coin and feather will land at exactly the same time. the feather simply has more surface area, enough to greatly slow it's descent through a 'fluid' like air.

      anyways, point is science isn't about absolutes -- you want blind abolute answers to everything they make this thing called 'religion' just for you. somebody could accidently or intentionally find something that completely debunked years of sceintific 'discoveries' you just never know, because science goes ahead and Demands that you question and evaluate everthing you accept from it.

  52. Other entrees... by pokereth · · Score: 1

    Did they eat them with thousand-year-old eggs?

    1. Re:Other entrees... by Celsius+233 · · Score: 1

      No, hundred-year-old tofu.

      --
      Denham's Dentrifice, Denham's Dentrifice, Denham's Dandy Dental Dentrifice, Denham's Dentrifice Dentrifice Dentrifice.
  53. In other news by kahrytan · · Score: 1, Funny

    In other News..
    A Malnurished homeless man was caught inside the Institute trying to steal the 4,000 noodles. When caught, the main explained that he only wanted to use them in chow mein to feed his poor family.

    --
    \
  54. Noodles On My Back by Caffeine+Molecule · · Score: 1

    *sings* "..Oodles and Oodles of Noodles, Oodles and Oodles of Noodles.."

  55. Re:No, it's not (OT) by DarkProphet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... and its a funny thing about the 'begats'... each generation (with a couple exceptions) has a somewhat shorter life expectancy, starting at 900-some odd years and gradually declining...

    Creationists can't swallow evolution, but 1000 year old men sounds plausable?

    By any sane measure (heh, ironic) using the 'begats', the world is only about 15-20 generations older than it was when christ was born, which would make it much YOUNGER than the creationists believe. I say a branch of science aughtta lay that one out on the table ;-)

    Then there is the little problem that even with super high-resolution spy satellites, we still haven't found Eden or that big flaming sword that guards its entrance... heh.

    And the number 1 least logical thing about this post? I am a protestant christian ;-)

    --
    What could possibly hurt the security of the American people more than giving our own government the ability to hide its
  56. This was posted on fark 2 days ago.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slashdot is really lagging....

  57. Not So Old by FlipSideXp · · Score: 0

    the oldest noodles before this discovery belonged to a guy a i knew in college where the local health department found 5 years noodles in his frig..

  58. ramen! by nanojath · · Score: 1

    Carbon Dating has found the remains to be over 4000 years old

    I'm pretty sure some of the Smack ramen I subsisted on in college was pretty close to that.

    --

    It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries

    1. Re:ramen! by Tirs · · Score: 1

      Well, at least they were not dating Carbon, were they?

      --
      Strength, balance, courage and reason. If you know what's this about, contact me!
  59. Mod parent funny! by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

    whoever modded that offtopic was really stupid youknow...

  60. OLD STORY!!!!! FUCKING SLASHDOT IDOTS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What the fuck is wrong with you SLASHDOT MORONS? This story is fucking old!!

    1. Re:OLD STORY!!!!! FUCKING SLASHDOT IDOTS! by DamienNightbane · · Score: 1

      So are the noodles.

    2. Re:OLD STORY!!!!! FUCKING SLASHDOT IDOTS! by ZeroExistenZ · · Score: 2, Funny

      Contrary to popular belief, "slashdot idiots" rarely or never "are fucking".

      --
      I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
  61. There are older food examples in America! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here is where older examples of takeout were found in North America no less.

  62. MSG? by ackthpt · · Score: 0, Redundant
    Was it Ramen? That stuff lasts forever. Bet it was. Probably still good.

    Bet it was absolutely saturated it the stuff.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  63. I didn't see this on ebay! by rkuris · · Score: 1

    Must be a fake; it's not for sale on ebay!

    --
    Get rid of everything Micro and Soft: Buy Viagra and/or Linux
  64. Troll alert! by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 0, Troll

    Have you noticed?

    about 90% of all posts in this thread are either funny or trying to be. :( Man, why is this story even on slashdot? Just to give everyone the chance to prove the existence of the Flying Spaguetti Monster and get a +5 funny? I counted at least 7 FSM jokes, and not a single one of them was modded "redundant".

    Oh, wait. It's FRIDAY. Nevermind.

    1. Re:Troll alert! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its also 4:20 in the pacific ocean.

    2. Re:Troll alert! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Your sense of humour has now been serviced and is ready for collection.

    3. Re:Troll alert! by Tirs · · Score: 1

      Well, mine was not. Hope it adds something positive to the discussion.

