Slashdot Mirror


New Ocean being Formed in Africa

PenguinRadio writes "The San Francisco Chronicle is reporting on a 37-mile long fissure that split open in September in the Afar desert in Ethiopia that could be the start of a new ocean forming. The fissure, which grew 8 meters wide in 3 weeks following an earthquake on Sept 14, is now splitting at about 0.8 inches per year, would eventually lead to Ethiopia eastern portions becoming an island in a million years or so. The findings were presented at the American Geophysical Union meeting taking place in San Francisco this week. The BBC reports that formation of a ocean basin is the first step toward developing an ocean, but that it will be millions of years before that could occur."

261 comments

  1. neat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's pretty cool

  2. Great by SilverspurG · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's easier to form a new ocean than it is to ask the company for a raise.

    --
    fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
    1. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is parent modded troll? It's just funny.

  3. bookmark this by BibelBiber · · Score: 5, Funny

    Shall I tell my kids to bookmark this article then? Just in case they forget when it all started?

    1. Re:bookmark this by Ricky+Cousins · · Score: 5, Funny

      Don't worry, I'm sure it will be duped a few times.

    2. Re:bookmark this by roman_mir · · Score: 5, Funny

      Shall I tell my kids to bookmark this article then? Just in case they forget when it all started? - useless. Imagine Kansas one million years from now.

      Student: I just found this /. bookmark from a MILLION years ago! It says that an ocean started in Africa from a fissure or something like that.
      Teacher: Nonsense, the Earth is only 6000 years old. This so called /. article and the fissure you are talking about were all created in an instant back then, it is the god's way of testing your believing in him.
      All Students: Oooooooo! Aaaaaaa!
      Teacher: Yes, we are in Kansas.

    3. Re:bookmark this by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Actualy wouldn't that be one milion six thousand years ago not 6000?

      I mean, the 6000 year hasn't always been 6000 has it?

    4. Re:bookmark this by roman_mir · · Score: 1, Funny

      I mean, the 6000 year hasn't always been 6000 has it? - Yes it has. That's the point :)

    5. Re:bookmark this by pe1rxq · · Score: 0, Troll

      Do you actually expect those idiots to be capable of counting?

      --
      Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
    6. Re:bookmark this by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Re:bookmark this (Score:1, Troll)
      I mean, the 6000 year hasn't always been 6000 has it? - Yes it has. That's the point :)

      ---
      Aaaaa :) Kansas educational system hard at work.

    7. Re:bookmark this by roman_mir · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Something about the moderation of this post teaches me about the realities of the world. The parent post was moderated as 'Troll' at least 5 times by now. It was then moderated as Funny also just as many times.

      What we are observing here on this miniscule scale is the gigantic battle that is taking place in this world. The battle between the forces of stupidity, obedience, fanatism, blind religiouos principles versus the forces of logic, humour, personal responsibility, scientific principles, and tolerance. /. can be viewed as reflection of the world.

      .
      BTW. I wanted everyone to note, that yesterday we lost a person, who was one of the people fighting this same battle. I don't need to tell you which side of the battle he was on.

    8. Re:bookmark this by roman_mir · · Score: 2, Interesting

      that wasn't the point. The point is this: 7000 years ago, who would have thought that their lives would be regarded as something that never happen by their descendands only 7000 years later. But here we go. There are people who don't believe that people existed 7000 years ago.

      That is the point. 10^6 earth years from now, there will be someone, who in his(her) infinite pride and stupidity will declare that this planet is only 6000 years old (an arbitrary number, but why not?) And there will be people who will follow these believes in the same fanatic state of mind, as they do today.

    9. Re:bookmark this by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      "10^6 earth years from now, there will be someone, who in his(her) infinite pride and stupidity will declare that this planet is only 6000 years old (an arbitrary number, but why not?)"

      You say that with an aire of certainty that people with that much pride and stupidity will still be around 10^6 earth years from now. My bet is that we wipe ourselves out LOOOOOOONG before then.

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    10. Re:bookmark this by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      well, all of this is just a reply to the ggggp, who assumed not only that people will be around for 1000000 years, but the Internet and /. etc :)

    11. Re:bookmark this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      that, my friend, is the entire punchline. It is pointing out the ridiculous nature of the assumption that the earth was created in any timespan measured in thousands of years.

    12. Re:bookmark this by nephridium · · Score: 1
      I'd really hope that in a million years from now people would walk around with pieces of flare saying "We're not in Kansas anymore".

      Or with red staplers..

      --


      And when you gaze long enough into the code, the code will also gaze into you.
    13. Re:bookmark this by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Mike, nothing special is happenning here. It's just another place like every other place. Like work, politics, economy, science, religion.

      And by the way, I know it is all futile, I didn't get a minor in Astronomy for nothing :)

    14. Re:bookmark this by Phroggy · · Score: 0

      Quite right. The 6000 years is a rough estimate based on genealogy given in the Bible, from Adam through Jesus; it's not exact, but reasonably close. Of course the Bible doesn't say "this happened 6000 years ago;" that's moronic.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    15. Re:bookmark this by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      that, my friend, is the entire punchline. It is pointing out the ridiculous nature of the assumption that the earth was created in any timespan measured in thousands of years.

      According to the Bible, the earth was created in a timespan measured in days - six of them, specifically. Of course this couldn't have happened through natural processes, so if you don't believe supernatural creation to be possible, then yeah, the whole thing doesn't work.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    16. Re:bookmark this by fm6 · · Score: 1
      As far as I can figure out, the post got three times as many "funny" mods as it got "troll" mods. Which pretty much reflects the distribution of opinion amongst slashdotters.

      The ID versus Evolution battle is "gigantic" only if you live in Kansas or are a zealot on either side. It makes good news copy, but aside from that it's just not very important.

      What we really have is a small but militant religious movement that is rejected by most people — including Christians. Their strident intolerance is making them less and less relevent. Today they flamed President Bush because he put an Old Testament verse on his family Xmas card! Let's stop taking these jokers seriously.

    17. Re:bookmark this by SurgeonGeneral · · Score: 1

      that wasn't the point. The point is this: 7000 years ago, who would have thought that their lives would be regarded as something that never happen by their descendands only 7000 years later. But here we go. There are people who don't believe that people existed 7000 years ago.

      Hmmm, no, that is not the point. I, for one, would have thought that.
      And anyone who has spent any time around humans would believe it too.
      Never forget what trusty Albert said around the turn of the century:
      Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. - Albert Einstein.

      --
      -- "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains." Jean Jacques Rousseau
    18. Re:bookmark this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Today they flamed President Bush because he put an Old Testament verse on his family Xmas card!

      What a charming story of how Christmas can bring people together and help us to reconcile our differences. Now we can all flame Bush together.

    19. Re:bookmark this by glitch23 · · Score: 0

      Too bad your sarcasm doesn't even make sense since a million years from now the earth will be 1,006,000 years old. It can't stay 6000 forever.

      --
      this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
    20. Re:bookmark this by ScriptedReplay · · Score: 1

      What we really have is a small but militant religious movement that is rejected by most people -- including Christians.

      You might want to read a bit on the Wedge strategy if you don't realize yet what a small yet militant group of people (with a well-defined agenda) can theoretically achieve if the majority couldn't care less. Keep in mind that "repeat something loud enough and long enough and people will think it true" is statistically accurate.

    21. Re:bookmark this by anothy · · Score: 1

      of course, by then Kansas will be an island... :-)

      --

      i speak for myself and those who like what i say.
    22. Re:bookmark this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not a young earth creationist by any means, but no, it hasn't. That number was made by counting generations back to the story of Adam and Eve, and arriving at a date - 4000 BC. Every year that passes still tacks on another year to the earth's age. It's just rounded to 6000.

    23. Re:bookmark this by Black.Shuck · · Score: 1

      Wow. That one flew right over your head, eh?

      Lets go off-topic and try explaining it, and in the process kill the funny: The Earth, by modern scientific calculations, is about 4.57 billion years old. Certain religious-texts suggest that this is not the case, and the figure stands at a much more youthful 6,000 years. Those who hold these texts to be true go on to argue the reason scientific analysis reveals a much older Earth is to "test our faith." God like to tell porkies, in other words.

      Knowing this, we can assume that 1 million years hence there will still be people around that believe the Earth is no more than 6,000 years old. (Assuming that people haven't evolved into something else entirely, of course.)

      So now you can see how the parent post makes sense, yes?

    24. Re:bookmark this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So then 1,000,000 years from now, the young earth creationist would say the earth is 1,006,000 years old.

      Thats what I though. I didn't know about how they came to the 6000 year conclusion though. Thats a piece of information i could find handy.

      Without starting a flaim war or another science rules even when it's wrong war, I too don't think the earth is just 6000 years old and I don't think some mystical force created everythign we know today. This may sound strange from someone who doesn't see the difference in teaching evolution or creation. We make the same leap of faith in both and both are probably wrong.

    25. Re:bookmark this by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      the earth will be 1,006,000 years old. It can't stay 6000 forever. - sure, sure, that's what Primorians said 1000000 years ago or so. Their god, the great Primo, he created the earth 6000 years before them too.

      get it?

    26. Re:bookmark this by KylePflug · · Score: 1
      Those who hold these texts to be true go on to argue the reason scientific analysis reveals a much older Earth is to "test our faith."
      Out of curiosity, have you ever met a Christian or read anything by a Christian that wasn't actually a satirical website that made that claim? There are Christians who assert that the earth is, in some sense, only some handful of thousands of years old, or what-have-you. Some will point out that the human genes don't have enough variety for there to have been more than a handful of us about 145,000 years ago, and start claiming creation or the flood or something happened around then. However, very few Christians say that the reason the Earth appears older is to "test our faith."

      Reasons I have heard stated: The purpose of Creation is to tell the story of human redemption, and hence in some sense the creative act focuses around humanity. Therefore we can see the "beginning" of humanity/the human story as the "creation." This goes hand in hand with the "Created with age" idea; God made the first humans in a world that, at the moment of creation, was a complete world. This does not cosmologically deny the big bang or any prehistory, just states that if a being who by definition is not bound by time is to create something, he is creating the whole thing at once anyway and trying to hunt down a start date is pedantic.
    27. Re:bookmark this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad your sarcasm doesn't even make sense since a million years from now the earth will be 1,006,000 years old. It can't stay 6000 forever.

      It can if God wants it to, so take your atheistic blasphemy elsewhere. It isn't welcome here.

    28. Re:bookmark this by Black.Shuck · · Score: 1

      Out of curiosity, have you ever met a Christian or read anything by a Christian that wasn't actually a satirical website that made that claim?

      Yes, although other than mild implication through the 6,000-years thing I was trying to avoid a Christian reference in my post. I've also heard many times the whole "God created the Earth in 6 days, but one God-day could be like, a million man-days!" argument.

      Reasons I have heard stated . . .

      Then you have met more rational, reasonable Christians than I have.

    29. Re:bookmark this by sumdumass · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Well acording to translations and interpretations of the bible. The wording originaly used is of an old spoken language that isn't realy in use today. To make things worse numbers and letters are basicaly the same were letter has a numerical value and the writer/reader has to interpret the meanings and values based on the words they know to be true.

      This is more evident in the internet rumor that "the www you placed in the web browser before the sites name actualy means 666" While there is actualy no atual W (some translator include it) in the hebrew alphabet, It was explain to me that w and v are commonly interchanged when going form one alphabet to another and the v also stood for the number 6. Unlike modern/western numerical systems, hebrew uses/used something like roman numerals were 666 instead of meaining six hundred sixtysix, it actualy means the sum of 6+6+6 or 18.

      The above example is just an illistration in how translations can go bad. We have heard the stories of people wanting to say "good morning" or "have a nice day" in different languages and end up saying somethign to the effect of "thanks for sleeping with pigs". Translating the bible from old hebrew to new/old hebrew could impose the same problems. This is probably compounded when there wasn't the concept of dictionary for some time into the 16th or 17th century or later. The words for god could also have ment the number 86 or reversed. It is interesting that enough of it is translated to the point people follow it as they do.

      OTOH, theomatics makes a good argument in the way the translations are organized. I wonder if it is a conspiracy?

    30. Re:bookmark this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Then you have met more rational, reasonable Christians than I have.

      Which would be any of them.

