Slashdot Mirror


Scientists Find Preserved Dodo Bird Bones

nz17 writes "BBC News is reporting that a team of Dutch and Mauritian scientists have found what appears to be a mass dodo bird grave. From the article: 'Little is known about the dodo, a famous flightless bird thought to have become extinct in the 17th century. No complete skeleton has ever been found in Mauritius, and the last full set of bones was destroyed in a fire at a museum in Oxford, England, in 1755.'"

224 comments

  1. Christmas by JamesD_UK · · Score: 2, Funny

    Just in time for the discovery of turkey remains tomorrow!

  2. Clearly from the Designer by XMilkProject · · Score: 2, Funny

    This was clearly planted by an Intelligent Designer to challenge our faith.

    --
    Big ones, small ones, some as big as yer 'ead!
    Give 'em a twist, a flick o' the wrist...
    1. Re:Clearly from the Designer by iamlucky13 · · Score: 1

      As soon as you're done with the intelligent design wisecracks, be sure to let the rest of us know so we can resume having somewhat relevant discussions. The only way this is even remotely on topic is if someone wanted to discuss the way evolution left the Dodo an easy prey for extinction. Clearly, however, you were just interested in restarted a theological discussion that's been pretty worn out on Slashdot over the past 2-3 months.

  3. Huh by josteos · · Score: 5, Funny

    I didn't know SCO was headquartered on Mauritius.....

    --
    Save the Music; Save the World at http://www.TuneTriever.com (Our latest Android game)
  4. Sign Post Gave it Away by Bullfish · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    The marker said Bush family plot.

    1. Re:Sign Post Gave it Away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The marker said Bush family plot.

      That comment was uncalled for!

      The Dodo has been extinct for over 200 years. There is no way for us to know if the Dodos were as stupid as the Bushs.

    2. Re:Sign Post Gave it Away by Bullfish · · Score: 1

      Okay, you got me there.

    3. Re:Sign Post Gave it Away by toad3k · · Score: 0, Troll

      Oh come on, that was funny.

  5. SEND IN THE CLONES!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That would be neat if we could clone the birds somehow, I'm not sure if that's possible any more, but maybe in the marrow or something...

    1. Re:SEND IN THE CLONES!!! by MoogMan · · Score: 0, Redundant

      I can't help but wonder whether cloning is a bad idea. I mean, they became extinct for a reason. Who are we to meddle with nature? (But then who am I to say cloning is wrong?).

    2. Re:SEND IN THE CLONES!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I look forward to the day when cloning of long-extinct species becomes profitable. Mmm...mammoth burgers and dodo hot wings...

    3. Re:SEND IN THE CLONES!!! by Xugumad · · Score: 4, Informative
    4. Re:SEND IN THE CLONES!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I can't help but wonder whether cloning is a bad idea.
      > I mean, they became extinct for a reason.

      They became extinct because they were killed and eaten by Portugese (and other European) sailors stocking up their sailing ships.

      No fear of man, large flightless bird, need for meat for long sailing trip... ...what do you think the result would be?

    5. Re:SEND IN THE CLONES!!! by jamesg123 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm not sure it's worth the risk. They might escape and run amok in downtown New York.

    6. Re:SEND IN THE CLONES!!! by Scratched · · Score: 1

      We were the ones who made them extinct. We meddled with nature when we introduced predators they were not capable of handling.

      I think that if it's possible, we should meddle with nature again to undo our first mistake.

    7. Re:SEND IN THE CLONES!!! by shawb · · Score: 1

      Large flightless bird with no fear of man... if nothing else they would make the perfect domesticated fowl. And I think history has shown that they are tasty enough.

      --
      I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
    8. Re:SEND IN THE CLONES!!! by Ironsides · · Score: 1

      We meddled with nature when we introduced predators they were not capable of handling.

      The predator was Homo Sapiens Sapiens. They made good eating after months on sea-rations.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    9. Re:SEND IN THE CLONES!!! by hedwards · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure it's worth the risk. They might escape and run amok in downtown New York. That might be OK, I hear it is very hard to escape New York.

    10. Re:SEND IN THE CLONES!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The predator was not homo-sapiens. The predators were the animals the homo sapiens brought with them to the island. Not the homo sapiens themselves.

    11. Re:SEND IN THE CLONES!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, they were (from what I can recall of contemporary reports) absolutely disgusting to eat (both in flavour and texture).

    12. Re:SEND IN THE CLONES!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They were NOT driven extinct by predation. They were driven extinct by the destruction of their habitats by the settlers and the destruction of their nests by animals brought by the settlers.

    13. Re:SEND IN THE CLONES!!! by koona · · Score: 1

      There is great danger in the assumption that a "physical clone" will restore a species. There is a small but growing literature regarding the evolution of culture in the "lower animals" my buddy chunDee followed an old grizz out of chilco lake bc for 175 miles, shitt'n inizboots. The old fart (the bear not chunDee) happened to know that the wild potatoes were ready that far away. This sort of stuff isn't geneticaly encoded. youurs

    14. Re:SEND IN THE CLONES!!! by Gulthek · · Score: 1

      Wow. A complete lack of understanding of the history. Too bad.

      --
      Ah! Hello Deva!

    15. Re:SEND IN THE CLONES!!! by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      If they're that good eating, we should clone them, and raise them for market. Variety in the diet is a good thing.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    16. Re:SEND IN THE CLONES!!! by AxemRed · · Score: 1

      That is true. An obvious example would be that kittens must be taught how to hunt by their mother. Otherwise, they won't know how to catch mice and birds.

    17. Re:SEND IN THE CLONES!!! by ecotax · · Score: 1

      AFAIK the dodos' were eaten to extinction by Dutch sailors; there's even a Dutch synonym for dodo, 'walgvogel', meaning 'disgusting bird', apparently because their taste wasn't even that good - but they were very easy to catch, and after a few months at sea they were a good change of diet.

      --
      "Money is a sign of poverty." - Iain Banks
    18. Re:SEND IN THE CLONES!!! by LnxAddct · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There have been 6 mass extinctions in earth's history. The first one wiped out around 85% of species and is attributed to rapid global cooling, this happened around 443 millions years ago. The second one (354 million years ago) wiped out around 70% of life and is attributed to rapid climate change and also anoxia from an algae-like species overpopulating and depleting the oceans of oxygen and other necessary things. Right before the dinosaurs came into town (295 million years ago), 95% (yes that is a 9 and a 5, pretty significant number, eh?) of species became extinct through a bolide impact, this opened up a ton of niches for new species to flourish. Not only did it lead to the dinosaurs but it led to more variety of species than ever before. Right between the triassic and jurassic periods, an extinction happened that killed 45% of animals, the dinosaurs survived this one (206 million years ago) and the cause of it is still being debated but may have resulted from abnormal levels of volcanism. The dinosaurs didn't make it through the next extinction which killed 65% of life on earth from a bolide impact that also led to rapid climate change, tsunamis, earthquakes and increased volcanism. That was 65 million years ago. The 6th mass extinction is happening today, and yea unfortunately its mostly due to us, but honestly its jsut the cyclical nature of life. Every couple hundred million years species start going extinct like crazy and the causes have varied, this time its us. We shouldn't necessarily go out of our way and discomfort ourselves because regardless of what we do, everything is going to hell anyway. I'd love to get into more detail but I have family to attend to.
      Regards,
      Steve

    19. Re:SEND IN THE CLONES!!! by JohnnyLocust · · Score: 1

      That would be wonderfull! I hear they were delicious.

    20. Re:SEND IN THE CLONES!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to Dutch television news the English thought the dodo tasted alright.

    21. Re:SEND IN THE CLONES!!! by masdog · · Score: 1

      How do you know that we're causing a mass extinction?

    22. Re:SEND IN THE CLONES!!! by HardCase · · Score: 1
    23. Re:SEND IN THE CLONES!!! by LnxAddct · · Score: 1

      Hey, I'd write a long reply, but Niles Eldridge has already said it better than I ever could. Not sure if I have permission to pass this along, but eh whatever:) Here is a thing Niles wrote that is about the sixth extinction, extremely informative.
      Regards,
      Steve

    24. Re:SEND IN THE CLONES!!! by Sparr0 · · Score: 1

      Because we are commiting genocide multiple times a day. On a time scale covering millions of years it doesnt matter if 50% of all species die in one day (meteor impact) or in a thousand years (climate change, homo sapiens), the effect is virtually identical.

    25. Re:SEND IN THE CLONES!!! by mliikset · · Score: 1

      yeah, the reason was that 17th century sailors got real sick of hardtack and brined meat. Dodos are unlikely to have been tasty though, fish-eating birds almost never provide palatable meat. I think that depredations by rats, dogs and pigs accounted for most of the decline, supplemented by the urge to just kill something by people who had spent way too much time on the open sea. I just saw a documentary ('Ice Age') that suggested that dodos died out during one of the ice ages, but that is simply not the case. I really liked the way the sabertoothed cat made friends with the sloth, and I never knew they all talked in celebrity voices. I want to be a paleontologist.

    26. Re:SEND IN THE CLONES!!! by Ironsides · · Score: 1

      Could be interesting. Dodo nugets with BBQ sauce?

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    27. Re:SEND IN THE CLONES!!! by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      We had a kitten one time, whose mother took off practically before her eyes were open. The dog raised it, but definitely didn't teach her how to catch birds or mice. She had an unusual style though -- used to jump between trees like squirrel.

