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."
Give us the details on the drilling rig!
A crushed knucklebone in a drilling core,
Everybody find the dinosaur!
I wonder what things will be like 200 million years from today, what adanced (or not so advanced) civilization will uncover the golden gate bridge, or statue of liberty. Entire continents submerged under thousands of feet of water and mud? This impetuous yet infinitesimal progression of gradualism really makes catastrophic events like Katrina seem like child's play. There's no greater force than time.
Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
Africus aut Europaeus?
The fossil is in fact just a crushed knucklebone in a drilling core
Quick! someone call CSI!
"The question of how dinosaur fossils could be submerged to that depth is pretty interesting."
A worldwide flood perhaps?
It puts a whole new spin on the big asteroid that killed the dinosaurs story: Splat!!!
Oh well, what the hell...
. . .the fact they can tell what species it was by just a knucklebone.
I agree. We should use science to figure out where the bones come from, rather than relying on supernatural explanations.
Also, if during the course of the scientific investigations, the researches should become hungry, they should eat food rather than praying for their hunger to end. Similarly, if their mode of transportation should run out of fuel, they probably would be better served by buying a tank full of gas, versus merely "wishing real hard" that they could get where they were going.
And, of course, if they post on Slashdot, they shouldn't Karma-whore by posting the BLEEDING OBVIOUS.
I though the worlds deepest dinosaur was cowboy neal
"I'm going to f***ing bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to f***ing kill Google"
You must be one of those fabled "non-Americans" that I've read about on the Intarweb.
Snorre is probably an okay name in Norweigian, but it's the nickname for penis in Swedish. I guess they drill hard out there on the oil field...
Hmm, so the old woman was wrong, the earth is not perched on the back of a turtle, it is dinosaurs all the way down...
Oh well, what the hell...
Reminds me of an old song "Dem Dem Dry Bones" or whatever it was called. However, I can't seem to recall the "knucklebone" stanza, so hopefully the scientists won't mess up the rebuilding. =)
Fighting over religion is like seeing whose imaginary friend is best.
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.
Fast-moving plates?
2256 meters after 200,000,000 years gives a sinking speed of *11 microns per year*.
Apparently "Planet of the Apes" references get you modded Insightful.
But since the previous poster has not deemed fit to share his email address, God has approved my email address as an alternate waypoint to him.
"The FSM put it there!" comments :)
Reptilicus suddenly pop into my head?
I don't like big words..., does that make me anti-semantic?
I don't understand how this is just a coincidence.
This confirms stuff we already knew about Earth's geographical lay out back then. It could also lead us to thousands of other information we don't know. It may lead us to what happened to the dinosaurs even or to pre-historic humans and more information about them.
That which does not kill me only postpones the inevitable.
He he, I'd mod you as Funny if I had points currently. But really, this part of the world has been pretty tectonically active recently, at least as recent as the opening of the Atlantic ocean along a spreading ridge. Jeez, almost anything could've happened - except a flood. Flood deposits are terrestrial, and don't affect the ocean floor (at least not to a depth of 2000 m). Some washing out could have occurred instead perhaps, but this would be impossible to distinguish from the bone(s) being washed out by a river, tide, or just plain ol' waves. As Norway was once a fluvial plain (rivers), and rivers are common deposits in which to find bone (Hell Creek and Two Medicine Fms. in Montana, for instance, preserve almost all fossils in what are interpreted to be fluvial deposits), then it's easy to imagine a river washing a fossil out to sea here as well. Knucklebones (do they mean phalanges?) are relatively round and small, and so could travel far and without significant abrasion or breakage - even as far as the continental shelf, apparently. Washing out by a river is the most parsimonious, and most likely, explanation.
ID of the bone as that of a Plateosaurus isn't so difficult either - prosauropods have certain very distinguishable bones (well, like anything I guess), and as they were in the process of going from bipedal to quadrupedal I bet their knucklebones were unique, and diagnostic. Much of western Europe is full of Plateosaurus specifically, and so this is also the most likely.
--
Better go now, running out of room.
So, they were drilling for fossil fuel? Looks like they knuckled down, and found the source. But still, with the odds of finding a fossil like that, so deep, it almost makes me wonder if the drill was intelligently designed...
Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
I'll bet he was just a bad swimmer... or bad with directions. "Shore is over here. I'm sure."
Surely the answer is obvious? It got pushed down by the drill bit.
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
How can they be so sure that it's a dinosaur bone? Why couldn't in be a bone from some long extinct whale?
