Slashdot Mirror
The World's Deepest Dinosaur
FiReaNGeL writes to tell us BiologyNews.net is reporting that Norway has uncovered their first set of dinosaur remains. The catch? They found it 2,256 meters below the ocean floor. From the article: "It is merely a coincidence that the remains of the old dinosaur now see the light of day again, or more precisely, parts of the dinosaur. The fossil is in fact just a crushed knucklebone in a drilling core - a long cylinder of rock drilled out from an exploration well at the Snorre offshore field."
. . .the fact they can tell what species it was by just a knucklebone.
The ultimate goal of science should be a complete, rigorous explanation of the natural world to the exclusion of supernatural phenomena.
This is a rediculous statement. The purpose of science should be to find the truth--whether that includes "supernatural phenomena" or not cannot be a foregone conlcusion for any _truely_ scientific search for truth.
That would be like somebody 100 years ago saying "The ultimate goal of science should be a complete, rigorous explanation of the natural world with the exclusion of the theory of relativity."
If scientific exploration is limited to our currently understood views of the world, and physical laws, then it's not science any more.
Until science _disproves_ something, that thing should not be discounted as a possibility. That includes God, goblins, and pink dinosaurs under the ocean floor.
Having said that, that doesn't mean we need to _assume_ these things exist, either. It simply means that an open mind, even to possibilities we may personally consider to be impossibilities, is necessary if the results we're going to get are to be unbiased.
There are so many scientific breakthroughs that we've seen throughout history that would never have been reached if they had been approached with your attitude--from flight, to electric light, to the theory of relativity, to space travel, to the "supernatural" time travel theory used by the time machine I used I used to get here to leave this post.
The purpose of philosophy is to seek truth, but the purpose of science is to explain how things work. "Truisms" and "facts" are not good words to use in the natural sciences, where several hypotheses may be working at once.
The problem is that supernatural phenomena is untestable. Whether things like God or goblins exist are interesting questions, but without physical evidence, it remains speculation and is not within the realm of science. Fortunately, we don't need physical evidence to believe in God (or goblins)- this requires faith which by definition is NOT something we can see/hear/etc. Science can only deal with things that are testable. I do not know anything about the theory of relativity, except that my understanding is that it is largely based on mathematical modeling as well as physical laws, which again, are testable and completely within the realm of science - I think people will respond to you, offended that you believe that this scientific theory is "supernatural." Sometimes indirect testing is in order, but it still works. An open mind is required as you suggest, but to put forward an untestable hypothesis will get you nowhere, as no one can either agree or disagree with you, and therefore the answer will not be found.
I also call your bluff on you owning a time machine.
--
Better go now, running out of room.
The flood is pretty widely accepted. Every culture dating back to then (and conveniently located in the middle east/N Africa/Mediteranian) has its own flood myths, and the geologic record supports it. There probably was a huge flood that flooded the whole region at one point, but there probably wasn't a drunk with a boat and 2 of every animal.
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
I think hubris isn't really the issue, since apparently I admitted that I didn't know what the theory of relativity entailed. I also seriously doubt that you or anyone else knows about "all things under the ocean," if you want to talk about hubris. I would also think that being an oil rig driller would require some geological knowledge, and so none of this would be news to you.
I think it is clear that NO ONE was around back then. Does that mean we should stop studying fossils, and stop acquiring evidence as is possible? Should we forget about studying things that we cannot see firsthand, but we can still find data about? Should we stop making experiments to try to replicate the environments that existed back then and from that get ideas on how bones are transported?
Though I am not Norwegian nor was I around 200 mya, I read that Norway was covered by a fluvial system during the time from which they are approximating the age of the bone. Based on my knowledge of fluvial systems to transport and deposit bone (this is the topic of my Master's thesis), I know that it is LIKELY that this is what occurred, and according to a later comment, this is indeed what had happened according to the geologists studying it.
The biased way in which you presented your "data," as well as the ridiculous off-topic remarks about Tom Cruise (WTF?), the Grand Canyon, and the entire field of paleontology tell me that you are taking this personally, that you may have some deep-seated issues with scientists, and that you really know extraordinarily little about how science is done.
While fixing cars is important, some of us must indeed go to college, as a civilization is judged based on the science, art, and philosophy that comes out of it, and not only that but also to make important discoveries regarding these, not to mention medicine. Not all of us can be car-fixers. Not to mention the fact that geologists play an important part in finding oil, a fact I'm sure you are familiar with. I hope you someday get over your problems with scientists. But I won't waste any more time with someone who refers to me as a "fool." Good day to you.
The problem is that supernatural phenomena is untestable. Whether things like God or goblins exist are interesting questions, but without physical evidence, it remains speculation and is not within the realm of science. Fortunately, we don't need physical evidence to believe in God (or goblins)- this requires faith which by definition is NOT something we can see/hear/etc.
Yes, the completely generic and abstract question "Is there a God?" is untestable. However, the Bible is full of testable questions and events that are supposed to have occured, most of which have been thoroughly disproven. Same goes for most of the other world religions.
Relgion seems to be unlike any other form of reasoning we might have. If you found error upon error in the supportive evidence, you'd pretty soon debunk the whole theory. Not so with religion, you simply choose your selection of texts, interpret them to what you want to hear and rationalize the rest away as "simplifications" made either by God or those who wrote it down to make it understandable to mankind.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
the outer surface (dressed stone) of the pyramids in egypt were cannibalized over the centuries for other projects - until is was deceided to preserve them. the coliseum in rome was used as a quarry for stone for a couple hundred years as well. it also has been hit with a couple earthquakes. unless it starts to rain a whole bunch for the next 100k years, i think the pyramids will still be there.
It's worth noting that these are examples of landmarks that are exceptionally well-preserved. In Eqypt there is hardly a shortage of stone for construction, and Rome has been continually inhabited by people who considered the builders of the Coliseum their ancestors.
In parts of Europe where stone is scarce the only signs of Roman presence are Roman milestones found in newer stone constructions like city walls and castles. The towns and roads are completely gone, and we can only guess where they were once located.
Metal is also continually reused. Our large constructions will only survive if there is no mankind around. Places in ancient Eqypt, Mesopotamia, Persia, etc. are preserved because of desertification.