    28. Re:SEND IN THE CLONES!!! by shawb · · Score: 1

      Yeah... I did a little research after reading the article and found that. Supposedly what got the dodos moreso than people directly were the rats and pigs and other animals left behind (rats accidentally, and starting a wild colony of pigs on a wayside island was pretty common practice.) But eh... I meant it more as a joke anyways. A sorta dark joke, but nonetheless.

      --
      I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
    29. Re:SEND IN THE CLONES!!! by eraserewind · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but random mass extinctions caused by extraordinary events and seperated by millions of years are plainly not part of "the cyclical nature of life".

    30. Re:SEND IN THE CLONES!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      perfect idea...
      reminds me of a story I heard about Australia.
      Let introduce Fox; I'd like to hunt the lil' bugger in the bush.
      time...
      WTF... we introduced a predator that is killing natural fauna to extinction!!!!!
      an other bright idea!!!
      what is the natural prey of fox?
      hmmmmm...rabbit?
      Wright; let introduce rabbit!!!!
      WTF... this lazy fox does not want to run after the rabbit and prefer the slow almost extinct local fauna!!!
      Oh, and the rabbit are mating...like rabbit likesay...and they are eating our pastures away...destroying natural habitats too, driving more local fauna toward extinction.
      OMFG!!!! we all gonna die.
      Nope, I do have a bright idea!!! lets infect the rabbit with a deadly desease...let first test it on a not too remote island.
      Hmmmmmm, looks like the island was way too close...but Hahahahaha, look at the buggers dying!!! victory at last!!!!
      Time.... Resistance... more and more rabbit
      Awright... let built a fence...
      anyother idea?
      Nuke?
      ad libitum

    31. Re:SEND IN THE CLONES!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You were trying to be funny right?
      You knew that people had killed all the dodo's and were making a joke, right?
      Please tell me you were making a joke.

  6. Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Take that DNA, clone those fuckers, raise 'em on a farm, and sell me some Dodo McNuggets!

    1. Re:Well by antifoidulus · · Score: 5, Informative

      According to the Europeans who came to the island, they were not all that good. From the wikipedia article:

      There is a persistent myth that Dodos were eaten as food for the long voyages between the Cape of Good Hope and Asia, but neither historical nor archeological findings corroborate this. Dodos were hardly ever eaten by the Portuguese, who found the birds hard to eat and very messy. Dutch records concur. The Dutch settlers called it the Walgvogel ("disgusting bird") for the unpleasant taste and texture of the meat. No Dodo bones have been found in the old middens of the Dutch fort Frederik Hendrik.

      Still, I would like to eat one just to add it to my list of animals whose flesh I have made part of myself. So far I have eaten cow, pig, chicken, duck, deer, reindeer, whale, kangaroo, pigeon, cornish hen, and ostrich. I need to eat more!

    2. Re:Well by ringworlder · · Score: 2, Funny

      Another article says that the Dutch named them for tasting very bad. Although, with McNuggets, that might not be far off...

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

      no fish or seafood? no lamb or goat? no quail? No dog? No roaches? Cicadas? Turtles? Frogs? No peacock? No snake?

      dude you have a LOT of work to go before you hit the extinct animals.

    4. Re:Well by Mostly+a+lurker · · Score: 1
      So far I have eaten cow, pig, chicken, duck, deer, reindeer, whale, kangaroo, pigeon, cornish hen, and ostrich. I need to eat more!

      Perfect time of year to add goose and turkey to that list: both very tasty.

    5. Re:Well by evilmrhenry · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Actually, how hard would it be to take the DNA, and use cloning to bring them back? Maybe not as a food item, (though that could create funding...) but just as a "sorry about wiping out your species" present.

    6. Re:Well by metlin · · Score: 1


      In all my life, I've eaten no animal meat, nor fish, nor eggs (well, it is possible that I've occasionally had an item or two by mistake which have had eggs) - although I have had milk, which I suppose is the only animal product I've consumed.

      Ironic. :)

    7. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another article says that the Dutch named them for tasting very bad

      They misspelled doodoo, apparently...

    8. Re:Well by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 3, Funny
      In all my life, I've eaten no animal meat...

      That's OK. I'll make up for your share.

    9. Re:Well by metlin · · Score: 1

      Goodluck, you've a lot of making up to do - anyway, am happy for you! =)

    10. Re:Well by tomhudson · · Score: 4, Funny

      Still, I would like to eat one just to add it to my list of animals whose flesh I have made part of myself. So far I have eaten cow, pig, chicken, duck, deer, reindeer, whale, kangaroo, pigeon, cornish hen, and ostrich. I need to eat more!

      Just eat a cheap hotdog - you'll be able to add all sorts of organic flesh to your list with every bite.

    11. Re:Well by NuGeo · · Score: 1

      Nooooo! Don't do that! Then my favorite phrase "gone the way of the Dodo" will mean something completely (and grotesquely) different!

    12. Re:Well by craXORjack · · Score: 1
      So far I have eaten cow, pig, chicken, duck, deer, reindeer, whale, kangaroo, pigeon, cornish hen, and ostrich.

      'Pigeon' calls up visions of crap-coated statues. If you call it Rock Dove or squab, it sounds a bit more appetizing.

      --
      Liberals call everyone Nazis yet they are the closest thing to it.
    13. Re:Well by GreenHell · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Unfortunately, unless things have changed from 2002/2003 (i.e. unless these bones are better than the ones we already have), then all the DNA available is fragmentary and ill-preserved. Not exactly good cloning material.

      --
      "I won't mod you down - I feel the need to call you a twit explicitly, rather than by implication."
    14. Re:Well by myowntrueself · · Score: 0, Troll

      "In all my life, I've eaten no animal meat"

      I suppose bacteria don't count so far as you are concerned but so far as I am concerned the more sophisticated protists count as animals... and I bet theres been plenty of insect matter hidden in those greens!

      (for the pedantic, so far as I am concerned insects and protists are animals too)

      Veganism/Vegetarianism are bogus, eating is murder! Murder I tell you!!!!

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    15. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go for human dude!

    16. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      There's this thing called Taxonomy, which is a system for the hierarchical classification of organisms.

      It may suprise you, but, no, monerans (bacteria) aren't animals. Neither are protists.

      Also, if you practice basic sanitary food preparation you will end up with minimal insect life in your food.

      Hope that helps!

    17. Re:Well by NixLuver · · Score: 1

      Heh, good point. Vegetarianism only makes sense from a position of higher-mammal arrogance. Grass are living beings, too! Just cause you can't communicate with it doesn't mean it's not aware that you're cutting it down and masticating it. I mean, come on, we eat the *young* of various plants (think alfalfa sprouts, bean sprouts) talk about callous!

    18. Re:Well by pthisis · · Score: 1
      In all my life, I've eaten no animal meat...

      That's OK. I'll make up for your share.


      Sponsor a vegetarian: for every animal you don't eat, I'm going to eat three!
      http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=sp onsor
      --
      rage, rage against the dying of the light
    19. Re:Well by BushCheney08 · · Score: 1

      When are human, dog, or cat gonna make it on that list? C'mon, you gotta try em at least once! On a serious note, you should give moose a try sometime. Pretty dang tasty.

      --
      Be a real patriot: Question authority. Think for yourself. Formulate your own conclusions.
    20. Re:Well by metlin · · Score: 1

      Umm, I wasn't arguing about why I was a vegetarian, merely stating a fact.

      You are free to eat whatever you want, just as I'm free to eat whatever I want. I'm mostly a vegetarian because I was raised that way, and eating animals grosses me out (even for a meat eater, eating insects and certain other foods would gross you out because you weren't raised that way).

      What do you mean vegan/vegetarianism is a bogus? I mean, it's a style of living that some people practice because they choose to - for instance, there are folks in India who believe in not eating anything where the plant is killed (i.e. no potatoes, carrots, etc.) - only fruits because you don't kill a plant in eating fruits. I think that's a laudable goal, but not something I'd do. That doesn't mean I do not admire them for their attitude, though. In the end, the justifications are pointless because if you want to do something, you will find a way of justifying what you do anyway.

      As long as the people practicing it are happy, that's all that matters.

    21. Re:Well by mag46 · · Score: 1
      So far I have eaten cow, pig, chicken, duck, deer, reindeer, whale, kangaroo, pigeon, cornish hen, and ostrich.

      That's not so impressive; how many people here have ever eaten a hot dog? There's gotta be at least that many animals in every bite.

      Also, no turkey?

    22. Re:Well by Shano · · Score: 1

      Not to mention a fair amount of inorganic flesh, if it's anything like the hotdogs I've had.

    23. Re:Well by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      To the list so far I can also add snails, jellyfish, and sea cucumber... seafood I guess, but pretty "odd" to most people and yet not too difficult to obtain at restaurants without leaving the United States.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    24. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a plant murderer. I only eat plant murderers (except for human beings) to punish them.

    25. Re:Well by metlin · · Score: 1


      Good for you, I'm sure they are very tasty. Whatever floats your boat, mate.

    26. Re:Well by adamjaskie · · Score: 1

      Ever eat cheese? Unless you look for special vegetarian cheese, most cheese contains rennet, which is generally made from the stomach lining of cows.

