Mount St. Helens Eruption Baffles Scientists

jurt1235 writes "Mount St. Helens, which started erupting 15 months ago, is still erupting. The weird part is, by now every 3 seconds 10 cubic yards of lava is coming out of the volcano but scientists cannot determine from where it is coming anymore. From the article: 'The volume is greater than anything that could be standing in a narrow 3-mile pipe. That suggests resupply from greater depths, which normally would generate certain gases and deep earthquakes. Neither is being detected.'"

Comments

Re:No earthquakes?

[greginnj]

Yep, it must be Microsoft's fault!

No-brainer

[Daedalus-Ubergeek]

scientists cannot determine from where it is coming anymore.

Uhhh... the earth?

Re:No-brainer

[mwilli]

Well, if you put it like that, it makes the scientists feel dumb.

Re:No-brainer

[Anonymous Coward]

Would be nice if they would get off their asses and grab a shovel and go out there, dig around, and come back with some answers.

Re:No-brainer

[Anonymous Coward]

I know, CowboyNeal ;)

First "Intelligent Erupting" Post

[vain gloria]

Subject line says it all.

Re:First "Intelligent Erupting" Post

[earnest murderer]

Yep, no need to keep looking for an explanation. Obviously the divine creator has confounded modern science once again.
Woe be to those who persist, lest their own homes be erupted upon.

Re:First "Intelligent Erupting" Post

[Jamu]

His Noodly Appendage gets everywhere.

Re:First "Intelligent Erupting" Post

[Ziviyr]

In this case its not lava, its spaghetti sauce that just looks it.

Re:First "Intelligent Erupting" Post

[Anonymous Coward]

> Obviously the divine creator has confounded modern science once again

More like many scientists are simply fools. Much like those who believe every non-sensical conjecture they spout.

Re:First "Intelligent Erupting" Post

[FuzzyBad-Mofo]

I think the lava "becomes" spaghetti sauce in some sort of trans-substantiation deal. Now, where's the beer volcano and strippers?

Now this is just a guess but. . .

[The Spanish Ninja]

I'd say it's probably coming from underground.

Re:Now this is just a guess but. . .

[jonadab]

> I'd say it's probably coming from underground.

Interesting possibility. When I first read the story I of course immediately thought, like most everyone else here I suspect, "Wow, there must be some kind of interdimensional portal, and it's all coming through that from an alien planet!" However, now that you mention it, I suppose after all it *could* just be coming from underground.

Alternative no-brainer

[gmuslera]

Hell?

Re:Alternative no-brainer

[Anonymous Coward]

Geographically speaking, most slashdotters would agree that "Hell" is located just northeast of Seattle, Washington.

I said the conspiracy theory first, the recent activity at Mt. St. Hellens can be directly linked to the evil overlord, and the "Hell" just 100 miles from the volcano.

Please make sure to update the Wikipedia article with this, and of course, give me proper credit.

The Geek
(TdT)

Re:Alternative no-brainer

[aaronl]

Mt. St. Helens is in Washington, Microsoft is in Washington. Bill is the Devil, the Devil runs Hell. Hell has lava, so Microsoft must be reponsible for Mt. St. Helens!

Second greatest mystery

[MyLongNickName]

Uncle Cletus' eruptions. Every five minutes. Like clockwork. Cannot be explained entirely -- even after considering his diet of beer and refried beans. By my calculations, the emissions should result in his losing five pounds every year. Yet, at every Christmas party, he shows up heavier than last year.

Perhaps these two scientific mysteries are related.

Reminds me of that old joke...

[Anonymous Coward]

Q. What's the difference between a volcano and a woman?

A. Volcanos don't fake eruptions.

LO

[Anonymous Coward]

Check out mom!

A lava OVERFLOW!

Re:LO

[gcauthon]

Check out mom!

A lava OVERFLOW!

I don't know for sure, but I get the feeling this was supposed to be a really disgusting joke.

Re:PC competition for "I-Minor" MAC?

[richdun]

In other news, Slashdot readers have yet to determine where the "comment eruption" of useless information by Anonymous Coward comes from.

Be aware of the facts, always.

[dada21]

One of my oldest friends is a professor of geology and geophysics at a University. Because most of what he has told me is off the record and unquotable, I can't give his name (I wish I could). He admits to me that geophysicists have no idea what is happening beneath the thinnest part of the earth's crust that we live on -- and that almost every theory they've created has been shut down by actual accounts of natural phenomena. I wish he'd go public with these thoughts, but I guess it would kill off his funding.

It really bugs me, actually, that these "scientists" we so admire may be geniuses, or they might just be grant-hunters. I know I always look for the best income for the least amount of work.

I study oil and gold extraction (I blog about gold mines, too) and I am amazed at how often scientists are proven wrong. I know that it is heretical to say that on slashdot (I was blasted about it earlier this morning on this very forum), but we as a society seem to have too much faith in scientific research finding facts that turn out to be just plain wrong.

What else have these same scientists theorized that may not be true? Is oil possibly a renewable resource (meaning there is near unlimited amounts deeper within the earth waiting to bubble up)? Is it possible to battle the build-up of CO2, or is much of it coming out of the earth and not manmade? How much of the global climate is an effect of heat expelled from inside our crust, and how much is from "eroding" atmosphere?

I rarely thank AP writers for their research, but in this case I have to. I'm glad the spotlight is being shined on the fallacies that come out of the mouths of scientists looking for more research dollars (on the backs of the taxpayers). I believe we DO need to carry out research -- not publicly funded -- but I also think we need to evaluate how much of what they discover is really factual enough to base wars, regulations and restrictions on. I understand that science is constantly finding new theories to fix their old ones, and I have no problem with continued research -- just as long as I don't pay for it involuntarily and as long as no one makes laws and restrictions based on non-facts. That doesn't seem to be the case, though.

Re:Be aware of the facts, always.

[Anonymous Coward]

So, wait, you're telling me that we *don't* know everything right now? You mean, like, there's some things we, like, don't understand?

I'm shocked! Shocked and dismayed!

Re:Be aware of the facts, always.

[Caspian]

What else have these same scientists theorized that may not be true?

Evolution, of course. Clearly, the Earth was created by the will of His Noodly one.

Also, the Earth is a flat plate supported on the backs of myriad tortoises.

Re:Be aware of the facts, always.

[dada21]

I'm not saying that -- read my comment again. I'm saying that we shouldn't be setting permanent rules based on the opinions of people who don't know what is going on. Although that does seem to be the case in almost every rule or law made, now that I think about it.

Re:Be aware of the facts, always.

[fmobus]

I study oil and gold extraction (I blog about gold mines, too) and I am amazed at how often scientists are proven wrong. I know that it is heretical to say that on slashdot (I was blasted about it earlier this morning on this very forum), but we as a society seem to have too much faith in scientific research finding facts that turn out to be just plain wrong.

Part of the scientific method is proving that other scientist are wrong.

Re:Be aware of the facts, always.

[Kickboy12]

And it's people like you who are impeding cancer and other medical research that could inevitably save lives. If you had any scientific knowledge you would know oil is not renewable because it is made of decomposed "fossils" (hence "fossil fuels"). There are not unlimited "fossils" on this planet. Your speaking gibberish to make a very invalid point.

Scientific research MUST be publically funded, otherwise it wouldn't get funded at all. The government doesn't want it, the people force it. Your right about scientists being grant hunters, but they have to be. They have a theory they want to prove, they need money to do it. No company/corperation will fund it unless it directly interests them, which is rarely the case. Especially with medical reasearch, as drug companies are making a fortune off of drugs they give cancer patients, thus many drug companies are not funding research for it in large ammounts.

In my opinion, scientific research is greatly underfunded. I would gladly pay more taxes if it meant actually getting research done and saving more lives.

Re:Be aware of the facts, always.

[Limburgher]

Honestly, do you have to troll on EVERY science-related article on /. today? As you yourself said, science is a process of constructing hypotheses, collecting evidence, building theories, and continuing testing. Some theories get altered or outright trashed by evidence, but that's how we make scientific progress. All scientists act upon the best information they have, while trying to in turn collect more information.

As to your comment about paying for science "involuntarily" and "laws and restrictions", what do you propose? All science be private? Fine. Give back the Internet. As for basing regulations on uncertain science, what do you propose? Basing regulations on, say, the bible? O.o? Are you insane?

Re:Be aware of the facts, always.

[Anonymous Coward]

Jeez, when you aren't playing Jr. Biologist, you're playing Geologist...all the while investing in GOLD and non-appreciable real estate. Busy busy!

Re:Be aware of the facts, always.

[Roxton]

Modern society lacks the tools to allow citizens and consumers to collaborate in the free market to make things like basic research happen and to make things like poor working conditions stop happening. The Libertarian position is that if the government stopped acting like a crutch for society, then society would develop its own superior mechanisms for public benefit. I don't know if that's true, but if it is, it would not be a fast or easy transition. Calling for the end of public funding is an extremely irresponsible approach to making that transition. Thankfully, I think most people with Libertarian leanings realize that.

Re:Be aware of the facts, always.

[Rakishi]

Nothing is permanent, it's only around until it gets changed. So what should they me made based on? A pair of dice?

Re:Be aware of the facts, always.

[Murphy Murph]

Is there any limit to your expertise?
Is there a topic you can't turn into call for libertarian policies?
Is there a field in which you don't have high placed friends?

More importantly, though, is there ever a source of yours who is willing to be named?

Re:Be aware of the facts, always.

[Limburgher]

Ooh, yes! Let's determine tax rates by rolls of 3d10, and elections by something more robust, like 8d12. :)

Re:Be aware of the facts, always.

[sholden]

Please give an example of just one permanent law created due to what scientists have claimed.

Re:Be aware of the facts, always.

[Rakishi]

Science is the process by which we make better theories and disprove current ones (and find better ones). We will almost never be perfectly right, although this process does lead in general to better models of the world. Also theories don't need to be always right to be usable, see Newton. I'm sure people in hurricane prone areas would love if you told them to stop listening to the hurricane warning because we can't perfectly predict where the storm will go.

We don't know everything, we base our decisions on what we do know and hope it works out correctly. There is little else we can do.

Pretty much every drug you have ever taken is the result of public funding of scientific research. It does suck at making finished products, and companies suck at doing the basic research.

Your tax dollars don't pay for perfect results, they pay for incremental improvements which will lead to better theories.

Re:Be aware of the facts, always.

[deprecated]

"Because most of what he has told me is off the record and unquotable"
Bzzzt! Thanks for playing the science game. Try again!

Re:Be aware of the facts, always.

[GmAz]

If you think about it, many theories through time have been proven wrong. What makes us think that just because we are making the theories now, they are absolutely right. That suggests resupply from greater depths, which normally would generate certain gases and deep earthquakes. Neither is being detected.' Obviously this 'normal generation of gases and earthquakes' is wrong. It only takes one instance to prove it wrong. However, the person that made this speculation originally will probably defend this makeing more guesses at why this isn't happening in this certain guess. And to Caspain's comment. For centuries, modern men of the time thought the world was flat. So much, they dared not venture to the edge. They also thought the universe circled the Earth. But as science progressed, they were proved wrong. Yes I do think science research should continue. And yes, even publically though it sucks to see how much of my money gets taken out through taxes. But its one of the few guarentees in we have. Life, taxes and death as the old saying goes. Evolution, yes, species change over time. We, as well as the animal kingdom, adapt to our environments. Survival of the fittest exists. But evolution as the creation of life to me doesn't exist. Fine, teach evolution in the schools. I will just make sure I teach my children how life started contrary to how the schools teach it.

Re:Be aware of the facts, always.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget giving kids tips on starting up small computer companies all over the country!

Re:Be aware of the facts, always.

[Jamu]

What else have these same scientists theorized that may not be true?

All scientific theories may not be true. It's a necessary condition for them to be scientific theories. Knowing the first thing about science no one would be amazed that scientific theories are often proven wrong. Scientific experiments are designed to prove theories wrong. The scientific gold exists in those theories that scientists haven't proven wrong after extensive experimentation.

Re:Be aware of the facts, always.

[Rakishi]

Evolution: "Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new specie"

I'd love to see how you apply that to the creation of life, you know with the whole "no genetic materials existing yet" part. Or do you mean that god poofed everything into existence one day (or six) and put all the fossils in the ground to trick us?

For those wondering, evolution strictly speaking says what happened after the first cell existed not how it came into being (although natural selection can be applied to that as well depending on which theory you subscribe to).

Re:Be aware of the facts, always.

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

> I'm saying that we shouldn't be setting permanent rules based on the opinions of people who don't know what is going on.

But we do seem to be stuck with being governed by human beings. Historically, human beings almost never seem to know what's going on. The best way to address your well-founded and insightful concern is to stay flexible and to avoid decisions that could cause irreversible damage.

Re:Be aware of the facts, always.

[eyepeepackets]

"....I am amazed at how often scientists are proven wrong....finding facts that turn out to be just plain
wrong"

Please do a yourself (and us) a favor and do a quick google for "Scientific Method" and educate yourself.

Scientists expect to be wrong, it's part of the process: Posit a theory, prove it wrong, rework the
theory, prove it a wrong again, rinse, repeat until you get to where you can't prove it wrong -- at that
point you have a tentative "fact." Until then it's all just theory waiting for the next proof. Don't
confuse theory with fact if you want to be accurate, assuming of course you care about accuracy.

Speaking of confusion: Those clowns with a god to grind who insist upon confusing different definitions of the word "theory" so they can have something to attack are using a classic straw man argument; intellectual dishonesty at its very worst. Don't make the same mistake by confusing a current theory with a known fact; they are not the same things and they serve different purposes with the end result of the whole ordeal being some approximation of "truth."

That you have modern transportation, communications, health care and an average lifespan over the age of thirty suggests the scientific method works. As a comparison, consider the twelve hundred years of darkness from 300 A.D. to 1500 A.D. when god logic ruled the Western world.

Caio.

Re:Be aware of the facts, always.

[c_forq]

If you had any scientific knowledge you would know oil is not renewable because it is made of decomposed "fossils" (hence "fossil fuels").

Not all oil. Remember that many diesel engines can run off of corn oil, which is not made from fossils and is renewable

Re:Be aware of the facts, always.

[Eevee]

Err, the only problem with your argument is we don't know that fossil fuels are in fact from decomposed organisms. It's the leading theory for the source oil, true, and were I to be placing a bet on what the leading scientific theory was in another hundred years, I'd put my money on it. That, however, does not make it a fact.

With that being said, even if oil is produced from a non-biological source, it's still going to run out. We're sucking out the oil over decades that takes millenia to build up, no matter what the source. Even if it is refreshed by natural processes, it won't come back fast enough for it to help out our current civilization.

Re:Be aware of the facts, always.

[mellon]

Also, one of the problems with science reporting is that it's largely gee-whiz stuff whose intention is to entertain and alarm, because that's what attracts eyeballs. Rigorous, careful, non-sensational reporting just isn't that exciting. So if we follow science reporting in the popular press (even Science News), we are likely to have a very skewed picture of what's really going on. In particular, we're unlikely to get from the reporting what is really being asserted as the result of any particular study that's being reported on.

Re:Be aware of the facts, always.

[misleb]

but I also think we need to evaluate how much of what they discover is really factual enough to base wars, regulations and restrictions on. I understand that science is constantly finding new theories to fix their old ones, and I have no problem with continued research -- just as long as I don't pay for it involuntarily and as long as no one makes laws and restrictions based on non-facts. That doesn't seem to be the case, though.

I agree that it is dumb to base laws on regulations on scientific theories that are likely to change next year (and not necessarily for the better). I think regulations should be based on the basic principal of conservation, on the principal of working as efficiently as possible, on the principal of erring on the side of caution. Do you really think anyone is going to look back 50 years from now and say something like "If only they hadn't increased fuel economy and regulated polution." Did we need scientific theories to tell us that child/slave labor was wrong? No. We enacted labor laws because it was the right thing to do. At the time, businesses thought it would destroy the economy. Not only did it not destroy the economy, but the US grew to become one of the biggest economic superpowers in the world. I see environmental regulation as the modern day equivelent to labor regulation. We don't do it because scientists tell us we should. We do it because it is the right thing to do. Business WILL adapt.

I think perhaps you might not give conservation and environmental regulation enough credit. If you have ever visited urban areas in developing countries (I've traveled around South/Central America, for example) one of the first things you will notice in the cities is how aweful the air quality is. I'm not talking about a little haze. I'm talking about virtually unbreathable. Try visiting Mexico City some time. Every time I travel, I am so grateful for the environmental regulations we have in the US. And i would like to see more. I think it is disgraceful that it is, to this day, unhealthy to eat fish from the Mississippi river, for example. While I think it is great that we have relatively breathable air, we (as in all humans) have a long way to go yet.

-matthew

Re:Be aware of the facts, always.

[Starker_Kull]

"I study oil and gold extraction (I blog about gold mines, too) and I am amazed at how often scientists are proven wrong. I know that it is heretical to say that on slashdot (I was blasted about it earlier this morning on this very forum), but we as a society seem to have too much faith in scientific research finding facts that turn out to be just plain wrong."

That's true. Faith based reasoning is far more likely to lead us to correct results. /sarcasm

The REASON we find out that scientific reasearch frequently turns out to be "wrong" is because the whole process of science is meant to test whether what we think to be true, is. Unless you are an omniscient being, you can never know for sure what is going on outside of your direct sensory range - so to be useful, to make predictions beyond that, science HAS to speculate and come up with theories. After a theory is put out there, then it is tested and probed. As our measurements become more precise, or we develop new tools to see in ways we could not before, we find that the theories may no longer match our expanded horizons. So we go back and attempt to improve the theory, which leads some amateurs to say the previous theories were "wrong" - a useless, emotional characterization, since no theory can be ever be "right" - the best one can be is consistent with all presently known data. Newton's theory of gravitation is "wrong", but for a "wrong" theory, it sure is accurate. And the whole "spherical earth" theory may be wrong, but it's good to 1 part in 1,000. Even the flat-earth theory was good for its time; when you live 99% of your life in a small patch of it, the difference between 8 inches of curvature per mile and 0 inches of curvature per mile is pretty small.

"It really bugs me, actually, that these "scientists" we so admire may be geniuses, or they might just be grant-hunters. I know I always look for the best income for the least amount of work."

In that case, it sounds like you should admire the grant-hunters. They are getting the best income for their minimal scientific amounts of work, right?

"What else have these same scientists theorized that may not be true? Is oil possibly a renewable resource (meaning there is near unlimited amounts deeper within the earth waiting to bubble up)? Is it possible to battle the build-up of CO2, or is much of it coming out of the earth and not manmade? How much of the global climate is an effect of heat expelled from inside our crust, and how much is from "eroding" atmosphere?"

All possible. But highly unlikely. At the temperatures and pressures found deeper in the earth, oil tends to break down and so we don't find large reserviors of it below a certain depth. But perhaps, through some mechanism (of which we have no clue nor any prima face evidence that it exists), there is oil being spontaneously generated deep in the earth. CO2? Possibly it is coming in significant quantites out of the crust. But atmospheric CO2 seems to correlate very closely with the industrial revolution and the first widespread use of heat-engines by humans. As for heat expelled from the crust, that's one of the more measurable variables, thanks to the infrared imaging capabilities of many geostationary wx satellites (funded publicly). The present amount of evidence indicates that it negligble, but it could be wrong. Of course, aliens could be deliberately screwing with our satellites and messing with the evidence....

Anything is possible. But when dollars for research, whether public or private, are limited, you have to make educated choices as for what is more likely and what is not, based on the best knowledge you presently have; and right now, those theories are pretty low down on the probability scale.