      --
      Strength, balance, courage and reason. If you know what's this about, contact me!
  65. Totally Off Topic by bedouin · · Score: 1

    Since /. updated I frequently have *two* of the same articles display in Safari's RSS reader, each beside one another. Why is that happening?

  66. Re: necro-what?? by chooks · · Score: 4, Funny

    Okay, how do they date dinosaur remains,

    That certainly takes necrophilia to a new low...

    --
    -- The Genesis project? What's that?
  67. Re:No, it's not (OT) by LiENUS · · Score: 1

    Then there is the little problem that even with super high-resolution spy satellites, we still haven't found Eden or that big flaming sword that guards its entrance... heh.

    Just thought I'd note Eden was supposed to have gone away with the great flood

  68. What would be interesting... by jd · · Score: 2, Insightful
    They (believe) they have the list of ingredients for an ancient cocktail, they're pretty sure they've got the list for ancient beers, wines and meads across the globe, they've managed to identify the ingredients for breads found inside the stomachs of Iron Age people found in peat bogs, and now they've got the recipe for ancient noodles.


    I'm sure it's done to some degree, but it would seem to me that there exists an opportunity for archaeologists to tempt people into the field by taking reproductions of these ancient foods to schools. If you want to make archaeology interesting to kids, you need to show them more of an end result than a dry, rather obscure research paper, some lumps of stone and a trowel. Make ancient history something real to them, something they can see, something they can actually relate to, and you're more likely to get them interested in it.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  69. Indicates? by skaife · · Score: 1
    Our discovery indicates that noodles were first produced in China
    Your discovery indicates that the Chinese had noodles 4,000 years ago. It does not indicate that nobody else had noodles 4,000 years ago.
  70. Oh, wow, if only I had mod points! by gardyloo · · Score: 1

    Cheers. That was awesome

  71. no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It doesn't mean that Italians learned noodle making from China. However, it does mean that the Chinese have a bragging right for first inventing noodles.

    1. Re:no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, it just means that they have the world's oldest noodles. The Arabs or Italians may have very well invented them, but there's no evidence of it yet.

    2. Re:no. by tabrnaker · · Score: 1

      except there were no italians 4000 years ago. :)

  72. Wow. by Lunis+Neko · · Score: 1

    This must be the best example of the decline of the QOR (quality of reporting) here at /.

  73. keep digging... by Jodka · · Score: 1

    the flavor packet is down there somewhere.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une signature.
  74. Eurocentric Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "although it remained a subject of debate whether the Chinese, the Italians, or the Arabs invented it first..."

    Wrong. It isn't a subject of debate. It was always the Chinese. Arabs were never in the running, and whoever thought it might be the Italians are simply a bunch of eurocentric morons, completely ignorant of history.

    1. Re:Eurocentric Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when is it not a debate? The debate was obviously not concluded if it took a discovery to properly support the suggestion that the Chinese had the oldest evidence of noodles.

      Your logic reeks of sophistry and it sounds more like you have some axe to grind rather than to bring some sort of intellectuality to this.

    2. Re:Eurocentric Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed. This fucker is obviously a chinese noodle maker.

    3. Re:Eurocentric Idiots by Tirs · · Score: 1

      Well, these "eurocentric morons/idiots" (BTW: you get a -1 to consistency), as you call them, did invent pasta themselves before Marco Polo brought the "state-of-the-art" technics and procedures from China. When he did, the Italians were more than quick in adopt (and adapt) them, effectively "masking out" their original style (which I imagine much worse than the Chinese one). There is evidence that they used to prepare shorter, thicker noodles with goldwheat semola.
      I am not Italian

      --
      Strength, balance, courage and reason. If you know what's this about, contact me!
  75. Re:Four Millenia -- Four Millenium by lloydtesterman · · Score: 1

    > but headlines are usually abbreviated forms of sentences/phrases anyway.

    I read that as "Slashdot headlines are usually abbreviated forms of senseless/phrases anyway"

    heh I was gonna mod it +1 Insightful

  76. I for one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No one else is going to welcome our new four thousand year old noodles-making Chinese overlords? ... Oh never mind, just realised it wasn't necessary anymore.

  77. Instant Ramen by 246o1 · · Score: 1

    Instant Ramen was invented then, ramen itself has been around for a very long time. I suppose lots of people don't know this, but there are lots of ramen shops all over Japan, and they cook the food the same as any food. I believe that the ramen in real shops tends to have a little more nutritional value, though it's not as convenient, of course.