      --
      /usr/games/fortune
    27. Re:Well by masdog · · Score: 1

      No Bison??

    28. Re:Well by VJ42 · · Score: 1

      for instance, there are folks in India who believe in not eating anything where the plant is killed

      Those people are of the Jain religion. IIRC they are strictly non-violent, and even go to the extent of wearing face masks (similar to those you sometimes see cyclists wearing in polluted cities) to avoid hurting even the smallest of insects by accedentally breathing it in.

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
    29. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what the fuck is ironic? that you've had milk and eggs? how the fuck is that irony?!?!

    30. Re:Well by rworne · · Score: 1

      You have nothing compared to the Chinese. The Chinese will and do eat just about anything that swims, wiggles, crawls, walks, hops, or flies. Before some of you mark this as flame-bait, read up on it a bit - it's true. Sea Cucumber, Bear Paws, Tiger Penis, Shark's Fin, Civet Cats, and various venomous reptiles.

      --
      I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
    31. Re:Well by rkww · · Score: 1

      No sheep? Or guinea pig? Or goat? Or any kind of fish? Or rabbit? Or horse? Or dog? Or sausage? I am disappointed in you.

    32. Re:Well by Darby · · Score: 1

      and I bet theres been plenty of insect matter hidden in those greens!

      So does insect poop count as an animal product?

    33. Re:Well by Darby · · Score: 1

      On a serious note, you should give moose a try sometime. Pretty dang tasty.

      Yep, caribou and elk as well.

    34. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Redundant? I'm being serious here: can anyone point out the comment that makes this one redundant? (I didn't think I saw one when I posted it.)

    35. Re:Well by dajak · · Score: 1

      So far I have eaten cow, pig, chicken, duck, deer, reindeer, whale, kangaroo, pigeon, cornish hen, and ostrich. I need to eat more!

      Perfect time of year to add goose and turkey to that list: both very tasty.


      Or pheasants, partridges, quails, rabbits, hares. I also missed lamb and horse in that list.

    36. Re:Well by Crizp · · Score: 1

      ...and whale! And seal, which taste a bit like whale really.

    37. Re:Well by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      You can keep your alfalfa spouts. I'm going to have some veal and lamb chops. ;)

    38. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I think the point was that nobody on Earth has likely avoided ever eating an animal, unless you are using a definition other than "a member of Kingdom Animalia". For example, it's highly likely you've ingested a Demodex folliculorum or two or more inadvertently in your life. You wouldn't have noticed it, of course; anything that can live in multiples on an eyelash isn't going to be noticed. For your type of vegetarianism, it isn't really relevant.

      However, evangelical ethical veganism/vegetarianism, if not bogus, is at least hard to justify. If the killing of lobster is morally wrong and should be discontinued by everyone, as, say, PETA asserts, why isn't the regular killing of other arthropods as a pure consequence of activities such as bathing similarly objectionable? Where does a cockroach fit on the scale of eyebrow mite to lobster, and why?

      Of course, the same questions apply to the typical short-of-humans standard for murder. But all evangelical activity by ethical vegans such as PETA is implicity premised on having a more-correct answer to the question than the majority of humans over the majority of recorded history. And PETA doesn't even have a "my god/prophet said so" to lean on.

    39. Re:Well by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Mmm. Buffalo. Nothing tastes like a good buffalo steak. Or a buffalo burger.

    40. Re:Well by ccmay · · Score: 1
      So far I have eaten cow, pig, chicken, duck, deer, reindeer, whale, kangaroo, pigeon, cornish hen, and ostrich. I need to eat more!

      Hmm, let's see: Cow, pig, chicken, lamb, goat, turkey, goose, moose, duck, whitetail deer, mule deer, reindeer (caribou! YUM! The best of all), axis deer, fallow deer, elk, Dall sheep, desert bighorn sheep, mountain goat, javelina, kangaroo, chuckwalla lizard, pigeon, dove, emu, ostrich, quail, partridge, pheasant, rabbit, frog, rattlesnake, pronghorn antelope, nilgai, eland, three or four other African antelopes whose names I forget, sea cucumber, sea urchin, jellyfish, octopus, turtle, squid, crab, lobster, prawns, Moreton Bay bugs, ants, crickets, grubs, snails, and at least three dozen species of fish.... That's about it...

      You do have me whipped on the whale meat and horse meat, though; my hat is off to you, Sir.

      -ccm

      --
      Too much Law; not enough Order.
    41. Re:Well by ccmay · · Score: 1
      Hmm, and I almost forgot: squirrel, buffalo, conch, eels, Cornish game hens, guinea fowl, cuttlefish, clams, mussels, oysters, and abalone. I would also note that I have consumed tasty parts of various animals that are sometimes overlooked in this country, including brain, heart, tongue, kidneys, liver, sweetbreads, bone marrow, and Rocky Mountain oysters (calf testicles.)

      Make room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the mashed potatoes.

      -ccm

      --
      Too much Law; not enough Order.
    42. Re:Well by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 1

      What, no TURKEY? No FISH?

      (and no bison - which I found kind of borking, frankly.)

      --
      This space available.
    43. Re:Well by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      Ok for starters, when it comes to ribbing vegetarians/vegans, smokers and christians, well... I just can't help myself. I know, its a filthy habit ;)

      As for vegetarians in *India*, there is an interesting story about how when vegetarianism became more popular in the West and western vegetarians were eating pretty much the same diet as their Indian counterparts but for some strange reason were getting B vitamin deficiencies.

      Turned out that the Indian vegetarians were *effectively* though accidentally supplementing their diet with fairly large quantities of insect matter (mostly just chitin fragments, not whole insects).

      And I do believe that, biologically, with respect to the human metabolism and dietary requirements, that (at least) veganism is most certainly bogus if not downright harmful.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    44. Re:Well by lysergic.acid · · Score: 1

      How is veganism harmful to one's health? I'd be more worried about eating fast food too often than a vegan diet. While I'm not a vegan or a vegetarian myself, I'm pretty sure that in this day an age pretty much all the nutrients that one needs can be found outside of animal products, and that most vegans probably pay more attention to their diet than the average person and would are in better health as well because of it.

    45. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should try alligator. It's delicious!!!

    46. Re:Well by tehdaemon · · Score: 1

      shrimp, lobster, crab, clam......

      --
      Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.
    47. Re:Well by smithmc · · Score: 1

        Still, I would like to eat one just to add it to my list of animals whose flesh I have made part of myself. So far I have eaten cow, pig, chicken, duck, deer, reindeer, whale, kangaroo, pigeon, cornish hen, and ostrich. I need to eat more!

      Doing your part to complete the Cycle of Poo?

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
    48. Re:Well by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      Maybe its just the way that all the vegans that I have ever known have been sickly, pale and weak? And the ones that gave up veganism and started eating meat soon became stronger, more healthy, active and alert?

      Just going by observation here... I Am Not A Dietician.

      And sure, *these* days all the nutrients you need are surely available through pills and supplements derived from artificial sources or from highly concentrated and processed plant, algae, fungal or bacterial sources... great stuff! Ie: successful veganism depends very much on technology, ie it can't be natural? Maybe?

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    49. Re:Well by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      The sea cucumber and jellyfish tentacles I ate were, in fact, in a Chinese restaurant.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    50. Re:Well by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Interesting
      99% of vegans have to take huge amounts of supplements to be healthy because their all-vegetable diet doesn't provide, well, basically anything they need. They also have to eat huge meals, or very monotonous ones, because it's hard to get enough protein from eating plants.

      Also some interesting research has been surfacing and it seems that soy (one of the most frequently eaten veggie foods due to versatility - over 2/3 of the soy running around the world is GM, though) is not particularly good for men. A UHawaii study showed an increased alzheimer's risk. The issue with it is that the plant's hormones are highly similar to estrogen...

      The best argument for humans as omnivores is that our body is not only clearly designed to consume and digest meat as well as plants, but that our body is clearly not designed to digest only plants. Our stomach in particular is poorly designed for the job. Humans are omnivores and any attempt to diverge from that path is certain to be fraught with trouble.

      Granted, you can eat whatever the hell you want, and I won't care. But I think the point that vegetarianism is silly is as well-made. Both plants and animals practice evolutionary chemical warfare against one another, which is fun to think about. About the only good argument for vegetarianism or veganism is one of impact. It takes a lot more cropland to raise animals (ineffiency is everywhere) and agriculture is the single largest factor of human impact on the earth, more than greenhouse gas emissions or nuclear waste. Egypt used to be green! Over time humanity is converting Terra into a desert, and the mechanism used to do it is called agriculture.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    51. Re:Well by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The best spaghetti I've had yet has buffalo or beefalo or something meat in it. It was delicious. I've also found that I really enjoy alligator meat.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    52. Re:Well by marct22 · · Score: 1
      Uh, I'd bet you have eaten animal! Have you seen how crops are harvested? Fast-moving blades, spikes, etc. that chop grains from the stalk for your breads. And it's not like there aren't animals who also like hanging out in fields, like skunks, snakes, mice, gophers oh my! And sometimes animals even die in fields (gasp!).

      Mr Farmer riding in his combine or tractor just follows the furrows , chopping grains with the blades and directing stalks with spikes around a rotating drum, and voila!, some animal gets added to the the mix! Then, once the grains are stored in the silos, birds and mice also like to eat the grains, and may accidently go along for the ride where the grains are crushed to make our flour... It may not be as obvious as a drumstick or a steak, but it's there all the same!