"I rarely thank AP writers for their research, but in this case I have to. I'm glad the spotlight is being shined on the fallacies that come out of the mouths of scientists looking for more research dollars (on the backs of the taxpayers). I believe we DO need

Re:Be aware of the facts, always.

[Descalzo]

"No company/corperation will fund it unless it directly interests them, which is rarely the case."

But very often it does end up directly interesting a private company or corporation.

Here's a thought, perhaps private companies/corporations don't fund research enough because the taxpayer is funding it for them.

Disclaimer: I do not oppose publicly-funded research. I am still thinking about it.

Re:Be aware of the facts, always.

[Fordiman]

Heh. Really wouldn't make a difference in American elections, now would it?

Re:Be aware of the facts, always.

[BushCheney08]

You've just described the basic research/applied research rift. Basic research revolves around acquiring knowledge for knowledge's sake. The results may or may not find a use in the near future. Companies are somewhat wary of funding this because the ROI is unknown. The other side of this is applied research, which utilizes the fruits of basic research to solve problems and improve lives. The ROI here is much greater, since ultimately a solution to a given problem is likely to be found. Applied research relies on basic research, but the converse is not necessarily true. This is a major problem since many companies and governments are cutting funding for basic research.

Re:Be aware of the facts, always.

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish he'd go public with these thoughts, but I guess it would kill off his funding.

Do you realize that you just accused one of your "oldest friends" of scientific fraud?

Re:Be aware of the facts, always.

[Anonymous Coward]

Stupid fundie faggot. Thanks to the mod's for taking care of this fool.

Re:Be aware of the facts, always.

[Fordiman]

After reading several comments to this post, it occurs to me that there is a large number of slashdotters that don't like their assumptions to even smell like they're being challeneged.

For example:
Observation == fact: False. Observations are only facts if you're sure your equipment is working right.

Scientific Theory == Always Right: False. Theory's are an approximation to fill observations. They are, thus, only right part of the time. The other parts exist where the equations fail. "Border Conditions" in programming.

Scientific Law == Always Right: False. Theories are made law when the scientists are tired of verifying the theory against observation. Toss an apple at a black hole and see if it still drops on Newton's head. That it, if you're sure your observational equipment's still working in that situation.

The word of a slashdotter == 50% bullshit, 30% web-based research, and 20% biased personal experience: False. From time to time, an intelligent human steps up and says his piece. dada is one of those humans, in my observation. I've even argued with him from time to time, and came off still not thinking he's right. Doesn't mean I can't follow his thought process, nor does it mean the guy doesn't deserve my respect - he thinks damned well.

Re:Be aware of the facts, always.

[myowntrueself]

Also, one of the problems with science reporting is that it's largely gee-whiz stuff whose intention is to entertain and alarm

Just as 'sports news' has become 'sports entertainment' so 'science news' becomes 'science entertainment'.

Just as the rugby sevens and the one day cricket have turned sporting events into fancy-dress clown parades, so will go the way of science conferences.

Mark my words; scientists turning up at conference dressed up as Elvis, schoolgirls or king kong hoping to improve their TV ratings.

It'll be the only way to get funding... whats next??

A reality-Science show, made for TV!!!

We'll be reminiscing about the good old days of the 'intelligent design vs evolution' debates!

Re:Be aware of the facts, always.

[Anonymous Coward]

But he's clueless about science because he is so good at fooling himself; it's easy to be right in your own mind when all your theories of how the world would work better never get put up against the hard test of reality. Intellegence is not enough; intellectual honesty and willingness to test (and be wrong) in the real world are more important in science.

Re:Be aware of the facts, always.

[myowntrueself]

There are not unlimited "fossils" on this planet.

Try telling that to the Alabama or Kansas boards of edumification.

Re:Be aware of the facts, always.

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

The Libertarian position is that if the government stopped acting like a crutch for society, then society would develop its own superior mechanisms for public benefit.

What it would come up with would likely be something like a quasi-government, with both a lot of government's benefits and problems.

Just as in anarchy, a government will eventually spontaneously form. Unfortunately it would almost certainly be far worse than that of most countries in the world today - might makes right makes for an unjust society.

Re:Be aware of the facts, always.

[freddie]

Part of the scientific method is proving that other scientist are wrong.
I think that the problem that the original poster was trying to point out, is that a lot of people, especially here on slashdot, take the current mainstream scientific theories as gospel, when most of the time these theories are eventually proven wrong.

Re:Be aware of the facts, always.

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty much every drug you have ever taken is the result of public funding of scientific research.

No.

Weed - grows naturally.
Alcohol - discovered by accidental fermentation 12K years ago.
LSD - private industry
Meth - private industry - originally an anti-obesity drug and to keep people awake
Cocaine - coca plant - discovered by Incas.
DXM - private industry - although it was invented because of public controls on opiates - I wouldn't cll that publically funded - instead a reaction to public mandates.
MDMA - private industry - originally an anti-obesity drug.

Re:Be aware of the facts, always.

[AoT]

I think taxes rates should be 3d6x(percentage of average income)

I.E. I make about 35% of the national average and I roll a 10 so I pay 3.5% tax rate.

Fun and useful.

I really need to go into politics.

Re:Be aware of the facts, always.

[OOGG_THE_CAVEMAN]

And to Caspain's comment. For centuries, modern men of the time thought the world was flat. So much, they dared not venture to the edge.

OOGG not hear of flat-earthers in very long time; certainly not since men "modern" in any sense.

Flat earth not believed by any people observing in any way scientifically. Some cave people think Earth flat, but these people not sophisticated enough to build sea-faring vessels, not care if Earth actually flat or not. Also, not interested in scientific understanding of world. More worried about where find food.

Sea-farers who know enough navigation to go away from sight of land generally know enough astronomy to believe Earth round. Ancient Greeks have enough knowledge to believe Earth spherical, have good idea of size. Even earlier, people see that sailing vessel disappear hull first, sails last; could see Earth curve away toward horizon.

On other hand, writers of 19th century like to believe Dark Ages more backward than actually were; liked to ridicule supposed backwardness of Catholic church, invent myth that Columbus contemporaries thought Earth flat, for instance.

In other words, idea of "people once believe Earth flat" is irrelevant to issues of science.

Re:Be aware of the facts, always.

[Anonymous Coward]

"After reading several comments to this post, it occurs to me that there is a large number of slashdotters that don't like their assumptions to even smell like they're being challeneged."

I'm confused as to which posts you got that idea from.

"Scientific Theory == Always Right: False. Theory's are an approximation to fill observations. They are, thus, only right part of the time. The other parts exist where the equations fail. "Border Conditions" in programming."

Did you miss the 5+ posts saying that theories are by their nature incorrect and simply waiting to be disproved, or did you ignore them because they didn't fit your view of Slashdot posters?

"Scientific Law == Always Right: False. Theories are made law when the scientists are tired of verifying the theory against observation. Toss an apple at a black hole and see if it still drops on Newton's head. That it, if you're sure your observational equipment's still working in that situation."

Where did this one come from, I think one person mentioned anything about scientific laws and they got put down in the replies.

"From time to time, an intelligent human steps up and says his piece. dada is one of those humans, in my observation."

I've seen intelligent people who believe in anal-probe aliens, magic, esp, ghosts and so on.

"Doesn't mean I can't follow his thought process, nor does it mean the guy doesn't deserve my respect - he thinks damned well."

I disagree based on his posts in this discussion; possibly he simply isn't able to communicate his ideas correctly. Either that or he lacks knowledge of what he is talking about and thus makes bad assumptions.

Re:Be aware of the facts, always.

[Roxton]

Libertarian pseudo-government would be a lot more like morality-by-extortion. Sure, you can have unsafe work conditions in your factories, but hundreds of millions of consumers have willfully signed away their rights to shop at those retail stores that would be willing to buy your goods by subscribing to the Happy Market Democracy. The beauty of such privatized "law" is that it would respect no national borders.

There's a lot more that could be said about that, but it's getting horrifically off-topic.

Re:Be aware of the facts, always.

[maxpublic]

If you had any scientific knowledge you would know oil is not renewable because it is made of decomposed "fossils" (hence "fossil fuels").

A logical, but entirely unproven, theory. You state it as fact when it simply isn't; it's the best explanation we have for crude oil at this point.

And apparently not a very good one. Certain previously-dry oil fields are slowly filling back up again. That's an actual fact, and no one has an explanation for it. Now, before any enviro-loon gets his panties in a wad, the rate at which the apparent regeneration is occuring is so slow that it makes no difference whatsoever in calculating the depletion of oil reserves; but under the current theory the fact that regeneration is happening at all is impossible.

So something is clearly wrong with the theory. More research needs to be done. Again, it won't make any difference in reserve calculations but it does point to flaws that need to be addressed.

Max

Re:Be aware of the facts, always.

[maxpublic]

What else have these same scientists theorized that may not be true?

If it isn't falsifiable, it isn't science.

Max

Re:Be aware of the facts, always.

[WryCoder]

If you had any scientific knowledge you would know oil is not renewable because it is made of decomposed "fossils" (hence "fossil fuels"). There are not unlimited "fossils" on this planet. Your speaking gibberish to make a very invalid point.

And if you had a scientific attitude you would be less dogamatic in your statements. It's unlikely that the vast quantities of petroleum came from rotting vegetation. Rather, it's primordial, derived from methane and similar hydrocarbons dating back to the formation of the earth. Check out "The Deep, Hot Biosphere" by Thomas Gold.

Re:Be aware of the facts, always.

[Revek]

damn never any modpoints when i needem -5 troll dung

Re:Be aware of the facts, always.

[Snaller]

You state it as fact when it simply isn't; it's the best explanation we have for crude oil at this point.

And if you hadn't made that up on the spot, you could have linked to some proof.

Re:Be aware of the facts, always.

[maxpublic]

I'll do you one better. Here's a direct quote:

"The idea that petroleum is formed from dead organic matter is known as the "biogenic theory" of petroleum formation and was first proposed by a Russian scientist almost 250 years ago.

In the 1950's, however, a few Russian scientists began questioning this traditional view and proposed instead that petroleum could form naturally deep inside the Earth.

This so-called "abiogenic" petroleum might seep upward through cracks formed by asteroid impacts to form underground pools, according to one hypothesis. Some geologists have suggested probing ancient impact craters in the search for oil.

Abiogenic sources of oil have been found, but never in commercially profitable amounts. The controversy isn't over whether naturally forming oil reserves exist, said Larry Nation of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. It's over how much they contribute to Earth's overall reserves and how much time and effort geologists should devote to seeking them out."

So: do I take the word of some yahoo on Slashdot, or that of Dr. Nation, member of the AAPG? Not exactly a tough call.

The recent news concerning abiogenic oil is that it appears that at least some oil fields thought to be the product of biogenic processes are slowly filling back up again. The only way they could do that is if the source of the oil for these fields is abiogenic. Any mention of this possibility (despite the fact that abiogenic oil exists - no scientist questions this) makes the greenies shit a brick, despite the fact that no matter what the explanation oil is not a renewable resource within the timeline of a human civilization.

Max

Re:Be aware of the facts, always.

[Snaller]

One of my oldest friends is a professor of geology and geophysics at a University. Because most of what he has told me is off the record and unquotable, I can't give his name (I wish I could).


Did you ask him? Sounds like he has been trying to explain the scientific method to you and you are too stupid to understand it.

He admits to me that geophysicists have no idea what is happening beneath the thinnest part of the earth's crust that we live on -- and that almost every theory they've created has been shut down by actual accounts of natural phenomena.

That's how it works! Only religious nuts occupy themselves with absolute knowledge. Scientists looks at things, and suggest an explanation if its can be proven wrong they try a new one - thats how it has worked for hundreds of years, that is what has brought us everything from computers to moon landings.
...and I am amazed at how often scientists are proven wrong. I know that it is heretical to say that on slashdot (I was blasted about it earlier this morning on this very forum),

No, you presumably get blasted because you are an idiot who doesn't know what he is blathering about.

Re:Be aware of the facts, always.

[Anonymous Coward]

>...I wish he'd go public with these thoughts, but I guess it would kill off his funding.

>...we so admire may be geniuses, or they might just be grant-hunters> ....

Now is there a connection that I see?

-SiriusB

Re:Be aware of the facts, always.

[ultramk]

It doesn't HAVE to be bad, especially once you aren't trying to attract advertisers.

Try Science Friday on NPR. It'll open your eyes.

m-

Re:Be aware of the facts, always.

[tmortn]

ONe nit.. at temps and pressures found deep in the earth oil can't exist. Well acording to conventional knowledge niether can water and yet it was found by the Russians in their Kola hole at unthinkable depths, temps and pressures. That hole is some 40,000 feet deep and is the deepest hole yet dug by man. The Kola dig is a fascinating venture. It has found contradictions with standing theory at almost every point along the way and yet there has been no real move by science to update those theories to match with what has been found from an actual hole dug in the ground.

I think that is what the parent poster was really getting at. Some of these theories get to be dogmatic and the adherents to them are no more responsive to corrections in their thinking than Religious Fanatics clinging to their bibles.

Re:Be aware of the facts, always.

[Internet Ronin]

I'm curious as to your conclusions regarding public funding however. Wouldn't it seem that if there are so many mistakes going on that additional funding, particularly in the area of educating more scientists seems to be the way to go?

I'll grant you that to put unwavering faith in science is misplaced, science works better when all parties maintain a healthy degree of skeptcism. I don't know if you're familiar with Michael Shermer's book "Borderlands of Science," but he proposes, and I quite agree, that science is not perfect *BUT* it's the best framework we've got for examining ideas at the moment. There are plenty of religious people who believe that perhaps unquestioning faith is the proper approach, but that takes away a lot of tools (the balancing argument of how much ground can science hold v. God is a question for another day), and I for one love having tools, especially as a species.

That you appear to have some background in science (and if I read that right, some occupational experience?), and know someone completely imerssed in the field, are very compelling qualifications, so mainly what I want to know is, is there perhaps some solution you see, and why do you oppose public funding? I have difficulty envisioning a framework outside of the scientific method, but imagination and vision aren't really my strong suits (haha, history background...). Have you glimpsed something, or thought of some new framework, or perhaps innovations to the current framework (scientific method) that could better balance between stricter controls v. suppressing too many ideas?

As a scientist, you're comments are important to me, and I look forward to a reply, if you've got a second.

Re:Be aware of the facts, always.

[tjw]

... a lot of people, especially here on slashdot, take the current mainstream scientific theories as gospel, ...

Oh, come on! We respect scientific theories a bit more than that.

Re:Be aware of the facts, always.

[Anonymous Coward]

In medical research, it has been demonstrated that the results of private research is heavily skewed in favor of whoever grants the money. And this is where people's lives are directly involved. Granted, publicly funded research is often crap, but at least it's a bit more likely to be honest crap.

Re:Be aware of the facts, always.

[Lord Ender]

If a decision has to be made today, what better information is there to base it on than the current mainstream scientific theories? Do you have a better suggestion? Paralysis of decisions because nothing can be proven 100%?

Re:Be aware of the facts, always.

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you are an omniscient being, you can never know for sure what is going on outside of your direct sensory range - so to be useful, to make predictions beyond that, science HAS to speculate and come up with theories.

This is the key, and I don't think most people realize it, or at least they are sloppy with the idea.

When I was first introduced to the concept, it was called "big R, little r." You have "big R" Reality that is absolute reality, "real" reality. And then you also have "little r" reality, which is what you know. You do not know Reality, you cannot know it. All you know is an approximation, reality. And the goal of science is to move "little r" reality as close as possible to "big R" Reality. (Of course you could also argue that there may be no ultimate Reality, but personally I find that absurd.)

An interesting thing to draw from this is the difference between something you know and something you believe: there really isn't any. You don't actually know anything in the absolute sense of the word. So usually the only difference is that a belief is something you acknowledge to be a part of "little r" reality. If you think that somehow there are things you know that are more valid than what someone else merely claims to believe (on that basis alone), you're delusional. The same level of conviction exists.

("Fact" seems like a good contrast to "belief", but I would place facts in Reality, which makes them technically unknowable. What you actually know is your own view of the fact and not, in my mind, the fact itself.)

Clearly then the division of science and religion into separate boxes is wrong. If they coexist (and maybe they don't), they must be equally true in the same sense. They must both reflect a part of Reality, so it makes no sense to have different realities in your mind (or anyone else's) for the two of them. I have seen people effectively suggest this to others, it is not rational.

Re:Be aware of the facts, always.

[Ohreally_factor]

The thing is, Dada doesn't "involuntarily" pay for science research thru his taxes. He is free to immigrate at any time to a nation that doesn't "waste" taxpayer funds in this way. He'd lose many other benefits from living in a society that publicly funds scientific research, however, so I doubt he'd back up his beliefs with such a move.

Re:Be aware of the facts, always.

[m50d]

the one day cricket have turned sporting events into fancy-dress clown parades

What's so bad about a non-devotee being able to tell which bloody side the players are on?

Re:Be aware of the facts, always.

[m50d]

Here's a thought, perhaps private companies/corporations don't fund research enough because the taxpayer is funding it for them.

Erm, no, because research is still grossly underfunded

Re:Be aware of the facts, always.

[winwar]

"He admits to me that geophysicists have no idea what is happening beneath the thinnest part of the earth's crust that we live on -- and that almost every theory they've created has been shut down by actual accounts of natural phenomena."

Hmm, perhaps that says something about geophysicists? If you only look at your computer screen and formulas you tend to miss things. Like reality.

Remember, you don't need to know much geology to be a geowizard, er I mean, geophysicist. :) Good geophysicists know a LOT of geology (in addition to other subjects).

"It really bugs me, actually, that these "scientists" we so admire may be geniuses, or they might just be grant-hunters."

Just like any field there are those in it for the knowledge and those in it for the money and fame. Well, the money part I find hard to believe.... Scientists run the gamut from idiot to genius. They do hunt for grants because they want to continue to do science. Getting a grant is NOT easy. Realize that much science is guided by the availability of grants. Grants tend to be most available for the popular areas of research-this is often out of the scientists hands. Much research, such as volcanology, would not be done without public funding.

Anyone who idolizes scientists is a moron.

"Is oil possibly a renewable resource..."

Yes. On a geological time scale.

"Is it possible to battle the build-up of CO2, or is much of it coming out of the earth and not manmade?"

This has been determined to a reasonable certainty. It's the effects everyone argues....

"How much of the global climate is an effect of heat expelled from inside our crust, and how much is from "eroding" atmosphere?"

Huh?

"but I also think we need to evaluate how much of what they discover is really factual enough to base wars, regulations and restrictions on. I understand that science is constantly finding new theories to fix their old ones, and I have no problem with continued research -- just as long as I don't pay for it involuntarily and as long as no one makes laws and restrictions based on non-facts."

Scientists do not make public policy, politicians do. Repeat until you grok this. Finally, government is for the common good, which means it spends money on things you don't want and I don't want. Research funding is pathetically small-I would go out on a limb and say it is close to a rounding error in the current budget.

Re:Be aware of the facts, always.

[cptgrudge]

Only if the dice are weighted.

Re:Be aware of the facts, always.

[Snaller]

So: do I take the word of some yahoo on Slashdot, or that of Dr. Nation, member of the AAPG? Not exactly a tough call

Of course, technically *yoU* are the yahoo on Slashdot, since you didn't provide a link ;)

Well, duh!

[schon]

It's obviously the work of an evil mastermind, setting up his new lair.