    31. Re:bookmark this by this+great+guy · · Score: 2, Funny
      Imagine Kansas one million years from now.

      Easy. It will be exactly like it is now ! Since they don't believe in evolution.

    32. Re:bookmark this by glitch23 · · Score: 0

      The number 6000 comes from determining the age at this time and saying it is that old. Of course a million years from now the date of origin will remain the same but recalulating the age will result in a different value. Assuming that people will still think it is 6000 years old , even 1 million years from now, is, well, stupid. There will be historical records to prove that it is stupid (unlike the last 6000 years in which historical records aren't always that good/accurate. FYI, people won't evolve into anything more by that time than they have at the current time (which is nothing since we didn't evolve) so no need to worry about that.

      --
      this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
    33. Re:bookmark this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      But but but but...God himself guided the very hands of the men who translated the sacred scriptures! Of course, I guess God could change his mind (you know, with the whole eye-for-an-eye...turn-the-other-cheek thing)...so who knows.

    34. Re:bookmark this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "What we are observing here on this miniscule scale is the gigantic battle that is taking place in this world. The battle between the forces of stupidity, obedience, fanatism, blind religiouos principles versus the forces of logic, humour, personal responsibility, scientific principles, and tolerance. /. can be viewed as reflection of the world."

      I modded your post "troll" precisely because of this attitude. You assume that every single religious person is stupid, and every single non-religious person is logical, intelligent, funny, and tolerant (I'll get to that last one in a second). This isn't the case. The definition of "troll" is "one who posts a controversial or provocative message in a deliberate attempt to incite an argument." Your post was off-topic, and was obviously designed to insult people who hold religious beliefs. If some people thought that it was funny, fine, but in my opinion, somebody who considers themselves to be logical, humourous, responsible, scientific, and TOLERANT would not insult a group of people simply because he doesn't agree with this group's principles and beliefs.

      Intolerant attitudes shown in nearly all of your posts in this thread are not appropriate, whether or not it is currently in vogue to bash Christianity and creationism. I've never responded to a whinging "the moderators are idiots!" post before, but your reaction and your blatant "Oh, why oh why was I modded down? All I said was the truth!!!" attitude is, frankly, repulsive. Some people who believe in science over religion (such as you, for instance) have this smug, superior attitude that everything they say is true, and everything that a religious person says is automatically false simply because of their religious beliefs. Other science-minded individuals are able to respond to religious folks with tolerance and respect; if you really think you know all the answers, and truly believe that you're a better person, then act like it. Claiming that you're a "tolerant" person... pah. Real scientists don't want anything to do with you. You're hurting the cause more than you're helping it. People who are really intelligent have the ability to be tolerant of other people's opinions in public - keep that in mind the next time you open your trap to spout off more intolerant bullshit.

    35. Re:bookmark this by glitch23 · · Score: 0

      I'm not an atheist you insensitive clod.

      --
      this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
    36. Re:bookmark this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Their god, the great Primo, he created the earth 6000 years before them too."

      It's not that they think "he created the earth 6000 years before them", it's that they think he created the Earth in the year 4000 BC, based on counting generations back to the story of Adam and Eve.

      Before you go around mocking people for their beliefs you should take the time to find out what they actually are.

    37. Re:bookmark this by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      so, tOmato, tomAto. It doesn't matter what these people believe in exact details since putting details aside the idea behind their believes is this: there were no people 7000 years ago. Quite disrespectful to the ancestors, I would say.

    38. Re:bookmark this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, not tOmato tomAto. The difference is between your "joke" working and not working. The difference is that in 1000000 years they would say the Earth is 1006000 years old, not 6000.

      They're wrong, but not in the way you said they were. It's bad form to mock a person's beliefs without so much as bothering to understand what they actually are.

      It's not as pedantic as it might seem to point this out, by the way, because your misunderstanding seems to be that the Bible says the Earth is 6000 years old, when it doesn't say anything concerning the age of the Earth in any place, and in fact nobody even really cared until I think the 16th or 17th century. They worked out this supposed age by counting generations and arriving at a date of creation in the year 4000 BC. And this is important because not all Christian denominations believe this - the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, for example, don't, and those two make up a very large fraction of Christianity in terms of total population.

    39. Re:bookmark this by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Oh, I see, here is what you didn't get: 1000000 years from now there will be no christianity, there will be some other religion and they will have their own primo/christ/ra/muhammed/whatever and their own 'adam' who started the world an arbitrary time ago. Get it now? Don't make me repeat it. See, this is Kansas type of education for you, you can't abstract away from specific details.

    40. Re:bookmark this by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      So big deal, you didn't get the point of what I said. You are taking everything too literaly. I did not say WHICH religion will be taught 1000000 years from now but I dare to assume it won't be any of the religions we know today. That means that the people 1000000 years from now will be free to make up their own genealogical trees of human progress and they could easily start that only 6000 (or whatever number) years before their existance.

    41. Re:bookmark this by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Of course the Bible doesn't say "this happened 6000 years ago;" that's moronic. - if you bothered to read the comments you would see that no specific religion was named. 1000000 years from now there will be no religions that people practice today (if theree will be humans on this planet at all.) They will be free to come up with their own fairy tails and genealogical trees etc. You are reading stuff too literaly.

    42. Re:bookmark this by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Ha ha ha ha ha ha :) You should look up definition of 'funny' and 'tolerance' and all the other words I used someday. I can make all kinds of funny remarks about anything at all and if you have sense of humour, you won't get offended. What you are doing, is just proving that you personally have no sense of humour, you are intollerant and are completely closed to any criticism, which means that you see anything that is half funny about your way of life as an attack that has to be stopped. So big deal, you are the minority in this case.

      And by the way, you should also check your logical processor, nowhere did I say that all people who are not religious are more intelligent, funny, tollerant etc. than those who are. You have your logical quantifiers all mixed up, but this has nothing to do with your religioun. Certainly many religious people can figure out logic.

      BTW, if you reread my comments you will see that I did not complain about Troll moderation, I said I am learning something about /. population.

      Good luck.

    43. Re:bookmark this by mahmud · · Score: 1
      This may sound strange from someone who doesn't see the difference in teaching evolution or creation. We make the same leap of faith in both and both are probably wrong.

      I hope you either change your mind or stay away from doing science.

    44. Re:bookmark this by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      I did not mention any specific religion, did I? So, any number 6000 is an arbitrary number that can be used by ANY religion. Assuming there are people on this planet 1000000 years from now, it would be arrogant of us to think that those people will have the same religions. What I said (and many people missed,) is that some religion 1000000 years from now will have their god created people whatever number of years ago from those people's personal existance. Religions usually play on personal egotistical notes of the followers. It's important for religions to make the people who follow feel like they are it, they are the creme of the crop, they are the shiznit. Dude, 1000000 years from now there will be no christianity and no Kansas, but there will be something similar and my and your existance maybe denied by those people, like what some religions do to people who lived 1000000 years ago.

    45. Re:bookmark this by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      from someone who doesn't see the difference in teaching evolution or creation - no, it doesn't sound strange at all. Nothing sounds strange from a person who sees no difference between teaching science and a made up fairy tale.

    46. Re:bookmark this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I mean, the 6000 year hasn't always been 6000 has it? - Yes it has. That's the point :)"

      Ok, I read this to mean something other than what you had intended it to be. Fair enough.

      "See, this is Kansas type of education for you, you can't abstract away from specific details."

      I'm not from Kansas or anywhere remotely close to there. Nor am I from an education system that can be called either right wing or fundamentalist.

      In any case, what I said about it being bad form to mock someone's beliefs without bothering to understand them still holds true. Here is what you didn't get: a significant fraction of Christians hold beliefs that are close to your own about the origin of man, in terms of evolution and the age of the Earth. And you generalize all of them with the young Earth creationists.

    47. Re:bookmark this by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      And you generalize all of them with the young Earth creationists. - no I didn't, not all of them. But I did generalize those of them who live in Kansas (or whatever place that will be like Kansas 1000000 years from now,) and I don't feel even a bit bad about it :)

    48. Re:bookmark this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You lose the battle when you say things in an abrasive, condescending way. You might make a few valid points, but you'll never win someone over like that. You'll simply make them defensive and put them into an "us versus them" mentality and make the job harder for smarter and more persuasive people than yourself.

    49. Re:bookmark this by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Dude, I didn't try to WIN anyone over. I made an observation for myself, you may think it's condescending, that's your right. I think it is just interesting in itself.

    50. Re:bookmark this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Evolution isn't the finite all end definition of whats true and false. In order to belive in science you have to belive in something is falible or falsifyable. History has proven science to be wrong on as many ocasions as science has proven religion wrong when it attemps to address scientific reasoning. Most recently, we have discovered that a once though organic gas (methane) can may be possible to produce by non-organic means.

      What you belive as fact today is more likley to be fiction tomarrow. Pushing science above religous explanaition when science results to almost the same principle (viewing events and drawing conclusions without definate proof or observations) is pushing science to almost a religion for manny. Now saying scientist believe this because we observed that is one thing. Saying your god lied and you are stupid because science says "this is the only way" or science saying there could be no other way unless we understand it, is going over the top a bit.

      Not all evolution or scientific explanations or the people who belive them do it in this manor. Those that are purposing a course specificaly to debunk someones religion or whos entire discusion of science in this matter revolves around crushing a religious point of view are likley to be viewing science as a religion and this is nothign more then a "my religion is better then yours" exercise. The main reason religious explanations are not considered scientific is because people who hold those opinions, do so in a manor that doesn't lend to changes based on new discoveries. Those holding the opinion that we all decended from the same parent cell/amiba/whatever and are somehow related to some species that was the parent species of another species wich became apes but without a missing link or direct observable evidence if you will, are making an asumption without definate proof. Sadly some are doing it to the point they are saying i'm right your wrong and nothign you do will change my mind about that. Hence the parralells of teaching creationism verses why creationism isn't even considered a science.

      On the surface, science has more merit then religious explanations. When examined though, the people pushing it are doing it in the same ways as the reasons creationism is considered non scientific. In this I don't see a difference in teaching one or the other as long as both get taught. Or maybe i should remake my statment, I don't see the harm in teaching creationism along side evolution as long as both get taught. In kansas, they are not stoping the education of evolution, they are adding to it with creation being there also. All this does is allow the schools to teach science without some overzealous science teacher having the ability to say "your religoin is crap, science has disproven all of it and only the week need religion for a crutch to support a mental problem." (yes that was cirulating a couple of years ago). We have a guarentee for the freedom of religion as well as the freedom from religion in the amendments to the constitution. When people are compelled to attend a state function who's message is your religion is wrong, you need a small balence. The alternative is to stop teaching evolution between species before 6000 years ago and stop teaching science if it would disprove any type of religion until it becomes an elected course that people are not compelled by the state to attend. I find that to be even more apauling then allowing a competing thoery of life to coexist witha scientific reason.

    51. Re:bookmark this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actualy, Someone did change thier mind. You can tell how evident this was when comparing the teachings of the old tesimate to the new.

      As for god himself guiding the translators, I know you are trying to be funny here but i'm not sure any reference to this exists in the actual bible. Some people might have made that claim because religion has been historicaly used to control populations (not just jewish, christian, or muslim religions either). There are more then one example in history of rulers claiming to be acting at the will of thier god. Rewriting the religios text to fit thier needs could be somehting to consider.

    52. Re:bookmark this by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      As for god himself guiding the translators, I know you are trying to be funny here but i'm not sure any reference to this exists in the actual bible.

      Quite right - God inspired the authors of the original text (2 Timothy 3:16) but copies and translations are the works of man and are therefore not infallible. Personally I believe that the copies we have available today are not significantly different from the originals - there are minor discrepancies between manuscripts, but I don't believe the differences were accidental and not the result of anyone's agenda.

      Translation is another issue. As has been pointed out, translating from 3000-yr-old Hebrew or 2000-yr-old Greek can't always be precise.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    53. Re:bookmark this by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      This is more evident in the internet rumor that "the www you placed in the web browser before the sites name actualy means 666" While there is actualy no atual W (some translator include it) in the hebrew alphabet, It was explain to me that w and v are commonly interchanged when going form one alphabet to another and the v also stood for the number 6. Unlike modern/western numerical systems, hebrew uses/used something like roman numerals were 666 instead of meaining six hundred sixtysix, it actualy means the sum of 6+6+6 or 18.