      Unless you have grown/processed 100% of your own food your whole life, never eaten at nearly all restaurants (there might be some that handprocess everything (or buy from suppliers who may make this claim), then I'd bet you have eaten animal! And that's not including fried vegetables fried in lard that you may not know about in some restaurants, pots/pans that may have cooked meat, were quickly drained and used to cook your veggie food...

    53. Re:Well by Old+Wolf · · Score: 1

      In all my life, I've eaten no animal meat, nor fish, nor eggs.
      Ironic. :)

      More likely: Iron-deficient.

    54. Re:Well by SirPavlova · · Score: 1

      Natural? Who cares if it's natural? Why do you think humanity invents... well... stuff? It's to get away from nature, to improve on it, or even to beat it! My favourite example is lighting; it means we can live independant of the day/night cycle (trust me, I'm staying awake 24+ hours & sleeping 12+ lately - nothing to do until uni is great).

      I agree with what you said about meat though. I'm not usually a great fan, just because most doesn't taste that nice IMO, but it's the only food that'll really keep you going strong.

      Note: I've just realised you were probably refering to the "It's more natural" argument for veganism, but I was focussed on the moral "I don't want to kill" angle when I read your post & it didn't occur to me. I stand by what I wrote about being natural though, so I'm still going to post it.

      --
      Yar.
    55. Re:Well by SirPavlova · · Score: 1

      Can't say I've tried buffalo, unfortunately. But if you get the chance, try some kangaroo - it beats any cattle steak I've ever eaten by a long shot. Great stuff.

      Now I'll have to get some buffalo somewhere...

      --
      Yar.
    56. Re:Well by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      I've heard kangaroo is good. Have to try some one of these days.

      I have some friends who bought a buffalo a while ago. $200 (Canadian). An extra $50 if you needed someone to shoot it for you.

    57. Re:Well by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      yeah its the way that vegans seem to assume that their dietary regime is somehow supported by arguments that humans are naturally vegan and that meat is really bad for us "because our digestive systems aren't built for it" bullshit that makes me laugh at them hilariously. :)

      Its interesting to think of veganism as a high-tech lifestyle though... I doubt many vegans see it that way, but there it is! Without some fairly sophisticated and huge processing and refining factories and highly developed dietary science, its a disaster.

      As for not killing, is it really ok to kill bacteria to make, for example, miso?

      Personally I don't see how vegans can live with themselves drinking miso soup... ;)

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    58. Re:Well by conJunk · · Score: 1

      one way to expand that repetoire is to expand the *parts* of the animals you have eaten... i once had a friend give me the full infoz on which of a cow's four stomachs is the tastiest and why... i tried beef uterus once (yuck!)... also, if you get the chance, horse is excelent (i've only had it raw - horse sashimi, but it's quite good)

  7. "To challenge our faith"? More like a flood by tepples · · Score: 0, Troll

    The current hypothesis among those working on an intelligent design theory is that a worldwide flood buried animal remains in mudslides in such a way that rapid fossilization occurred.

    1. Re:"To challenge our faith"? More like a flood by Belseth · · Score: 3, Interesting
      It was apparently one hell of a flood given it not only managed to mimic sedimentary layers hundreds of million to billion years old but there were apparently volcanos errupting during the flood since there have been a number of bones found in volcanic ash. Also apparently the earth was really really crowded before the flood.

      Now this flood deal, the science of Waterworld aside, where did all that water go? If the earth has been realitively unchanged in the last six thousand years as they claim where did it go? The water tied up in all the glaciers would raise the oceans a couple of hundred feet. Not even enough to cover the majority of the US. A number of states would even be high and dry. According to the bible even the highest mountains were covered. Everest is nearly 30,000 feet above sea level. Any event that could remove that much water from the surface would sterilize the planet and leave a comet the size of the moon. There isn't enough ground water to account for it either.

      Untruths are easy to spot they tend to be houses of cards with easily found holes. The difference between Intellegent Design and Evolution is whatever holes there are in Evolution they are slowly being filled. They same holes will still be there in a thousand years that there are now in Intellegent Design.

    2. Re:"To challenge our faith"? More like a flood by ikkonoishi · · Score: 1

      You assume of course both that the mountains were that high, and the oceans that deep beforehand. That is possibly not the case. If the world was engaged in such a massive flood it could have also resulted in large tecnonic shifts creating mountains and causing volcanos to form.

    3. Re:"To challenge our faith"? More like a flood by Orkie · · Score: 1

      It depends how long ago the flood was... The Himalayas do grow in height constantly due to the collision between the Indo-Australian and the Eurasian plate, so it is possible that the flood waters could have covered Everest. According to this article, the Himalayas only started forming 70 million years ago.

      Not, that I beleive in the flood, but your argument isn't sound when it comes to mountains being covered. The shape of the crust is constantly being changed by the movement of the plates.

    4. Re:"To challenge our faith"? More like a flood by MamiyaOtaru · · Score: 1

      I think you are missing the point of ID. ID != creationism. The big idea behind ID is that the earth may well be billions of year old, that evolution etc may have happened, but that it was under $supreme_being's direction.

      Fossils that appear to be millions of years old really are, and represent an intermediate step (or dead end) in $supreme_being's long creation, leading eventually to us.

      ID basically states that $supreme_being didn't create the world all at once, but did so in a long process, guiding evolution (which could never have happened on its own). There is therefore no need for ID adherents to explain away fossils. Fossils' existence doesn't conflict with ID.

      Incidentally, this is why many fundamentalists reject ID, they see it as a sellout to science and in conflict with the biblical account of creation in 6 days.

      It still doesn't belong in schools, but at least knock them for the right reasons ;)

    5. Re:"To challenge our faith"? More like a flood by Decaff · · Score: 1

      If the world was engaged in such a massive flood it could have also resulted in large tecnonic shifts creating mountains and causing volcanos to form.

      No. Tectonic shifts are due to sideways forces over long periods of time. Floods create downward forces.

    6. Re:"To challenge our faith"? More like a flood by commodoresloat · · Score: 4, Funny
      Now this flood deal, the science of Waterworld aside, where did all that water go?

      Intelligent flushing?

    7. Re:"To challenge our faith"? More like a flood by IcySludge · · Score: 1
      The real problem with the ID is that its loudest proponents are usually fundamentalist christians, who use the Bible as the basis for their claims. The Bible, however, was meant for a certain group of people living during a certain time period. Although the Absolute Truth is certainly contained in the Bible, there really isn't a version that hasn't been adulterated by some outside interpretation, and even today rubber-stamped Christians warp its intended message. I've always wondered why Christianity focuses so heavily on Jesus' death, when it is his message which should be propagated. You don't hear Christians quoting Jesus, but you hear them quoting The Bible out of context in the same way Islamic Fundamentalists do to the Quran.

      When Jesus was present, he re-established the principles of religion, but no one was listening to him. "Thou shalt not kill," and yet many Christians see no problem with slaughterhouses. Some Christians say animals don't have souls, but Jesus would have taught "Thou shalt not murder," if he meant it to apply only to human beings. "Thou shalt love thy God with all thy heart," and yet people don't love God. They love their dogs. Then they cry when bad things happen to them.

      The basic tenant of Christianity is "Give us this day our daily bread." But God isn't our order-supplier; rather, we are eternally subordinate to him. Because of our birth in the material world, we forget our relationship with God and think, "I am god, I am this body, and all these material things that connect to this body are mine." And when this sort of person goes to church he thinks, "OK God, you give me this, this, and this, and I'll worship you." And if he doesn't get that thing, he thinks "Well, there is no God."

      These people do things like say "If there is a God, let him strike me down on this very spot!" Once again, God isn't our order-supplier, and furthermore, he doesn't need to prove his abilities. He gives us what we truly want. If we don't want to believe in God, he will provide us with logical fallacies that will make us forget his existence, like "Can God create a rock that even He cannot lift?" or "If there is a God, he wouldn't have taken my child away/caused the Tsunami/made bad things happen."

      But I think a lot of these people, deep down, know that God exists, and they're terrified. They're terrified because if there *is* a God, then that means they'll be responsible for their actions. It means they'll have to think before they act. And in a country where blame is shifted from one person to another, where the pop-culture emphasizes sense-gratification, and where people are masters at cheating, lying, and stealing, does it come as a surprise that everyone wants to be Godless?

    8. Re:"To challenge our faith"? More like a flood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why they call it faith. It requires you to believe in something that you cannot prove scientifically.

    9. Re:"To challenge our faith"? More like a flood by Supurcell · · Score: 1

      To sum that all up.

      God lies to us through logic. God used to show off his phenomenal, cosmic powers at the slightest offense(to prove his existence), but now he doesn't really care. Some things in the bible are true, but others aren't. So instead of believing what one dude says, believe this other dude without a shred of proof, because I have faith. And faith supersedes facts and logic, which are just god's way of sending you to hell anyway.

    10. Re:"To challenge our faith"? More like a flood by BitchKapoor · · Score: 1

      But I think a lot of these people, deep down, know that God exists, and they're terrified. They're terrified because if there *is* a God, then that means they'll be responsible for their actions. It means they'll have to think before they act.