Since he needs the space, he's melting the rock in order to make space for his laboratory. The eruptions will stop once he's managed to carve his face into the side of the mountain.

My money is either on Hank Scorpio or Dr. Evil.

Re:Well, duh!

[SpinJaunt]

Nah.. it's either Google, Microsoft or SCO.

Re:Well, duh!

[RedNovember]

But... Google's... not... evil...

Right?

Re:Well, duh!

[Anonymous Coward]

Was Microsoft initially evil? no. Who said Volcanoes are evil? even humans feel the need to release..

Happy new year, arched.

Re:Well, duh!

[Ruff_ilb]

Actually, we can only notice that this volcano started erupting more since google closed the deal with AOL. Perhaps the lava IS, in fact, from hell, is evil, and represents the extra 5% of evil that AOL gave to google.

Re:Well, duh!

[Anonymous Coward]

Was Microsoft initially evil?

No, just whiny.

Re:Well, duh!

[a10waveracer]

Or Bill Gates >_>

Re:Well, duh!

[ajs]

It's, sadly, not the work of any single mastermind. The "hokey stick" clearly shows that all natural phenomenon are the result of SUVs... unless they're pretty flowers; those are made by God... or happy thought-waves.

Re:Well, duh!

[Dr. Evil]

I think it's Hank.

Secular humanist tools of the Beast! Simple:

[Catbeller]

The lava is coming from HAAAYYYYLLLL.

We christen this theory "Infernal Leakage". Soon to be taught in every school south of Joliet, Illinois.

Mess with us, and we'll sue! WE know who's behind all this Geologyist perversion of the Truth, and we'll be soon beating them nearly to death on the sides of the road, not to mention getting them canned from their posts for uttering blsphemy against Go- -er- Infernal Leakage theory.

Re:Secular humanist tools of the Beast! Simple:

[PhreakOfTime]

Hey, the joliet school system is crap. At least use the neighboring Plainfield school system as a reference, its crap too, but not as bad as joliets ;)

Even though, a good part of the city limits of joliet are actually in the plainfield school district... but thats another story...

Re:Secular humanist tools of the Beast! Simple:

[AstrumPreliator]

Is that kind of like anal leakage after you've been eating jalapeneos? If so I have a second occurrence to report...

Re:Secular humanist tools of the Beast! Simple:

[Catbeller]

Sinner, I ain't singling out Joliet's school system. It's just that, as a Chicagoan, it's extremely noticable that as you cross Joliet's lattitude the radio suddenly and permanently offers country music, all-christian all-the-time hellfire-laden sermonizing, and Rush-is-too-liberal-for-us talk radio, where Bush is seen as suspiciously soft on satan's people.

Infernal Leakage will PLAY down there. Makes as much sense as anything else.

Have you actually seen plate moving against plate? A fault line slip in progress? Theories, all theories.

It's HAAAAYYYYLLLLLLL! About a mile down, and hook a sharp right angle turn against all the other three spatial dimensions.

I might not actually be joking about Infernal Leakage. I just had a slight shiver. I'm afraid to Google for anti-Geologism websites.

They might be out there. And there might be more IL adherents in the U.S. than Geologists.

Carl Sagan was right... the Age of Enlightenment is kept alive by damned few Candles in the Dark. Isaac Asimov knew it, and spent his life fighting to keep the candles lit. Heinlein, who grew up in the Bible Belt in Missouri, knew the U.S. was on a tightrope, fighting a century-old battle against fundamentalist takeover. Pity he (and everyone else) was obsessed with commies. The real enemy was always with us, growing by one baby at a time.

The plain fact is, fundies all over the world have one, insurmountable superpower that the rationalists don't use (being rational) -- they're having huge numbers of babies. They're outnumbering us the old fashioned way, one giant family at a time.

Democracies, if you are listening, Mr. Bush, can be as totalitarian and violent as any dictatorship. They are no guarantee against tyranny. If enough people are fundamentalist and unbending, they will inevitable take power. They can't not take power. They see it as their duty.

They have it overseas, and we call it Islamofascism. In the US, they have a name for themselves:
Dominionists.

Re:Secular humanist tools of the Beast! Simple:

[Zuke8675309]

NO NO! It's errupting because of George Bush and global warming! Damn right-wingers!

Re:Secular humanist tools of the Beast! Simple:

[Catbeller]

Do not mock the Texan Pope. He establishes Jesus' kingdom on Earth.

Global warming?!? Feh! It doesn't matter what we do to the Earth; God said so. And it's going to be destroyed in our lifetime, anyway. The Pope from Crawford is pretty certain of this, and his adherents as well. Seriously, Pope Bush believes the Earth will die and be reborn soon.

Kinda explains why he vetoed rebuilding the barrier islands around New Orleans this last month, despises "environmentalism" in general. It doesn't matter what the scientists say. The Earth is a giant Kleenex, absorbing the Boogers of God's People, and will be tossed away this century. It's all nonsense; we're all gonna fly into the sky, well, 144K of us, and the rest hit the trash compactor of Jesus' righteous hatred. What is "pollution" and "conservation" but blandishments of Satan, trying to convince us that the world is permanent and needs care, rather than the field of righteous trial, weeding out the saved from the damned.

Re:Secular humanist tools of the Beast! Simple:

[Catbeller]

The real Christians are out in force tonight, whipping out their mod points. Offtopic, whatever -- what can you say about the topic, "origin of volcano's effluvium unknown". ANYthing is on the table with a subject like that. Might as well be Infernal Leakage.

Go, find a party, O God's defenders...

Re:Secular humanist tools of the Beast! Simple:

[Darby]

Heinlein, who grew up in the Bible Belt in Missouri, knew the U.S. was on a tightrope, fighting a century-old battle against fundamentalist takeover.

When I was a kid reading his stories that dealt with the American theocracy I thought he was wack.
Turns out he understood much better than I did.

Re:Secular humanist tools of the Beast! Simple:

[ClamIAm]

I'm familiar with "Infernal Leakage", but it's totally not what you're talking about.

There's Only One Solution

[TsukasaZero]

Scientists have opened a gate to hell below the Earth's surface.

Get a B-Movie production team and a half-ass game developement team ASAP!

Re:There's Only One Solution

[MyLongNickName]

half-ass game developement team

This would be a good forum to find such a team...

Re:There's Only One Solution

[Wisgary]

This is obviously the newest Doom 3 expansion pack.

Re:There's Only One Solution

[mindtriggerz]

That's already been done. It's called 10.5

Re:There's Only One Solution

[All_Star25]

You forgot Uwe Boll.

cubic yards ?

[Herkules]

Are people taught to use "cubic yards" in US schools? I thought all science in the US used the metric system ?

Re:cubic yards ?

[JoeBuck]

Yes, scientific work in the US is done in meters. A yard is close to a meter; I wouldn't be surprised if either the journalist is substituting "yard" for "meter", or the scientist he interviewed is (since the difference is less than the roundoff error and the American public doesn't know what a meter is).

Re:cubic yards ?

[Yartrebo]

The difference between a cubic yard and a cubic meter is 25%-30% or so. That's no rounding error in my book considering that the numbers are given to 2 to 3 significant digits.

Re:cubic yards ?

[IAAP]

...and the American public doesn't know what a meter is.

I'm an American and I resent that statement! I know full well that meter is what they use to measure the amount of water I'm using! Geeze!

Re:cubic yards ?

[r_weaver]

I only see one significant digit in "10 cubic yards".

Re:cubic yards ?

[Lehk228]

i thought some geological work was still done in Imperial units due to the huge volume of data existing in Imperial units

Re:cubic yards ?

[Anonymous Coward]

especially in petroleum geology. There are large volumes of well log data in imperial units.

Re:cubic yards ?

[Jerf]

No, we're taught to measure volume in terms of Nature's Simultaneous Harmonic 4-Day Time Cubes, which your singularity education has left you unable to comprehend, you educated stupid.

You have not the mentality to comprehend the simple math of Cubic antipode creation, for at about age 6, your parents gave your 2 opposite antipode brains to Big Brother academic hirelings, to clone thought to serve evil singularity brotherhood - destroying Cubic families, villages and tribes.

I think it's something like 1 Nature's Sumultaneous Harmonic 4-Day Time Cube per Cubic Antipodal Creation. I leave it to you to translate to your pathetic 1-day measurements.

Re:cubic yards ?

[peterfa]

I come from an American public school recently and we never used the metric system except in some sciences like Physics. There of course we had to use the metric system because the US Standard system gets way out of hand.
Remember, we come from pioneers. Pioneers had to use whatever was at hand for their measurements. They used cups and whatnot. We have inhereted this in our culture despite that it's much easier to use the Metric system.

Re:cubic yards ?

[jimi the hippie]

Much easier to use the metric system? Howso? You obviously have never worked in the real world if you think it's easier. Can you measure a cm (or meter) using a part of your body (cause I can with an inch and a yard)? Can you easily divide a meter into 1/12ths, 1/6ths, 1/2 and 1/4 just as easily as you can into 1/10? Maybe it's convenient for your science classes, but in the real world we use real units for real reasons.

Re:cubic yards ?

[crazylocks]

What body part might Jimi use to measure an inch? And the yard long part is? Sorry Jimi :)

Re:cubic yards ?

[ColaMan]

Can you easily divide a meter into 1/12ths, 1/6ths, 1/2 and 1/4 just as easily as you can into 1/10?

Do you particularly want (or need) to do that in the metric system? No.
The metric system of measurement is designed to avoid weird fractions like 1/12ths and 1/6ths, which is why such fractional amounts are not often used in the metric system. And besides, there's always that tiny bit of loss when your computer converts 1/3 or 1/6 or 1/12 to a float and back. Maybe not significant over a metre/kilo but significant when you're talking about billions of them.

Re:cubic yards ?

[paleblue]

I'm an engineering student in the U.S. At my school, the professors use both metric and english units. Some use only metric, some use only english. Some use both.

The English system gives me a headache with its naming scheme. What's a kip, what's a psi, and how does a kip relate to a ksi? How do you know when someone is talking about a pound-force or a pound-weight? What exactly is a slug, why is it called a slug? What sort of ton were we talking about?

Really, the english system is confusing all around. I'm just glad my TI-89 can handle units for me.

Re:cubic yards ?

[paxmark1]

The mteric thing. The reason why the US stopped the planned changeover to the metric system is

Senator Charles Grassley. About 1974 You can blame him.

Funny thing, he is finance chair now.

Re:cubic yards ?

[jimi the hippie]

At my school, the science classes use metric, and the ENGINEERING classes use imperial.

Re:cubic yards ?

[peterfa]

Try dividing by 6 in your head. That's not as easy as dividing by 10.
What is it that you do in the real world?

Re:cubic yards ?

[jimi the hippie]

Tip of my index finger, when bent the end of my finger to my knuckle is one inch. My elbow to my fingers is 0.5 yards, I have two of those.

Re:cubic yards ?

[jimi the hippie]

We're not talking about computers, we're talking about actually using these numbers to do something. I can think of lots of examples, if you're as smart as you claim you should be able to think of one.

Re:cubic yards ?

[jimi the hippie]

try dividing a meter by 6 in your head, now try it with a foot.

Re:cubic yards ?

[rubycodez]

There's no common reason in the "real world" to divide measurements by 12 or 6, you can saw lumber or pour concrete or torch iron all day long in a metric country without needing to do that. Halves and quarters are trivial, what's the big deal about 0.25 and 0.50 and 0.75 of something? And I get a kick out of old timers taking their foot and inches measurements and then trying to compute how many "yards" of concrete they need for a job (I've helped a few with that): english units are a pain in the ass and cowards are too afraid to learn a different SIMPLER system.

Re:cubic yards ?

[crazylocks]

Amazing! You da man.

Re:cubic yards ?

[peterfa]

Why would I want to divide a meter by 6?

Re:cubic yards ?

[FailedTheTuringTest]

And conversely, try dividing a foot in 10 in your head, then try it with a meter. Why would you want to divide something by 10? Well, for one thing, +/- 10% is a pretty common margin of error that you would want to quantify. For another, one often wishes to design something to accommodate, say, the 90th percentile; I've never heard anyone say they want to design for 11/12ths of the population. When I studied civil engineering in Canada we were actually exposed to the concept of using decimal fractions of English units -- 12.35 feet, for example. But most of what we did was in metric units, which are much more convenient for pretty much any kind of calculations.

Re:cubic yards ?

[Anonymous Coward]

About 16 and a half...

Re:cubic yards ?

[TapeCutter]

...and a yard is what you water.

Re:cubic yards ?

[jimi the hippie]

Suppose that you have a 25' wall that you have to divide into 6 sections. Easy, 4'2" each. Try that with a 7.575757.... meter long section of wall (1.262626... meters).

Re:cubic yards ?

[jimi the hippie]

No, a coward is afraid to use something convenient because it might be "too complex" for some.

Re:cubic yards ?

[Myopic]

don't you remember NASA crashing a spacecraft because they couldn't covert between feet and meters?

Re:cubic yards ?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is actually double funny, because the meter spelled that way *is* a meter to measure things. The unit of distance is spelled 'metre'.

Volcano Cam

[FudRucker]

http://www.fs.fed.us/gpnf/volcanocams/msh/

if they get the camera up again you can watch it...

Re:Volcano Cam

[zaren]

I've had that page linked since St. Helen's started rumbling last year. Of course, now that it's finally doing something worth watching again, the cam's conked out. *sigh*

Re:Volcano Cam

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for that link- I hope they do get it working again.

The caption under the picture of video noise (as I'm trying to view it) says it is a "static image..." - it sure is!!

Re:Volcano Cam

[JPriest]

It is back up now. It seems a dinosaur has emerged from the ash.

It's Obvious

[Master of Transhuman]

All the hot air from George Bush, Dick Cheney, Condi Rice and Don Rumsfeld is being secretly redirected into the magma to push up more material.

The government hopes causing a major eruption will divert news attention from the war in Iraq, spying on US citizens, the Katrina failures, the economy, global warming, the Republican Congressional bribe scandals, the outing of CIA agents for the benefit of Russian-Israeli Mafia nuclear black marketeers, the coming war with Iran, the...

Re:Obviously...

[Anonymous Coward]

That sounds khakamamy.

Mount Doom ...

[DrJimbo]

From the FA:

The volcano, about 100 miles south of Seattle, fell silent in 1986.

Sounds like the dark lord Sauron is up to his evil tricks again. Probably firing up Mount Doom to forge some new rings that will bind people to Vista.

Re:Mount Doom ...

[Comatose51]

How far away is Redmond from Mt. St. Helens?

Re:Mount Doom ...

[Feanturi]

1,920 kilobytes for the Elven-Kings under the sky,
    4,480 for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone
5,760 for Mortal Men doomed to die,
    640K for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
In the Land of Redmond where the Shadows lie.
    640K to rule them all, 640k to find them,
    640K to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Redmond where the Shadows lie.

Re:Mount Doom ...

[raodin]

Mt St Helens is about 100 miles south of Seattle.

Re:Mount Doom ...

[pdxmac]

Sounds like the dark lord Sauron is up to his evil tricks again. Probably firing up Mount Doom to forge some new rings that will bind people to Vista.

But, Mt. St. Helens is about half as far from Portland as it is from Seattle. Last I checked, Linus lived in a suburb of Portland....

Re:Mount Doom ...

[Frumious Wombat]

So as long as he's careful to leave before about 4:00 p.m., and avoid the bottlenecks, he should be at Mount Doom a little after rushhour, throw the Ring in, and still be home in time to catch RoTK on cable. Should take no time at all, being as the Dark Lord will be too busy trying to stop pop-ups from obscuring his web-cam.

Re:Mount Doom ...

[Anonymous Coward]

If Microsoft can make an operating system which is that unbloated, I'll believe Sauron exists!

Re:Mount Doom ...

[Sj0]

The mini-distribution of Windows 3.1 used in the Windows 95/98/me installer can be hacked to function on a single floppy disk.

Scared yet?

Deep-earth overlords

[eyebits]

It just shows that our deep earth overlords are busy.

Re:Deep-earth overlords

[scottblascocomposer]

Wouldn't that be our deep earth underlords?

The joys of the Northwest

[6350']

Cardiologists must hate working here in the pacific northwest. This quake summary from the Pacific Northwest Seismograph Network demonstrates what I'm sure is a corelary for coronaries:

http://www.pnsn.org/recenteqs/latest.htm

Toss in Mount Baker, Mout Rainier, Mount Adams, Mount Hood, and Mount Jefferson (all volcanoes in the NW), and I'm beginning to suspect we here could be accused of the same idiocy with which some people in the hurricane "belt" are blamed, but on a slightly more geologic scale.

Re:The joys of the Northwest

[misleb]

Given the potential volcanic activity, it is strange that what everyone around here (Portland) freaks out about most is 1 inch of snow.

-matthew

Re:The joys of the Northwest

[Maxite]

Maybe they freak out because if a volcano erupted when it was snowing, it'd be hard to tell the ash and the snow apart?

Blame Brad Bird

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure that this guy is to blame:

http://dts.ystoretools.com/1165/images/250x1000/di syrebufi.jpg

Welcome

[deadbeatsaint]

I for one welcome our new Volcano overlords.

Re:Welcome

[deprecated]

Underlords, you meatling.

Re:Welcome

[Anonymous Coward]

Where's "-1, Shut the fuck up" when you need it?

But...

[brian0918]

But, the earth is hollow.

Aha!

[RedNovember]

The REAL cause of global warming!

(ironically, as I type this it is snowing outside)

Re:Aha!

[Anonymous Coward]

(ironically, as I type this it is snowing outside)

It's winter, dear.

Re:Aha!

[RedNovember]

To be fair, I haven't left the basement in a while... ;)

Re:Aha!

[c_forq]

It's winter, dear.

I'm in the Southern Hemisphere, you insensitive clod!

Re:Aha!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm in the Southern Hemisphere, you insensitive clod!

Then why does your blog say:
Name:Casey Forquer
Location:Michigan, United States

???

Re:Aha!

[c_forq]

It's a joke. Laugh.

Nah, it's the Koreans...

[Anonymous Coward]

In Korea, only old people come by erupting hot fluids from narrow 3-mile pipes and get tired in 16 months.

Excellent news!

[Anonymous Coward]

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I found it) but 'That's funny...'" --Isaac Asimov

Re:Excellent news!

[Scrameustache]

Oh great, the salamander-men are pumping magma to destroy us upworlders and you say "excellent news!". Traitor!

Re:Excellent news!

[maxpublic]

Let's hope the current crop of volcanologists don't decide to pay an en masse personal visit to St. Helens. The last time they did that at an active volcano the only phrase they had time to utter was "oh, shit!".

Max

Re:Excellent news!

[MickLinux]

That's funny. If we weren't getting deep eruptions, but only surface eruptions, that would imply that the source mass of lava might be much wider than the proposed tube -- orders of magnitude wider.

So that might meen that there was a caldera, and the lava flows would be relieving the pressure on the roof of the caldera.

Which might imply a much larger explosion at some near future date...

  Of course, the significance of a "that's funny" can always be canceled out by a ...

Nah. Couldn't be.

from hell

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the end of the world, an extra dimensional portal is leaking the contents of hell at us.

Consider the source

[rozthepimp]

While I am not familiar with this particular AP reporter, I would prefer to see a news release by the USGS on the subject rather than one from a news service. I was a USGS geologist in 1980 and did field work measuring the bulge prior to the May 1980 eruption. Anytime we were interviewed regarding the science, the resulting published story was almost always incredibly skewed/magled/distorted crap.