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
The lunar landing sites will still be recognizable in 200 million years. Even the footprints are estimated to survive for a hundred times the age of the Pyramids.
Voyager 2 and Pioneer 10 will outlive the Earth.
Usually the lower beneath the surface a fossil is, the old it, due to the fact that soil is deposited over time. I wonder what the results of a carbon dating would show.
To be fair, the article says the fossil was 2256 meters below the seabed, presumably meaning measured perpendicular to the seabed. I don't know at what angle plates move, but I doubt it's straight down. Even at an angle though, the figures could work out reasonably.
Well, so much for 'created in six days', you spoilsport! I'm going to have to tell Reverend Pat Bilgewater about you, you heathen scientist. No, wait. The world was created with subterranean dinosaurs. Yeah, that makes much more sense than this science nonsense.
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.
2256 meters after 200,000,000 years gives a sinking speed of *11 microns per year*.
From this page, it says that the Snorre field is located approx 140km west of the coast. The ocean depth is at around 300-300m, but the reservoir is some 2500m down. It also says that the reservoir differs from most of the other fields in the North Sea in that the rock consists of fossil riverbeds from a time (triassic period) when the North Sea was dry land containing big rivers.
I'm guessing it doesn't really matter how much it has moved, since things were probably very different then anyways.
...whales don't have much in the way of "knuckles."
On a slightly more serious note: probably the same way that coral fossiles from roughly the same period ended up in Kaibab Limestone on the Colorado plateau at 7000 feet above sea level. -- Either plate tectonics or the devil sprinkled them to confuse the minds of men.
You should call yourself GoodAnalogyGuy for that one
:c )
But don't call the former one a theory
--
Better go now, running out of room.
gah. I'm sorry, but you're a moron, either that or you read the first sentence of the grandparent post and stopped.
He explicitly said that we shouldn't assume such things exist just because we're not assuming they don't exist.
You cannot establish any scientific theory without some evidence. What he's saying is to simply not form a theory one way or the other until such time as you actually have some evidence.
You can be open to the possibility of something without assuming it's true. If you can't, then you have some serious thought process problems, and will end up embarrasing yourself with statements like "If you're not with us, you're with the terrorists"
Advanced users are users too!
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."
...and without evidence to the contrary they should establish that as a scientific theory?
That's not what Flimzy said at all. Read the post.
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.
Waiting on evidence before making a decision is hardly unscientific. The whole idea that something should not be regarded as possibly real until it can be scientifically observed flies in the face of scientific advancement. By this thinking, atoms only became real quite recently, and creationism was true until Darwin made his observations (or at least, evolution hadn't happened until the observations were made, at which point it became true).
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
Wow, if that's the only part of it you read than you are much worse than just a coward. I'm a geologist and a biologist, am I to become a physicist in my spare time? Argue against everything else I said then, if you know anything at all. Go ahead.
(You've also got to consider that rocks don't always progress linearly. Folding - where older rocks are pushed over younger ones - is not that unusual. This means that unless you know the exact nature of the geological strata involved, you can generally know exactly nothing from depth alone.)
Now, there ARE forms of chemical dating which do work over hundreds of millions of years, but they only work under very specific conditions and don't give you an absolute age. A known percentage of cosmic rays contain sufficient energy to convert one isotope into another, or even one element into another. This will tell you how long the rock has been exposed to cosmic rays... provided the rock has not been vertically displaced, has been exposed directly and continuously to such radiation, and has not weathered more than a few tenths of a millimeter for the entire time.
That's a tough set of conditions. You could probably use it to date impact craters on the moon very accurately, where those conditions probably will be met fairly routinely. There are probably a few places on Mars where the wind isn't enough to cause significant erosion. On Earth, there's way too much activity to use the technique EXCEPT possibly to eliminate certain theories - if the total cosmic ray exposure time detected exceeds the expected age of the rock, then the expected age of the rock would have to be wrong.
In this case, however, you couldn't even begin to use such techniques. Fossils form within the ooze that is to become rock, not on the surface, so won't have been exposed to the necessary radiation in the first place. Secondly, as is very likely, the fossilization occurred at some depth, ensuring that none of the ooze will have been chemically altered by this process.