      Um... you really don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about, do you? The number 666 you're referring to is from Revelation 13:18, which was originally written in Greek, not Hebrew. There's a discrepancy between manuscripts; it looks like the Textus Receptus says "666" while Wescott-Hort says "six hundred sixty-six"; you can compare them here. I've found no indication that the original text was intended to mean any other numeric value. What it actually does mean, though, I have to say I don't know. It's definitely not www, though.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    54. Re:bookmark this by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Yes i do have an idea of what i am talking about.

      The rumor going around the internet was that WWW ment 666 in the original hebrew text that the bible was writen in. It being said that every time you enter www to get to a web page you are typing 666 in hebrew and this was proof that the internet was evil.

      This has nothign to do with were the 666 came from. I has to do with someone claiming the internet was evil and creating some rumor or urban legend about it. If you find fault, find it with the rumor, not my ilistration on how translation get fucked up. I didn't start the rumor and only repeat it in the context that it isn't corect.

      here is some context to help you understand it a little better. Again, i didn't start the rumor, it was going around because of numerous people other then me.

    55. Re:bookmark this by MullerMn · · Score: 1

      What we are observing here on this miniscule scale is the gigantic battle that is taking place in this world. The battle between the forces of stupidity, obedience, fanatism, blind religiouos principles versus the forces of logic, humour, personal responsibility, scientific principles, and tolerance. /. can be viewed as reflection of the world.

      You do realise that the US is the only place on the entire planet where there is a 'creationism debate'? As far as the rest of the world is concerned, there isn't any controversy, and we're all puzzed and amused that you guys are arguing about it so much.

    56. Re:bookmark this by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure why you think that. Unless ther is some sort of colaps in mankind and all documents or the ability to read them become lost modern religions should still be around.

      Christianity is a continuation of jewism while the muslim religion is sort of a combination of both. All three encompass the majority of the religous base existing. All three allow for updates to theoligy. Muslims religions are easier to update as things relevent change then the others, but they can be updated and/or prolonged. All we need is a profit, some predictions and events to occure.

      The thing that makes religion so robust and gave it the ability to thrive for 6000+ years is what some call a "god gene" or "god part of the brain" were humans try to understand what they cannot understand and the fact religion has been used as a tool to control people from the begining. Science can explain everythign away but to the normal religous type person, you saying the sky is blue because the difference in densities of the atmopheres bend light and the blue spectrom becomes visible is the same as someone else saying god made it that way.

      When i say religios type people I mean that people will always belive in some religion because they need to have some warm fuzzy feeling about morals, the idea of good and bad, merit to thier existance and possibly purpose in life. cience doesn't alway give these things. The idea of religion being removed because no one believes in it is doubtfull at best. It serves too many purposes, private and public to be forgoten.

      Then again, if all existance of mankind is changed as we know it and writen records or lost, the idea of a religion thinking the earth is only 6000 years old doesn't seem that bad because they wouldn't know the difference anyways (remeber if it is lost the science explaination are too.) What is more likley is that science will look back and think the theory of evolution and the attemp to claim everythign has a common ancestor will be looked at as primitive. We are close to creating life in itself (without using life already in existance)and that process will tell us for sure that evolution only occures within the same species of animal. The process that creates life has occured milions if not billions or trillions of time and we are all simular decendents of the same species.

    57. Re:bookmark this by mahmud · · Score: 1
      First of all, I hope that you are not a troll.

      I don't like to write long comments, so I shall be curt. Your argument is fundamentaly broken for a very simple reason (and no, it isn't because you don't spellcheck). Evolution is being taught as a viable theory because it has passed a vigorous scrutiny by general scientific community.

      Now, do not underestimate the discipline imposed by the peer review. Evolution is based on observation, analysis of species and their environment. It is very trustworthy, even if it's wrong. ID or creationism, however, has not gone through the same sieve of peer review and scientific scrutiny as has evolution. Creationism has no room in biology class, it's a humanist endeavour and belongs in religion or philosophy class.

      Now back to evolution - if someone will prove evolution wrong (in particular the theory of origins of Homo Sapiens), if this proof will indeed pass the rigorous peer reviews, it will displace the teaching of evolution as we know it, or in the very least augment it, just like the notions of quantum mechanics where added to physics curriculum.

      Creationism is not disprovable, it is not falsifiable. It is an ideology with no roots in real world. Thus it has no place in Biology class.

      *let's off some steam*

    58. Re:bookmark this by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      Unless ther is some sort of colaps in mankind and all documents or the ability to read them become lost modern religions should still be around.

      It's doubtful that Homo sapiens will still be here in one million years - genus Homo will either have gone extinct or our descendents will be so changed as to no longer be the same species.

      But if there are humans around in 1,002,005 C.E., current religions will probably be looked on the same way we look at primitive Neanderthal shamanism.

      Christianity is a continuation of jewism while the muslim religion is sort of a combination of both. All three encompass the majority of the religous base existing.

      "Jewism"? Judaism is the word you want. Christianity is very distinct from Judaism and it is a major distortion to call it a "continuation". Islam (not "the muslim religion") is in no way a "combination" of Judaism and Christianity. The three paths share common history dating back to the ancient Hebrew Yaweh cult, but common history does not make one a "continuation" of the other.

      Please allow me to recommend Huston Smith's book "The World's Religions".

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    59. Re:bookmark this by sumdumass · · Score: 1
      Thanks for the corections in the naming. I was rush and up all night when i posted that. I usualy don't care about spelling but i guess i called some religions by an antirely different name all together.

      It is intertesting to see your idea of humans not being around in a million years. I have thought about it and can see it both ways. My opinion would be that something (humans or nature)might destroy the earth ability to hold life as we know it and the cycle would start over. In the next round, humans will be trying to figureout the same things we are today untill eventualy somethign gets destroy and it all starts over.

      But if there are humans around in 1,002,005 C.E., current religions will probably be looked on the same way we look at primitive Neanderthal shamanism.
      Maybe the essence of the message would have changed but one of the realities is that religion attemps to provide coverage from the begining of time. This is a way that "validates" it and is probably the reason the 6000 year old earth has become a problem. People who would practice a religion now are the basic types of people who would practic in 1 million years. I find it improbable that 1,000,000 years from now some religion would be practiced that didn't explain why they were the true religion form the begining. I maybe wrong though.

      Jewism"? Judaism is the word you want. Christianity is very distinct from Judaism and it is a major distortion to call it a "continuation". Islam (not "the muslim religion") is in no way a "combination" of Judaism and Christianity. The three paths share common history dating back to the ancient Hebrew Yaweh cult, but common history does not make one a "continuation" of the other.
      Christianity take off were judaism stops. The major difference is that jesus is only a profit acording to judaism were he is the son of god in christianity. Christians concentrate more on what happened after jesus' existance then they do before. They use much the same bible for the old testament (minus what some monks removed and presented to King James) and jesus was a jew. Islam or muslims believed in some guy wondering the desert claiming to teach of jesus and the reurection. I don't remeber if he was actualy claiming to be the second comming or if it was just mentioned in his teachings. Much of the old testament as mohamad recalled was used in the Qur'an. There are references of the new testiment also. These aren't word for word copies but do share simularities in charectors, morals and structure. Mohammed brought about the islamic religion around 600 years after the death of christ and came into contact with many jewish as well as christian people. In some parts, islam is thought to be mohommed's working of trying to influence people without knowledge of either christian or jewish religions.

      I'm not really trying to say that jews decided to change the bible and then there were christians and eventualy someone else change it so here comes islam. What i am saying is that they are all intertwined to the earliest point of existance. They share a common background wich has branched into what they know today. It isn't uncommon to groups all three together when talking about a class of religion. This is also one of the reasons the religions fight amonst each other more so then other religions. For one to be true somethign has to be true means that somethign isn't truthefull in an other. Religions like hinduism or peganism don't have this intertwining and can be completly disreguaded as false. In christian and muslim religions, if you claim the entire religion is false, you have discredited parts of yours.

      I am anxious to read that book you suggested. This area has always been a part of interest to me. I'm not an expert or anyhitng. just interested.
    60. Re:bookmark this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Yes evolution has passed some scrutiny by the science community. However, my version of beliefs or theories has passed some of the same scrutiny from the scientific community but doesn't get taught (and it isn't creation either). That's not really the point of this conversation though.

      Now, do not underestimate the discipline imposed by the peer review. Evolution is based on observation, analysis of species and their environment. It is very trustworthy, even if it's wrong. ID or creationism, however, has not gone through the same sieve of peer review and scientific scrutiny as has evolution. Creationism has no room in biology class, it's a humanist endeavour and belongs in religion or philosophy class.

      But it has in ways gone through the same types of review. Seeing how we have evidence that hints to evolution being they way but lack any actual proof that inter species evolution actually happened or still does happen we are drawing a conclusion. Actually we are drawing a well educated conclusion to a problem we are not likely to ever prove as fact but by reasoning deduce that it could be fact. The chapters in the bible that describe creation have gone thru a review of scholars at the time they were circulated. Some might have disapproved and denounced them as fake but the majority has considered them as real. Time passed and people have both tried to prove and disprove those chapters with varying degrees of success.

      Now using scientific means, we have been able to determine that allot of the events and people who existed in the bible and did so around these time actually did exist. We have also determined that some of the events actually took place. This doesn't mean all of them existed or took place or even happened as they were written and then translated. We still use these scientific methods today to verify history. With parts of the history being true and parts unverified for whatever reason we can say we know have a basic urban legend. In evolution, outside of using a different scientific process, we have about the same gaps in information other then we can reasonably date object to time before religious example tell us was possible. In one hand we have a figure wearing a robe saying this is true because of this and on the other we have a person in a different color robe doing the same. Here is were it gets real interesting, We are basically saying this method of verifying is better then this method because we follow a certain method that is better then you method. Then someone says, but my method is how you know that George Washington crossed the Delaware. Then someone say yes but that different, we like the people telling that story better. Enough on this though.

      Creationism is not disprovable, it is not falsifiable. It is an ideology with no roots in real world. Thus it has no place in Biology class.

      While you may be rite in that it doesn't have anyplace in biology class, creationism does have the same value as evolution as the beginning of man. Maybe evolution should be taught in the respect that we see small changed in life when conditions adapt and move the man evolved form the same common ancestor that apes evolved from theories to a different course.

      Evolution in also not falsifiable in the fact that it cannot be proven. It is only possible to show relations between different species and the closeness to point to a likely hood they came from one another or had a common ancestor. We use the same methods to prove this as other would prove parts of the bible. We will never find with absolute proof because most if not all of the common ancestors are dead. Interbreeding and the ability to would be a prerequisite to the change of species yet we cannot find an example that meets this requirement when we cannot test their breeding abilities. We have the ability to guess with some accuracy but we do not know for sure. Breeding isn't the only thing that separates a species but seems to be one of the

    61. Re:bookmark this by mahmud · · Score: 1
      However, my version of beliefs or theories has passed some of the same scrutiny from the scientific community but doesn't get taught (and it isn't creation either).

      Would you mind elaborating on that? I am intrigued.

      As for evolution being acceptable theory and ID not (for teaching in science class), we have to first agree whether the scientific method should be the main principle for teaching any science in schools.

      And what I think, as do many others, happens in many American high-scools, is that scientific method as a main guide for teaching science, is replaced by something else. Methods ID proponents and creationists may be as systematic and consistent with themselves as scientific method is, but they are different. And we have already seen, that what ID people really want is to redefine science as such. Something is rotten, I say. And let us not engage in dialectics, truth is out there, it is to be found by research not blind faith.

    62. Re:bookmark this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I honestly wasn't sure after reading your comment whether the complaints were from zealots thinking it inappropriate for the president to put anything religious on his Christmas cards, or from zealots peeved that he was trying to "take the Christ out of Christmas" with his Old Testament quoting.

      So just to clarify, it's the latter.

  4. Buy Rea Estate Now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hey I have some great Ocean View Property in the middle of Africa. Email me if you're interested.

    1. Re:Buy Rea Estate Now by saskboy · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Hey I have some great Ocean View Property in the middle of Africa. Email me if you're interested."

      The newest Nigerian email scam is going to be an Etheopian ocean scam? Who'd have seen that coming?