Re:Consider the source

[shawb]

Yeah... that holds true of just about every little thing reported when I've had personal experiences with the event. Not only do they get the general topic completely off base, but you'll find some places inventing little interesting details that just aren't there.

Re:Consider the source

[Dun Malg]

Yeah... that holds true of just about every little thing reported when I've had personal experiences with the event. Not only do they get the general topic completely off base, but you'll find some places inventing little interesting details that just aren't there.

USGS Geologist: ...so what we're seeing with the continued eruption without the typical earth movement and outgassing is a bit of a mystery. We're unsure where the pressure is coming from.

AP Reporter: so what you're saying is that the pressure will either form diamonds, like Superman, or spray lava all over Washington state?

USGS: Huh? No. No diamonds. And while inevitably the volcano probably WILL explode someday in the future, there's no sign of it coming any time soon.

AP reporter: so what you're saying is that it could explode without warning and set off "The Big One", causing California to fall into the ocean?

USGS: Not at all! The pressures involved presently are low because the lava flow is continuous.

AP: so what you're saying is that soon the lava will flow continuously like a river of fiery death, all the way to the sea, destroying Portland along the way?

USGS: Errr...no, I think it's safe to say there will be no river of lava. The worst thing we have to worry about is the silicates in the smoke plume damaging aircraft engines.

AP: so what you're saying is that the massive column of smoke will send all the world's airliners plummeting to the ground, killing thousands?

USGS: Wha? No, The airplanes will be fine! Look, this is just an interesting puzzle, really. We simply can't explain the lack of gasses in the outflow.

AP: Well OK then, I got it now. Thanks!

-AP wire, next day-

SCIENTISTS BAFFLED BY GAS SHORTAGES, PREDICT CATASTROPHIC EXPLOSION

USGS: &#%@*!

Re:Consider the source

[Anonymous Coward]

third bulge post!

Re:Consider the source

[Strixy]

I'll bet that AP reporter makes wicked $$ from CNN and Time. While the guy who writes the unbiased truth is sitting in his 2 bedroom apartment, with 5 roomates, patched jeans and a 333Mhz laptop hoping to sell a bit ... any day now.

Re:Consider the source

[KORfan]

I'm currently a hydrologist with the USGS and I can't say things have changed. I and my coworkers have been interviewed several times and it still gets garbled. Sometimes you get a reporter who can't accept anything short of scientific support for panic so they can say, "Run for the hills!"

They seem to have problems with statements that involve uncertainty. They want a cut-and-dried one-sentence answer. You have to work to get them to understand that you don't have all the answers, or that the answers depend on things that no one controls. I did succeed once in getting a reporter to understand that no one knows if the flood is going to get worse until they know how much it's going to rain tomorrow.

When I see a news report about a geologic or hydrologic event, I go into it expecting the details to be inconsistent. I just look for the basic fact of an eruption, an earthquake, a flood, or a dam break. Anything beyond that seems to end up contradicting itself most of the time.

Feel the heat...

[gmuslera]

Maybe another thing we could worry about is not from where is coming, but where is going. 15 months of continuous eruption could have some consequence in global climate? What about expelled gas, dust, etc? Short but massive eruptions (i.e. Krakatoa) had global influence in climate, could a small but very long ones have generate global changes too?

Re:Feel the heat...

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Don't worry about things like that, it would take steam away from all the Bush bashers.

Re:Feel the heat...

[Anonymous Coward]

...could a small but very long ones have generate global changes too?

Yes, it's this thing called nature. Perhaps you've heard of it.

Re:Feel the heat...

[m50d]

Oh yes, because his side is the one that listens to scientists.

Re:Feel the heat...

[MickLinux]

I think you'll find that hawaii has had much more outflow for a much longer time.

Science

[dgagley]

This is not about the bible and what some beleive. If we ran science by the bible we would still be living in huts and preists would be living with sheep and children.

We have more than five volcano's in Washington and Oregon and most are active in one form or another. Scientist though havnt been able to watch Ranier, St. Helens, Adams Blow so this is all new.

Behave Children Im watching! :)

Re:Science

[one4nine4two]

Plate tectonics is just a theory. Widely accepted and probably only limited to theory status due to an inability to properly test the theory, but a theory nonetheless.

Re:Science

[Tablizer]

Science can't explain something? It must mean that volcanoes are formed by intelligent eruption!

Hey, God has to fart also. There's gotta be mexican food in heaven. If there isn't, then I am gonna sin, going around grabbing tits or something.

Re:Science

[Anonymous Coward]

For the last time, theories that are fact don't get upgraded to laws. That's why putting a sticker saying "evolution is just a theory" in southern schools is so effective, because they don't know what theory means.

Re:Science

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that somehow a fault?

Re:Science

[kgskgs]

:) :) :)

One of the best funniest post I have ever read on slashdot.
Mark rules,

K

Nice troll, got modded up too

[Flying pig]

I liked the anonymous reference to Velikovsky and the attack on publicly funded science. And the mixed metaphor (try shining a spotlight on a fallacy coming out of someone's mouth). On the basis of a supposed quote from an unidentifiable professor we are supposed to believe that all that research is rubbish? Yes, surely. Because an anecdotal unidentifiable urban legend is just so much more reliable than peer-reviewed scientists who put their reputations on the line when they go public with research based on reproducible experimentation or measurements. Which are falsifiable. Which happens to be a major component of scientific progress.

Re:Nice troll, got modded up too

[Lehk228]

(try shining a spotlight on a fallacy coming out of someone's mouth

i'd rather shine a spotlight on the phalluses coming in the GP's mouth

Some scientists should go out more often...

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously some scientist have little experience on opposite sex if they think it's normal to simultaneously play quake and release gases while coming.

Didn't charm my ex-girlfriend, at least.

Funny??? Damn insightful, if you ask me.

[mark-t]

Because it quite frankly completely eludes me as to why this should be any sort of mystery.

FTA:

That suggests resupply from greater depths, which normally would generate certain gases and deep earthquakes. Neither is being detected.

Ah... so obviously it's *NOT* coming from greater depths? Bzzzt. Wrong answer. While it may be true, it artificially creates a mystery where none should be.

When the observations don't fit the way things are understood, there are only two possibilities: either the measurements we made are wrong, or what we understood previously was wrong.

If it can be readily deduced that there is not enough volume in their original estimate of the conduit's size to accomodate the quantity of lava being produced, then either we are wrong about how much lava is coming up, the lava is coming from somewhere deeper, or the conduit's size was estimated incorrectly. Let's assume (probably safely) that the measurements they took on the amount of lava coming up were correct.

Considering how little we really know about what goes on beneath the surface of the Earth, I'd say that these last two options still have a whole lot of merit. It's not entirely inconceivable, after all, that whatever they think they should have already found if they existed have simply not yet been found due to the limitations of current technology.

Stories like this artificially create apparent mysteries in a field where none belong.

Re:Funny??? Damn insightful, if you ask me.

[jayhawk88]

When the observations don't fit the way things are understood, there are only two possibilities: either the measurements we made are wrong, or what we understood previously was wrong.

Which is exactly the train of thought the scientists studying Mt. St. Helens are using to try and figure out this mystery, I'm sure. Don't assume incompetance on their part because of some AP writer didn't get that point across.

Re:Funny??? Damn insightful, if you ask me.

[EvanED]

Considering how little we really know about what goes on beneath the surface of the Earth, I'd say that these last two options still have a whole lot of merit

Exactly. You just explained yourself why they don't know where it's coming from, and where the mystery lay!

Is it coming from greater depths or is the shallow chamber bigger than we thought?

And implicit in the article, IF it's coming from greater depths, why isn't it creating earthquakes?

Re:Funny??? Damn insightful, if you ask me.

[Dun Malg]

Don't assume incompetance on their part because of some AP writer didn't get that point across.

Errr....he assumed no such thing. In fact, his point was identical to yours. Note how he says nothing about the scientists, and the line at the end where he says "Stories like this artificially create apparent mysteries" (emphasis mine). The story is from the AP writer.

Re:Funny??? Damn insightful, if you ask me.

[Khomar]

Stories like this artificially create apparent mysteries in a field where none belong.

And we wonder why kids don't want to go into the sciences: there are not (or can be no) mysteries. Why go into a field where everything is already solved, packaged, and delivered? This is the biggest complaint I have about the way science is taught today. Science is shown to have solved all of the mysteries. Evolution is an indisputable fact, and it happened exactly such-and-such a way. There is no room for doubt (you can't disagree with the churc... I mean the scientists!). We have effectively removed the mystery of life, and leaving us to just eek out an existence.

The fact of the matter is that there are a lot of mysteries throughout the realm of science. In fact, one could say that science is the solving of mysteries. Personnally, I wouldn't want to live in a universe where every mystery has already been solved. Fortunately, that is certainly not the case. Science has made huge gains in the past 100 years, but we have much, much farther to go. Revel in this mystery, and watch with interest as the answers come forth.

Re:Funny??? Damn insightful, if you ask me.

[Snaller]

Since they don't know what is going on it IS a mystery. Read a dictionary some time.

Well, I bet Tom Cruise knows where its all from...

[Anonymous Coward]

The incredible amount of Thetans in the Earth is displacing all that lava! Sheeesh, its so simple.

Yes, but...

[abb3w]

Where in the hell is all that lava coming from?

See folks...

[mindaktiviti]

This is what happens when you let Intelligent Design into our schools.

Re:See folks...

[Orion Blastar]

Yes, because everyone knows that the hot gas and ash are really coming from The Flying Spaghetti Monster. Did you notice the increase in the level of pirate activity and global warming and how they relate? My pasta, man, what are they teaching in schools these days? That there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster? But look at the facts, look at the facts.

Re:See folks...

[Anonymous Coward]

While I appreciate the joke, the ironic thing is, this is a slam against ID in a discusion about something prevailing scientific theory got wrong.

Religion, Science, Philosophy, whatever: question it all and keep an open mind to differing viewpoints.

Re:See folks...

[MacDork]

This is what happens when sharks with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads are misplaced and left to their own devices.

Re:See folks...

[roman_mir]

Religion, Science, Philosophy, whatever: question it all and keep an open mind to differing viewpoints. - while science, philosophy can be reworked if facts contradict theories, religion cannot, so I don't understand why you are putting them into the same category.

Re:See folks...

[Anonymous Coward]

It can't? Wow, I didn't know you couldnt make religions (or your own mind up) anymore.

Just because some religious body says the sky is now green doesnt mean you have to believe or preach it.

Stop being an idiot.

Re:See folks...

[roman_mir]

It can't? Wow, I didn't know you couldnt make religions (or your own mind up) anymore.

Just because some religious body says the sky is now green doesnt mean you have to believe or preach it.

Stop being an idiot.

making a totally new religion, that says - the skies are blue, while the old religion says - the skies are green is not the same as having 2 different (even contradicting) scientific theories, at the end of the process only one theory will be correct.

Stop being an idiot.

Re:See folks...

[Rimbo]

"While science, philosophy can be reworked if facts contradict theories, religion cannot, so I don't understand why you are putting them into the same category."

Why not?

It's a legitimate question. And really think about it, instead of just posting the first answer that comes to mind. For example, you might want to take a look at the Reformation and what that was all about.

Re:See folks...

[Anonymous Coward]

while science, philosophy can be reworked if facts contradict theories, religion cannot, so I don't understand why you are putting them into the same category.

I'm the original AC you're replying to, not that other guy who is being quite rude.

I think you really need to study the history of religions, before you make a comment like that(you and the moderator who modded you insightful, I would have modded it "ignorant of history" if that was available). What is called Christianity today, is vastly different than what the original "christians" practiced. Judaism has morphed over the years, as has Islam. Even Buddism. Then there's the "nature" religions, which are in a constant state of flux from group to group, even among individual practitioners.

Historically speaking, you are quite WRONG in your assertion. The whole protestant movement, for example, was born of people differing with the dogmas of the religion, changing them to match what they believed to be correct and the "facts", and moving on.

Further, in philosophy, you have many people who cling to their philosophies to the exclusion of facts. Even in science, you will find "scientific" people, clinging to old ideas and vehemently attacking new ones. It's pretty much the same human process among all three.

Without meaning to be rude, your comment betrays a substantial ignorance of religious history on your part. Whenever I see that level of ignorance combined with that much contempt for any given throughtform(whether it be science, philosophy, religion, etc...) it becomes pretty evident that there is an illogically closed mind jumping to conclusions based on what others have said, without doing any research or cultivating any type of understanding of their own. It might be bitter medicine to hear this, but if you want a free mind, you should seriously consider what I just said, and perhaps, pick up a book on the history of any given religion and note how they are quite able to change over time.

Or maybe just continue prejudging things you're not really qualified to judge and continue to get called on it going forward. It's all up to you.

Re:See folks...

[roman_mir]

Certainly there are different religions, there are old religions and new religions, but they all coexist at the same time. In science contradicting theories can only coexist for a amount of time, in which it takes to prove one of them to be incorrect.

Re:See folks...

[cdwiegand]

Excuse me, my religion is quite capable of adapting. In fact, I'm not aware of any that's not.. Judaism (mine) can be reworked (see non-orthodox movements in Wikipedia), Catholic Christianity just needs the Pope's Word to change things, Mormon Christianity just needs the Prophet's Word, and Islam and Protestant Christianity need the community to agree on things. Non-judaic religions, like Wicca and Buddism, also need general community support to change things.

I don't know from where this concept that religion is "monolithic and unchanging" comes, but it's kinda annoying...

Re:See folks...

[Guido von Guido]

I don't see the irony here. This is how science works. You make observations and/or perform experiments, and you alter the theory if you need to. It's not a victory for the Intelligent Design folks if the prevailing scientific theory gets something wrong.

Although I can see how you might think that, given that Intelligent Design consists almost entirely of sniping at the prevailing scientific theory.

Re:See folks...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know from where this concept that religion is "monolithic and unchanging" comes, but it's kinda annoying...

It comes from plain, ole fashioned, close minded bigotry. There are those who have been programmed to be so anti-religion, that they throw logic to the wind in their crusade against anything remotely religiously. And they would be quick to joke, as a way of not having to come to grips with their own illogical thinking, that religion isn't about logic.

Thing is, when you've studied the worlds major religions(and many minor ones), you begin to see that there is logic involved. A VERY VERY good book along these lines, is called "Thinking with Demons", that touches deeply on this subject with regards to early modern Europe and their witchcraft/magic beliefs.

I've said this before, I'll say it again. The McScientists of the world, those bigots who aren't actually scientists but believe everything at face value if some "authority" says it, are the reason ID is catching on in this culture. One group can't be taking things on faith based on the "authority" of "experts" and then call foul when another group is doing that without being extreme hypocrites.

I would like to see science return to a purer and more openminded pursuit of knowledge, and turn its back on the dogma thumping, anti-religion cult that seems to speak for science today. These guys are as bad as fundamentalists of any given faith and just as closed minded. They're running the perception of science into the ground with their bigotry.

Re:See folks...

[jamesh]

This is one thing that has always bugged me about (most) religions. On the one hand it is said that God (s/God/Deity of your choice) is infallible, and that the Bible (s/Bible/Religous text of your choice) is the word of God. But on the other hand, people say that their religion is flexible and adaptive. I can understand how the Bible is a bit hazy on some points, and this 'flexibility' can take the form of applying a different interpretation to some of the hazier points, but on some things it is pretty concrete.

I was going to continue along these lines but was just checking the ten commandments on wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments) and noticed that #9 under "Jewish Understanding" is "eat a booger". This gave me enought of a laugh that I just don't feel like typing anymore. Hooray for wikipedia! I'm off to clean the kitchen.

Re:See folks...

[Anonymous Coward]

Way to make an utterly irrelevant point in defense of your indefensible idiocy.

Fag.

Re:See folks...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see the irony here. This is how science works. You make observations and/or perform experiments, and you alter the theory if you need to.

The irony here, is that the people against ID, like to squawk facts and truths and all kinds of other grand sounding words, but tend not to recognize the fallibility of science.

It's not a victory for the Intelligent Design folks if the prevailing scientific theory gets something wrong.

ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. I in no way meant to imply that. If someone else is wrong, it doesn't make you right. That's just simple logic.

The main point of my post was in my closing statement about questioning everything and keeping an openmind. Care to take any bets about how many people who slam ID have actually read anything written by any of the proponents of ID? Beyond blurbs in some news release?

I have, I don't believe it, but I'm not out to put down other people and mock them because of it.

And one thing you said "because prevailing scientific theory gets something wrong". Prevailing scientific theory gets a lot of stuff wrong. I was taught in school that Africa was where human kind originated. Recently, we're being told that no, in fact(supposedly in fact), Asia is where human kind originated. Which is right? I don't really care. I know what is being offered is theory by competent people utilizing logic, and that means that was is being said is theory, and not gospel truth or fact, so I am not about to treat it as such.

Keep an open mind, question everything. Don't ever, EVER, reach a point where you just take something on faith because "science" or "scientists" or some authority said it. Goes for religion, goes for philosophy, goes for science.

Or, take that route. Treat science like the one true faith that can be trusted without question. It's your choice, but don't go pretending that you personally are enlightened or are particularly logical if you don't reason for yourself, think for yourself, and question everything.

The only real truth anyone can known in life, are the truth of who they are. Everything else is filtered by perception and the limitations thereof. A free mind knows this, recognizes it, and keeps itself open to other viewpoints rather than enslaving itself to one particular viewpoint. Including its own.

Re:See folks...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is one thing that has always bugged me about (most) religions. On the one hand it is said that God (s/God/Deity of your choice) is infallible, and that the Bible (s/Bible/Religous text of your choice) is the word of God. But on the other hand, people say that their religion is flexible and adaptive.

You obviously haven't studied most religions as you are working on common misconceptions, mostly centered around the doctrines of fundamentalist sects. And by studying most, I don't mean becoming a student of them(thought that is the only way you can hope to understand them), just read about them. Just take 20 minutes a day to read a brief synopsis of various religions until you've read 3 from different sources, about each religion.

Cover Taoism, Buddhism, Christianity(remember the 3 different sources part), Judaism, Islam, Ba'hai, Wicca, Hinduism, and just as many as you can. You will gain a bigger picture of the diversity of religions.

Re:See folks...

[Anonymous Coward]

And really think about it, instead of just posting the first answer that comes to mind.

That's a snotty line coming from someone whose reply to "Why?" was "Why not?"

Step up, yourself -- then, maybe, you can crack prematurely on other people for flimsy, ill-thought arguments. In the meantime, go fuck yourself, Troll.

Re:See folks...

[roman_mir]

Oh, please, this garbage is not marked down even once, but my GGP comment has flamebate and overrated mods?

Well, good to see state of Kansas educational system hard at work.

Re:See folks...

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't? Once again you're amazing.

Re:See folks...

[zerocool^]

Because Science is based on understanding of facts; science does not get "reworked" when new facts surface, it simply incorporates the new material and new conclusions are drawn which take into account the new information.

Religion requires strict adherence to the laws of said religion, because in a monotheistic religious atmosphere, almost always the god in question is perceived as wholly good and perfect, with no evil, and at the same time is the source of the religious laws. If there's a flaw in the doctrine of the religion, it would disprove or contradict god, and if that happens, then god is not perfect. It throws the entire system off. Religion cannot deal with change in human understanding of any subject where the church has previously stated something as fact - there's no mechanism to account for it.

Hence why I'm an athiest. Or, if you want to get philosophical about it, my god is the scietific method. I see no need to explain things via the supernatural; to me everything falls into "things we understand" and "things we don't understand yet". I do not believe that there is anything at all in the entire universe that science could not explain given all the facts.