The only way to find out how old the fossil bed is is to do this the old-fashioned way. Go there and look. Literally. Get a drill that can bore a hole wide enough to climb down, drill to the right depth, drop some high explosive down the hole to expose enough rock face, then send an ROV down with a hammer and chisel to go fossil hunting.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Our brand wood and metal civilization would disappear fast for the most part. Wood rots and gets eaten by termites, vanishes. Metals corrode/rust/ gone. Go out to the country (if possible) and look at old overgrown farms. 10 years, completely overgrown, what was mowed front lawn is now got 15 foot baby trees and thick scrub, the walls of the house and rooff will be covered with various vines. 20 years, hard to tell if a structure was there once it has developed a lot of water leaks, it falls apart fast then, once on the ground, two summers tops and no evidence of the wood remains, it is pure compost with leaves over it. 50 years-ruins, you have to dig to find old nails and bottles and stuff, and most of them are in poor shape. I live on a farm with old civil war history (as in the books history). Just from that long ago, a century and a half, it is unrecognizable (from old photos and records correlated with what it looks like now) and any artifacts found are coming from the occassional bulldozer scraping them up from fairly deep, all the easy stuff was picked long long long ago. 100 years and change is enough to grow massive oak tree forests where pastures used to be worked and used daily. Nature is relentless. The county cuts the kudzu along the roadside once a *month* in season here. If it was NOT cut, tar roads would be covered in one year,one summer, easy, I mean easy, completely overgrown deep, then the vine tangles would start to accumulate humus from falling leaves, weed seeds blowing in, etc. A nice little ecosystem going. One summer would be all it took. In around 5 years (guessing, something like this) you would be seeing baby trees growing over those roads. 100 years? Gone, buried, completely.
We have plastics now that would remain, and stuff in deeply compacted landfills, but not as much as the olden cultures where a lot of things were made from stone, stone just lasts better. 10,000 years? I am beginning to doubt you would find much, even plastics break down before then. Heck, my tarps covering some equipment need to be replaced every other year, they just disintegrate in the weather (wind/sun damage, etc). Millions of years?? My guess is you would still find some, a weird odd piece here or there,buried really deep, but not near enough to really reflect the huge accomplishments we have now.
Despite your misconception, science is not a search for truth. To misquote Indiana Jones, "If you're looking for truth, Philosophy 101 is down the hall." Science is the search for an explanation on how the observable world around us works. Nothing more. Nothing less.
"Until science _disproves_ something, that thing should not be discounted as a possibility. That includes God, goblins, and pink dinosaurs under the ocean floor."
Wrong. First, define God, goblins and pink dinosaurs under the ocean. You'll quickly understand which ones science can deal with it, and which ones it can't.
You know, statements like these are exactly one of the reasons why people in the Kansas Board of Education were able to take the ID farce and run with it. Science is not in the business of proving or disproving stuff that has no relationship with the natural world. Alternatively, just because you can dream something up doesn't mean it's worth the energy you expended to articulate it.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
For non-SI system users there,it is
0.000433070866 inch per year.
Moderating 101
The Norwegians dug too deep and greedily.
I want to know who the hell modded this person as Insightful. This is as much ID talk as I've ever read, though somehow without using those words... Things like flight, electric light, and space travel, while perhaps at one time seeming impossible, are not nor have ever been supernatural! Science is a process by which we learn about the world around us, it's not magic! We're doing the best we can with what we got, and making up sh** isn't going to get us anywhere. I think the fact that we figured out how to travel to space, fly, and utilize electricity shows what science CAN do, and all without having to deal with the supernatural. You're talking about human ingenuity and persistence rather than the supernatural, and science is full of stories about that.
...and placed that knucklebone there about 6500 years ago because he knew in his infinite wisdom and omnipotence that someday we would send an exploratory core driller down in that exact location. I see it all clearly now.
And therefore rigorous science
r dvr122005opn.pdf
"Until science _disproves_ something, that thing should not be discounted as a possibility. That includes God, goblins, and pink dinosaurs under the ocean floor."
The existance of god and the supernatural is not falsifiable, and therefore must be discounted as possibilities when conducting rigorous science.
Check the wiki for more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
See also: proving a negative, division by zero, perpetual motion and the recent Intelligent design trial.
Judge John E. Jones III states the case nicely:
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/educate/ktzmll
If voting were effective, it would be illegal by now.
"The bugger died and just floated down to the deep."
"floated down"??
Is that at all like "sank"?
The flood myth came to mind when I saw pictures from the 26 December 2004 Tsunami in the Indian Ocean.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
This is some deep shit.
First against the wall when the revolution comes
For Slashdot users, it is
3.564857e-22 parsec per year.