      I don't think people need a concept of a god to be responsible for their actions and think before they act. To me, doing the right thing because you care about other people, the environment, integrity, etc., is more upstanding than acting good because you're afraid of punishment.

    11. Re:"To challenge our faith"? More like a flood by RussR42 · · Score: 0

      Too bad that if you believe in the flood and ID and such, you wouldn't think that the earth was even around 70 million years ago.... oops.

    12. Re:"To challenge our faith"? More like a flood by IcySludge · · Score: 1
      I don't think people need a concept of a god to be responsible for their actions and think before they act.

      Maybe, but I'd say everyone already has a concept of God. It's just a matter of believing or not believing in Him. But people are always responsible for their actions--the famous "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction." applies to actions as individuals, too.

      To me, doing the right thing because you care about other people, the environment, integrity, etc., is more upstanding than acting good because you're afraid of punishment.

      I think you have noble intentions in here, so I'm not trying to be an ass, just offering an alternate position. 'Upstanding ' is a bodily condition; a man can be called 'upstanding' and still have to suffer the miseries of birth, death, disease, and old age. He might be seen as an 'upstanding man' because he serves his nation, his family, and his environment. But that word has no real value because it is a bodily designation, and the man is not his body--he is a soul. If people are _seriously_ God-conscious then all such upstanding actions will be performed by default.

    13. Re:"To challenge our faith"? More like a flood by Darby · · Score: 1

      And in a country where blame is shifted from one person to another, where the pop-culture emphasizes sense-gratification, and where people are masters at cheating, lying, and stealing, does it come as a surprise that everyone wants to be Godless?

      No, the surprise is that this country is about the most gung-ho pro religion country around.

    14. Re:"To challenge our faith"? More like a flood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "ID basically states that $supreme_being didn't create the world all at once, but did so in a long process, guiding evolution (which could never have happened on its own). There is therefore no need for ID adherents to explain away fossils. Fossils' existence doesn't conflict with ID."

      Except ID proponents also say that $supreme_being is the *only way* certain things could have come about, because there is *no way* for them to happen naturally.

      Until someone shows how it could have - like the blood clotting cascade that Behe was so enamored of initially, and the flagellum.

      ID is only, ONLY being used by the Creationist crowd to get rid of teaching evolution, and then they can slip their pet dogma into schools in the vacuum.

    15. Re:"To challenge our faith"? More like a flood by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      That's news to me. I believe that God created the Earth, but don't believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    16. Re:"To challenge our faith"? More like a flood by IcySludge · · Score: 1

      you forgot the "superficial" before pro religion :P

    17. Re:"To challenge our faith"? More like a flood by aichpvee · · Score: 1

      Well you're half right.

      --
      The Farewell Tour II
    18. Re:"To challenge our faith"? More like a flood by BitchKapoor · · Score: 1

      But that word has no real value because it is a bodily designation, and the man is not his body--he is a soul. If people are _seriously_ God-conscious then all such upstanding actions will be performed by default.

      This is where we differ. To me, all your talk of souls and gods and all that is just abstract philosphizing that clutters up attempts to live simply. These concepts are just so ill-defined and incomprehensible that in most cases it just muddles the waters and causes conflict.

    19. Re:"To challenge our faith"? More like a flood by j.a.mcguire · · Score: 1

      maybe it was a tsunami? caused by a volcano erupting on the mauritias? heheh

    20. Re:"To challenge our faith"? More like a flood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      < I don't think people need a concept of a god to be responsible for their actions and think before they act.

      You're right. We should accept responsibility.
      I broke the dam.

    21. Re:"To challenge our faith"? More like a flood by misanthrope101 · · Score: 1
      But I think a lot of these people, deep down, know that God exists, and they're terrified. They're terrified because if there *is* a God, then that means they'll be responsible for their actions.
      In current Christian dogma, you go to hell for lack of faith, not these "actions" you speak of. If I put a gun to the head of your child and told you "if you don't sincerely, really believe in Santa Claus in the next 10 seconds, I pull the trigger," then your child will die, because your thoughts and beliefs are not under volitional control. To punish for something over which we have no control is horribly cruel, and does not qualify as loving or compassionate now matter how you twist language.

      I find the idea of god repugnant. The idea of the Christian God makes this life less tolerable, not more. If existence is random then I can accept that children die in fires, because, well, stuff happens. I can accept that good people get cancer as frequently as bad people, because, well, stuff happens. The universe really isn't out to get me, but tree limbs do occasionally fall from trees and kill people, etc. We as humans should do what we can to minimize suffering and horror, but ultimately stuff happens over which we have no control.

      But if you add God to this, it makes daily existence horrible. That means he wanted that child to die a horrible death in a burn unit at my local hospital. That means he wants people to be beheaded on video for propaganda purposes. Either he wills it, or he is ineffectual, or he just doesn't care. To say "it's part of his plan" means he wills it. If the bible is right, and I will go to hell just for lacking faith, then that god is not deserving of love or respect, because that is a horribly cruel, evil thing to do to people. If he created us just to worship him, with hell being the alternative, then he does not deserve worship. A random, meaningless world may be bleak, but at least you don't have a megalomaniacal, vindictive, vain god who torments children as part of his "plan" to worry about.

      Fortunately for my peace of mind, I look around and see no reason to believe that God exists. Perhaps he/she does, but there is no reason to conclude that, as far as I can see. I'm perfectly okay being held responsible for my actions. But if you really want people to be judged and damned because they don't find a particular idea credible, then I'd have to question what kind of human being you are.

    22. Re:"To challenge our faith"? More like a flood by Phroggy · · Score: 1
      but there were apparently volcanos errupting during the flood since there have been a number of bones found in volcanic ash.

      Yes, definitely.
      ...on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.


      If the earth has been realitively unchanged in the last six thousand years as they claim where did it go?

      Ah, there's your problem - Creationists claim quite the opposite, that the earth has changed a lot in the last six thousand years. The earth as originally created had one super-continent and one super-ocean.
      And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so.


      From Creation to the Flood the earth remained relatively unchanged, but during the flood, the earth's crust broke apart, continents formed roughly where they are today, and immediately following the Flood was an ice age which probably killed the dinosaurs (Noah would have brought some on the boat, though presumably not adults).

      According to the bible even the highest mountains were covered. Everest is nearly 30,000 feet above sea level.

      Everest would probably have been formed during the Flood; if the "highest mountains" before the Flood weren't very high, it's not that much of a problem.

      The difference between Intellegent Design and Evolution is whatever holes there are in Evolution they are slowly being filled. They same holes will still be there in a thousand years that there are now in Intellegent Design.

      Holes are being filled as new research is done and scientific discoveries are made. It's a slow process (because so few scientists are working on it), and there are still a lot of holes.
      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    23. Re:"To challenge our faith"? More like a flood by IcySludge · · Score: 1
      In current Christian dogma, you go to hell for lack of faith, not these "actions" you speak of. If I put a gun to the head of your child and told you "if you don't sincerely, really believe in Santa Claus in the next 10 seconds, I pull the trigger," then your child will die, because your thoughts and beliefs are not under volitional control. To punish for something over which we have no control is horribly cruel, and does not qualify as loving or compassionate now matter how you twist language.

      I'm not concerned with "christian dogma", and your example is flawed because once again, we are not this body, and "my child" is a bodily (therefore temporary) designation. When you are dead, is it still "your child?" no, because you no longer possess your body, and your relationship with your child is lost forever. You mistake it to think that God is directly punishing and rewarding all the individual souls. You're wrong, because He has the material nature (which is working perfectly) do it for Him. (which is, Newton's law (every action has an equal and opposite reaction)

      I find the idea of god repugnant. The idea of the Christian God makes this life less tolerable, not more. If existence is random then I can accept that children die in fires, because, well, stuff happens. I can accept that good people get cancer as frequently as bad people, because, well, stuff happens. The universe really isn't out to get me, but tree limbs do occasionally fall from trees and kill people, etc. We as humans should do what we can to minimize suffering and horror, but ultimately stuff happens over which we have no control.

      The problem is that you think I am in support of Christian dogma, whereas I am not; I'm just someone who believes in God. But the "all loving" God of Christian theology is a relatively new concept, which only complicates matters when people try to approach God in a serious manner. I don't want people to be "judged and damned" because they don't find a particular idea credible. That's not my intent. So don't call into question my humanity. Rather, if you don't believe that people have souls, then it's your own humanity you need to question.

    24. Re:"To challenge our faith"? More like a flood by IcySludge · · Score: 1
      OK, let me put it into terms you can understand. At one point, you had the body of a small infant. Years later, you had the body of a toddler, then a youth, an adolescent, etc. etc. But although your body has changed, you are still the same person. How can you explain that? The soul is remaining the same. And just because you forget everything you did as an infant didn't mean it wasn't you doing it. Your parents remember things you did as a child that you will never remember. I can understand your apprehension and assuming all religious propaganda is "mundane speculation" or "mere sentiment", and most of that is because proponents of religion are simply making a show of it, they're not following religious principles. Also Christianity is not a good place to start when beginning the science of self realization. Unfortunately you have no attraction for it.