    --
    Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.
  78. MSG? by eonlabs · · Score: 1

    You realize the reason MSG was used so extensively in asian cooking is because it increases the umeminess, the flavor you taste in meats and fish sauces. (Umemi is from japanese, the words umai: excellent, and mi or aji: taste) You can check wikipedia for more info if you don't believe in the awesomeness of the fifth flavor.

    --
    I wouldn't consider the mad hatter mad. Just reality impaired. He sure can make a mean cup of tea.
  79. Ramen, brother! by Rhinobird · · Score: 1

    May the flying Spaghetti monster have mercy on our sauces.

    --
    If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
  80. A lot more than 6000 years... by ZombieRoboNinja · · Score: 1

    Just read an article stating that they've found remnants of some 9000-year-old beer at a Chinese archaeological dig. The interesting thing is, I'm pretty sure agriculture has only been around for about 10,000 years, and there's no reason to think this is the oldest beer around... Could it be that beer caused civilization? This impartial observer believes, almost certainly yes.

  81. Almost as old by ScottSCY · · Score: 1

    Those are almost as old as the ones served to me at Panda Express today.

  82. Re:No, it's not (OT) by Peyna · · Score: 1

    By any sane measure (heh, ironic) using the 'begats', the world is only about 15-20 generations older than it was when christ was born, which would make it much YOUNGER than the creationists believe.

    I don't understand your statement. We know when Jesus was born through information outside of the Bible, and we know it's been about 2000 years since then. Figuring an average birthing age of around 20, that makes about 100 generations.

    Also, there are about 76 generations listed between Adam and Jesus. Luke 3:23-38.

    Personally, I think the argument is wasted effort on both sides. To those of faith, it does not matter what is proven, because their faith is what guides them and they don't need to prove it, because that's why it is called faith.

    But anyway, Jesus didn't say, "know how old the Earth is and be saved," or, "take the Bible 100% literally and be saved," he said, "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved."

    --
    What?
  83. I work for the FSM. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I work for the FSM.

    So I am really getting a kick out of most of these replies.

    Some of you guys are very good at making it sound like you know what you are talking about.

    But trust me.... You don't.

    I think you just want to make yourself sound smart, when in reality you dont know what you are talking about.

    This is how bad info gets passed around.

    If you dont know about the topic....Dont make yourself sound like you do.

    Cuz some people belive anything they hear.

  84. sopranos by goarilla · · Score: 0

    now think about it!

    why would people who eat with sticks invent something u at least need a fork to eat

  85. Although the noodles had to be saved for science by Julian+Morrison · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...some eggs found nearby were considered a delicacy.

  86. Re:No, it's not (OT) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jesus also said "I can't believe these suckers!"

    Then he said "I am sorry I made up all these stories because I am an attention whore" but it was too late, and they executed him for fraud.

  87. Re:No, it's not (OT) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just thought I'd point out that there is zero - Z E R O - evidence outside of the bible which claims to verify the existance of a man names "Jesus" in or around the year 0-30CE

    If you study up on it, fully 100% of the so-called "referances" were spliced in, intentionally, during the middle ages by bishops and such whom were translating ancient works from Arabic and Latin into English and French. For example, in one work by roman senator Lucius from around 80CE, a referance was made to a man with a name simmilar to "Jesus" having visted a town in his fathers time to trade animal skins or something. The passage was altered in translation and the phrase ", whom was known as the savior and the Christ" spliced in after the name. These sort of activities were common, and only in the last 100 years or so have been coming to light as pre-translation versions of some of these works have been dug out of the vatican archives and other sources.

    Dont take my word for it, research it yourself. You will find that 100% of any non-bible sources which claim a man named "jesus" lived around that time were either altered or are forgeries.

  88. Re:No, it's not (OT) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why would it surprise you that people lived longer - much longer than they do now? We are talking about a time when there was no pollution, most were farmers and therefore they got a lot of exercise, diseases were not too common and did not spread as quickly because the population was small and people were dispersed over vast areas?

    About Eden - what makes you think that it should still exist? Does the Bible imply that Eden still exists? Do you need to see WTC right now to know that it once existed?

  89. bio-degradable? by krunk4ever · · Score: 1

    I thought all food was bio-degradable. Can something humans digest really last 4000 years?

  90. This is news for nerds? by IchBinEinPenguin · · Score: 0

    Who here hasn't heard of 4 minute noodles?!?

    what? oh....
    s/minute/millenium/

  91. Yummy ! by Ray+Alloc · · Score: 0

    4 millenia old, with a 12 years old chianti... Absolutely wonderful !