Moral of the story kids: Oil was bad for the dinos and it will be bad for us too.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Megatsunamis have happened every couple hundred years throughout history, this could very well be the cause of the flood. I remember hearing somewhere what happend was some entire cliff somewhere in the mediteranian broke off into the sea and flooded most of mesopotamia.
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
In fact it is just one of his Noody Appendages that got compressed under the pressure of the ocean.
I ate your fish.
Nyarlathotep?
Ahtu?
Ahiiieeee! and though you are known by by a hundred hundred names, here on the slashdotted plane your name shall be "Monkey" as only Nyarlathotep is obligated to speak the great deep one's true name.
And lo' it was written:
"There was the immemorial figure of the deputy or messenger of hidden and terrible powers - the 'Black Man' of the witch cult, and the 'Nyarlathotep' of the Necronomicon."
You are that messenger... obviously.
If voting were effective, it would be illegal by now.
OR a sedimentary deposit rate of 11 microns per year.
Our (human) pyramids are only 6000 years old, and their outer surface is gone - another 100k years, they'll just be piles of rubble
I believe that their nice shiny white outer surface was actually stolen/reused... in the nice shiny white buildings around Cairo. People cant resist shiny stuff... so maybe that actually proves your point that they wont be around for ever, but it wasnt environmental factors that have removed their brilliant coverings...
a ref that says so... i have read it elsewhere too...
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.
Dude, just zip it ...
What more proof do we need that the bible is literal truth?
I for one, need none. It's just too bad that Noah only brought his relatives on the boat with him, because now were all inbred cousins.
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.
Actually, that's wrong. By definition, supernatural is:
1. not of natural world: relating to or attributed to phenomena that cannot be explained by natural laws
Science is the study of natural facts. It is looking at the known facts, coming up with a possible explanation, predicting new facts, and performing experiments to see if what was predicted actually happens. If a lot of predictions come true, and the theory stands up for a long time, we tend to call it a law, such as the law of gravity. Evolution should rightly be called a law by now, the weight of evidence is overwhelming. Some bleeding edge areas of science are very hard to test YET, generally the very big and very small, but the key point is observable evidence and that tests could be designed. When the periodic table was created, there were a lot of gaps, but had predictions of what the properties the elements in the gaps would have. Tests we can now perform proved the predictions to be accurate.
Supernatural phenomenon *by definition* do not rely upon natural laws to govern their behaviour. Just because something appears supernatural does not mean it is so, admittedly (but if we can test it and get the same results back each time, then it's not supernatural after all), but something that by definition does not follow the same laws as the observable universe, such as God, is not studyable by science, and should not be. If people want to discuss God and His laws in theology class, in church, between their friends, more power to them. But He, and theories discussing His actions do not belong in a science class or discussion because by definition, no tests can be created to confirm or deny His existance or even His actions.
Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
O'Brian: Captain, ensign Jones won't be joining you on any more away missions....
liqbase
Things like flight, electric light, and space travel, while perhaps at one time seeming impossible, are not nor have ever been supernatural!
But they would have seemed so at the time. Cutting it to the core, what the grandparent was saying is that you should discount nothing that has not been scientifically disproved. People have said heavier-than-air flight was impossible, space travel was impossible, hell, there were probably people saying (or grunting) that controllable fire was impossible. The point is, you should not deny something's existance until it has been scientifically disproven. And yes, that does include God, pixies, and whatever else. It doesn't mean you have to believe; it means you shouldn't deny their existence without evidence.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
Thank you for this recipe! It has changed my life.
'The supernatural' is defined as that which does not obey the natural laws governing our universe--thus it cannot be explained or understood through science. This precludes any usefulness of incorporating the concept of the supernatural into scientific models or theories.
The concept of the supernatural is an artifact of religious and cultural traditions of relying on mythos rather than logos to explain natural phenomena. It creates an artificial division of reality into the supernatural and the natural, where the first is imbued with all the qualities of awe and wonder, and the second is regarded as base and mundane. Subsequently, this view also treats priests and clerics as holders of true knowledge, whereas scientists/mathematicians/etc. are simply squanderng their life on trivial 'worldly' matters.
Scientific models, on the other hand, attempt to explain the universe using 'natural laws' deduced from observations and careful reasoning. Science relies on the fundamental assumption that all things in our universe follow a set of knowable, absolute, and logically consistent rules. That is the very basis of the scientific process. That is why when observations do not match currently accepted scientific models, the model is revised or a new model is proposed to account for those disparate observations.