      I had to laugh when you mentioned about living simply, how can you think people are living simply? People are working hard every day to maintain a meager salary, under constant threat of unemployment, and you think that this is a simple life? (to have a mundane house, drive 20-30 minutes to work/day, a wife/husband who they claim to "love" (but mostly divorce 5 years later), and have children who they raise, but who send them to nursing homes once they are old? Face it: People have to suffer the misery of disease, old age, and death, and you think that's a simple kind of life? Either you're smokin some good pot, or you are severely illusioned, my friend.

    25. Re:"To challenge our faith"? More like a flood by Lipsius · · Score: 0

      At one point, you had the body of a small infant. Years later, you had the body of a toddler, then a youth, an adolescent, etc. etc. But although your body has changed, you are still the same person.

      That seems pretty crazy reasoning for me. No offense.
      Every body changes. OK. But your arms or your feet have nothing to do with your personality, beliefs and remembers. It's the brain, and in case of personality also hormones.

      It's also true the brain changes. And because of that, a baby will never understand quantum physics, an old person will forget nearer remembers more easily and, finally, a very very old person will be unable to speak in the appropiate way with another person. But isn't it the same soul?

      Aren't we the same persons always? Are you the same as an adolescent, as a kid, as a grown person? No. There's a physical influence, as written before.

      Finally, there's no evidence of the existence of a soul or a god. There all concepts invented by humans, and transmitted from ones to others. You believe because someone tells you to. Au contraire, science is based on reasoning and experiments, two ways wich religion doesn't and can't have.

    26. Re:"To challenge our faith"? More like a flood by tehdaemon · · Score: 1
      "Jesus would have taught "Thou shalt not murder," if he meant it to apply only to human beings"

      Both the Greek and Hebrew scriptures do indeed make this distinction. "Thou shalt not murder" is the correct translation - the translators screwed up on this one.

      Fundamentalist christians make plenty of stupid mistakes. This is not one of them.

      --
      Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.
    27. Re:"To challenge our faith"? More like a flood by BitchKapoor · · Score: 1

      I had to laugh when you mentioned about living simply, how can you think people are living simply? People are working hard every day to maintain a meager salary, under constant threat of unemployment, and you think that this is a simple life? (to have a mundane house, drive 20-30 minutes to work/day, a wife/husband who they claim to "love" (but mostly divorce 5 years later), and have children who they raise, but who send them to nursing homes once they are old? Face it: People have to suffer the misery of disease, old age, and death, and you think that's a simple kind of life? Either you're smokin some good pot, or you are severely illusioned, my friend.

      I didn't say people in America today are living simply. I said that all this conflict, these complications of having to imbue certain (arbitrary) meaning on things makes it a lot harder to do so! As you pointed out, when people accept on faith how they are "supposed" to live, rather than determining the right course of action based on observations, the results are generally disappointing.

    28. Re:"To challenge our faith"? More like a flood by IcySludge · · Score: 1

      Ah OK, I guess I misinterpreted what you said. Good point.

    29. Re:"To challenge our faith"? More like a flood by Darby · · Score: 1

      you forgot the "superficial" before pro religion :P

      Well, there are plenty of adjectives that could fit there ;-)

    30. Re:"To challenge our faith"? More like a flood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Noah brought along the dinosaurs, then where did he stick all of the ammonites, trilobites, crinoids, brachiopods and other common Cretaceous Era fossils?

      Fundamentalists, or anyone who professes to speak as knowing the only truth about religious matters, obviously have NEVER played the Telegraph Game.

      At least, wrt the Bible (and Torah), they started out as oral histories thousands of years before we started writing things down. The writing then happened over time, in various languages. Committees were formed, arguments were made over the writings, some of the losers' heads were invariably were lopped off, to what we have today.

      There are *STILL* arguments about which version of the Bible is most "correct", for crissakes!

    31. Re:"To challenge our faith"? More like a flood by Phroggy · · Score: 1
      If Noah brought along the dinosaurs, then where did he stick all of the ammonites, trilobites, crinoids, brachiopods and other common Cretaceous Era fossils?
      Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive.

      All four examples you've given were marine animals that would not have been brought on the Ark.

      Christians believe that God directly inspired the men who wrote the Bible, ensuring the accuracy of the original Scriptures. You're right: without divine inspiration, stories passed down orally through that many generations wouldn't end up being particularly accurate.

      As for copies and translations, those are the works of man and are therefore fallible, which is why there are minor disagreements between manuscripts and between translations. However, since the text of the manuscripts we have available are quite similar, it can be reasonably assumed that the original text wasn't much different.

      The canonization of the New Testament is a valid issue that I don't feel qualified to address.
      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    32. Re:"To challenge our faith"? More like a flood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and yet people don't love God. They love their dogs. Then they cry when bad things happen to them.

      Fuck you and fuck your God if you think He has anything to do with killing people's dogs.

    33. Re:"To challenge our faith"? More like a flood by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      All four examples you've given were marine animals that would not have been brought on the Ark.

      Right, they would have been peacefully wiped out with all the other marine animals when the rain fell for ages and raised the level of the sea above that of the highest mountains, dramatically changing the ocean's salinity.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  8. I don't believe in dodos by RedNovember · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    there's no mention of this in the bible, dodos are just a theory of atheist scientists

    who ya gonna believe, the bible or your own lyin eyes??

    --
    "MY APOCALYPTIC TENOR HAS NOT BEEN DISPELLED!" - T-Rex, qwantz.com
    1. Re:I don't believe in dodos by Eightyford · · Score: 0, Troll

      The Bible, of course. The Satan is testing our faith again.

    2. Re:I don't believe in dodos by ozamosi · · Score: 0

      You obviously haven't been paying attention...

      Obviously, God created the Dodo just for fun, just as he created us and every other creature on earth. I mean; come on! A flightless bird? That is waaay too complex to have been created by itself. That gives us proof that God exists.

    3. Re:I don't believe in dodos by Yahweh+Doesn't+Exist · · Score: 1

      wow, someone copied my post format, and it only took 3 posts. I think it works better as a single-line post, but it's in the wild now and free to evolve beyond my design.

      my initial posts in the format got modded up to +5 Funny, but evidently some admin got pissed off by them and banned by IP.

    4. Re:I don't believe in dodos by BushCheney08 · · Score: 1

      I don't believe that dodos exist either. I do believe that they existed, though...

      --
      Be a real patriot: Question authority. Think for yourself. Formulate your own conclusions.
    5. Re:I don't believe in dodos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once again...your are showing your stupidity. Whoever scored you as funny is just as stupid.

    6. Re:I don't believe in dodos by bestiarosa · · Score: 1

      The Mighty Flying Spaghetti Monster Himself laid the bones for the unfaithful to find so they could continue to believe that the Dodo ever existed.

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    7. Re:I don't believe in dodos by bestiarosa · · Score: 1

      You can change the name "Satan" for that of "God" and your sentence doesn't change its meaning. Therefore we can infer that Satan is God.

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    8. Re:I don't believe in dodos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If God created all this, why didn't he just create Jesus? I mean he didn't have to impregnate Maria for that.

    9. Re:I don't believe in dodos by charletes · · Score: 1

      (...)That gives us proof that God exists.

      That reminds me some kind of yellow fish...

    10. Re:I don't believe in dodos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? Then you shouldn't believe in cats as well, since they are NEVER mentioned in the Bible. The Bible shouldn't be your god.

  9. Not what I thought this was by rts008 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "...Dutch and Mauritian scientists..." At first glance read that as ..."Dutch and Martian scientists..." and thought WTF? Now it has lost most of it's appeal for me...nevermind.

    --
    Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    1. Re:Not what I thought this was by Kippesoep · · Score: 1

      We Dutch have always worked well with others...

    2. Re:Not what I thought this was by ari_j · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, let me stoke your interest a bit. They found life on Mars long ago, but have kept it under wraps. It's all part of a vast right-wing conspiracy. Apollo 18 was not canceled, it was rather simply rescheduled and sent to Mars by President Reagan. When they arrived, the cosmonauts (American astronauts could not be trusted to keep it a secret, whereas Russians would never be believed when they returned, anyhow) found many fairly recent decaying dodo bird corpses. It turns out that they never went extinct - they were just banished to Mars by Napoleon. But the conservative whack-jobs running our country and all of its media have covered it up.

      I'd like to tell you more, but there's someone at the door.

    3. Re:Not what I thought this was by evilneko · · Score: 1

      Aw, come on, this hasn't been modded funny or underrated yet? Mods, wake up! :)

      --
      Slashdot - where to disagree, is to be a troll
    4. Re:Not what I thought this was by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now let's see you ridicule the liberals. Asshole.

    5. Re:Not what I thought this was by ari_j · · Score: 1

      In case you are being serious, try reading my post again with more salt applied - I was ridiculing the liberals.

  10. Double-take. by Captain+Scurvy · · Score: 3, Funny

    Am I the only one who saw "Preserved Doo-doo bones" and thought, "What kind of horrific creature has excrement so large that it needs its own internal bone structure?"

    1. Re:Double-take. by shawb · · Score: 1

      More information on this here

      --
      I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
    2. Re:Double-take. by temcat · · Score: 1

      No, you're not the only one who thinks like that. Maybe we should get to know each other a little better??

    3. Re:Double-take. by jasontheking · · Score: 1
      snake creatures from the movie Deep Rising excreted out human skeletons whole after,er, "drinking" the bodies. Here's a shot of one of them.

      yeah , its probably a b grade film , but its got famke janssen in it :)

    4. Re:Double-take. by NeuroManson · · Score: 1

      Why, the Great Mighty Poo (http://images-srv.leonardo.it/progettiweb/myrjala /foto/img_435ec61d72c0d_middleb.jpg) from Conker's Bad Fur Day, of course.