Also, an interesting thought occured to me when I was studying for my Classics minor - we wouldn't have a lot of the modern religious hangups if we still had a polytheistic religious society, a. la. Ancient Greece. That type of system has gods who make mistakes, reneg on their word, and screw up all the time. If that were the case here, we wouldn't have all the hangups.

~Will

**note I'd capitalize Greece long before god. The world needs more athiests. Stand up and be counted.

Re:See folks...

[Sj0]

To accept only the parts of religion that you like is to murder God.

If more than a few gun-toting buffoons around the globe realized this, we might live in a better world.

Re:See folks...

[Sj0]

If man is the archetect of religion, then doesn't is stand that religion is not the work of God?

The moment you start treating religion like a democracy, you have murdered your own God. The three major religions are quite clear on this: God is the king -- he's the one in charge. If you overthrow God, that's fine, but you no longer have a religion, you have little more than a hierarchy.

Re:See folks...

[Anonymous Coward]

Because Science is based on understanding of facts; science does not get "reworked" when new facts surface, it simply incorporates the new material and new conclusions are drawn which take into account the new information.

Science is based on the observation of facts in the HOPES of gaining an understanding of those facts. Science often gets its understanding wrong. Case in point: RTFA.

Because Science is based on understanding of facts; science does not get "reworked" when new facts surface, it simply incorporates the new material and new conclusions are drawn which take into account the new information.

Science does not get reworked when new facts surface, it simply incorporate new material and new conclusions are drawn...

Something about a rose by any other name is still a rose...

Religion requires strict adherence to the laws of said religion, because in a monotheistic religious atmosphere, almost always the god in question is perceived as wholly good and perfect, with no evil, and at the same time is the source of the religious laws.

I'm getting tired of seeing this error repeated. First, you make a broad general statement(argument) about religion in general, and then you seem to rest your argument simply on your opinion of monothiestic religions. I hope this isn't how you practice the scientific method.

Gnosticism does not require strict adherence to laws. Wicca doesn't. Buddhism doesn't. Many different interpretations of Christianity don't. You are aware that there are more religions active and alive in the world, beyond the 3 that grew out of ancient Judaism?

Or, if you want to get philosophical about it, my god is the scietific method.

Science is a tool, not a god. This attitude is exactly what is fueling the recent interest in ID. The religious people in the world will give you a religious war if that's what you, and other True Believers in science give them. That's what's behind the growing influence of ID.

What the world needs more of, is not people of your belief(in this case Atheism) but people who use logic and have open minds(open especially to them being wrong). We don't need yet another group of true believing jackasses trying to disprove everyone who doesn't believe like them. The world has an abundance of such people as it is. That's how crusades start. That's how enmity and hostility propogate.

**note I'd capitalize Greece long before god.

Fight on Crusader.

Re:See folks...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, the jabbing is stupid.

I'm pretty sure we've found God's toolbox, wood, and nails. Almost hope we don't find the sledge and power nailer.

God doesn't disprove science.
Science doesn't disprove God.

God can do what he wants, but seems to like rules.

Re:See folks...

[anagama]

Add me to your list.

Re:See folks...

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you still believe in santa claus ? The easter bunny ? If a grown adult approached you and professed a belief in either of these, and when contradicted with evidence (say that its impossible for santa claus to deliver all the presents to all the houses in a single night even to only those that believe) and they went to great lengths to continue to justify those beliefs what would you think of them? perhaps they are misguided? perhaps they are stupid ? This is the situation we atheists deal with, could you mask your contempt for such idiocy day in and day out ?
Your right to criticize the grand parent for claiming that his religion is science, science isnt religion, it is a prescription for findings answers, relgion is a ready made cookbook of easy answers hey why expend any effort on understaning the world arround you, god did this, god did that, the world was created in 6 days, that woman died because someone put a curse on her, that person close to you died and you are suffering considerable duress because you will never be able to spend time with them so lets concoct elaborate stories about moving on to a better place in order to make ourselves feel better, instead of excepting the fact that we are here for a finite amount of time, so you had better not waste it on primitive rituals (pascals wager meet economics).

Re:See folks...

[m50d]

For example, you might want to take a look at the Reformation and what that was all about.

But it didn't, on the whole, succeed. The catholic church is still there, still teaching more or less the same thing, and I'm pretty sure still more popular than the reformed denominations, certainly comparable. And the reason it didn't succeed is there is no real evidence in questions of religion, it's just one authority over another. Compare with science - how many scientists seriously follow an old, wrong theory, claim, say, that newtonian gravity is superior to relativity? Few or none - they can't, the experimental results show otherwise.

Re:See folks...

[jonadab]

> This is one thing that has always bugged me about (most) religions. On the one hand
> it is said that God (s/God/Deity of your choice) is infallible, and that the Bible
> (s/Bible/Religous text of your choice) is the word of God. But on the other hand,
> people say that their religion is flexible and adaptive.

Two different groups of people. "Flexible and adaptive" is the sort of thing the liberals and eccumenists say; conservatives (usually called "fundamentalists" if you're liberal) are the ones who believe in things like infallibility and inerrancy. There is very little overlap between the two groups.

Where it gets confusing is when you start trying to categorize denominations. In any given denomination, you usually have both sorts of people (although one or the other may dominate), so you hear both kinds of comments coming out of them.

Re:See folks...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmmm, well, I'm no believer, and an atheist just like you, but you seem to forget that while the religion's laws do come from a god, they are always interpreted by humans. This would allow for mistakes and corrections being made.

Re:See folks...

[jbengt]

Just to disagree with one more thing: "I do not believe that there is anything at all in the entire universe that science could not explain given all the facts."
Given all the facts, (which is a pretty outlandish assumption, considering the uncertainty principle, black holes, etc.) science still could not explain "all the facts". That is, the one thing that science does not even try to explain is existence. This is why as long as people have been intelligent and self-aware they have had a need for religion.

Re:See folks...

[zerocool^]

In my defense, my claim of "the scientific method is my religion" is only accurate in that, in a broad sense, people are looking for answers. I choose to look to science, while many choose to look to religion. Your conclusion about how the answers are reached being different in science versus religion is why I choose science.

I'm not trying to put a religion on my athiesm, though.

Re:See folks...

[zerocool^]

In reasonable religions, yes. Try telling that to a southern baptist fundamentalist sometime. Their claim (and that of most fundamentalist christians) is that the bible is the inspired, infallable word of god, and though it was written by a man, the man was guided by god. Specifically, KJVonlyism really gets to me.

Of course, then you point out the fact that it has changed languages several times, and that there were probably errors in translation, and that scripts from different locations say different things, and that the idea of virgin birth and the trinity both are only a thousand or 1500 years old...

It doesn't matter to these people. I have heard people say that the translators of the KJV were inspired by god and made no mistakes, and hence that version is perfect - that it's the word of god, literally, and any previous mistakes were corrected by god's influence in that translation. I then point out - does that mean, the only true version of the bible is in English? And one sunday school teacher told me "yes". Unbelievable, especially considering I studied Ancient and New Testament Greek in college, and I know that for starters, there are some concepts that can't be translated into English, and furthermore, some mistranslations.

~Will

Re:See folks...

[roman_mir]

Reformation in religion does not mean that everyone agrees to follow your new religion. Some people stay with the old and some people move to the new, thus creating parallel religions.

Reworking scientific theories only means that the most viable theory will win, which means the most viable theory will be the one, that gives the best approximation (or an exact answer) to the posed question for all situations. Thus, when the most viable theory wins, the less viable theories are discarded. It is possible that the new theory is also not perfect and a new one will be created later, but if that happens the current best theory will also be discarded for the newer better one.

Religions do not operate that way - there is no way to actually scientifically prove that one religion is better than another, so religion does not fall into the same category as science.

Re:See folks...

[tyrione]

You're correct, and there are non-dogmatic modern religions of scientific illuminism that don't insult ourselves as slaves and incorporate the sound aspects of various eastern modalities which focus on the inner development of the individual. When you create a religion to control the masses you get dogma and slaves.

GOD is definitely not Jehovah. The very fact they classify an infinite divine force in human terms should be the first clue. People want Faith, not Certainty in life. People want Hope for a future Life, not transference of Life into another experience with more lessons and experiences to discover. People are so arrogant they proclaim their Almighty as being devoid of Evil, when GOD makes no destinction between any two collisions (encounters, interactions of force, etc) as one being Good or one being Evil. They are all equal moments of Change. We delude ourselves when we build an ever densely populated veil of Ignorance crowned by a slain sacrificial Lamb born from an barren (impotent) host which should be the biggest clue, in the 21st century, that ALL LIFE IS DYNAMIC. Celebrate the Sacred Whore, Despise the Bourgeois Chaste Woman, Despite the Slut who cannot celebrate life and all its most natural and without restricted experiences.

Not all philosophies, religions, spiritual practices adhere to the slave mentality and recognizes that Work In == Work Out in Thermosystems forms of equilibrium. It's the determination of the multi-stage Work In that must be discovered in ordered to comply with equilibrium. (End of Mechanical Engineering philosophy)

I'm in 100% agreement with you until you forgot to Think Different and realize that the god atheists despise as exisiting is in fact, not GOD, but one deity of countless deities past who managed to be leveraged as a tool for a movement now over 2,000 years in the works. GOD exists but not in the pretty picture of the Triadic religions whose own Impotent Tree of Life keeps them in shackles. Meanwhile, they do a dandy job at keeping the world in strife through turf wars.

Re:See folks...

[DASCOM2000]

You only need to brush your teeth every day to be religious.

Re:See folks...

[sumdumass]

I agree. The scientist that cannot figure this out Must have been exposed to bunches of inteligent design programs.

Of course, Now we are faced with the problem of, If they cannot scientificaly explain it, it doesn't exist. Maybe this volcanoe's activities needs to be shifted from science to theoligy or philosiphy.

Re:See folks...

[sumdumass]

Your sunday school teacher is well meaninged but stupid. You shouldn't base all your impressions from her.

I was once removed from sunday school when I told some students that Jesus was a jew. The preacher had to set things straight. People are idoits and ignorant by nature. When you encounter these types of people, please refrain from becoming one of them.

As for the translations, Yes it is obvious that there are mistakes. People are taught that these mistakes are truthful and pass that information along. This is not much different from your parents teaching you science from a thirdgrade text book they used when in school. Shit is just going to be wrong. Religion is historicaly taught by people who are not qualified and don't amount to much more then your parents telling you about science from what they learned 30 years ago.

I recently had to corect one of my nieces' teachers at school who instisted that there was only 26 amendments in the bill of rights. Evidently the 27th wasn't a concern because it was added in 1992 and she recieved her degree in '85. This doesn't mean that all schools are full of shit and they should be treated as so or that they fall inot the same catagory as religions who cannot change. It means that someone got answers from someone who wasn't qualified to give them. I would hate to apply the same standards to the schools system that you applied to the church. We wouldn't be educating anyone ever.

Re:See folks...

[good soldier svejk]

I was once removed from sunday school when I told some students that Jesus was a jew.

In order for me to believe that you would first have to convince me Jesus existed.

I recently had to corect one of my nieces' teachers at school who instisted that there was only 26 amendments in the bill of rights. Evidently the 27th wasn't a concern because it was added in 1992 and she recieved her degree in '85.

Actually, you are both wrong. There are ten amendments in the Bill of Rights. There are twenty-seven amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America. :-)

Re:See folks...

[jo42]

Saw the best bumper sticker the other day: "My boss is a Jewish carpenter".

Re:See folks...

[sumdumass]

The first ten amendments to the constitution are considered the Bill or Rights. Amendments added to the constitution are added to the bill or rights. They are listed seperatly from the constitution and not reworked into them. This is why it is just as corect to say amendments to the constitution or call the entire colection of 27 amendments the bill of rights. Even though your spliting somethign here, It doesn't change the meaning of what was writen.

For jesus to have existed, This is somethign I am not going to set out and prove. This wasn't my intention at all. We do know jesus existed by the same ways we know george washington actualy existed. His importance in history has preserved this for us. For instance, we have government records showing he was actualy placed on a cross and punished.

I followed the link in your post to some bablings of an athiest who attemps to misquote, misread and then formulate an opinion based on this puposefull twisting to prove an agenda. It apears that this athiest and his followers are doing the same thing the GP poster was complaining about. It is ironic when examined. It is even more ironic when he only looks to the King James version of the bible until it is neccesary to cite a discrepency from another version. I'm not a religious person but i do understand the general concept of the bible and the author of that story should too. Unfortunatly it is a propaganda piece writen directly with the intent of skewing the truth or facts for thier specific purpose. The meare presence of the words christian apoligist takes away any objective meaning to the article let alone explains why he would intentionaly misconstrue what he was talking about. If this is your evidence to why someone did not exist, I would hope you don't use that same laxed rules of evidence for anyhtign meaningful like science. It would end up ruining it's credibility.

Re:See folks...

[good soldier svejk]

The first ten amendments to the constitution are considered the Bill or Rights. Amendments added to the constitution are added to the bill or rights. They are listed seperatly from the constitution and not reworked into them. This is why it is just as corect to say amendments to the constitution or call the entire colection of 27 amendments the bill of rights. Even though your spliting somethign here, It doesn't change the meaning of what was writen.

This is a ridiculous and oxymoronic statement. The Bill of Rights refers to the ten ammendements to the constitution passed and ratified in 1791. By definition it is inextensible. Take a look at the Library of Congress web site. They very clearly label the Bill of Rights and ammendements 11-27 separately and even have seperate links to them.

Of course this doesn't change the meaning of "what was written" (nice passive voice). I was just having fun. You should work on your sense of humor.

For jesus to have existed, This is something I am not going to set out and prove. This wasn't my intention at all. We do know jesus existed by the same ways we know george washington actualy existed. His importance in history has preserved this for us. For instance, we have government records showing he was actualy placed on a cross and punished.

The first is a specious argument. We know George Washington existed, not because of his impact on history, but because there are numerous accounts of his existence written during his lifetime. He left legal documents, an estate (complete with chattel) and heirs (his stepchildren). The second point is certainly news to me. Where are these governement records? I would love to see them or at least reasonable documentation of their existence. All sources I have seen say there are no extant mentions of Jesus until 33CE. Maybe this site will be more palatable to you than the atheists.org page.

Re:See folks...

[Rimbo]

Ok, but you've basically just undercut your own point by limiting it to just American Fundamentalists: Your original claim is painting all religions with an extremely broad brush when you claim that they're all houses of cards, where you take out one and the rest falls down. If you mean American Fundamentalism, then say American Fundamentalism; don't say "Religion" and mean it to refer to, say, Presbyterians in the US, where you could (oh say) prove me wrong on a couple of serious and significant matters and it wouldn't then logically follow that I'd have to give up belief in God because of it.

In the church in which I grew up, having a different opinion on theological matters was not merely tolerated, but expected. We also expected our beliefs to obey the laws of Physics...

Re:See folks...

[sumdumass]

I was just having fun. You should work on your sense of humor.

Yes i do need to work on that department. And thanks for pointing it out. Sometimes I don't get the joking around untill afte ri post a reply or someone points it out.

The first is a specious argument. We know George Washington existed, not because of his impact on history, but because there are numerous accounts of his existence written during his lifetime. He left legal documents, an estate (complete with chattel) and heirs (his stepchildren). The second point is certainly news to me. Where are these governement records? I would love to see them or at least reasonable documentation of their existence. All sources I have seen say there are no extant mentions of Jesus until 33CE. Maybe this site will be more palatable to you than the atheists.org page.

Most of the documents about Jesus were discarded early by the church when they started portraying him as the son of God and not another prophit. This doesn't mean they don't exist or that jesus didn't exist. There is a record of Jesus getting crusified that was kept by the romans. Flavius Josephus wrote about Jesus and the christian in A.D. 93 when doing a historical documentation on the jewish faith. We take alot of what we know about the romans from his writings. If he is a lier then it is likley most all our history is incorect. Granted it was writen after jesus' time but the author would have been alive and able to talk to people who witnessed it first hand.

Another reference to Jesus' existance is in the Talmud. This reference was at the times of Jesus' existance and delt directly with his "changing of the religions" or breaking jewish laws. It is very hostile towards him and documented his trial, convition and punishment. It is even hostile towards his mother. I could go on and on but I don't wish to prove his existance. This is an argument that will go round and round. Outside strict roman governing, we realy don't have much mor eof anythign to go on about these times. If the same standards of proof were applied, it wouldn't be possible to believe any histroy around this time.

Re:See folks...

[good soldier svejk]

Most of the documents about Jesus were discarded early by the church when they started portraying him as the son of God and not another prophit. This doesn't mean they don't exist or that jesus didn't exist.

Again, oxymoronic. If they were discarded they don't exist and you can't use them as evidence of his existence.

There is a record of Jesus getting crusified that was kept by the romans. Flavius Josephus wrote about Jesus and the christian in A.D. 93 when doing a historical documentation on the jewish faith. We take alot of what we know about the romans from his writings. If he is a lier then it is likley most all our history is incorect. Granted it was writen after jesus' time but the author would have been alive and able to talk to people who witnessed it first hand.

This is of no value. Someone writing a century later and 1400 miles away is completely irelevent. There are no contemporaneous accounts of the existence of Jesus.

Another reference to Jesus' existance is in the Talmud. This reference was at the times of Jesus' existance and delt directly with his "changing of the religions" or breaking jewish laws. It is very hostile towards him and documented his trial, convition and punishment. It is even hostile towards his mother. I could go on and on but I don't wish to prove his existance. This is an argument that will go round and round. Outside strict roman governing, we realy don't have much mor eof anythign to go on about these times.

This is simply not true. There is nothing in the Talmud that a reasonable Hebrew reading historian could construe as mentioning Jesus (I happen to be a Jew and a history major).

If the same standards of proof were applied, it wouldn't be possible to believe any histroy around this time.

No competent historian would apply any other standard. And we know for sure lots of historical figures from that era and location existed because it was documented by their peers. For instance, from contemporaneous accounts we have a great deal of information on the life of Herod Antipus. It just doesn't include anything about Jesus or Saint John.

Re:See folks...

[good soldier svejk]

The meare presence of the words christian apoligist takes away any objective meaning to the article let alone explains why he would intentionaly misconstrue what he was talking about.

I forgot to mention, "Christian Apologists" is not a derogatory term. It is in fact the technical term for theologians who specialize in the systematic defense of Christianity. The field is called Christian Apologetics. The first use of this Greek term (apologia) in reference to Christianity is in the Koine book of Paul, Acts 26:2.

Re:See folks...

[sumdumass]

Again, oxymoronic. If they were discarded they don't exist and you can't use them as evidence of his existence.

No, it isn't oxymoronic. It was just a st atment as to why there are little documents surounding him that survived. It is well recorded that these documents were hidden and/or destroyed at this time. It doesn't prove he existed but it does give a counter to why the claim that "there isn't any documents" doesn't hold much water.

this is of no value. Someone writing a century later and 1400 miles away is completely irelevent. There are no contemporaneous accounts of the existence of Jesus.

Unfortunatly it is relevent. And it wasn't a century later. Close but not exact. It is still within the life span of people who would have been alive and his recordings reflected that. Also, he didn't write jesus existed and this happened. He wrote about problems with christians and the roman empire. There are more examples and copies of examples availible. I just listed the one at the top of my head. I do not intend to list an inexhastible list some someeone with a website can write some counter to it. It seems funny that all the countrers to Jesus' existance seem to be geared towards telling someone thier full of shit. I guess agenda driven might eb the words i'm looking for.

his is simply not true. There is nothing in the Talmud that a reasonable Hebrew reading historian could construe as mentioning Jesus (I happen to be a Jew and a history major).