If we simply believed in the supernatural, then there would be no point in scientific pursuit. Everything which cannot be explained by conventional knowledge would simply be regarded as supernatural, and thus unknowable. If observational data doesn't correspond to the predictions of current scientific models, then a supernatural force must be at work. That is simply an intellectual cop out.
Science and belief in the supernatural are two diametrically opposed ideas. So it seems to me that you are the one making ridiculous claims.
If a lot of predictions come true, and the theory stands up for a long time, we tend to call it a law, such as the law of gravity. Evolution should rightly be called a law by now, the weight of evidence is overwhelming
That is the hookiest definition of a scientific law I've ever seen. Scientific laws are not defined by a preponderance of evidence. That's civil suits. Scientific theories are laws if and only if they can be reduced to a simple statement and that statement proven. From wikipedia: "a physical law is a summary observation of strictly empirical matters, whereas a theory is a model that accounts for the observation."
Evolution is a theory (note, this is a categorization, not a statement on the validity of evolution) because it offers a model whereby organisms can adapat and change over time. Even among people who agree on the validity of evolution have differing opinions on the precise mechanisms - punctuated equilibrium or smooth progression? An example of a law would be:
There is no process that, operating in cycle, produces no other effect than the subtraction of a positive amount of heat from a reservoir and the production of an equal amount of work
It makes a simple claim that can be (logically speaking) disproven. If you manage to create a process that produces more energy than it uses, you will have disproven the second law of thermodynamics. What is the proposed law of evolution, and how could it logically be disproven?
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
You can't disprove a negative. All you can do is exhaustively apply tests which should detect the phenomena that some people claim (without evidence of the phenomena to back it up). If the result is repeatedly negative, it may as well not exist. It is not reasonable to continuously look for something for which there is no evidence that it exists in the first place.
Not to feed the original grandparent troll, but science should be working in the exclusion of supernatural. Something that is supernatural is by definition not testable. If one day we discovered that humans have telepathy, a scientist wouldn't accept a supernatural explanation. A scientist would strive to find a mechanism to explain telepathy.
The best a scientist can do to "prove" the supernatural is to show, in so far as much is possible, that a certain phenomenon happens in defiance of the laws of nature as we currently understand them. This of course proves nothing and a good scientist would never accept such a conclusion. A good scientist goes back and tries to find a new way of understanding nature.
General relativity would seem to be the supernatural working in a Newtonian world. That doesn't make relativity supernatural. It just meant that once we discovered that Newtonian physics was wrong that we had to go back rethink our entire understanding of nature.
That isn't to say that you can't see something that scientist can't explain and decide on your own that you are simply going to accept it as supernatural, it is just that such a conclusion isn't scientific.
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.
The flooding of the Marmara sea and the Babylonian flood circa ~2,200 B.C.E. are fairly well-known, along with a number of other floods in the region. Some of these flood myths, such as the Turkish one, actually recalls the specific flood itself.
There is some evidence, though disputed, of extensive flooding about ten thousand years ago, during the end of the last ice age, that wiped out an extant bronze-age civilization. I don't put a whole lot of stock in it, though it is a nice fancy.
I am a science fantasy fan
"They found it 2,256 meters below the ocean floor." (emphasis mine) I dunno about you, but to my knowledge things that sink in the ocean don't usually sink beyond the bottom. That said, this could be an unbelievably dense knucklebone, in which case you're absolutely correct.
"The purpose of science should be to find the truth"
Ah, yes truth..... There is a difference between "supernatural" and unexplained but many people see them as the same thing.
"Until science _disproves_ something"
Science does not "disprove" anything, I mean how would you prove to me that pigs can't fly?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
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
if we manage to exterminate ourselves through nuclear weapons, what life remains has a period of rapid evolutionary improvement due to a lotta dna scrambling going on.. a lot more than would otherwise in a few years.
if we manage to do it with biologicals, well.. we're then the planet is fucked.
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Awww man! I thought this was going to be a dinosaur recipe. :(
as opposed to, you know, being sons of Adam or daughters of Eve...
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
I don't think there's any evidence the flood receded is there, I don't recall God saying that. No, before the flood there was no water at all in the oceans until the fountains of the deep gushed forth and filled them in, the flood on what is today still land was no doubt the boiling and frothing of the waters as they gushed forth and settled down.
Obviously the areas now covered by Ocean were once the domain of the angels who spent there time planting "dinosaur" bones and other "evidence" in there ready for day drilling rigs were invented.