      --
      Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
    2. Re:Buy Rea Estate Now by beefypirate · · Score: 1

      It's a conspiracy! The scammers are responsible for the new ocean! *puts on foil helmet*

    3. Re:Buy Rea Estate Now by sumdumass · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      No silly, itisn't the scammers, itis global warming causing this.

      The scammers just get the benifit of going from lake front property to ocean front property.

    4. Re:Buy Rea Estate Now by gilescampion · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Global warming does not cause the movement of tectonic plates.

      --
      Mere surmise, sir.
    5. Re:Buy Rea Estate Now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Yeah, it's actually Bush's fault.

    6. Re:Buy Rea Estate Now by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So the melting of the polar ice caps and shifting of the wieght via water/ice from one are of concetration to another doesn't cause presures to disperes in ways that could influence the plates?

      I remeber reading somewere, a short time ago that this is posible. Lets see, thismight not be exactly what i'm thinking of but damn close. Causing it to move? Maybe thats a steach but causing other events that makes it easier to move is totaly realistic.

    7. Re:Buy Rea Estate Now by khallow · · Score: 1

      Since you mention it, there may be signs that volcanism in the western US increased in frequency after the removal of several hundred meters of ice overburden. For example, the Craters of the Moon area in Idaho in the Snake River valley near Idaho Falls had a series of eruptions that seem to have crudely declined in frequency and strength since the end of the last ice age 12k-14k years ago. This volcanic activity is distantly linked to the Yellowstone supervolcano BTW and is probably residual magma from when the hotspot was in the area.

  5. Real estate by Tx · · Score: 4, Funny

    Time to snap up some cheap ethiopian desert land. Will be valuable beachfront holiday developments in a few hundred millenia or so.

    --
    Oh no... it's the future.
    1. Re:Real estate by espo812 · · Score: 1
      Time to snap up some cheap ethiopian desert land. Will be valuable beachfront holiday developments in a few hundred millenia or so.
      Or underwater (like New Orleans.)
      --

      espo
    2. Re:Real estate by WalletBoy · · Score: 2, Funny

      I want to live in Otisburg!

    3. Re:Real estate by ScriptedReplay · · Score: 1

      Will be valuable beachfront holiday developments in a few hundred millenia or so.

      That is, if it survives being a front-row seat to a few volcanos before that.

    4. Re:Real estate by kurzweilfreak · · Score: 1

      Ms. Teschmacherrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!

      --

      kurzweil_freak

      5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student

      Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.

    5. Re:Real estate by NanoGradStudent · · Score: 1

      Lex Luthor called and wants his scheme back!

      Though to be fair, he tried to shorten his capitalization period a little...

      --
      Just a little guy, y'know?
  6. Photo at the BBC by geeber · · Score: 4, Informative
    1. Re:Photo at the BBC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That link is in the summary. Thanks anyway though.

    2. Re:Photo at the BBC by Poisonous+Drool · · Score: 3, Informative
    3. Re:Photo at the BBC by Keith+McClary · · Score: 1

      What is the circle at the bottom of the image?

    4. Re:Photo at the BBC by lysergic.acid · · Score: 1

      OMG, call the tabloids! There are aliens in Africa!

  7. Global warming by voicecrying · · Score: 3, Funny

    Maybe we should hurry global warming along to melt the polar ice caps sooner so we have enough water to fill that new ocean.

    --
    Borrow money from a pessimist - they don't expect it back.
    1. Re:Global warming by guygee · · Score: 1

      Maybe we should hurry global warming along to melt the polar ice caps sooner so we have enough water to fill that new ocean.

      Or maybe we should help that fissure open more quickly so as to reduce the rise in sea level caused by the positive feedback loop-induced, hurried pace of worldwide greenhouse warming?

    2. Re:Global warming by tsa · · Score: 1

      Wow, I would like to see that ocean fill! I think the water disaster in the Netherlands in 1953 will be nothing compared to that!

      --

      -- Cheers!

  8. A little info on what's going to happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    In East Africa, spreading processes have already torn Saudi Arabia away from the rest of the African continent, forming the Red Sea. The actively splitting African Plate and the Arabian Plate meet in what geologists call a triple junction, where the Red Sea meets the Gulf of Aden. A new spreading center may be developing under Africa along the East African Rift Zone. When the continental crust stretches beyond its limits, tension cracks begin to appear on the Earth's surface. Magma rises and squeezes through the widening cracks, sometimes to erupt and form volcanoes. The rising magma, whether or not it erupts, puts more pressure on the crust to produce additional fractures and, ultimately, the rift zone.

    East Africa may be the site of the Earth's next major ocean. Plate interactions in the region provide scientists an opportunity to study first hand how the Atlantic may have begun to form about 200 million years ago. Geologists believe that, if spreading continues, the three plates that meet at the edge of the present-day African continent will separate completely, allowing the Indian Ocean to flood the area and making the easternmost corner of Africa (the Horn of Africa) a large island.

    From Understanding Plate Motions

    1. Re:A little info on what's going to happen by haluness · · Score: 1

      allowing the Indian Ocean to flood the area and making the easternmost corner of Africa (the Horn of Africa) a large island.

      This is a really interesting conjecture - for reasons other than geology.

      Think of the possible evolution of species separated from the mainland. Would be interesting to observe, if only I could live so long :(

    2. Re:A little info on what's going to happen by pomo+monster · · Score: 2, Informative

      Check it out:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemur
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baobab
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar

      Sorry about the source, I'm too lazy right now to find a better one.

    3. Re:A little info on what's going to happen by shawb · · Score: 1

      I just love how the article trys to make it sound like this is the beginning of a new process. I am not a geologist, but I did take a few college level classes in it. To me, this would sound like a simply extension of the creation of the African Rift Valley. I think what is exciting about this is that we caught the formation of a sub-rift, and so can better understand the process.

      The nature of the fissure as well as the surrounding rock make up make the lakes of the rift valley (Lakes Tanganyika, Malawi, etc) extremely interesting to limnologists. And of course anybody who has hear of the Leakey's will have a passing knowledge of the rift valley. This is a very interesting area for natural sciences.

      --
      I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
    4. Re:A little info on what's going to happen by jc42 · · Score: 1

      Think of the possible evolution of species separated from the mainland.

      This isn't the first time it's happened in eastern Africa, of course.
      A big chunk, India+Madagascar, broke off around 150-160 million years ago, as part of the breakup of Gondwana. Then around 90 million years ago, Madagascar broke off from India. The fossil evidence shows that lots of independent evolution was happening on both of them. Eventually, India crashed into Asia, and that evolutionary experiment came to an end, or rather was merged with the species in Asia.

      In Madagascar, independent evolution should still be happening, but starting a couple thousand years ago, a major extinction event started with the arrival of humans (and the rats hitching a ride on the boats). We've lost a lot of species that only existed there, including a lot of primates.

      If east Africa splits off into a separate island, there probably won't be much independent evolution there, at least not if we're still around. But maybe we'll be extinct, or migrate to another planet, or transcend to a pure electronic existence, or something. Then the species in east Africa will have a chance to show what they can do.

      The planet has forced a lot of "evolutionary experiments" like this over its history.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  9. Where's the money... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Where do I sign up for the $1 billion government grant to study this new "ocean"? Since it's going to take a while, I should build a nice palace -- uh, research station -- to observe this natural event.

    1. Re:Where's the money... by SilverspurG · · Score: 1

      Do you need a research associate?

      --
      fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
    2. Re:Where's the money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you from the States? Just dream up some data that shows there's oil in the new ocean and not only will the government give you a grant, but also a giant army to come with you and protect you from, um, the WMD found nearby.

    3. Re:Where's the money... by Belseth · · Score: 1
      Where do I sign up for the $1 billion government grant to study this new "ocean"? Since it's going to take a while, I should build a nice palace -- uh, research station -- to observe this natural event.

      Step one, change your name to Haliburton.

      Step two, massive profits.

  10. God by Webs+101 · · Score: 4, Funny

    God is obviously trying to cover up all those embarrassing hominid fossils he missed obliterating in the last flood.

    --

    "Even for Slashdot, that was a very obscure reference!" - Anonymous Coward

    1. Re:God by icepick72 · · Score: 1
      If you're assuming the fossils we entitiled "hominid" are a true mixture of the two species. Pages such as this try to explain. Bones are good to look at. Today our world is much smaller because of technology. In today's world living evidence of the intermediate form does not exist. Most often people assume science refutes creationism and vice-versa; not true. Our world is complex enough that science has not been able to explain a lot (yet), has barely scratched the surface of figuring out many topics and yet we're willing to fight over sometimes pitiful pieces of evidence -- that goes for both sides. People in the evolution camp can get so emotionally attached to their belief system based on the facts they see, that they will defend those facts to the upmost, not considering any other explanation, even alternate explanations that science could feasibly come up with. Same for creationism. Mostly, it's unfortunate the perception that creationism is the opposite of science; unfortunately that perception ignores scientific method that goes into explaining creationism. Of course people can pick out many lunatic opinions from creationism and explain "therefore" all of creationism should be debunked; of course the same goes for evolution.

      I do appreciate your sarcasm. It made me laugh.

    2. Re:God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do I hear a sacred cow mowing somewhere? Sounds like it is being slaughtered.... Prepare to be burned as a heretic by the pro-evolution /. religious zealots. Afterall, Evolution is a religious belief system too.

    3. Re:God by Fei_Id · · Score: 1

      You mean the LACK of scientific method that goes into explaining creationism. Its quite obvious you've NEVER studied any kind of natural science.

      How do I know? Because if you had, you would realize the inrefutable evidence that evolution exists, and has exists for billions of years. Its why Homo Sapiens Sapiens began to appear 3 million years ago; and its why we're the only hominids left. (Unless you believe the occaisional bigfoot argument - and you being a Creationist, I wouldnt put it past you).

      What makes you think there's all this evidence out there thats totally bunk? There is no scientific method put into Creationism; that is one of its main faults. Its one of the main reasons REAL scientists are so very much AGAINST it. They are totally open to new theories, but REAL theories that have evidence and real analytical research done for them; not some whimsical, ARROGANT view of some Bible-thumper that thinks humanity is the pinnacle of all things on the earth or some BS like that.

      But you won't do any research. You'll continue to say dinosaurs aren't over 65 million years old, and that all of these species that used to exist (and have been PROVEN TO EXIST) over billions of years either never really were around or that their fossil-dating method is 'flawed'. I've researched into creationism, I've done my homework. All the main points in the 'religo-science' are completely flat out wrong; and based upon presumptions that other data is flawed.

      We have another word for people who think they see a 'truth' or a 'trend' and will blindly believe it no matter the surmounting evidence proving it wrong. My great-grandmother (RIP) being a good candidate, she wouldnt believe the Earth was round, or dinosaurs existed, etc; because it didnt say it in the Bible. Its called DELUSIONAL. Science has explained FAR MORE than what you want to admit. It proved to the world that the Earth isnt the center of the universe, it proved the sun did not revolve around the earth (check your Catholic history much?), it proved the world is round, it proved we are not the only planet in the solar system, and I can keep going on and on :)

      I have nothing against religion itself; but I do have something against people that use it to try and 'change history' by lying to everyone (and themselves). Hitler did the same thing, you know?

      Do yourself a favor, and pick up some books in your local library. There is a wealth of information contained about everything; it has been hashed and rehashed over and over again. Its good information out there and a lot of it is easy to read. They say reading many books over time improves your intelligence... you better get cracking, because you've got a lot of catching up to do with the rest of the world not stuck in a delusional fallacy.

      I do appreciate your ignorance. It made me cry.

    4. Re:God by Fei_Id · · Score: 1

      How's that? PROVE it, right here, right now that evolution is a belief system.

      I want to see some more Creationist-dogma. It makes for great cannon-fodder on my blog.

    5. Re:God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would you allow yourself to be so obviously and easily trolled?

    6. Re:God by pVoid · · Score: 1
      Buddy, calm down. you're only proving the parent's point.

      As a pro-scientific, you aren't being fair in that you're taking the most wild version of the story of one side and then trying to debunk that theory with that one argument. In a conversation, this is called an ad-hominem argument.

      The parent is right that there is no link yet between apes and humans. The actual link has not been found. So scientifically speaking, the causality isn't established, however likely it is.

      On the other hand, the pope just recently published a statement that creationism didn't go against science, that it was merely an allegory to how the world got created. Read: allegory.