      --
      Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
    5. Re:Double-take. by rob_squared · · Score: 1

      Just be glad you didn't read it the way I did: "Scientists Find Preserved Dildo..."

      *shudder*

      --
      I don't get it.
  11. Just curious by Mostly+a+lurker · · Score: 2, Interesting
    No complete skeleton has ever been found in Mauritius, and the last full set of bones was destroyed in a fire at a museum in Oxford, England, in 1755.'
    Where did the skeleton destroyed in a fire in 1755 originally come from?
    1. Re:Just curious by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      No idea, but it wasnt an accidental fire. The head of the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford decided that their stuffed example of the Dodo was becoming too dirty and fleabitten to be kept, and ordered it to be tossed onto a bonfire. This was the last known complete example.

    2. Re:Just curious by Big+Bob+the+Finder · · Score: 3, Informative
      Ah! Here we go.

      "Soon Dutch settlers were hopping off ships with their dogs, monkeys, and pigs, and several seasick rats also would scurry ashore at each docking. While the colonists were eating the adult birds, the animals they had brought with them were feasting on the eggs and the young. What could the dodo do? With the exception of its beak, the bird was defenseless. When it tried to run, its big belly scraped on the ground, and it was physically impossible for it to climb a tree to nest out of harm's way. The last dodo on Mauritius was eaten in 1681. By that time a dozen of the birds had made their way to Europe, where one of them became a sideshow attraction in London. Naturalist John Tradescant bought it after its death, had it stuffed, and placed it on the shelf next to his other unusual specimens. The Ashmolean Museum at Oxford acquired the bird in 1683, but during spring cleaning in 1755 the museum's board of directors took one look at the dusty, stupid-looking bird and unanimously voted to discard it. Fortunately, the museum's curator had enough foresight to cut off the head and one foot before he tossed the rest of the world's only stuffed dodo in the trash. The old saying "Out of sight, out of mind" was quite apt in this case."

      That's from:

      http://www.trivia-library.com/c/extinct-animals- the-dodo-bird-part-2.htm

      Because there were no complete specimens, the dodo was thought to be purely mythical. Thanks to some work by a resident of Mauritius, some additional bones were found in the 1850s. Saved from cryptozoology, in effect.

    3. Re:Just curious by Frogbert · · Score: 1

      ebay.co.uk

  12. Bush disputes this report by Skiron · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    "I already downloaded the latest Dodo record on my iPac, so this information is incorrect", he announced.

  13. A Dodo by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    Subject says it all really. They weren't extinct back then and the easiest way to get a complete skeleton is to remove the owner.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:A Dodo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They weren't extinct in 1755? Really? I think you'd better recheck your history books. By the dawn of the 18th century the dodo had already been extinct for a while.

  14. Blame Monty Burns! by tktk · · Score: 1
    Dodo eggs were one of his favorite foods along with a pillar of shredded wheat and steamed toast.

    Check to see where he was living 2000 years ago.

  15. I live in Mauritius. Messy situation recently by simpleguy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I live in Mauritius. There is word that a team of researchers, mostly foreigners, recently-discovered Dodo bones on a dig site at Mare aux Songes. These bones are said to have been sent to Holland without authorisation from some local authorities who deal with issues of National Heritage. It was not known if these remains were stolen or sent abroad secretly.

    Now, at least we know where the remains are.

    Note: Till date, not enough bones have been found to build a complete Dodo skeleton.

    1. Re:I live in Mauritius. Messy situation recently by Ironsides · · Score: 2, Interesting

      These bones are said to have been sent to Holland without authorisation from some local authorities who deal with issues of National Heritage. It was not known if these remains were stolen or sent abroad secretly.

      Third possibility:
      The reasearchers didn't inform the bureaucrats because they didn't think they needed to?

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    2. Re:I live in Mauritius. Messy situation recently by Halfbaked+Plan · · Score: 1

      National Heritage? Isn't that usually concerned with human artifacts?

      It would seem, since the bird is extinct, that the 'heritage' of the people there would be for there to be no trace or remains.

      --
      resigned
    3. Re:I live in Mauritius. Messy situation recently by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Mauritian, eh?

      Let me be the first to say:

      TA PILON!

    4. Re:I live in Mauritius. Messy situation recently by popsicle67 · · Score: 1

      It is the single truth of all the world that Bureaucrats must always be informed,and,if at all possible,be as obstructive as possible. Therefore scientists know that it is easier to beg forgiveness that to ask permission. Just look at how slow pyramid research is going,Zahi Hawass be damned.

  16. Mauritius, I expect... by Skiron · · Score: 1

    Seeing as the Dodo came from there until man BSOD it :-)

  17. Insightful? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Heh, slashdot.

  18. Did they find any melons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dodo: This is our private stockpile for the Ice Age. Sub arctic temperatures will force us underground for a billion, billion years.

    Manfred: So you got three melons?

  19. meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whats the big deal, every day I find perserved bird doodoo on my car...

  20. Ice Age by Phae · · Score: 1

    Did they find a preserved watermelon or two as well?

    1. Re:Ice Age by camperslo · · Score: 1

      The animated movie Ice Age has a segment with Dodos and three watermelons.
      If I hadn't seen that on tv last night I wouldn't have caught the reference.

  21. Don't Don't by in_fla · · Score: 1

    Give the DNA to that Korean faux-cloning boffin and we'll have the birds up and walking in no time!

    1. Re:Don't Don't by the+real+darkskye · · Score: 1

      If we give the DNA to the faux Korean boffin, the dodo will be up and flying in no time!

      --
      Music is everybody's possession.
      It's only publishers who think that people own it.
      Fuck Beta
      ~John Lenno
  22. Re:Hello by Eightyford · · Score: 1

    Enjoy your burn, unfortunately you may not believe in hell but it believes in you. Welcome to it.

    Says the anonymous coward.

  23. Ownership Rights by camperslo · · Score: 1

    Next Story: The owners of these bones inherit the rights to all license fees; Species with derivative DNA should now be prepared to pay retroactive license fees. Interest to be limited by the laws of South Dakota.

    A shovel: $15
    All your bones: Priceless.

  24. Horses and people by commodoresloat · · Score: 1
    Go to Japan. Find a restaurant that serves basashi -- raw horse flesh. Yum!

    Also you probably don't want to add human to your list for legal or ethical reasons but there is no reason not to try hufu, the healthy soy-based human flesh alternative!

  25. Would make a good domesticated animal. by TheNarrator · · Score: 1

    Sounds like if they could clone it, dodos would make good domesticated animals. The eggs and bird seem tasty and docile enough.

  26. or maybe not... by TheNarrator · · Score: 3, Informative

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own _correspondent/2255991.stm

    The Dutch, who settled the previously uninhabited island in the early 17th century, referred to the dodo as the walgvogel, or "ghastly bird."
    This was apparently because, no matter which way you cooked it, its flesh was as tough as old boots. However, that didn't stop the colonisers hunting the poor dodo down.

    1. Re:or maybe not... by c4miles · · Score: 1

      I believe it was the introduced pigs that escaped and bred, as well as the omnipresent ship rats, that wiped out the dodos - or, more specifically, their eggs. The dodo itself was probably just killed on sight on general principles, for practice or fun, rather than for food - I'd imagine you could just run after them and catch them if you wanted to. As a fresh-off the boat settler, it'd be a pretty unsettling thing to have wandering through your newly claimed farmland.

      In a situation with no predators, the selective factors (within a single species) would be resistance to disease, ability to reach food sources, and efficient use of heat (doing more with less). I'm not sure about resistance to disease, but the other two would favour size over other factors such as speed and agility. Basically evolution led these things to being walking targets.

      Douglas Adams's favourite book of his own is 'Last Chance to See', a travelogue about searching for near-extinct animals. He describes New Zealand's kakapos, a similarly flightless island-bound bird currently under threat from rats. This one's a type of huge parrot, whose best method of defense is either a) freezing or b) running up a tree and jumping in the hope that it can suddenly remember how to fly (they can't), neither of which works against stoats or feral cats. Big, naive birds that Darwin's after with a vengeance. Only 86 remain.

  27. Destroyed in a fire? by karniv0re · · Score: 2, Informative

    Destroyed in a fire? That's a little misleading. It was purposely put in a fire because someone thought it was ugly. It wasn't as if the museum was on fire. Someone walking by tried to save it but only got a few parts out.

    You can find this in the awesome book "A Short History of Nearly Everything."

  28. ive figured it out by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 2, Funny

    it seems the mystery is solved! the dodo birds all jointed together in a giant cult and then drank the koolaide! i should have suspected.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  29. I'm Not Buying It by Greyfox · · Score: 1
    You don't eat a critter into extinction unless it's pretty tasty and delicious. I think the Dutch were just sandbagging so no one would try to elbow in on their dodo action. I think that just like Zoidberg's species found (will find) the anchovy to be irresistable, so too did the Dutch find the dodo to be scrumptious.

    As for your taste for the flesh of obscure critters, I hear petsorfood is running a special on baby seal this week...

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  30. Holidays..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Im hungry.