Again this is why i didn't want to get into proving jesus existed. It will go round and around with each claim and counter claim getting even more shakey on the grounds it stands on. I can probably refeence several more sites that show the exact oposite form what your site say. What would that prove? It would prove you need to show jesus didn't exist ( your agenda) and it would prove i need to show he did exist (my agenda) Except that i'm not going to follow that agenda. You either except the proof as shown or ignore it and pick faults at it just like christians sometime try with evolution verses vreation. It isn't worth it to me to try and change your mind on this either.

etent historian would apply any other standard. And we know for sure lots of historical figures from that era and location existed because it was documented by their peers. For instance, from contemporaneous accounts we have a great deal of information on the life of Herod Antipus. It just doesn't include anything about Jesus or Saint John.

And the guy who built a house(s) never existed because no surviving documents exist. This is just silly. Jesus dies around AD 30 or 33. Nero burned Rome and blamed the christians around AD 66 and start a purge of all christians and related articles. Acts shows us letter from paul who was verry alive in the days of jesus, a reletive of his. Durring nero's pusecution of the christians, as much of the christian writings as possible were moved to greece and translaed from either memory or stolen manuscripts into greek wich is why there is a need to translate it back. This is why the vurrent bibles aren't 100% acurrate and probably why they can never be.

The king James version of the bible was just a version some monks hammered out that included enough books to prove the points of the time then presented to king james for a birthday present. It should be taken with even more of a grain of salt. But none of these mistranslations means jesus doesn't exist. I recently saw a website that tryed to claim the mistranslation was proof god didn't exist. I didn't know you could prove a negative but hey when it fits the need, i guess it will be used.

You can believe whatever you want about his eixtance. There is enough evidence that normal people would consider it historicaly acurate. Alas, we have people claiming we never made it to the moon(it was all a hollywood show), JFK

Re:See folks...

[good soldier svejk]

No, it isn't oxymoronic. It was just a st atment as to why there are little documents surounding him that survived. It is well recorded that these documents were hidden and/or destroyed at this time.It doesn't prove he existed but it does give a counter to why the claim that "there isn't any documents" doesn't hold much water.

It isn't even evidence he existed. It is merely an excuse for lack of evidence. You statement was oxymoronic because you said they were destroyed but that didn't mean they don't exist.

Unfortunatly it is relevent. And it wasn't a century later. Close but not exact. It is still within the life span of people who would have been alive and his recordings reflected that.

Yet those people who met him and were still alive did not feel moved to record it themselves. Nice.

It would prove you need to show jesus didn't exist ( your agenda) and it would prove i need to show he did exist (my agenda) Except that i'm not going to follow that agenda. You either except the proof as shown or ignore it and pick faults at it just like christians sometime try with evolution verses vreation. It isn't worth it to me to try and change your mind on this either.

Obviously I don't need to prove Jesus didn't exist. In the first place you can't prove a negative. The burden of proof rests entirely on you. And you have failed miserably. Nothing you have cited even qualifies as compelling evidence, much less proof.

And the guy who built a house(s) never existed because no surviving documents exist.

That example is a begging the question fallacy.

Nero burned Rome and blamed the christians around AD 66 and start a purge of all christians and related articles.

Other than the writings of Tacitus, who was a small child at the time, there is little evidence Nero burned Rome. He certainly blamed the Christians, although I fail to see what that had to do with anything. I never said there weren't Christians. I said there was no evidence of a real live Jesus.

Acts shows us letter from paul who was verry alive in the days of jesus, a reletive of his.

Good point. Paul actually met Jesus! Or rather he met him in an hallucination he had after Jesus's alleged death. Never actually met him in person. This is possibly the most ridiculous "evidence" you have yet proposed.

There is enough evidence that normal people would consider it historicaly acurate. Alas, we have people claiming we never made it to the moon(it was all a hollywood show), JFK was shot by three shooters, Elvis is alive, Hitler is living in south america and has a gay jewish boyfriend, former President Bill Clinton was actualy a robot sent by aliens who wanted to distract us from Thier real agenda (anal probing the dumbest people they could find). It doesn't take much to make some things belivable to some. I'm not surprised at all to hear this.

Nice false analogy. Goes well with your argumentum ad numerum fallacy.

Re:See folks...

[sumdumass]

And this is what i mean. This type of exorcise is really anoying in the least. I don't want to set out and prove Jesus existed as an actual live person. All i did was repeat what normal people accept as proof and show a few of ther many other citations. Here is some of what we know as fact,

1. Jesus wouldn't be the name recorded in these documents, that is more or less a translation of a common name or title from that period of time. We also know that the original hebrew name was different then the greek name wich is translated once again into english to get Jesus. We do know that there were many people who would have had the sane name or title and these people would/could have lived in the same area as Jesus is supposed to have.
2. Rome has recorded the christians as they were called 60 years after Rome claims the movment started and attempted to prosecute them for thier belief. Obviously someone started a movment, gained followers, iritated the governing powers to the point they mounted a campain against him,iritated the Jews, started a storie that was incorperated into other religions and recieved a title christianity.
3. The people mentioned in the gospels have recorded some one named Jesus who did exist and participated in some activities with them.
4. Even though some people claim the gospels were writen after the reletive time (at least the translation form greek writings we know to exist), evidence shows that what we currently read are copies because the the formentioned acts of Nero. The gospels say nothign about the destruction Nero does but Jesus forseen it mentioned it in his teaching before his death. This indecates that the gospels were actualy writen or passed oraly before Nero's actions or that it is one hell of a conspiracy.
5. The conspiracy continues because islam makes mention to Jesus in the Q'uoran, the hindu religion is even in on it. This is especialy evident with Krishna and the claims that christianity came from the hindu belifes. Jewish doctrin make mention and it was widley accepted that Jesus existed but his importance is downplayed. John the baptist actualy baptised Jesus acording to Mandaeism religion. Jesus' importance is again downplayed. Rome was is a big conspirator too when they lay claim to the dates of the christian movement and the destruction of thier temples
6. The claims of jesus never existing as a person is a reletive new idea in that it dates back only a couple of centuries. What else happened at this time? Thories of evolution and the "scientific" comunity disputing creationism. Anti religious sediment amung people claiming to be too smart to belive in that witchcraft. You know were i'm, going with this.

It isn't even evidence he existed. It is merely an excuse for lack of evidence. You statement was oxymoronic because you said they were destroyed but that didn't mean they don't exist.

Your right in that it is an excuse, my argument is that the originals are destroyed. The strories exist, copies exist and people wrote this stuff down later in the copies that survive until today. If an rain storm floods a town and everythign is destroyed, that doesn't mean everyone and everyhing that existed and was only recorded in that destroyed town never existed. You are placing too much emphisis on the lack of documents when we know factualy that any if at all documents were purposley destroed by people who had the power to do so. The only oxymoronic thing about this is you insisting that this is evidence he didn't exist.

Yet those people who met him and were still alive did not feel moved to record it themselves. Nice.

Again refere to my former statment. Add this though. The majority of people Jesus met wouln't have had the capabilities of writing it down let alone preserving this information for centuries so it could be reproduced at a whim to counter claims that someone never existed.

Obviously I don't need to prove Jesu

Re:See folks...

[good soldier svejk]

Jesus wouldn't be the name recorded in these documents, that is more or less a translation of a common name or title from that period of time. We also know that the original hebrew name was different then the greek name wich is translated once again into english to get Jesus. We do know that there were many people who would have had the sane name or title and these people would/could have lived in the same area as Jesus is supposed to have.

Useful only in the kind of fanciful rationalism that is necessary to maintain religious dogma. No emprical value.

Rome has recorded the christians as they were called 60 years after Rome claims the movment started and attempted to prosecute them for thier belief. Obviously someone started a movment, gained followers, iritated the governing powers to the point they mounted a campain against him,iritated the Jews, started a storie that was incorperated into other religions and recieved a title christianity.

That would be an importan point if I were disputing any of it. As it stands it has nothing to do with your inability to produce evidence of the person Jesus.

The people mentioned in the gospels have recorded some one named Jesus who did exist and participated in some activities with them. Even though some people claim the gospels were writen after the reletive time (at least the translation form greek writings we know to exist), evidence shows that what we currently read are copies because the the formentioned acts of Nero. The gospels say nothign about the destruction Nero does but Jesus forseen it mentioned it in his teaching before his death. This indecates that the gospels were actualy writen or passed oraly before Nero's actions or that it is one hell of a conspiracy.

So these stories, written centuries after Nero's death prove Jesus's existence because they describe him predicting Nero's persecution of Christians? Shocking.

The conspiracy continues because islam makes mention to Jesus in the Q'uoran, the hindu religion is even in on it. This is especialy evident with Krishna and the claims that christianity came from the hindu belifes. Jewish doctrin make mention and it was widley accepted that Jesus existed but his importance is downplayed. John the baptist actualy baptised Jesus acording to Mandaeism religion. Jesus' importance is again downplayed. Rome was is a big conspirator too when they lay claim to the dates of the christian movement and the destruction of thier temples

More of your favorite argumentum ad numerum/appeal to authority fallacy. The number of people who believe it has no relevence to its truth. And I assure you there is nothing in Jewish "doctrine" about jesus. Anyway, what you describe is called syncretism. Religions tend to absorb each other's mythology. You forgot to include Voodoo, Santaria and Mecumba (assuming you don't consider them Christian sects).

The claims of jesus never existing as a person is a reletive new idea in that it dates back only a couple of centuries. What else happened at this time? Thories of evolution and the "scientific" comunity disputing creationism. Anti religious sediment amung people claiming to be too smart to belive in that witchcraft. You know were i'm, going with this.

Precisely!!! The age of empiricism! Western man shedding the dark shackles of superstition. Have you listened to me at all? All I asked for was empirical evidence, because I am an empiricist.

The only oxymoronic thing about this is you insisting that this is evidence he didn't exist.

It is one thing for you not to be able to understand me, but you should at least be able to read your own statements. The following statement is prima facia oxymoronic. Either they they were discarded or they exist. Maybe you just don't understand tense.

Most of the documents about Jesus were discarded early by the church when they

Re:See folks...

[Anonymous Coward]

My guess is that this will be pointless to write, but still:

1) What "the church" says does not matter (to us Biblebelivers). What the Bible says matters. If "the church" accepted that we came from apes, it will not be true. When science in the future (if science will still have freedom and time) finds that it is not true, it will still not be true, no matter what "the church" says.

2) If the scientific method is your god, you are no true atheist as you can not prove God not to exist using it... If you are a true atheist, you must base your belief on something else than science.

Nietche is dead

Re:See folks...

[sumdumass]

This is starting to get real laughable. I'm not sure why i'm still entertaining your sugestion. I have come to the conclusion that you are still trying to convince yourself and thats the reason nothign is ever good enough for you.

Useful only in the kind of fanciful rationalism that is necessary to maintain religious dogma. No emprical value.

That would be an importan point if I were disputing any of it. As it stands it has nothing to do with your inability to produce evidence of the person Jesus.

See, there is your problem. Do you actualy think that a fictional person could be created, an entire religion detailed around him or his teachings and within 30 years after his supposed death, be supported to the point that those followers are willing to die for? This isn't a time like in america with freedom of religion and all. It is a time were you had little choice or freedom.

It is common knowledge that Jesus isn't the name writen in hebrew and greek. I'm not sure why you think this is some rational designed to maintain religios dogma. Actualy i'm kind of puzzled that this is the best responce you can come up with. It has all kinds of value. Namely that people other then the god jesus would also be named the same so in the least a jesus did exist. Do i have to go through the name translations for you in order for you to understand this? I would think a person found all those athiest websites should be able to find his name translations.

So these stories, written centuries after Nero's death prove Jesus's existence because they describe him predicting Nero's persecution of Christians? Shocking.

Now I understand why your having a hard time here. You cannot follow a process. Silly boy, This means that storyies writen down centuries after nero's ordeal originated before nero did his deads. I'm not sure why you would think a reprint of somethign is the first time it ever existed. Just because the copies we can find were actualy writen at one point of time doesn't mean thats the date of the story. I'm not sure if you are actualy this inept or just doing this for the sake of argument. Maybe i didn't spell it out well enough for you. I will have to re-examine it later.

More of your favorite argumentum ad numerum/appeal to authority fallacy. The number of people who believe it has no relevence to its truth. And I assure you there is nothing in Jewish "doctrine" about jesus. Anyway, what you describe is called syncretism. Religions tend to absorb each other's mythology. You forgot to include Voodoo, Santaria and Mecumba (assuming you don't consider them Christian sects).

Ahh. so it _is_ a vast right wing conspiracy after all. It is a monumental conspiracy that includes competing religions, People who died to do thier part in this conspiracy and governments. Why am i thinking it is easier to belive your point is wrong rather then all these people working together to keep a secrete and trick the entire world for centuries to come? Wait, If it was a conspiracy, wouldn't rome have kept documents to make it easier to prove? Nah, it was thier master plan. Have no documents, force a group of people into beliving a lie, then centuries later let the truth come out and say "what a joke we play on yous".

Precisely!!! The age of empiricism! Western man shedding the dark shackles of superstition. Have you listened to me at all? All I asked for was empirical evidence, because I am an empiricist.

And because your an empiricist, i'm sure you can show with empirical evidence that somethign else happened to start the christian movement at the same timeline. Youm are after all trying to substitute a popular well excepted historical theory with one of your own. In the least you should be able to replace the gaps with better versions. This would be no different then someone claiming evolution doe

Re:See folks...

[good soldier svejk]

I am going to stop wasting my time with your because all you do is jump from logical phallacy to logical phallacy. It is boring. I'll go find someone less stupid and ignorant to talk to (someone who desn't think "christian apologist" is an insult for fuck's sake). Note that this is not an ad hominem fallacy as I did not attribute the incorrectness of your arguments to your stupidity. You stupidity and ignorance merely prevent you from understanding their weakness.

Re:See folks...

[sumdumass]

I see. I ask you to provide an alternative reality to the histroy common man understands and now i'm too stupid to play the game.

The logical phallacy to logical phallacy is the basis here. Your argument is based on a logical phallacy. Your argument doesn't hold water when placed within the real of it's own confines. This is the reason it isn't a straw man argument when i change it. The substance is the same, the outcome is the same but the argument seems to lose ground. It isn't that evidence cannot be shown, it is that circumstances cannot come into play and those circumstances are acknowledged by your own admision.

I asked about why a group of people would suffer and even face death to portray some lie or conspiracy that eventualy developed inot one of the world largest religions. It wasn't even used as a power grab until someone in power centuries later had a dream the forced the nations to convert. You don't have top prove a negetive but you should in the least provide for what realy happened when you try to displace the common history understood by the vast majority of people.

I told you in the begining this is an argument that won't end with our inquiry. You will leave still aserting jesus never existed as a person and I will leave insisting he did. I havn't claimed he was the son of god or a wizzard or anythign other then an influential person of history. This isn't because I found evidence he exist but because for one reason or another others have. As i said I'm not going to set out to prove he did exist, i'm just believing the people telling us history that he did. George washington was a bad example of how we know our history because it is from a time were writen records are more common. The kings of egypt and the pyramids could be better suited for this. We only understand the documents left because of writings in the futer allow us to translate them. We have secveral acounts of kings we know to have existed that were writen years later and yet to find proof of thier existance outside that. But we do know policies and proceedure that have become common practice of the time were because of the influence of these people. This is how history works. This is how we know a person called jesus existed and influenced others. Yet this isn't good enough evidence for various reasons acording to you. So, i ask, what was the real history if he never existed.

I'll go find someone less stupid and ignorant to talk to (someone who desn't think "christian apologist" is an insult for fuck's sake).

"christian apologist" is used to describe someone defending somethign in the christian faith _and_why_it_should_be_followed_. This isn't definatly the case. The articles you reference were trying to target christians in an attempt to diminish thier faith. We are not talking about faith here. We are talking about history. When an article is purposly targeted to someones religion and trys to deny a certian fundlmental of it, it is worthless. If the article was realy refuting the existance of jesus as a person, it wouldn't have been centered around the christian faith. As i pointed out many other religions as well as historians believe jesus was alive and well at one time and had a influence in the world he lived in. It is ironic that for a person that claims to need empirical evidencein order to believe somethign that you jump to so many conclusion based on your understanding of events. Maybe you need to take a deep breath. First, you were wrong in thinking i was a christian, then you were wrong in thinking i couldn't understand the concept of an athiest jew, then you were wrong in thinking I didn't know what a christian apologist was. Maybe your corect in that i am stupid. It apears i wasn't able to relay a message to someoen as smart as you in a way you could understand. Maybe my monoker gave you false asumptions or i am correct in that you need to validate your ideoligy and this constant misinterpretation is a tool to that means.

Lets, do this. We c

Re:See folks...

[good soldier svejk]

I totally understood your position despite the opacity with which you stated it (barring that one paragraph that did not qualify as English). It was just entirely based on specious arguments and fallacious logic. Also, you repeatedly lied in service of your straw man argument that I claimed Jesus never existed. I made no such claim. The only bright spot was when you asserted that it served my purposes as a Jew to believe Jesus never existed ( Another fallacious argument. You should consider taking a logic class). Quite the contrary, I sincerely wish there were significant emprical evidence of his existence, especially of the crucifixion story. Because then I could say with confidence that my ancestors killed your god.
Lucky for me, you compensate for your logical failings with verbosity. You are not only stupid, ignorant and pompous, you are amazingly tedious.

Re:See folks...

[sumdumass]

Well a lie and strw man argument is a little misleading. If anyone is being dishonest here it would be you. Here is the way this played out. You did specificaly say that you don't believe jesus existed because thier is no empirical evidence of it. I just took that argument and changed jesus to some guy/house/town that lived and died without records surviving and you see how stupid the argument becomes. Actualy you see how stupid it becomes so much you are now attempting to discredit it by classifying my substitution as a ploy to weeken your argument. It doesn't make your argument any stronger and now your reduced to calling me stupid at every chance you get to jump to conclusions without empirical evidence.

Here is a brief outline of your argument. You will find under examination, you did in fact say that if records from the time jesus was alive existed, you don't belive he did.

In order for me to believe that you would first have to convince me Jesus existed.

1. In the link you provided was some rambling stating Although what follows may fairly be interpreted to be a proof of the non-historicity of Jesus, it must be realized that the burden of proof does not rest upon the skeptic in this matter. As always is the case, the burden of proof weighs upon those who assert that some thing or some process exists. When the article is centered around jesus not existing and attemps to disprove any evidence put forth to date.
2. The above clearly defines that without proof of his existance, he didn't exist.

You reinforce this process of jesus not existing when you answer a claim that the idea of jesus not existing is reletivly new. You then further attemp to stipulate empirical evidence is needed to convince you of his existance.

1. In this example, well read for yourself.
   • The claims of jesus never existing as a person is a reletive new idea in that it dates back only a couple of centuries. What else happened at this time? Thories of evolution and the "scientific" comunity disputing creationism. Anti religious sediment amung people claiming to be too smart to belive in that witchcraft. You know were i'm, going with this.
     1. Precisely!!! The age of empiricism! Western man shedding the dark shackles of superstition. Have you listened to me at all? All I asked for was empirical evidence, because I am an empiricist.
   • This further enforces your position that you need empirical evidence in order to belive jesus existed as a person.

again, i find you saying

1. "Your statement (jesus was a jew) presupposes the existence of Jesus. In order for me to believe it you must first produce EMPIRICAL evidence of his existence, because I have never seen any. Lots of rational evidence, especially fallacious rational evidence, but no empirical evidence. I hate rationalism.
2. I will admit i left off were you state
   1. And I never said anything like "show me proof or it didn't happen." that is a classic straw man argument. directly before the previous quote

   But this is contradictory to what you have previously said and linked to in order to support your position. You are in fact saying that if someone (I) cannot show you EMPIRICAL evidence that jesus existed, you are not going to belive he did exist. Even though the majority of the human polulation admits he did exist as a person.