      What you are doing is fueling a raging fire with even more rage. It's not getting you anywhere, and it's also making you look less credible... because anyone else that is like you can go and find out there is a missing link, and hound on your argument saying it's entirely wrong.

  11. Uh oh. by Tyler+Durden · · Score: 1
    The fissure, which grew 8 meters wide in 3 weeks following an earthquake on Sept 14, is now splitting at about 0.8 inches per year, would eventually lead to Ethiopia eastern portions becoming an island in a million years or so.

    Dear God, look out! An ocean is forming. Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo *gasp* oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooo...

    --
    Happy people make bad consumers.
  12. **Kids, I warn you** by dantheman82 · · Score: 1, Funny

    Today's swimming pool could turn into an ocean in a million years! Maybe a prophet or fortune teller could enlighten us further in subsequent comments?

    --
    This sig donated to Pater. Long live /.
    1. Re:**Kids, I warn you** by Cheapy · · Score: 1

      The Four Horsemen are going to come out of it, obviously.

      --
      Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?
    2. Re:**Kids, I warn you** by josecanuc · · Score: 1

      Actually, the four horsemen do not come from the ground, though I guess it could be interpreted that way. According to Revelation 6, the horsemen "appear", presumably from Heaven.

      Smoke and locusts come from "The Abyss" Revelation 9

      Your mileage may vary :-)

    3. Re:**Kids, I warn you** by Cheapy · · Score: 1

      Wow, someone with an ID of 91 replied to me, I feel like I've been touched by the gods. I'm familiar enough with the Book of Revelation (I got bored during sunday school at times and read that...it was interesting.) and that comment was simply a joke :)

      --
      Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?
  13. Sort of jumping the gun here by ebuck · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Within the article it states that many prospective ocean basins fizz out and never really develop into ocean basins.

    So, are there reasons to expect that this one will develop into a full fledged ocean? I mean, it is not easy to predict future events, but without some measure of certainty, wouldn't a more appropriate title have been "Giant Fissure in Ethiopia Continues to Grow"?

    1. Re:Sort of jumping the gun here by Whafro · · Score: 1

      No, because the article's focus is that it may be the birth of an ocean. Ignoring that in the title would be misrepresenting the aim of the article.

    2. Re:Sort of jumping the gun here by Afecks · · Score: 1

      If the submitter had used a non-sensational topic it probably would have been rejected...

    3. Re:Sort of jumping the gun here by ebuck · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sort of like posting:

      (from Slashdot) Science: New Ocean Being Formed in Africa
      (from BBC NEWS) Geologists Witness 'Ocean Birth'

      And then explaining that really it MAY be the birth of an Ocean, or MAY be a big rift that will settle down.

      Fortunately, doing a bit of research shows that it's just lazy reporting, as many people with detailed knowledge of Geology have been aware of this "triple-junction" of plates, and the events that tend to indicate that the some of the plates will start moving away from each other. For those with a more graphical mind http://pubs.usgs.gov/publications/text/East_Africa .html will help.

      My complaint is in how poorly this thing was headlined. It's overselling the news. A giant rift widening is exciting enough, and the article can then speculate that it could become an ocean. If it's generally believed that this rift's becoming an ocean is a foregone conclusion, then there's no need for the disclaimer about rifts stabilizing.

      The disclaimer is silly. There's little liability for getting a prediction wrong when the results are projected to be apparent in a million years. It does nothing but weaken the article, muddling the facts with a bunch of posits until you can't determine if this is news or hyperbole.

    4. Re:Sort of jumping the gun here by Phae · · Score: 1

      wouldn't a more appropriate title have been "Giant Fissure in Ethiopia Continues to Grow"?

      No, that will be the title of the article Slashdot posts in 10 years:

      Giant Fissure in Ethiopia Continues to Grow

      Regarding the fissure we reported on previously, we wanted to let you know that it has grown roughly three quarters of a foot, and seems intent on continuing at its blistering pace!

    5. Re:Sort of jumping the gun here by cluckshot · · Score: 1

      Entertain yourself somewhere with a few interesting things. www.nealadams.com has a discussion on geology one might like to look at on this topic of spreading open rifts etc.

      Try looking at the Platt, Republican and Democrat Rivers in Nebraska some time. I have some stunning photos that show this taken from 37,000 feet. These rivers run in rifts. (Yes these are names of rivers not a political statement) Such rifts are stunning because they fit like puzzles from side to side.

      Mods -- if you disagree, get a life!

      --
      Never Politically Correct ~ I prefer the facts If you don't like what I say, get a life, or comment yourself.
  14. umm by routerguy666 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Can't predict with any degree of certainty wether it will rain or snow a few days from now but they can predict that a crack in the ground now will form an ocean in a million years. In the middle of a desert. Ok.

    1. Re:umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Duh. Air has infinitely more degrees of freedom than rock. The atmosphere is a chaotic, infinite-dimensional, fluid dynamics problem. Ever hear of the butterfly effect? Tectonic plates, on the other hand, haven't changed their general direction of motion in millions of years, and they're not about to do so now. I mean, can you imagine the momentum those things have?

    2. Re:umm by Decaff · · Score: 1

      Can't predict with any degree of certainty wether it will rain or snow a few days from now but they can predict that a crack in the ground now will form an ocean in a million years. In the middle of a desert. Ok.

      The weather is rapidly changing and chaotic. The movement of tectonic plates is slow and steady.

    3. Re:umm by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Can't predict with any degree of certainty wether it will rain or snow a few days from now but they can predict that a crack in the ground now will form an ocean in a million years. In the middle of a desert. Ok.

      Idiot.

      First of all, this has nothing to do with climatology. But even if it did ...

      I can't predict with any degree of certainty where, when, or how you're going to die. I can, however, predict with a fair degree of certainty that in a million years, you'll be dead.

      Do you see the difference now?

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    4. Re:umm by routerguy666 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Oh I see the difference. Given a long enough span of time, any moron can predict that anything will happen and it just might. Thanks for clearing it up.

    5. Re:umm by oojah · · Score: 1

      So tectonic plates will win the race? I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

      Just kidding :)

      --
      Do you have any better hostages?
    6. Re:umm by kmactane · · Score: 1

      They can't have all that much momentum. It's the product of mass and velocity, and while the mass may be huge, the velocity is infinitesimal.

      I do agree with your major point, though, that their motion is much easier to predict than that of the air.

  15. In Other News... by Chaffar · · Score: 2, Funny

    New Oceanfront Property for sale in the middle of the Afar Desert. Don't miss this Once in a Lifetime long-term Investment Opportunity! Timeshare opportunities also available. Check out our Brochure!

    1. Re:In Other News... by E8086 · · Score: 1

      If someone were to buy all the land that's eventually going to be at the bottom of this new ocean does that mean they'll own the water over it? I've always wanted to own an ocean. Hey Ethopia, you want access to the ocean? It's going to cost you.

      --
      F7 doesn't work, ignore spelling and grammar
  16. Sign me up! by lantastik · · Score: 1

    I'll only be 1,000,027 years old when it all goes down. Prime surfing age...

  17. red sea by BushCheney08 · · Score: 1

    Interesting that the guy in the article compared it to the Red Sea, as that is considered to be a failed ocean rift.

    --
    Be a real patriot: Question authority. Think for yourself. Formulate your own conclusions.
    1. Re:red sea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Red Sea isn't a failed ocean rift because, well, stating the obvious, it's already a "sea", and it is still stretching apart too.

      In a way, the adjacent Red Sea or Gulf of Aden are very much like what that part of Afar will look like if the process keeps going.

  18. Not really. by AltGrendel · · Score: 1

    You're right in that it may not happen. What the scientists are excited about is that they get to actually see and record the inital process. I would imagine it's really exciting, like watching Sun 6800 console output during POST. After that, who knows what could happen.

    --
    The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination

    - Douglas Adams

  19. Of course it'll become an ocean... by TCQuad · · Score: 2, Interesting

    All that water from melting glaciers has to go somewhere.

  20. Too Long by pooh666 · · Score: 1

    Anyone for speeding it up? How many nukes can we toss in?

    1. Re:Too Long by joto · · Score: 2, Funny

      Obviously what we need, is lot's of skyscrapers around the fold.

  21. It must be Bush's fault by Cascading · · Score: 3, Funny

    And now back to natural disasters.

  22. Future Lake? by nurb432 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Given the timefram here, how do we *know* its going to be a ocean?

    Oceans are pretty damned large. This thing may never surpass 'lake' stage. Or even just a big mud puddle that reverts back to 'land' when it dries up.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Future Lake? by thebatlab · · Score: 1

      They never said that they know. I saw "could be" used a couple times though. They figure if it is a new ocean, it'll take a million+ years to form. That gives them lots of time to change their findings if the growth slows ;)

    2. Re:Future Lake? by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
      yeah, but that would not make a good story, and wel'll all be dead before anyone knows if its right or wrong.

      Never let the truth get in the way of a good story - An Editor near you.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
  23. Just in time for... by Galston · · Score: 1

    Looks like the new ocean will open just in time for the second coming.

  24. Awesome! by Phae · · Score: 1

    but that it will be millions of years before that could occur

    I can't wait!



    Literally.

  25. A better version of the answer :) by roman_mir · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Shall I tell my kids to bookmark this article then? Just in case they forget when it all started? - useless. Imagine one million years from now.

    Student: I just found this /. bookmark from a MILLION years ago! It says that an ocean started in Africa from a fissure or something like that.
    Teacher: Nonsense, the Earth is only 6000 years old. This so called /. article and the fissure you are talking about were all created in an instant back then, it is the god's way of testing your believing in him.
    All Students: Oooooooo! Aaaaaaa!
    Teacher: Yes, we are in Kansas.

    1. Re:A better version of the answer :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      If anything, the Parent post is +10 Funny. But moderating it as a TROLL? WOW. KANSAS, Here we come!

    2. Re:A better version of the answer :) by roman_mir · · Score: 4, Insightful

      One man's Troll is the other man's Funny and is the third man's Truth.

    3. Re:A better version of the answer :) by Mozk · · Score: 1

      Is it really necessary to post that more than once, or are you just attempting to get better karma?

      --
      No existe.
    4. Re:A better version of the answer :) by Surt · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Wow, 2x +5 funny for a dup comment, in the same thread no less. You are the matrix!

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    5. Re:A better version of the answer :) by roman_mir · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      HA HA HA :) Not BETTER Karma, WORSE Karma. I left over 25 hundred comments on this site over the last 5 years, I know better than that :) People mod you as Troll, you lose carma, people mod you as Funny you don't game Karma.

      All of my 10 last comments were modded Troll at least 30 times by now, and they were modded as Funny or Insightful at least as many times. If you think this is about Karma, you DIDN'T read both of my comments. The second one is BETTER humour than the other, because it doesn't mention Kansas in the very first sentence :)

      I'll take my -2 Redundant on the first one, and +5 Funny on the second one any day but Trolls - they are not.

    6. Re:A better version of the answer :) by roman_mir · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Well, if /. can get away with posting dupe stories time after time after time, why shouldn't the commentators be allowed the same? :)

      If you look close though, you will notice that I was aiming at Mods noticing this and modding the first post as Redundant and the second as Funny, because second IS Funnier than the first. Instead the mods are fighting with Troll/Funny tags :)

  26. Ocean Front Property by dagr8tim · · Score: 0, Redundant

    For Sale: Ocean Front Property

    Get in before the land rush.

    --
    "Does your computer have IP on it?"
  27. Millions of years! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who cars?! A lot could happen between now and then.

    1. Re:Millions of years! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, a little respect please! I CAR! VROOOM. Yay for hurried posts!

  28. Amazing by geeber · · Score: 1

    In my laziness, I didn't notice that the BBC link was actually in the article. But then apparantly, I am not the only one. Neither did the mods!

    Heehee what a hoot!

  29. Quick someone throw them a rope by msdschris · · Score: 1

    ... before they get stranded

  30. obligatory... by jack1323 · · Score: 0

    I for one, welcome our new ocean overlords...

  31. Wow by Mad+Ogre · · Score: 1

    Can't wait.

    --
    MadOgre.com
  32. Post-Eritrean Independence by MrZaius · · Score: 2, Funny

    Three Days Before the Fissure Formed:
    Ghost of Haile Selassie: Oh Lord, restore my home. Allow them access to the sea, that they might flourish again.
    God: Sure thing, mac.