  31. Netcraft. by ilikejam · · Score: 2, Funny

    Netcraft confirms it. Dodos.....

    --
    C-x C-s C-x k
  32. Cornish Hen = Chicken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Cornish Game Hens" are just small chickens - not a distinct species at all. Also, they are neither Cornish nor game - they exist only as a domestic breed.

  33. we must find its dna! by digitallysick · · Score: 0

    clone it, and bring it back to life!! that would be intresting. Question is, do animals go extinct for a reason? and if we brought it back , would it hurt the ecosystem?

  34. Re:Hello by misanthrope101 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Enjoy your burn, unfortunately you may not believe in hell but it believes in you. Welcome to it.
    Ah yes, Hell. Created by the infinitely wise, infinitely benevolent God for punishment not just for doing bad things, but for thinking bad thoughts. And in all his benevolence and insight, he gave us complete control over our thoughts, only not.

    You have really made me re-evaluate my stance towards Christianity. Other than a smug, giddy exuberance over the idea of someone else's eternal suffering, you're a great human being. Obviously your faith has worked wonders within your soul. It's eerie how like the Sermon on the Mount your words are--when reading them, all I could see was love, humility, kindness. You, sir, are a Christian.

  35. Indirectly.. by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 1

    Well, we kinda were the reason they became extinct...

    True, but not for the most commonly cited reason which is hunting. The Dodo was probably not hunted into extinction by humans since contemporary accounts indicate that grilled Dodo tasted like sh*t. The most probable reason for the Dodo's demise is that it was driven to extinction by feral animals like pigs who were introduced by human settlers. These new animals destroyed it's nests outcompeted it for food but the last nail in it's coffin may have been habitat distruction due to human activity.

    --
    Only to idiots, are orders laws.
    -- Henning von Tresckow
    1. Re:Indirectly.. by RussR42 · · Score: 1

      Ok, it's about time I had a post modded flamebait. But here goes:
      Pick some other animals (I've not looked into it, but I'm sure it's happened) manage to kill each other off. Perhaps one eats all of the other species then dies of starvation or some such. Everyone just shrugs and says "oh, that's nature for ya".
      Humans cause some change or hunt something to extinction and all of a sudden it's not natural? Can someone explain to me exactly when and how we aquired this bizare moral responsibility? I can see how it could easily be in out best interest not to hunt things to extinctction, but I don't see why we're judged by a different standard then other animals... How could anything we do be un-natural as we are just as much a product of nature as anything else...
      So let's clone and kill away, perhaps killing ourselves in the process. It's natural, and it's not wrong... Hey, nature is a tough place where wimps eat changing habitat death. sorry for ranting.

    2. Re:Indirectly.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Humans cause some change or hunt something to extinction and all of a sudden it's not natural? Can someone explain to me exactly when and how we aquired this bizare moral responsibility?
      It happened "exactly" when we became sufficiently conscious enough to think about things like "nature" and "extinction" and to categorize our actions into such categories as "good" or "bad", etc.

      If we didn't have this ability, our actions would be "natural". Since we do have this ability to think about the problem, our actions cease to be "natural" in our moral sense of the word, even though, strictly speaking according to the amoral sense, all of our actions are by definition "natural".
    3. Re:Indirectly.. by RussR42 · · Score: 1

      Morality is very personal, and further I suggest that evolution has built in a certain "morality" for every kind of life. It seems to me that the real world (aka, nature and us) exsist in an amoral state. Any morality we or other life may have is instilled by instinct or training.
      I still don't see why we are responsible for taking care of everything. Whatever it is we have doesn't carry that price.
      Keep in mind, I do believe that we should act in the best intrest of the species, which probably means taking responsibility for our actions and taking care of our world. But we don't have to. We can kill ourselves and take who/what ever with us, no biggie. Still all natural whether we call it good or bad, either way.

  36. Clone 'em... by NoseBag · · Score: 1

    ...so a new generation of folks can exterminate 'em again!

    --
    Cloned foods give the statement "We had that last week!" a whole new meaning.
  37. You know slashdot reached a new low... by Mikelikus · · Score: 1

    ...when you read the "news for nerds" first on some city's subway free newspaper... /days/ before!

    --
    -- Would it be acceptable to just put my name on my sig?
  38. Conspiracy Theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "It was not known if these remains were stolen or sent abroad secretly."

    They were secretly taken abroad to be cloned, where some escaped spreading a disease now known as Bird Flu. Bird Flu is how they were originally wiped out.

  39. Re:Hello by Eccles · · Score: 1

    Enjoy your burn, unfortunately you may not believe in hell but it believes in you.

    "To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from Him for ever by [one's] own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called 'Hell'."(1033) Thus, Pope John Paul II said (see link below), "The images of hell that Sacred Scripture presents to us must be correctly interpreted. They show the complete frustration and emptiness of life without God. Rather than a place, Hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy."

    Ya gotta remember, atheists already believe they are in this state.

    --
    Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
  40. Ever hear of "curiosity killed the cat?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While I believe that our brains were designed to make us intelligent and inquisitive, I also believe that there is such a thing as "asking too many questions." It's one thing to learn how to invent things that help feed mankind, etc. It's quite another to let fundamental questions about the world show disrespect, distrust, or outright contempt to He that created it. Just a friendly warning. :)

  41. Re:ratings??? by dirtydog · · Score: 1, Interesting

    WTF over? I posted this to the MSNBC thread - BEFORE the dodo bird thread was even active.

  42. Re:SEND IN THE CoLONiES!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    British matelots would fry up just about anything to get their 4 square per day so long as it came with a side of lime.

    Which is why they whupped them pasty French & Spanish epicureans non-stop for about 200 years & spread the red (but not the cuisine).

  43. Genesis 7,2 by mangu · · Score: 1
    an intelligent design theory is that a worldwide flood buried animal remains in mudslides


    Which part of "Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female; and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female" do they not understand? No, the flood theory is not acceptable under the Intelligent Design version.


    Fossils were obviously Intelligently Designed. Is there a fossil with a "half-eye"? No. And they weigh more than a duck, which renders them useless for witchcraft as well.

  44. That's not fair! by jd · · Score: 1

    The dodo had an important role to play.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  45. Mauritius is an interesting place. by jd · · Score: 2, Interesting
    A direct ancestor of mine - James Duncan - restored the Garden of Pamplemousses in 1849. There's very little historical record of the man, or of what he did there, but they do have a nice plaque mentioning him. Somewhere. Unless something has eaten it.


    Mauritius is also famous for having a great many highly endangered species. (Think numbers in the single digits.) They're also infamous of having released some, after rebuilding the population in captivity, only for the locals to devour them back out of existence.


    The entire island is heavily overpopulated with humans, the environmental concerns are badly neglected (or deliberately overlooked), yet the biodiversity that still exists - albeit in captivity in hopelessly underfinanced, understaffed, underequipped shelters* - exceeds that of virtually the entire USA combined.


    *By this, I do not mean they can't go and buy a billion dollar gadget once a week. Accounts usually depict the staff involved in saving the native species as being borderline starvation cases, constantly under threat of one kind or another - particularly of malicious closure, and probably earn less in a month than a kid in a Nike sweatshop can make in an hour.


    It is precisely because of conditions like that that I am not the least bit surprised that Dutch scientists would have smuggled out anything they could. You know what? I'm not the least bit sorry for Mauritius. When you treat scientists with enough contempt - hey, scientists are human too, and even the most professional will eventually return the compliment.


    I doubt anything will change - except maybe for the worse - in my lifetime. My only hope is that there is something left to salvage by the time attitudes change.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  46. [OT] Re:I don't believe in dodos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or God is Satan.

    What do they call that sort of argument, again? I had a friend who took philosophy in college, said something about elephants and their trunks. Someone'll know what I'm talking about.

  47. don't be a grinch by misanthrope101 · · Score: 1
    This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called 'Hell'
    It is cruel to say something so depressing to so many fundamentalists and evangelicals during the season that is supposed to bring them such joy. Being deprived of God's presence might be Hell enough to torment a true Christian, but for a large number of fundamentalists, the anticipated damnation and suffering of "atheistic humanist liberals" is a bright spot in the hopefully near future. If you have the dubious fortune to be around a few when they're talking about it, watch their facial expression and body language. They're smug, and even a little giddy. Who the heck do you think buys all the Left Behind books? They get off on the whole "we were right, and everyone else gets to suffer!" motif.

    I just wish the rapture would happen already. Soon. Now would be nice. Please, God?

    1. Re:don't be a grinch by Eccles · · Score: 1

      Indeed, too many Fundies confuse righteousness and self-righteousness...

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
  48. Big deal, I find Dodos all the time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At work. Oh and /.

  49. Dodo Meets Panda by Aeternal · · Score: 1
  50. Go for human! by TimothyTimothyTimoth · · Score: 1

    Just chew a scab from your knee and you're there.

    --
    It doesn't matter which ape activates the Monolith
  51. Kentucky Fried Dodo by juicemansam · · Score: 1

    Maybe they tasted really good?! After all they were "killed by sailors for extra food," and their eggs were stolen by ship animals (BBC News). Clone the Dodo! KFD! KFD! KFD!

  52. And science isn't smug? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh wait, nevermind. I'm quite sure that you would be giddy to see Christians persecuted - the same sort of joy the Germans felt when they killed off millions of jews for simply being jews.