Maybe i am extreamly stupid and cannot follow you argument. In that case could you spell it out so the rest of us non-inteligent people can actualy understand it.

You see, your trying to interupt a common piece of history without any evidence or belivable alternative. Your claiming that because no one has shown you proof jesus existed as a person, he doesn't exist. I'm claming that because thier is others who support his existance as a person, he did in

Re:See folks...

[good soldier svejk]

I didn't read your post and there fore have no comment on it other than to say it sure looks long. Appropriate really: argumentum ad nauseum.

Re:See folks...

[sumdumass]

Interesting, Did you get stumped, OR is your agurment really that eronious, you refuse to support it once it is broke down to t he simplest for?

Anyways, it was nice talking to you.

Re:See folks...

[good soldier svejk]

Actually, my time is too valuable to waste it talkng to you. You simply aren't capable of making a valid argument. Frankly, you have trouble just putting together a coherent sentence. On the other hand you are a pompous blowhard, so you've got that going for you.

Re:See folks...

[sumdumass]

I guess this means that I stated your argument acuratly and after reading it you see how stupid it is and decided not to defend it any more. That in itself is fine, but do you have to act childish and do all the name calling.

Well i don't blame you personaly. I find your persona to be predispositioned to rudeness and failing of follow through. It is apearant in your writing as well as what little you have told us about your life. Maybe someday when you growup you will lose the lack of following thru part and take proper stock of your beliefs.

Re:See folks...

[good soldier svejk]

It means I stopped trying ot explain extremely basic logical concepts to you when it became apparent that you were not intelligent enough to understand them. That point came somewhere between a paragraph with no English sentences and another where you failed to understand that your "point" was an obvious begging the question fallacy any high school student would reject. Lucky for you I was honest enough to say so. Most people probably just laugh at you behind your back.

Re:See folks...

[sumdumass]

Interesting. I guess i would have to be in your little circle to understand it any differently. The problem is that you cannot explain your agument and make it take point anyway other then i re-stated it.

I guess this conversation is over. I didn't convince you jesus existed but as i said that wan't what i was intending to do. I did however point out some flaws in the jesus was never alive theory that just doesn't hold upto pressure. When you get these problems sorted out, lets continue this discusion. ;)

Re:See folks...

[good soldier svejk]

Except of course that I had no "jesus was never alive theory." Yet no matter how many times I stated that in plain English you couldn't understand it. I asked for empirical evidence of his existence and you provided none. Instead you trotted out a bunch of tired fallacious rationalist arguments. And you never restated anything I said. You created straw man arguments. That is why I stopped discussion, you simply don't understand the basic concepts of empiricism, rationalism and logic.

Still, the most ignorant position you took had nothing to do with philosophy. It was when you actually argued that the Bill of Rights had 27 amendments. That shocked me. I didn't think anyone who knew the name Bill of Rights could be so ignorant of its history. Frankly, when I jokingly corrected you I assumed it was a mistake born of haste. It never occurred to me you might actually think all the amendments of the Constitution were part of the Bill of Rights. I've never met anyone that ignorant of US history.

What really cracks me up is your obsession with the last word. I have only replied ot the last several posts out of curiosity. I was wondering just how important the last word was to you. Apparently very important. Well, knock yourself out. Post one more pointless self-congratulatory, syntactically deficient, asinine rant and you win!

Re:See folks...

[sumdumass]

I asked for empirical evidence of his existence and you provided none.

You said "In order for me to believe that you would first have to convince me Jesus existed". SO any logical person not screwed in the mind would take that to mean you didn't belive jesus actualy existed. In that post you linled to an article that attempts to discredit the histrocity of jesus and even argues directly with religious thoughts on the subject instead of sticking to historical. This further example of your argument points to the same idea of you not beliving jesus existed. Later you reinforce this by saying "I said there was no evidence of a real live Jesus."

I showed some quick stuff pertaining to jesus and you said that wasn't good enough. You then went on to ridicule them as being writen too old, part of a religion based on his existance or whatever else. Then you admited you needed empirical evidence. You then say thats all you asked for when i showed what others were claiming. I'm not sure how anyone thats not stupid could have seen your argument any other way. I think if your going to call someone stupid, you should at least be clear and specific in your point first.

Are you obsesed with a straw man? You bring it up when it doesn't pertain. Are you doing it because you don't want to counter something? I'm still not sure what your point is if it wasn't that you "need empirical evidence to be convinced jesus existed". I'm going to ask a couple others who are just as stupid as you and one or two as stupid as me to get thier opinion on your argument.

Reminds me of an ex-roomie...

[Caspian]

That suggests resupply from greater depths, which normally would generate certain gases and deep earthquakes.

Why am I reminded of a certain roommate...

Lisa!

[Anonymous Coward]

In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!

Please give an example of just one permanent law

[RedLaggedTeut]

The law of gravity as in Newtons Law is still pretty good, as long as you don't require lots of precision.

The laws of gravity were refined a lot, but Newtons law still would help you find solutions to problems, and that is what science is good for, even if some of them are only intellectual problems.

I would not be surprised if the Apollo moon missions had been working with formulas based on Newton, you don't need Einstein to land on the moon AFAIK.

It's all so simple.

[sexybomber]

Mt. St. Helens has been touched by His Noodly Appendage.

Re:PC competition for "I-Minor" MAC?

[Anonymous Coward]

Worse, Slashdot readers have yet to determine where the "comment eruption" of useless information by registered users comes from. "He registered, he got a username, and his userid is actually kind of low, but all that didn't necessarily make his posts any better," said the scientists. "He's registered, yet his posts are always another Soviet Russia or underpants joke."

I live in the NW

[LargoSensei]

And this is the first I've heard about it, show you what kinda hermit I am.

well if science teaches us anything

[darth_linux]

It's: Romans 1:22 "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools"

Re:well if science teaches us anything

[Lehk228]

That passage refers to religious leaders as well

Re:well if science teaches us anything

[darth_linux]

yeah, but it's what popped into my head when i saw the blurb on slashdot. i always laugh when these "experts" can't explain something they think they have a really good handle on.

Re:well if science teaches us anything

[Anonymous Coward]

Laugh if you must.

"Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people." - Admiral Hyman G. Rickover

Re:well if science teaches us anything

[fumblebruschi]

i always laugh when these "experts" can't explain something they think they have a really good handle on.

So do they--though, I suspect, not for the same reasons. For a scientist, there is nothing better than getting a result that isn't what you expected, since it's almost sure to lead you to a better understanding than you had before, which is the driving motive behind all science.

Re:well if science teaches us anything

[the_bard17]

At least they're admitting it...

Re:well if science teaches us anything

[Carpe PM]

...which is the driving motive behind all science.

The driving motive behind scientists is usually the grant applications.

Always follow the money. Without employment scientists are hobbyists.

Re:well if science teaches us anything

[rheotaxis]

At least scientific grants tend to lead to more reasonable and rational knowledge in the long run, i.e. testable, verifiable, etc. On the other hand, donations to relegions fanatics only seems to produce more relegious fanatics, who tend to quote traditions instead of knowledge. Grants are a contract mechanism that brings stablity to the search for knowledge, while relegious fanaticism tends toward instablity. God help us protect the truth from people who claim to understand God better than anyone else.

Re:well if science teaches us anything

[KORfan]

When I find something in my results I can't explain , I usually go, "Well that's odd" and start collecting more data and trying to find out if it happens again. It's kind of like finishing a level or a side quest in a game; now you get the bonus round that has a new challenge in it. It's fun.

Available volume?

[Trevin]

3 miles is pretty long, and 10 cubic yards isn't very much. Assuming the flow rate has been constant for the last 15 months, I estimate it would have spit out 130 million cubic yards, and there are 5.45 billion cubic yards in a cubic mile. Just how 'narrow' is it?

Re:Available volume?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I think it's mostly a matter of pressure, instead of raw volume. Even if there -were- 5.whatever billion cubic yards of magma down there, if there's nothing pressing it upwards it's going to stay down there. That's likely why they're talking about resupply; certainly there's enough pressure in the tube to make a -certain- amount of lava come out, but they don't think it's enough pressure to make the magnitude of lava they're seeing come out.

-Jeffrey

Re:Available volume?

[Strixy]

Uh... is that in metric cubic yards?

Scientists?

[Anonymous Coward]

Scientists don't know a lot of things..

Some even think oil is a fossil fuel!

Read this for the truth about abiotic oil...

http://home.earthlink.net/~root.man/sci.html

Or ...

[temojen]

Possibly slow resupply of (in geologic terms) small amounts of lava does not nescesarily cause detectable earthquakes and gas release.

Re:Or ...

[BushCheney08]

Except this is all happening on human time scales, not geologic ones. Unless the capacity of the underlying magma chamber or conduit was misestimated (most likely), we would be feeling the quakes and detecting the gases that the article mentions.

Half I got a deal for ewe.

[Duhavid]

My company, One Bun productions, stands ready on both fronts!

Everything back in style

[CFrankBernard]

[Homer Simpson] Ooooh, a perpetual lava lamp.

[Yoda] Lava lamp perpetual it is.

Re:Please give an example of just one permanent la

[sholden]

Law as in "rule of law", which seemed pretty clear from the context, but I guess if you didn't read the it was replying to it isn't.

The OP is clearly whining about laws passed based on scientific consensus - laws against painting the nursery with lead based paints, etc - because scientists often get things wrong... The point was supposed to be that no such law is permanent - they can all all the repealed, the only ones that might not be are going to be in theocracies and they aren't going to be based on science...

Point of no return

[CarpetShark]

There may be no earthquakes, but there sure are a lot of other problems going on in Washington state.

Yep, it all started on Feb. 16, 1986 ;)

theory?

[atarione]

I'm certainly no geologist... but... is it possible that when the eruptions started some months ago...it made a nice path for more lava to come up thru ...pretty easily (with out earthquakes and whatnot) because all it has to do is flow upwards from the lower area via the previously made path?

Re:theory?

[mhotchin]

As lava comes up from the depths, the pressure on the lava is reduced. As that happens, dissolved gasses tend to come out of solution, so you get gas bubbles coming up with the lava. The observers are not seeing that here.

Re:Please give an example of just one permanent la

[gcauthon]

Newton's law of gravity is a law because it is a simple observation of matter. Objects tend to attract each other proportional to their masses and inversely proportional to their distance.

However, if you want to calculate the exact forces between interstellar objects that are moving at great speeds relative to each other, then you need to look at Einstein's theory of gravitation because it is much more accurate. Einsteins theory is a theory because it is more than just a simple observation of matter and involves complex calculations.

Re:No earthquakes?

[rajafarian]

Maybe they need to look at cause and effect differently.

Dude, are you Buddhist?

For a second there...

[Anonymous Coward]

For a second there I thought the post said, "Scientologists cannot determine from where it is coming..." which is silly, because we all know that these erruptions are simply a precursor to the second coming of Xenu!

Ask Tom Cruise

[nearlygod]

I blame the Thetans.

it's...

[djbesser]

ALIENS! ruuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuun.

Re:it's...

[Bohemoth2]

Intelligent volcano design!

Obligitory comment...

[mindtriggerz]

<obligitory comment about measuring bulges.>

Based on 6Th Grade Science Class

[Greyfox]

I postulate that there is a VERY large supply of vinegar, baking soda and red food coloring somewhere nearby.

yawn

[NZ4410110]

/. very not

Re:yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

So... don't read it? Are that that fucking stupid?

Microsoft's ActiveVolcano

[gelfling]

Don't worry it's not a bug, it's a feature.

Subduction is such a mystery

[monkaru]

I mean, if you shove one continent under another, you shouldn't expect any squirting. Must be aliens.

Re:Subduction is such a mystery

[eekygeeky]

God! you filthy beast! keep talking like that and i might just have a hot-tectonic event all over you!

oooh, I think its the Big One!

oh. oh, wait- you said SUBduction....

Re:PC competition for "I-Minor" MAC?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not smart or witty enough to sustain moderation.

heh heh heh... he said bulge...

[rmallico]

beavis and butthead are alive and well

Re:No earthquakes?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure queen Gregoire and crronies will be passing a tax to study it shortly, probably by raising taxs on rural land.

Sorry about that. My fault. No more need for alarm

[Anonymous Coward]

I knew I shouldn't have left the chili in the crock pot while I was away. Sorry guys.

Sorry, this is no excuse.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you have old data in ancient units, you can perform a once-in-a-lifetime conversion.

Really using non-SI units today is just as stupid as using IE.

Re:Sorry, this is no excuse.

[Lehk228]

conversion of all paper records held by the USGS and every copy of each of those paper records? this is the USGS not the military

Global Warming Mayhem

[IGnatius T Foobar]

Funny how things like volcanic activity have more effect on things like global warming, the hole in the ozone layer, etc. than anything mankind is doing. When we see nature affect itself like this, it really puts things into perspective. (Oof. I await the inevitable hammering by left-wing moderators.) So anyway, is it too much to ask for, to wish that Mt. St. Helens will suddenly erupt explosively and massively, burying the entire state of Washington in lava and ash, and thereby taking out Microsoft, Starbucks, and RealNetworks in the process?

Re:Global Warming Mayhem

[BitHive]

Fires occur in nature too, so I guess we ought to just disban the fire department and let everyone buy aerial fireworks every day of the year, right?

Re:Global Warming Mayhem

[Mancat]

Maybe you can tell me where you live, so I can wish that the nearest natural disaster will bury YOUR communist Linux hippie ass.

Re:Global Warming Mayhem

[Blakey Rat]

What about Boeing and Nintendo of America?

Might wanna rethink that...

And anyway, St. Helens is closer to Portland than Seattle.

Re:Global Warming Mayhem

[Anonymous Coward]

When was the last time Nintendo made a regular, just-plain-fun Mario game without 3D gimmickry or excessive spinoff-mania ejaculation? 1992?

Re:Global Warming Mayhem

[m50d]

Funny how things like volcanic activity have more effect on things like global warming, the hole in the ozone layer, etc. than anything mankind is doing.

Yes, because we see ozone holes appearing and disappearing all the time, and evidence that they've done so throughout history. Oh, wait

When we see nature affect itself like this, it really puts things into perspective.

Oh please. "Nature is amazing, so I can go on doing whatever the fuck I want to it.

(Oof. I await the inevitable hammering by left-wing moderators.)

Because left-wingers are the only people able to see sense?

Science

[Mark_MF-WN]

Science can't explain something? It must mean that volcanoes are formed by intelligent eruption! From now on, geology textbooks will need stickers claiming that Plate Tectonics is just a theory, and that there are other theories that explain vulcanism -- like Loki raging against his chains, or something.

Re:No earthquakes?

[Anonymous Coward]

(This is two replies, some to the other comments, but I didn't want to reply to each separately.)

In reply to the comment about Gregoire, she hasn't seemed to do anything to help make Washington state progressive. Sure, no income tax is nice, but sales tax and property tax need made more progressive. (Whether it's a luxury tax and cutting all state sales tax on grocery items, or be it a homestead exemption in combination of a property tax hike (higher rates, but an exemption would help a lot of cheaper houses.)

That's a funny comment, about Microsoft. Sure, they may have brought jobs to the Northwest, but at what cost? I know, so many crashed computers, so many crashed computers. I think they made blue screening a household phrase.

When I mentioned cause and effect, I meant other causes that could be triggering it. Such causes could be political upheaval (the 129 vote thing), sunspots, etc.

It must be a foreign volcano-spy..

[Anonymous Coward]

In America, you always detect volcano's gases. In Soviet Russia, volcanos always detect your gases!

Sheep in England...

[Glove d'OJ]

The whole "well, we saw X, so THIS must be true" type statements in this article remind me of a joke delineating the differences between college majors:

An art major, an engineering major, and a math major are all in the same train car as it rides through England. They look out the window, and see a single black sheep in a field.

"All the sheep in England must be black!" exclaims the art major.

"No, at least one sheep in England is black," states the engineering major haughtily.

The math major snorts. "No, he says. The only thing that we know is that there is at least one sheep in England that is black... on at least one side!"

Re:Sheep in England...

[Anonymous Coward]

And I'm assuming that whoever wrote that joke assumed the sheep was not moving. If the sheep was rotating in any amount, the mathematician was wrong, and since sheep tend to move, I'll side with the engineer.

Re:Sheep in England...

[Anonymous Coward]

Me thinks an engineer takes himself much too seriously.

Reminds me of an old Japanese Tale I Once Read

[eno2001]

It went a little something like this:

Once there was a village in the country. The people were happy. The village was nice. In general things were pretty good. Then one day a man in the village discovered a deep dark hole just outside of the village. He yelled into it and was surprised that his voice did not echo back. He called a few others who also wondered at the discovery. Soon it was decided that the hole should be inspected further and people gathered the tools to do so. The first test was to yell "hello" as lous as possible and listen for an echo carefully. This failed. The next test was to throw a stone into the hole and listen for it to hit the bottom. This was done, but no sound was ever heard. The next test was to drop something more substantial into the hole and listen for it to hit bottom. Again, nothing was heard. More tests followed until...

It was decided that the hole was the perfect place for the village's rubbish to be disposed of. Day after day, week after week and year after year, they continued to throw their litter into the hole. Until one day many many years later, the man who discovered the hole heard a voice call from above just outside his home, "Hellllo". He was startled but ignored it. The next day he heard another voice calling followed by a small stone hitting the ground near him. It was then that he realized what had happened and wished he'd never found the hole outside of the village.

---

Now, I could simply make some flip statement about him having found Bob Goatse... but instead I'll make the point that perhaps the endless flow of lava is coming from the Earth's future where all of our waste is miraculously disposed of through some kind of wormhole... ;P Happy New Year you sods!

10 cubic yards every 3 seconds? That comes to...

[TyrelHaveman]

10 cubic yards every 3 seconds, I believe that comes out to 288000 cubic yards per day.

The article indicates that this has been happening at this pace for 15 months... so roughly 635 days. That makes 182,880,000 total cubic yards of lava.

With that much lava, you could cover a typical city block (1/4 mile by 1/4 mile according to my estimates?) 1417 feet (432 meters) deep. That's almost as tall as the Sears Tower (including the antennas), and taller than the Empire State Building. So fill one of them up with lava. That's enough lava for me :-)

For this amount of lava to have come out of the "narrow 3 mile pipe" they mention in the article (assuming it doesn't get refilled and it's perfectly cylindrical), the pipe would need to be 178 feet in diameter... is that "narrow"? Dunno... I'm not a geologist :-P

A blind hermit?

[Rob_Ogilvie]

'cause it's been visible several times... ever wonder what that big ol' tower of ash was?

Yep - it was the volcano.

Re:A blind hermit?

[LargoSensei]

I'm in oregon and my window points south :P

Could you tell me...

[LeFaux]

How many dinosaurs you have to compress and heat to get a gallon of crude oil?

BTW, There does seem to be other research that makes the theory of fossil fuels seem as far fetched as "Intelligent Design".

Re:Could you tell me...

[Anonymous Coward]

Such as the following?