    Three Days After:
    God: Happy yet?
    Ghost: I meant give us back Eritrea!
    God: That'll teach you to pray

  33. An ocean? Please. by illtron · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    This would be one pretty fecking small ocean. It sounds more like a natural bay or sea or something.

    By this logic, I could take a piss on the sidewalk and say there's a new ocean forming in New Jersey.

    --
    Slashdot: 24 hours behind every other site or your money back!
    1. Re:An ocean? Please. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why is this flamebait?

    2. Re:An ocean? Please. by illtron · · Score: 1

      Good question! I was being serious, in a snarky way. Changing sea levels and coatlines *do not* mean new oceans. I assume that when the Netherlands floods due to global warming (it's coming sooner or later), we'll call that an ocean too?

      --
      Slashdot: 24 hours behind every other site or your money back!
  34. Madagascar by FudRucker · · Score: 3, Interesting

    i wonder if the Island of Madagascar got its start this way, if you look at it like a jigsaw puzzle it would fit right in to the east coast of the continent Africa

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
  35. Don't mod the parent funny, there is truth... by ATeamMrT · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Where do I sign up for the $1 billion government grant to study this new "ocean"? Since it's going to take a while, I should build a nice palace -- uh, research station -- to observe this natural event.

    That is not too far from the truth. There is so much grant money, and it is so easy to get. There is a lot of red tape, and paperwork, but once you learn the system, you can have a nice stream of never-ending cash for whatever research you wish.

    After seeing others get grants, I think I want to go back to university and get a Ph.D. in sociology. I'll do my Ph.D. on the effects of having a million dollar trust fund and driving a ferrari. Now I just need to fill out that application for the grant.

    splitting at about 0.8 inches per year, would eventually lead to Ethiopia eastern portions becoming an island in a million years or so

    And by then the sun might supernova because someone else got a grant before yours. They wanted to fly a nuclear powered research starship into the center of the sun. *KABOOM*.

    The only cool thing about this new water source is, will it create land that can support growing food? If the anwser is yes, then it will be a blessing, even if all we get today is a river a few meters wide.

  36. Old news ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Afar region has been stretching apart, in the process of forming a new ocean, for the last 10 or 20 million years. Stretching rates in various parts of the rift vary from 6 to 12mm per year. Parts of the Afar region are already >100m below sea level and filled with salt deposits, and the area is faulted extensively, with many tilted blocks of older material and extensive volcanoes (e.g., Erte Ale) related to the stretching (imagine the effect if you stretched a piece of candy with a brittle crust). So, the headline isn't really news at all.

    The new part is the establishment and growth of such an obvious fissure where one did not exist before. The new one is fascinating, but only the latest example of a process that has been ongoing for a long time, and which will probably continue for millions of years more before the ocean eventually invades.

    1. Re:Old news ... by ignavus · · Score: 1

      So you're saying that Slashdot is basically about 10-20 million years late with this story?

      Hey, editors! What were you guys doing when this started?! Sleeping!?!

      How about keeping up with the news?

      --
      I am anarch of all I survey.
  37. Science extrapolating out....are you sure? by billnad · · Score: 3, Informative

    So let me get this straight. There was an earthquake that opened a crack in the earth three months ago and now the scientists involved can tell, after only three months that there will be a sustained widening of this crack by less than one inch per year. After one million years of this exact widening of one inch a year there will be a new ocean created.

    Maybe it is hjust me but most real scientific fact going out a million years would likely be based on more than a three month snapshot of data.

    1. Re:Science extrapolating out....are you sure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      And what makes you think they are making these observations based on only three months worth of data? Do you not think they have been here before? Do you not think they have studied similar phenomena before?

      Did you read any of the research involved with this? Are you even faintly familiar with geology or even basic research methods?

      Are you just an armchair scientist, trying to take potshots at people smarter than you who are actually out there doing the real work?

    2. Re:Science extrapolating out....are you sure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Posting again due to moderator censorship (apparently moderators are more interested in a "regular person" who doesn't understand jack about these sort of things making all sorts of unfounded and unjustified statements because someone with more knowledge than he has is doing things more important than him).

      And what makes you think they are making these observations based on only three months worth of data? Do you not think they have been here before? Do you not think they have studied similar phenomena before?

      Did you read any of the research involved with this? Are you even faintly familiar with geology or even basic research methods?

      Are you just an armchair scientist, trying to take potshots at people smarter than you who are actually out there doing the real work?

    3. Re:Science extrapolating out....are you sure? by jc42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Speculation and forming conjectures or hypotheses are a normal part of the scientific process. What you're seeing is journalists listening to this and exaggerating wildly.

      But that's a normal part of the journalistic process ...

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  38. My pet peeve with these kinds of stories. by krysolid · · Score: 1

    On Yahoo, Google, CNN, most if not all of news services will
    have geographic stories like this and NOT include a good map of
    the area being reported on. If they do the maps are usually
    not appropriate, too small, or do not show what is being
    discussed.

    I wonder what the problem is with this, and yes, I know I can
    go look at other maps, but if 50 millions people all go look
    for a map it is a lot more time, effort and bandwidth than if
    the story's writer just includes an appropriate graphic.

    Does this bug anyone else?

  39. META-MODERS by WindBourne · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    This mod either has it in for silverspurG or has absolutely NO sense of humor. Either way, this is not a troll.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:META-MODERS by SilverspurG · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      The mods are too hung up on drama.

      --
      fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
  40. well i guess this news is just in time then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,68958, 00.html


    A hundred years ago, the average life span (.pdf) in the United States was around 50 years. Now, thanks to advances in medical technology, an overall improvement in working conditions and a better understanding of how nutrition and exercise affect longevity, the average biped can reasonably expect to hang around for 80 years or more.
    But 80 years is a trifle. Why not live 150 years? Why not 200? Why not forever?
  41. They're wrong by amightywind · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Afar area is a triple junction where upwelling magma is driving 3 continental crust apart - the Arabian plate, West Africa and East Africa. The plates crack in 120 deg pieces because the configuration relieves plate extensional stress with minimal displacement. What typically happens when the basin expands is that one of arms is abandoned, again for thermodynamic reasons. Spreading along a single great circle requires less membrane deformation of the outer crust than spreading along 3. The principle of least action at work. In this case the active arms of the triple junction are the Red Sea and the East Indian ocean which are sites of rapid spreading of oceanic crust. Th East Africa Rift is clearly spread more slowly than the active arms and will fail. The North Sea, Mississipi delta, Camaroon rift, Connecticut Valley, etc are examples of rift valleys and failed arm abandonment during the opening of ocean basins. Sure, volcanism and rifting can still occur in the failed arm. The extensional faults that define these areas assures this. We see this in Afar, and deeper in the African rift. Camaroon is another example. The triple function there opened 120 Mya and it is still active. But is will never form a wide ocean basin. Afar tectonics are still a very interesting phenomen.

    --
    an ill wind that blows no good
    1. Re:They're wrong by kbjnash · · Score: 0

      Dude, couldn't you just have said it's way cool!

  42. Million Year estimates... by hackwrench · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The fissure grows 8 meters wide in 3 weeks following an earthquake on Sept 14, and then increases at a rate of about 0.8 inches per year. Given the first metric is even possible, it's absurd to think that the the second rate will remain constant so projection to millions of years is invalid. It would be just as valid to conclude that the increase is decelerating and eventually close back up.

    1. Re:Million Year estimates... by patternjuggler · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The fissure grows 8 meters wide in 3 weeks following an earthquake on Sept 14, and then increases at a rate of about 0.8 inches per year. Given the first metric is even possible, it's absurd to think that the the second rate will remain constant so projection to millions of years is invalid. It would be just as valid to conclude that the increase is decelerating and eventually close back up.

      'millions of years' sounds vague enough to fit the evidence. You'll notice that when someone says 'a million years from now' they don't mean A.D. 1,002,005 - the missing zeros are an indication of a lack of precision.

      I assume there are more inputs to the claim than a couple of observed rates- like corroboration with knowledge of plate movements there and in adjacent regions from other sources, e.g. given that the plate is moving, and there are no other causes to show that the movement will be opposed by other plates or whatever processes are thought to govern this, it seems pretty safe to say the plate will continue to move at some average rate (though speeding up and slowing down is certainly possible) in the same direction.

    2. Re:Million Year estimates... by gerbalblaste · · Score: 0

      I seem to recall that, before an earth quake plate stop moving or slow and then move very suddenly. the .8 inches is an average and it is relatively accurate for the next several thousand years

  43. What drives plate motions? by Reverse+Gear · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I wonder if this event will help provide some clue as to what is driving the plate motions.

    When I last had lectures in a subject that had to do with plate-tectonics (~1 year ago) there still wasn't any theory that could "give" enough force to create the plate motions that are observed today and should have happened in the past (at least to the knowledge of my professor).
    For example India should have stopped it's northwards motion long ago but it is still not moving it's way northwards into Eurasia.

    1. Re:What drives plate motions? by wfWebber · · Score: 2, Funny

      "What drives plate motions?"

      Seeing they collide a lot, my first answer would be: women.

      I've been wrong before though.

      --
      Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway. -- Andrew S. Tanenbaum
    2. Re:What drives plate motions? by Hatta · · Score: 1

      I always thought it was convection currents in the semi-fluid mantle. At least, that's what I remember from 9th grade earth science.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    3. Re:What drives plate motions? by ja · · Score: 1

      And after looking up the statistics, your second answer would be: Young men!

      --

      send + more == money? ...
  44. Re:ecological question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, I would have to say that your post is as much a problem as is gov.

  45. Relevance? by gumpish · · Score: 1

    Apart from the immediate implications of the fissure, is there any point in scientists wasting taxpayer money speculating on what the Earth will look like in a million years?

    I mean, the Singularity is just a few decades away.

  46. Who do I trust? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Qualified experts in this field with decades of experience each or some random anonymous poster on Slashdot with no credentials behind his computer screen?

  47. Plenty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Geology is an ongoing thing. It is not as if we are in some form of statis where only things will be happening millions of years from now.

    There are quite a lot of geologic phenonmena that affects us today that has started many millions of years ago. Better understanding of how these things begin can help shape our understanding of what is going on right now.

  48. ironic by icepick72 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I left my garden hose turned on -- the knob broke and I cannot turn it off. My lawn is growing squishier at an unknown rate but the squishiness is definitely increasing. In millions of years it may be enough to form the start of an ocean. During my lifetime I think I can get away with rubber boots, but future generations will need hip waders.

    1. Re:ironic by Blkdeath · · Score: 1
      I don't know what dunderhead modded this as offtopic, but damn, that's funny stuff! I don't care who you are that's a funny joke!

      Lord forgive icepick72, pray for all the Pygmies in Africa ...

      --
      BD Phone Home!

      Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.

    2. Re:ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey thanks for the vote. Even though mod points are the currency around here and everything else is monopoly money, I appreciate the fact that I at least know somebody got a kick out of it.

    3. Re:ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "Pygmies in Africa" ... I was just listening to that guy on comedy radio the other day and I laughed my head off, but can't remember his name. If you read this post, could you please anonymously post that guy's name. Thanks.

    4. Re:ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The "Pygmies in Africa" ... I was just listening to that guy on comedy radio the other day and I laughed my head off, but can't remember his name. If you read this post, could you please anonymously post that guy's name. Thanks.

      That would be Larry The Cable Guy. For more of his material I can reccomend his DVD (an HBO special or something) and both Blue Collar Comedy Tour DVDs.

    5. Re:ironic by Government+Drone · · Score: 1
      During my lifetime I think I can get away with rubber boots, but future generations will need hip waders.

      Better start filling out those grant applications.

    6. Re:ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you say has no value because you're a creationist nutbar. When you make "jokes" like the above, they are tinged with your sinister ulterior motive of getting people to laugh at science, because science discredits your reprehensible creationist bullshit.

      Mods, check this guy's posting history, and act accordingly.

    7. Re:ironic by icepick72 · · Score: 1

      Interesting response. Sad. I hope someday you can become less embarrassed about your own opinions and share them under a non-anonymous account. Remember, your opinion counts even if you don't think it does. Mods would have likely taken your comment more seriously had you not been "Anonymous Coward". Heck, I could have written that comment myself just for fun ... to provide this answer and give people something fun to read. ;)

    8. Re:ironic by TheStonepedo · · Score: 1

      No worries. Most AC comments are scored 0 or -1 so nobody reads that doodle anyway. I peed myself laughing at the garden hose dilemma and nearly formed a new ocean in my chair, but I guess I wasn't hydrated well enough.