  92. Best Before Date by JonathanR · · Score: 1

    Easy, just look at the Best Before date.

  93. I didn't realize 7-Eleven had expanded to China by britneys+9th+husband · · Score: 0

    Thank you, come again!

    --
    Hear recorded Slashdot headlines on your phone! New service beta testing. Just call (248) 434-5508
  94. Noodles by rogerdugans · · Score: 1

    I expect that they will discover them to be military rations before long.

    --
    Linux computers, watercooled, photography
  95. Fascinating by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
    As someone who loves both cooking (particularly chinese food) and ancient history as well as evolution, I'm really curious if anybody has any info on how someone might have stumbled across the creation of noodles.

    I know this may be kind of weird, but in terms of "culinary evolution"...why have they survived so long as a staple food item?

    And also...is anybody here familiar with the concept of culinary evolution? I just kinda made it up for this post, but if it really exists and there is info out there on it I'd love to read it!

    --
    Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    1. Re:Fascinating by Glowing+Fish · · Score: 1

      The noodle, like the potato chip, probably was developed quite by accident: someone pouring water on some flour, or the like. Why has it stayed around?

      I guess the most simple reason is that you can preserve noodles a long time. Compare how long bread takes to mold with how long noodles take to mold. Especially since noodles are smaller, and can be put inside a closed container easier.

      Also, the process of cooking noodles also sanitizes them. In Chinese cuisine, normally most things (including plain water), are only served after being boiled.

      --
      Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
  96. And if they add some boiling water... by callipygian-showsyst · · Score: 1

    ...and wait a minute or two, they'll be ready to eat!

  97. Found in preservered white ... by joelsanda · · Score: 1

    fiber or rice-based paper box with an iron loop protruding from the sides, in the fashion of a simple handle; typical of that age.

    --
    The Luddites were ahead of their time.
  98. Mr. Kenji Fukui by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It will be interesting to see what kind of dishes Iron Chef Chen can prepare with the noodles.

  99. Re:No, it's not (OT) by Julian352 · · Score: 1

    The reason that it makes no sense for them to live longer is the fact that we have very recently recorded history (1600-1800) of when majority of the people worked on the farms, had no polution and had an average lifespan of about 50 years. For example take a look at the US's southern states in those time to see complete lack of any polution from industry and majority of farming work. (If you go further back into history you'll find that the lifespan usually stayed the same or got shorter due to limited health knowledge)
    The work on the farm is really not helpful for longer life because of lack of proper preventive medicine, proper food treatment, etc. Majority of deaths before the invention of antibiotics were simple infections that could easily be animal-born.

  100. Re:Four Millenia -- Four Millenium by julesh · · Score: 1

    Yes, actually, I do.

    Well you're a bonehead th... never mind. ;)

  101. Re:No, it's not (OT) by protohiro1 · · Score: 1

    The thing is that these people are totally missing the point of religion. It is not supposed to be about facts. The bible was never intended to be a science book. It is supposed to be a book of stories that help people understand their place in the universe. Modern people tend to equate "myth" with fake. Which is completely missing the point. It isn't supposed to be real, it is supposed to be True. Augustine himself wrote that the biblical tale of creation could not possibly be taken literally. So you can't prove the bible false, because it isn't something that was intented to contain facts. It contains myths, which are what religion is all about.

    --
    Sig removed because it was obnoxious
  102. Definition wiggle room by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    The oldest noodles were probably invented when a kid got some of his/her porriage on his finger, and rolled it into a worm shape like most kids like to do. Bonus points for flinging it into the boiling pot when mommy is not looking.

  103. Above article cut short. by Anivair · · Score: 1

    The above artivle was cut a bit short. They neglected this last bit of the story. "In other news . . . they were delicious!"

  104. Re:Four Millenia -- Four Millenium by bonehead · · Score: 1

    What's wrong with this sentence?

    "My neighbor's daughter is four years old."

  105. Re:Four Millenia -- Four Millenium by julesh · · Score: 1

    Nothing, but the sentence being compared with would be more like:

    "My neighbour's four years old daughter is in the garden," which is clearly wrong.

  106. Re:Four Millenia -- Four Millenium by bonehead · · Score: 1

    Yes, that is clearly wrong, however the question I was responding to was "You don't say four years old, right?", implying that it was improper usage across the board. I simply provided an example where "four years old" was, in fact, the proper usage.