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=386 45

law vs theory

[RedLaggedTeut]

Didn't people in Newtons time think his law of gravity was a theory not just an observation?

I have some trouble with the calling of all the currently new observations by the name theory.

Re:law vs theory

[beeplet]

Maybe the definitions of "law" and "theory" have changed over time. My understanding is that a law describes observations, while a theory explains them. A theory can be supported by overwhelming evidence or very little, so just calling something a theory isn't necessarily making a judgment about its validity.

Re:law vs theory

[MBGMorden]

I was always taught that basically a scientific law was a theory that had been proven undeniably correct. A theory still hadn't reached that level of confirmation, even though they might be backed up by hordes of evidence.

As such, by definition very simple theories are more likely to eventually become a law, because scientists are more wary of declaring a complex theory to be completely flawless.

Re:law vs theory

[Just Jim]

>I was always taught that basically a scientific law was a theory that had been proven undeniably correct. A theory still hadn't reached that level of confirmation, even though they might be backed up by hordes of evidence.

No. A scientific law is a simplistic mathematical formula to describe a phenonema. It is often *known* to be somewhat inaccurate (think perfect gas law), and has no explanatory power.

A theory is an explanation that ties in a great number of facts into a framework.

Even if the theory is eventually modified, the facts that the theory is based on still exist, and need to be explained by the new improved theory. For example, early atomic theory has been extensively modified, but certain isotopes are still radioactive. And even if the current theory of evolution is superceded, we still share a common ancestor with apes.

Re:Obviously...

[HermanAB]

God Atlas is farting...

yup

[adpowers]

Exactly. I was going to mention this myself, but noticed you did, so I'll just say "MOD PARENT UP!". I'm in Seattle and can't see Mt. St. Helens, but I'm fairly confident you can from Portland.

Re:yup

[persist1]

...Certainly can (when it's sunny). My favorite OP is the top of the Marquam Bridge, though there are others.

Angel's really shouldn't play that HAARP

[xiando]

High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program. Go look it up. Based on absolutely no evidence and wild speculation, I am forced to conclude that this is a secret government weapons test operation. (This idea may be a result of the mind-control Extremely Low Frequency Radiation (ELF) waves that I am currently being exposed to - And no, that part is not speculation, the presence of ELF in this area is actually very easy to prove)

Re:Be aware of the facts, always. [MPU!!!]

[Anonymous Coward]

Brilliant troll. You troll the first post to come off looking trollish, then ask a question with another account, then answer it with a very non-trollish short "intellegent point" that people will mod-up, and which consequently prevents the actual troll from being sent to the oblivion of -1.

Re:10 cubic yards every 3 seconds? That comes to..

[cluckshot]

Doesn't everyone here love math! Thanks for the calculations.

Now how about getting just a few oddities and throwing them into the mix. (1) A volcano's magma does not force its way up and out... The Archimedes Principal clearly shows eruptions to be displacement reactions. This means that there is a sinking going on. Unless something crazy is going on like the earth is expanding or something like that. (2) Plasma Physics of the rest of the Universe indicates that we really aught to be measuring electrical energy flows in the area. (www.thunderbolts.info) We could be looking at inductive heating etc. (3) What about Subduction and Plate Techtonics here? Does this indicate we really don't know what is going on? Check this out! (www.nealadams.com/nmu.html)

This isn't troll -- It was added just to spice up the thinking so mods if you don't like it -- GET OVER IT!

Re:10 cubic yards every 3 seconds? That comes to..

[Darby]

a typical city block (1/4 mile by 1/4 mile according to my estimates?)

Well, in Chicago anyhow it's 8 blocks to the mile so 1/8 by 1/8.

Please stop using these archaic mesurements...

[MikeTheBike]

When will the US come and join the rest of the civilised world and use real SI units instead of these archaic messurement units... Cubic yards??? Come on... it's not that strange that you shot a hole in mars with your probe.

Ah, important cultural difference.

[jd]

In America, it is quite true that a sheep can move at a significant pace in comparison to the trains there. It's not even unusual to see trains parked while on crossings. Meanwhile, the sheep are all on speed and angel dust.

In England, it's not unusual for trains to be blasting about at 125mph. Also, sheep farming is largely confined to the Pennines, the Dales and the Cotswalds, which means lots of mud and slopes. The sheep are much better behaved, having grown up on a diet of James Herriot. Quite possibly literally, given the usual attitude of British farmers.

CROM!

[Anonymous Coward]

Conan was right!

Crom the God who lives under the earth will Rise again,
and bring fire and the riddle of steel to men.

CROM!

Answer

[Strixy]

This is a result of people petitioning the makers of scientific calculators to remove the calculators ability to render "55378008" on the screen.

Source of reduced carbon in Earth's mantle

[Latent Heat]

My understanding is that Thomas Gold was arguing that the source of oil, gas, and possibly even coal (yeah, yeah, I know about how coal is dense with fossil imprints) is in the upper mantle, and the carbon got there by the cold accretion of carbonaceous meteorites during the formation of the Earth, the same way methane and other hydrocarbons to to Titan.

Two difficulties with that. One is that the Moon is supposed to have formed from a collision with a Mars-sized body over 4 billion years ago. That collision is believed to have melted everything down to a 1000 km. The other is that the mantle has abundant oxygen and heat, and plate tectonics says it is in convective motion mixing up the different layers (although very slowly) -- one would think all the carbon is now CO2 or CaCO3 or something by now.

However, there is still the matter of diamonds, which are not believed to be dead dinosaurs (diamonds are aged 1 billion years or more, typically) -- they had to have originated in the upper mantle (about 100 km down) and had to have been brought to the surface rapidly (to avoid reversion to graphite, although you get graphite pseudomorphs of diamond -- clumps of graphite shaped like diamond crystals which were probably diamonds brought up too slowly so they reverted to the stable graphite form). While diamonds are rare, and the Kiberlite pipe eruptions that brought them up are rare and maybe date only to an earier geologic epoch, there has to be something to produce reduced carbon down below.

J F Kenney and his Russian associates believe that starting with FeO, CaCO3 and H2O (stuff not hard to find in the mantle owing to limestone and water being subducted down and Fe being brought up by mantle convection) you can end up with CH4 plus higher chain hydrocarbons. The argument is that about 100 km down is the only place methane, octane, and above can form is that the thermodynamics works at those temps and pressures and that the thermodynamics don't work for turning plant/algae material into oil in the traditional "oil window" of about 1-2 miles down.

So, there you have it -- oil is created from the same place an process as engagement ring stones, not only does oil not come from dead dinosaurs but from rocks instead (although the subducted CaCO3 could have its origins in biology of reef building), but that oil is not latent solar energy (in the form of sequestered biomass) but that oil is in reality geothermal energy (geologic raw materials brought together by heat-driven mantle convection and endothermic reactions driven by mantle heat).

If oil is really geothermal instead of solar in origin, one could consider and advanced technological culture with the capability of somehow using the environment of 100 km down as a natural resource, and of establishing a closed-cycle renewable geothermal based energy economy based on -- oil! One could sequester CO2 deep below and get back reduced carbon, all driven by geothermal power, which has its origins in natural radioactive decay along with the latent heat of fusion of iron in the core.

I mean think about it. A lot of the speculation about advanced energy cultures for the far future look outward into space and of tapping the vast resource of solar energy on the Earth surface, in Earth orbit, and beyond -- think Dyson sphere. Has anyone speculated, either in popular science writing or science fiction, about an advanced energy culture fully utilizing the energy resource within a planet?

You may say drilling or tunneling 10 km is stretching it not to imagine 100 km? But who is to say drill. Some MIT dude suggested using a million tons of molton iron (some grant proposal) to melt and sink its way all the way to the core to carry some kind of probe to find out "what is down there." Who is to say that some related scheme may be able to both bring materials down to the mantle (say CO2) and bring back materials (oil and gas) in a closed loop? I am not saying it is practical with today's technology, but it is not anything violating

Re:Source of reduced carbon in Earth's mantle

[WryCoder]

Thanks for the reference! I turned up this very interesting and balanced article on the hypotheses you proposed:

Gas Origin Theories to be Studied

My hypothesis on the origin of those (rare) Kimberlite pipes is that they are formed following the transit of a strangelet (or possibly a small black hole) through the earth. That would imply that there should be Kimberlite pipes on opposite sides of the earth (aligned on a chord), but in only a relatively small fraction of the cases would both sides be found on land. I suppose it would be very difficult and expensive to attempt to locate them, even with the proposed detection network. OTOH, the possible diamond find might encourage the exploration.

Did quark matter strike Earth? Also, check Wikipedia for "strangelet".

Last vestige of the French Revolution

[Latent Heat]

Do you realize that the metric system is the last vestige of the French Revolution? Metric units -- heck -- bring back the metric calender! 10 day weeks and 10 month years. Bring back the Month of Thermidor!

Re:Last vestige of the French Revolution

[Anonymous Coward]

12 month years. Thermidor was the 11th, in fact.

Vendémiaire, Brumaire, Frimaire, Nivôse, Pluviôse, Ventôse, Germinal, Floréal, Prairial, Messidor, Thermidor, Fructidor.

Re:No-brainer: Side-ways Pipe from Yellowstone?

[Anonymous Coward]

So if if isn't coming up from deep within the earth? Maybe it is coming over from the giant Yellowstone Caldera? Maybe that's why it hasn't blown up yet and destroyed a huge part of the country.

But otherwise isn't the series of mountains there and the whole region volcanic? Is it possible that it's reaching there from another channel? or maybe the pipe is really well lubed and it's flowing without much if any friction?

It's obvious what happened.

[GooddSkittles]

It seems like a simple explanation to me. Someone decided to pull a practical joke, so they hijacked a semi trailer, and dumped its entire load of Exlax into the crater. People can be so immature sometimes...

On top of Old Smokey...

[AndroidCat]

It's not lava, it's spaghetti sauce!

The Noodly One has blessed us with a miracle! (And I forgot my spoon...)

Re:Please give an example of just one permanent la

[ceoyoyo]

Classical mechanics works just great unless something is moving very fast (a large percentage of the speed of light) or is very heavy (even the sun's gravity doesn't have important relativistic effects unless you're very close or stick around for a long time).

The Apollo moon missions would definitely have used Newton. If they tried to use Einstein on their 1960's computers they'd probably still be running the problem and they'd get exactly the same answer as the Newtonian calculation.

Satan & Sadam

[Lawrence_Bird]

must be getting it on again!

Re:Satan & Sadam

[Lotharus]

Giving up my mod privs on this thread to mod this one textually (since I don't think the options presented are targeted enough..)

-1 Asinine

Re:Satan & Sadam

[Lawrence_Bird]

guess you dont watch southpark

Re:Satan & Sadam

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it just wasn't funny.

Relation to the 1980 blast

[Reverse Gear]

Studying geophysics I guess I should be able to answer questions like this one myself, but I am not able to do that right now as I have not had all that many lectures on the nature and forces of vulcanoes (I am mostly studying groundwater and technologies associated with this).

I wonder if this "too large" amount of lava could have anything to do with the blast in 1980? The blast must have caused some change in the way this vulcanoe works.
I guess the lack of earthquakes does disprove this idea if the rigedity below St. Helens is correctly estimated.

Anyhow I think this is very interesting, this is something I will try to keep myself updated on by studying articles in the geophysics library (I haven't found the articles of the magazines found there "online for free" so far).
As also mentioned in other comments geophysics do know astonishingly little about what is actually going on beneath the crust. Geophysics is a "young science" and there is a lot of new interesting studies and theories coming out all the time, but still none of them doesn't give a decent explanation of everything that is going on that we can detect.

MODS - Insightfull ???? WTF?????

[TapeCutter]

"what he has told me is off the record and unquotable, I can't give his name (I wish I could). He admits to me ...."

Translation: I have special secret knowlage...

"It really bugs me, actually, that these "scientists" we so admire..."

Translation: You can't trust scientists, they don't have a clue what they are doing...

"Is oil possibly a renewable resource..."

Translation: Repeat the oil industries discredited FUD...

"I believe we DO need to carry out research...just as long as I don't pay for it involuntarily and as long as no one makes laws and restrictions based on non-facts."

Translation: Pay lip service to science while cutting of funding and ignoring it's findings.

By any chance, is your real name Michael Chriton?

Re:MODS - Insightfull ???? WTF?????

[Anonymous Coward]

ignoring it's findings

"its".

Re:MODS - Insightfull ???? WTF?????

[TapeCutter]

Thanks for clearing that up. Now run along and proof read the rest of the site.

From Ohm's Law to the NEC

[Ashtead]

Please give an example of just one permanent law created due to what scientists have claimed.

How about Hooke's law on deformation of structural elements when external forces are applied to them, leading to legal requirements for civil engineers? Or the statistic observation on heating of electrical conductors from electrical currents, and on physiological effects of electricity on the human heart leading to the National Electrical Code?

Both physical laws are empirical and claimed as observations, and have limited applicability: Hookes Law about proportional deformation under load is only good until the loaded structure breaks down; likewise, the expectation of constant resistance or current-carrying capability breaks once the cable or connector has heated up enough to cause metallurgical changes in the material. Yet both are fundaments for important and long-lasting regulations.

FSM

[Ohreally_factor]

As a matter of faith and belief, of course I believe that His Noodly Appendage rests firmly behind these unexplained lava flows at Mt. Saint Helens.

But as a scientist, I have to ask, "Has anyone seen Godzilla lately? He doesn't seem to be in Japan."

Extraordinary Theor. require extraord. evidence

[aepervius]

And for the abiogenesis origin of oil it is not there.
Abiogenesis origin of petroleum not likely

Quote : "There is no way to conclusively prove that no petroleum is of abiotic origin. Science is an ongoing search for truth, and theories are continually being altered or scrapped as new evidence appears. However, the assertion that all oil is abiotic requires extraordinary support, because it must overcome abundant evidence, already cited, to tie specific oil accumulations to specific biological origins through a chain of well-understood processes that have been demonstrated, in principle, under laboratory conditions."


To quote some argument : if petroleum was really formed deeply, it would have to go thru a part of the mantle with high pressure and temperature which would decompose it. And the proponent of all-abiogenesis origin of petroleum proposed no such meccanism up to now.

Furthermore oil exploitation firm sucessfully used the "biogenesis" origin of petroleum to predict and exploit new resource.

As for the field which were told to have abiogenesis origin , like the black lion one, here is a nice debunking article :
The Oil Drum.
A very nice quote : "What is disturbing is that these abiotic oil arguments are presented in the mainstream media (MSM, here CNBC) without any critical analysis. In the short interview format TV allows, Simmons was unable (or unwilling) rebut Smith's claim. Many fantastic and unbelievable claims are being put forward now as people scramble around to dispute oil depletion--abiotic oil is one of these. It is perhaps the most insidious of these false claims with its implicit promise that, to paraphrase Duffeyes, everything is OK because "God [the deep hot biosphere] will put more oil in the ground"."

Yellowstone National Park?

[Alexis Boulva]

A few years ago I saw a fairly long report on the presence of a massive supervolcano under Yellowstone national park, which had erupted something like 60K years ago and which seems to erupt at regular intervals, the next eruptino being a few years late right now. This is probably a wild guess, but does anyone else think that perhaps lava from the present bassins under Yellowstone might be tunneled to Mt St-Helens?

Here's a bit of searching I made on Google Maps

It may be kind of far for lava to travel, but you never know, considering what I remember hearing about the imensity of the supervolcano potentially involved.

For more information about Yellowstone

Re:Yellowstone National Park?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've seen these shows and news items and had the same thoughts.

If this is the case, and all the lava from the supervolcano is draining from afar, it is a far beter outcome that that which the Discovery Channel Supervolcano movie presents.

Although either way FEMA will screw up and Mexico will close its borders to us.

http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/supervolcano/ supervolcano.html

volcanologists and evolution

[drownie]

volcanology may be one of the few scientific areas where a theory can be proven by survival

What's really happening..

[chivo243]

Smithers, release the lava! Excellent.....

reformation?!

[namekuseijin]

"you might want to take a look at the Reformation and what that was all about."

a break from Rome?

Certainly, not something earthshattering contrary to Christianism faith itself. No questioning about the basic principles, just about who has the rights to claim ownership to such sacred principles...

No, it's petrogel

[MickLinux]

Petrogel is kindof like other gelatinous materials: it's quite small until it hits a reactive substance. Then it expands hundreds of times in size, resulting in very large volumes. In this case, the gel is a liquid (and later solid) rock. The moment it hits an aquifer, it hydrates, forming a much larger volume.

You didn't know this? Well, neither did our scientists. I just made it up.

I guess my original point is that there are more things that could be wrong with our theories than what we imagine.

Dude, check your html code.

[MickLinux]

I read your post; the /sarcasm flag didn't work. You might need to enclose it in brackets for it to work.

Aside from that, I think you missed the original poster's point: that too many techies put dogmatic faith in the generic name "science", and then transfer that to blind faith in people and their statements (all of which are unsupported by anything more than "he's a scientist, so his word must be gospel truth."

That's a valid point, and leads people into such flawed religions as scientology.

Disclaimer: I, for one, find the hand of God to be active in daily life. My experiences tell me that there is a God, and He is not a watchmaker God, nor an impersonal force, but a Person who but does desire a relationship with His creation.

Cause.

[Khaed]

Global warming! (/sarcasm)

Re:10 cubic yards every 3 seconds? That comes to..

[TyrelHaveman]

I've never actually been to a big city like Chicago, so I was guessing mostly. The blocks where I live are either 1/2 mile or 1 mile (sometimes even 2 miles) wide/long. I imagined my block (which is 1/2 x 1/2 mile) being cut into 4's as being a pretty small block, and what I would imagine would be in a city. Each of those being again cut into 4's just amazes me... the city would be like 30% street and only 70% building! Maybe SimCity is more realistic than I thought.

Re:10 cubic yards every 3 seconds? That comes to..

[Darby]

Each of those being again cut into 4's just amazes me... the city would be like 30% street and only 70% building! Maybe SimCity is more realistic than I thought.

Hmmm.... I don't know if those percentages work out right or not. A rough guess from looking out my window would say a bit less street and a bit more building, but there is a third dimension as well.

I'm at about 1600 North and 1600 West which puts me 2 miles north and 2 miles west of 0,0 which is more or less the middle of downtown (not much east here unless you like swimming). My neighborhood (Wicker Park) is a lot of 2-4 story dwellings (in general, one floor == one family/set of roommates etc, although a lot of these are set up as single family dwellings as well.) with some taller buildings for condos and the like. There are a lot of people in close proximity, but also a lot of cool places to go in walking distance. I'm also pretty much dead center between the Metra (Amtrack) and the 'L'. 4 blocks to each. The freeway entrance is 2 blocks away, so getting anywhere is a snap.

So, living in the city is very different from the burbs or from rural areas, and there are things to be said for each. Things are much closer together, which is really good for being able to do anything you care to do easily and close to home, but you don't have the space you would otherwise.

The grid system and the regular size of the blocks does make it really easy to learn your way around when you first arrive.

uh duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Intelligent Design!

Mt. St. Helens and Nature in general

[Riddly]

Are these folks from the same community that wants to "save" some waning species, to "manage" our natural resources and now "wonder" where all that, duh, magma is coming from?? Confidence: The feeling you have before you UNDERSTAND the situation. Humility: The first glimmer of UNDERSTANDING. Aka, "Look before you leap.", "Know before you spout off.", etc. Net. Please, PLEASE, study, learn and UNDERSTAND before you DO us all under. Thank you for your time, Milton