      --
      I'll be your candy shop of infinite deliciousity if you'll be my discotheque of endless rump-shaking.
    9. Re:ironic by rapidweather · · Score: 1

      You get the water bill, and I'll bet you will use some Vice-Grip Pliers to turn the tap off.

  49. there is truth...and here it is.... by guygee · · Score: 2, Informative

    After seeing others get grants, I think I want to go back to university and get a Ph.D. in sociology. I'll do my Ph.D. on the effects of having a million dollar trust fund and driving a ferrari. Now I just need to fill out that application for the grant.

    Within the past couple of years the rate of acceptance for NSF proposals has dipped to as low as 2-3%. Recently, I heard that their new goal is to increase their acceptance rate to a whopping 5%. Also, do not totally buy into the belief that peer-review leads to pure merit-based grant awards; there is still a whopping "who you know" factor.

    Good luck in your new career!

  50. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  51. The Word. by guygee · · Score: 1

    of the day is "whopping", as in: "That is a whopping nice rift you got there".

    1. Re:The Word. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I got slapped last time I said that to a girl.

    2. Re:The Word. by Government+Drone · · Score: 1

      I told you not to try measuring how fast it was spreading!

  52. Another article with MORE PICTURES by scalveg · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/volcano.cfm?vnum=0 201-113&volpage=var

    Speaking as an amateur geologist, I think I can safely use the geophysical jargon and say, "MAN that is FREAKY!"

  53. Boina fissure by digitaldc · · Score: 1

    Dereje said that the split is the beginning of a long process, which will eventually lead to Ethiopia's eastern part tearing off from the rest of Africa, a sea forming in the gap. The Afar desert is being torn off the continent by about 0.8 inches each year.

    The ocean will take a long time to form I would guess. Maybe they could stock it well with natural/regional fish and plant species and replenish a source of food?

    I am not sure if this is the same Boina, but it is an interesting picture of an active Ethiopian volcano nonetheless.

    http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/volcano.cfm?vnum=0 201-14=&VErupt=N&VSources=Y&VRep=N&VWeekly=N&volpa ge=photos&photo=111075
    http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/volcano.cfm?vnum=0 201-14=&volpage=photo

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
  54. News in the Future by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 1

    So when this basin eventually floods, likely killing a large number of people in the process, will it all be George Bush's fault?

    1. Re:News in the Future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, and also Ronald Reagan's fault. Something this disasterous cannot be the fault of just one Republican president.

  55. Visualization? by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
    Does anybody know if there exist any nifty visualizations of what the earth's continents and oceans might look like in the distant future (that of course takes this recent development into account)? I know they have plenty of ones showing how Pangea became todays world, but I haven't seen any that go past today.

    --
    Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
  56. Are they gonna call it... by JourneyExpertApe · · Score: 1

    the Black Sea?

    --
    If you can read this sig, you're too close.
    1. Re:Are they gonna call it... by Seraphnote · · Score: 1

      Well we've got that already!

      But besides, in the USA that wouldn't be "PC", it would have to be the "African-American Sea".

      Oh wait, that's right, Bush hasn't taken over that part of the world yet, so just the "African Sea".

      But then again, they're calling the 8m puddle an ocean, so how about the "Afican Ocean"!

      Alas that brings us to the point that "everything good originated in Africa"...

      So don't forget to rewrite the Geology books to make note that all the other oceans orignate from this new one!

      And I suppose if it isn't considered too demeaning to refer to this 8m puddle as a "sea", we could call it "Kwanz Sea" after that great new holiday that predates all others!

  57. I smell an evil plot by the bald genius himself .. by QuatermassX · · Score: 2, Funny

    Yes, Lex Luthor! Look for the secret map with Costa Del Lex, Luthorville, Marina del Lex, Otisburg, etc ...

  58. New Ocean? Does that mean ... by ggvaidya · · Score: 1

    Does that mean it'll contain NEWater?

  59. Vaporware by LostBurner · · Score: 1

    And you thought Duke Nukem Forever was vaporware. When will Slashdot stop announcing news before anything real has come of it?

  60. Pity we won't B here to witness by MOON+RIVER · · Score: 1

    it's like we are facing lately "strong" happenings about earth, all this earth quacks, the tsunami and hurricane, universe is showing it's endless powers, which makes us human so fragile and not knowing in front of this immense powers.

    1. Re:Pity we won't B here to witness by dsci · · Score: 1

      These happenings have been going on since the formation of the earth. The geological record shows events MUCH larger than ones we have been witnessing. Our "surprise" at such natural events is our own hubris that the earth is as we would have it be (static).

      Actually, there is another thing we are learning. I, like many others, was taught that geological changes take millions of years. But, a lot of geological events are rather quick. It has been well established for several decades, for example, that the ocean currents can switch directions in about 100-300 years, yet many cling to the notion that such a "catastrophe" would take far longer.

      For example, check the research of Wallace Broecker and Reid Bryson. These are two examples of workers who showed geologic changes occuring on much smaller timescales than is popularly held to be required.

      --
      Computational Chemistry products and services.
    2. Re:Pity we won't B here to witness by be-fan · · Score: 1

      "Quack" is correct.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
  61. its a MEGA volcano!! by Slackdog · · Score: 1

    oh my god, its the birth of a mega volcano, not ocean!!! lava! not water!!!

  62. TV series about this effect. by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Funny

    There's a new TV series out this season, called "Surface", that describes what's going on in Ethiopia. Eventually the big green creatures will make themselves known and it will all become obvious.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  63. This is good... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Either it will cause an end to drought, or wipe out the scrounging bastards altogether!

  64. The Great Rift Valley has been around for awhile by SocietyoftheFist · · Score: 1

    This is old news and not a recent development. The land there has been splitting apart for millions of years.

  65. Proof that they changed something by roman_mir · · Score: 1

    I predict that the other comment that says the same thing as this will be moderated as +5 Funny!

  66. Proof that they changed something by roman_mir · · Score: 1

    I predict that the other c0mment that says the same thing as this will be m0derated as +5 Funny!

  67. Trust me by amightywind · · Score: 1

    I am a geophysicist by training. I think most experts would agree with me.

    --
    an ill wind that blows no good
  68. wtf? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's only one ocean, there will only ever be one ocean.

  69. Already been done... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Out at the Nevada Test Site, a program was tested using underground nuclear explosions in an effort to speed up the process of building canals, instantaneous soil removal, etc. for civilian purposes.

    The program was called Operation Plowshare. I stood by the crater in the wikipedia page called the Sudan Crater in May. It's ridiculously huge. A few of these in a line and you'd have a nice canal started, or a good sized lake (with complimentary 3 eyed fish for a while)

    It's safe now, but at detonation, the area was pretty heavily contaminated.

    I'd post as myself, but I already modded this discussion.

    ~
    tivoKlr

  70. Assumptions... by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    Yeah, well that's the whole problem. The article makes claims for which people have to make assumptions to determine the validity of it. If there are in fact more inputs, then why aren't they stated? Given the current sorry state of affairs, it's reasonable to assume that they just went with the inputs they provided.

    1. Re:Assumptions... by Yorrike · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Ever done any field geology or geophysics? Or science at all? You can only use what you can see or measure in order to end up with a theory to explain a process or it's effects. Paleoseimisity and a whole host of other methods would have been taken into account when coming up with this figure, and it would have been dumbed down for the common masses to be put into press. The common man doesn't want to read about quartz grain deformation or stratigraphic offsets.

      If you'd like to propose a more tangible and accurate estimate to determine when the East Africa rift valley will become an "ocean", please do so. The scientific community is waiting.

      --

      Looks can be deceiving. Or CAN they?

    2. Re:Assumptions... by hackwrench · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      No, I would not like to propose a more tangible and accurate estimate. That's my point. They are providing an estimate that has no degree of accuracy, which is to say that they are pulling numbers out of thin air. People pull numbers out of thin air all the time. You're just making stuff up as well. You haven't talked to these people, so you don't know.

      The scientific community never waits. If they did, it might be an improvement. When given the choice between waiting and making stuff up, they are perfectly capable of making stuff up. Usually the choices are much more varied, though. On the other hand, when they do make stuff up it is usually for cannon-fodder to feed the common man and not in journals. They do this to impress the common man into thinking how fabulous they are, thus feeding their egos. I take ADD meds and Quetiapine, the latter ostensibly for anxiety disorder. I have increased anxiety or frustration due to difficulties caused by the ADD, but when my therapist tells the Psychologist that I appear more anxious, does he talk to me about it and treat the ADD better? No he goes off in his own make-believe land and decides to up the Quetiapine without input from me.

    3. Re:Assumptions... by lysergic.acid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      i think you're bringing in emotions from a completely separate matter (between you and your physician) into this argument. while it's understandable that your personal experiences shape your perception and attitudes, you really shouldn't let your experiences with a single phsyician dictate your perception of the entire scientific/medical establishment. it just sems like you're looking too hard to come up with wide-sweeping criticisms of the scientific community in order to create more fodder to justify to yourself your resentment towards conventional science and medicine, when all you really need to do is take a more objective look at the situation and separate your personal politics from unrelated matters.

      maybe your psychologist is a douchebag--god knows i've had my share of bad experiences with the mental health community--but your attempt at construing one mainstream publication's report on this discovery to reinforce your personal grudge against your physician can only turn up specious arguments that are unconvincing to others.

    4. Re:Assumptions... by bhiestand · · Score: 1
      you really shouldn't let your experiences with a single phsyician dictate your perception of the entire scientific/medical establishment

      Anecdotal evidence rules the world. When will you scientists learn? That's why seagate is better than maxtor (TWO maxtor drives died on me last year, but my seagate didn't). It's also why the american military is evil (select violations of standard operating procedure, rules of engagement, and geneva conventions). Hell, it's the same reason sizzler is a shitty restaurant (I got food poisononing there once).
      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    5. Re:Assumptions... by lysergic.acid · · Score: 1

      Well, I think that sentiment is very much in line with the basis of most modern scientific thought. However, just as important as the act of making empirical observations is the act of making meaningful extrapolations of knowledge from those observations--not just assuming that any single observation is a valid reason for making categorical deductions about any related subject.

      In other words, anecdotal evidence is so-called precisely because it often doesn't reflect the general case.

    6. Re:Assumptions... by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      Sorry, satire was intended.

      I did it because the poster you were replying to used his anecdotal evidence as if it was scientifically sound or reliable while claiming scientists pull numbers out of thin air.

      This is not to say that anecdotal evidence never leads to a scientifically sound conclusion. Many inquiries are started with the conversation as simple as:

      John: "Most of my IBM Deskstar hard drives have died!"
      Chris: "Me too!"
      John: "Let's ask Bob if he's had any problems with them."
      ---
      Bob: "Yup, most of mine have died, and a friend of mine over at ACME Computers has had a lot of returns on them!"
      ---
      TV Announcer: "And a class action lawsuit was filed today against IBM..."

      It's just that, by definition, anecdotal evidence does not show causation or provide any reliable correlation. It means jack shit until proven otherwise.

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    7. Re:Assumptions... by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      I've taken an objective look, and take objective looks from time to time. The very fact that you think I haven't taken an objective look only serves to illustrate my point.

      How can you defend current practitioners as being pure of the practices you accuse me of when it comes so easily to you to believe that such practices are widespread enough that it would be likely that that is what I am doing?

      I don't need to justify to myself my stance on anything. If I am to be judged, let me be judged for what I am. It is more important for me to become right than to be right.

      I am reading the Satanic Bible. My relatives would all tell me that it is a "bad idea". Why then do I read it? I need to what the truth actually is. Some of the statements in the Satanic Bible are true, and some are false. I have to know why the true statements are true and why the false statements are false.

    8. Re:Assumptions... by lysergic.acid · · Score: 1

      heh, i totally missed that earlier. i guess sleep-deprivation will do that to one's reading comprehension skills. reading your post again now, it's clearly dripping with sarcasm. i don't know how i didn't pick up on it earlier. meh.

    9. Re:Assumptions... by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      Not true. You're missing out on the new science of "God did it." to explain anything more complex than a typical red neck can understand.

      (*) see Intelligent design

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
  71. Too easy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
    Too easy. The theory of common descent is an example of a belief system that is taken with zero proof. The Cambrian Explosion is a proverbial fly in that ointment BTW. There is yet no empirical proof that one species, ONE SPECIES, has evolved into another species. Mutations and adaptations are observable, but no series of mutations or adaptations have ever been proven to become and entirely new species. Much of the Evolution fairy tale must be believed by faith. Scientists BELIEVE that the earth is so many billion years old. Evolutionist BELIEVE that one species can evolve into another species.

    Let me ask some questions of the experts:
    • When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?
    • When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
    • With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?


    Answers? You don't know. If you don't know, then whatever theory you guys have must be accepted by faith/belief in the absence of facts and evidence.
    1. Re:Too easy. by grammar+fascist · · Score: 1

      Answers? You don't know. If you don't know, then whatever theory you guys have must be accepted by faith/belief in the absence of facts and evidence.

      I've been calling this a "science of the gaps" for some time now. I saw someone else use the term in an article the other day - maybe it's time to spread this meme.

      I don't think believing in a "tree of life" isn't that far-fetched. Abiogenesis, on the other hand, requires a measure of faith equal to a Bible-thumping pastor's, yet it's in our science books, not often properly labeled as conjecture. That's a science of the gaps.

      Quantum mechanics gets abused the same way all the time.

      --
      I got my Linux laptop at System76.
    2. Re:Too easy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I've been calling this a "science of the gaps" for some time now. I saw someone else use the term in an article the other day - maybe it's time to spread this meme.
      Finally, someone with intellectual honesty. A rare quality. My hat is off to you sir!
    3. Re:Too easy. by fluffy666 · · Score: 1

      The theory of common descent is an example of a belief system that is taken with zero proof.

      Apart from the entire fossil record, independantly verified by genetic evidence. You forgot that vast mountain of evidence, but there again creationists do seem to have very poor memories about such things. Almost like thet want to declate it out of existance.

      The Cambrian Explosion is a proverbial fly in that ointment BTW.

      Yes, it's amazing how difficult it is to come up with new body plans in only 10 million generations or so.. or perhaps not.

      There is yet no empirical proof that one species, ONE SPECIES, has evolved into another species.

      Apart from these, of course.

      Much of the Evolution fairy tale must be believed by faith.

      Much of Physics fairy tale must be believed by faith. How many quarks have you seen today?

      Scientists BELIEVE that the earth is so many billion years old.

      This is true. There is a huge amount of evidence to back it up as well.

      When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?

      Between 4.4 and 3.8 billion years ago, around an oceanic hot vent, as an inevitable result of the laws of chemistry, and very likely due to the complex interaction of Fe/S structrures with already existing nucleotides and ammino acids.

      When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?

      Reproduction is one of the fundamental properties of life.

      With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

      I'd advise you to look up bacterial sex and DNA sharing. A cell that can reproduce either sexually or asexually has no problems here.

      Answers? You don't know.

      No, YOU don't know because you are an arrogant, lazy idiot who won't get of their backside and actually learn stuff. Science is hard. Ignorance is easy.

      If you don't know, then whatever theory you guys have must be accepted by faith/belief in the absence of facts and evidence.

      This is just wishful thinking on your part. You want scientists to ba as lazy as you. Bad news: they are not.

  72. Re:The Great Rift Valley has been around for awhil by oojah · · Score: 1

    The article stated that although there already examples of this happening, this is the first time they hae seen a "before the split" shot.

    --
    Do you have any better hostages?
  73. Re:Buy Rea Estate Now (Let's dance?) by Old+Wolf · · Score: 1

    Who'd have seen that coming?

    I remember reading 20 years ago about how the eastern edge of Africa was going to break off from the rest, over the next few dozen million years. So, I guess the answer is: lots of geologists :)

  74. An ocean? Really? by Hyperx_Man · · Score: 1

    Would it not be called a Sea, and not an Ocean?

  75. Climate? by crivens · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How will this affect the climate, assuming it does become an ocean? I know humans probably won't exist by then.

    1. Re:Climate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and let's not forget how oceans affect climate...oh no!

      What are we going to do to stop this from changing our present-day climate?

  76. Pros and Cons by Zantetsuken · · Score: 1
    Pros: they won't have to worry nearly as much about a water supply, they might actually have enough water to grow stuff in that helluva desert

    Cons: Instead of other nations trying to invade each other for "Religious Reasons" masking their true greed for each other's oil, it'll be for water instead of oil...

  77. "Sorry, kid, I got a sacred cow this year." by loserface · · Score: 1

    Can you tell me where to pick up some of these mowing sacred cows? I'd like to be prepared for when my lawn starts growing again.

  78. LMAO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm a rocket scientist. I also invented the internet.

    Do as I say.

    Trust me.

  79. I'll Check Out The Progress by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 2, Funny

    in about a million years.

    Later.

    --
    Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
  80. Re: Obligatory Family Guy reference by iamjambon · · Score: 1

    And now back to our movie of the week - Speed 3: Ethiopian Ocean of Doom

    - "If this ocean grows any slower then 1 mile a year we're all doomed!"
    - "Tell me something I don't know! [to local resident] Get out of the way!"

  81. obligitory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can see my house from here!

  82. New ocean? Stupid idea! by grcumb · · Score: 2, Funny

    A new ocean, you say? Jeepers, what's wrong with the oceans you've already got? You've got hot ones and cold ones and windy ones and... sheesh! Back in my day, we only had one ocean, and we all had to share it - 'cept for the Lankowitz kid. Never could be too sure about him. And it was small. Couldn't barely fit a ship into it. But did we complain? Hell no! Just made a canoe out of a hollowed out log and called it the Titanic. And we liked it that way. Didn't have no ice to sink it with, neither. Had to use up our only glacier just to keep the drinks cold in the summer time.

    But we never complained. We was proud then, didn't take guff from nobody. Why I remember when the bank came to repossess our desert. Fine desert it was. Some of the best damn Gila monsters ever came outa there. Craftsmanship, that's what we called it. But the bank didn't care. I still remember my pappy standing there with a big timber from our rain forest in his hand, telling that fat-ass banker that he'd come for the wrong desert.

    Ocean! Feh! You kids don't even know what an ocean is any more. Buncha perfectly good ones here, and you still need another. Crybabies waste all the cod in one and then it's 'wah wah wah, gimme 'nother ocean!'

    Tell yer mother to fetch me 'nother glass of my rheumatism medicine, boy. All this talk 'bout oceans is making me tetchy.

    --
    Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
  83. Ocean v. Lake, scientifically speaking. by MROD · · Score: 2, Informative

    The term "ocean" when used by an Earth Scientist has a specific meaning which isn't quite the same as the common, everyday usage meaning a large expanse of water.

    Geologically, an ocean is a region of the Earth's crust composed of basaltic rocks (of MORB composition) which is generated at a spreading ridge. Because the thickness of this type of crust is pretty uniformly 15Km thick, it's somewhat lower than sea level, hence the expanse of water. This is very different from continental crust which is granitic in composition, far less dense and usualy greater than 30Km thick.

    You can get ocean-like spreading ridges elsewhere, one type of these being certain back-arc basins. Although they are look very similar, because of the different composition of the basalt, they are not considered to be oceans.

    Now, the term "lake" is generally used to describe a body of fresh water which is laying on a continent. A sea (which isn't really a scientific term at all) is generally ocean water washing over a continental basin which is often surrounded by large islands or other land masses.

    The term "land" is not really that scientific a term either, merely meaning the common term for the part of the Earth's surface not covered with water.

    I hope this has helped to clarify this for you. The (over) simplification of scientific subject by journalists is a constant bain for scientists in all fields of study.

    --

    Agrajag: "Oh no, not again!"
  84. Didn't we go through this already in California? by Hosiah · · Score: 1

    When the San Andreas Fault failed to fulfill the hope of all coastal Californians that everything East of it would collapse into the Atlantic ocean, leaving them with one big Baha all the way from Vancouver to Tijuana?

  85. MAG-MA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I want to see some hot, liquid, MAG-MA.

  86. Already old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously folks. How is /. still relevant? If you have a decent agregator, you'll know about geek news before you see it here. Then you get into things like shitty mods by people who'll consider damn near anything 'insightful', people who write articles about links they obviously haven't read. And *you*, the dumbass users, who seem to take it as a point of pride that they haven't RTFA, but feel free to spout off anyway.

    The truly ignorant, who thing CS is programming, really chap my ass.

    This is a pretty shitty news source, for nerds or anyone else. Do you have endless time? Just a wanking fifteen year old? What's the deal here? Much as I hate the arm-waving Web 2.0 crap, I hope something worthwile comes along, and we can all migrate.

    Yes, the obvious arg is, "Yet you're here." A sense of community is good. But there has to be something better than /. in the near future.

    Flamebait? Possibly. But we all know there are serious problems here. It can't hurt to get people thinking. We need a better solution than we have here.

  87. Cite? by Nimey · · Score: 0

    Got a citation for that, or did you just pull it out of your ass?

    --
    Hail Eris, full of mischief...

    E pluribus sanguinem
    1. Re:Cite? by amightywind · · Score: 1

      If I did you wouldn't know the difference, apparently. This is ok reference on the East Africa Rift. And this talks about abandoned arms. This talks about membrane stresses and fault angles. I could go on. Just google on "triple junction", "failed arm", "rift system", etc. What I said really is geology 101. You simply can't spread along 3 axes. Afar may flood with sea water, but it will never be an ocean basin as the original article suggests.

      --
      an ill wind that blows no good
  88. That should solve that pesky drought problem... by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

    ...or will we end up with the "Water Water Everywhere But Not A Drop To Drink?" :^)

  89. Re:Old news ... So, I guess if they build a bridge by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    It would be "A bridge gone to-afar"...

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  90. knew this by aribeeth · · Score: 1

    well.. i've learned about this in 5th grade(7 years ago) at geography.. there's nothing new about it.

  91. But my point is... by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    No data to substatiate the million year claim was presented, not even the secondary category of anecdotal evidence. My anecdote was presented as an abstraction of the much larger problem, not as the clinching evidence to prove my point. I've seen the same behavior with other medical staff, from staff at stores, textbook writers...

    It's part of a much wider epidemic of current society in general.

  92. Actually, he's not mischaracterizing creationism. by tlambert · · Score: 1

    Didn't you mean "an ad homid" attack? 8-). Start with a joke, when delivering the bitter truth, I say...

    Actually, "ad hominim" is Latin for "to the man"; it refers to an attack on the character of the person presenting an argument in an attempt to discredit the argument by tarring it with the same brush.

    I think the logical fallacy you were looking for is actually "a strawman argument", which creates an absurd position in order to be able to disprove it.

    In this particular case, though, he's not proving the parent's point, since his statement is a pretty fair and balanced take on what's normally presented as main-stream creationism.

    You can put as much lipstick on the idea as you want, and it's still going to fail the test of Occam's razor, which states that the simplest explanation fitting all the observed facts is considered to be the correct one, barring additional observed evidence to the contrary.

    This principle is why scientists call "theory" what the layman would consider to be "scientific fact": to leave open the possibility of future observed evidence invalidating the theory. And yes, this includes the "theory of gravity".

    -- Terry

  93. Re:Actually, he's not mischaracterizing creationis by pVoid · · Score: 1

    I don't feel like spelilng out what I mean by the ad hominem attack, sufficed to say that I still mean it even despite the gracious clarification you've given me.

      The point is that if the pope said it's an allegory, don't you think there's a bit more of a spectrum than black and white? And to further the point, don't you think it looks peculiarly zealotist hearing feverish rhethoric about how the other camp is CRAP coming from a scientist?!

      I'm just saying calm down or else you end up sounding like the people you are accusing.

  94. Just to clarify... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Christianity take off were judaism stops.

    I see what you're getting at here, that the Christian Bible is the Jewish Bible plus additional books, but it would be more accurate to say that each of them diverged. Judaism has evolved in its own direction.

    The major difference is that jesus is only a profit acording to judaism were he is the son of god in christianity

    You're thinking of Islam. Jesus has no religious status whatsoever in Judaism, and most Jews see him as a historical figure.

    It isn't uncommon to groups all three together when talking about a class of religion.
    Just a heads up, they're called the Abrahamic religions.