I think the scientists have been very hasty in classing this as a platelogicus or whatever they think it is and don't appear to be even considering the possibility it was a large aquatic burrowing mammal easily capable of burrowing through 2KM of mud.
However, the Bible is full of testable questions and events that are supposed to have occured, most of which have been thoroughly disproven.
Such as...
Oh great! Now the poeple who are pushing the theory of abiotic petroleum will push it one step further — abiotic fossils!
I18N == Intergalacticization
true genetic sports develop a lot faster with damaged dna...
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
I also call your bluff on you owning a time machine.
Well, yeah. Obviously, if he had one of those he would have made a first post.
||:|::
You have to take in to account that fossilization, followed by intact survival and subsequent discovery, makes for an *extremely* rare set of events.
There are a few thousand good-condition dinosaur skeletons now existing in human ownership worldwide. Dinosaurs ruled the earth for about 200M years -- if we assume that they lived on average 10 years and the world supported an average of just 1M individuals at any given time (and it was probably more like 100M), you are looking at 20 trillion individuals during the dinosaur era.
So, even given those conservative figures, our recovery rate so far is less than 1 individual in a billion, probably lower -- apply the same figures to the human population, and you'd have a tiny handful of "freak ape" skeletons found in a couple of sites worldwide. There'd perhaps be a controversy as to whether the remains even represented a species of their own, or a gorilla with hydrocephalus and other defects.
Is this is a new species "mole aquaticus reptilicus dinosaurius" which didn't sink, but actually lived and thrived beneath the deep below ocean floor, obtaining energy from volcanic vents, and sustinance from silicone nodules (with a sprinkling of magnesium). They were able to move thru solid material by digesting it and excreting it directly behind them. They still exist in the Washington DC area and are responsible for many policy decisions...
Busy aligning my non-linear thoughts.
... trying to trick us with fossils into believing the world is older than 10,000 years.
Maybe you should reread what I wrote. You didn't say anything that's news to me or to other scientists. Scientists don't discount the existence of those things, b/c they cannot. You're not saying anything that scientists don't already know. But the fact that God cannot be scientifically disproven means that we don't bother about it at all, in our formulations of testable hypotheses. Plenty of scientists believe in God, though the point is to try not to let that faith interfere with their work. You can't prove that God does exist anymore than you can prove that he doesn't, and all scientists I know already know this.
The future digs are far more likely find tons of AOL discs - thus naming the current era the "Age of The Free Trial".
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Personally, I don't know. I know the flood in the Middle East is well-documented (that would have been the "entire world" to the author(s), though of coursse didn't cover the entire world. But even though the Bible has some stories of historical importance, most of what science deals with, or at least paleontology, occurred before people were ever around. We can't use the Bible as a science textbook, though it can carry good accounts regarding human history and civilization.
If you don't think it's possible to get drunk enough to think that you've floating around in a boat with 2 of every animal onboard I'd like to introduce you to a substance known as... Jaggermeister.
A lot of the comments here are as the result of a misquote in the headline. The headline reports that the bone was found below the "ocean" floor, while the article describes it as being the "sea" bed, the North Sea in particular. There is a very significant difference between the two (apart from the depth - oceans are typicially a few km deep, while seas are only a few 100m), namely the way that they formed. The North Sea was once continental crust (upon which this dinosaur lived), but it stretched, sank, and was flooded. Ever since, sediments have been accumulating, and over time these have buried the fossil to its current depth. Ocean floor is formed from spreading ridges, and has never been part of the continent - you would not expect to find a land dinosaur there.
Owl tried to think of something wise to say, but couldn't.
It could have been carried there by a pangaean swallow...
--You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
Or maybe Atlantis, for that matter. 9_9
Before that the Black Sea was a freshwater lake and its North-Eastern shores were very fertile and well inhabited. People living there were serverly dislocated and fled the flood.
Only the descendants of those people who resettled in the Middle East (Noah), Persia (Gilgamesh) and North India (Manu) believe in the quick catastrophic flood, as a divine punishment for sinful mankind. Only Moslem, Christian, Jewish and Hindu religions belive in the Flood being punishment and a complete make over of the universe.
Other Flood legends from the Tamils, Japanese, Chinese, Incas etc talk about gradual Flood as a natural phenomena. World existing before and after in substantially the same way.
BTW all the water in the atmosphere is not enough to cover the world to the depth of four inches.
PS: First time breaking out of Readonly-mode in /. Please be kind to me ;-)
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Until science _disproves_ something, that thing should not be discounted as a possibility. That includes God, goblins, and pink dinosaurs under the ocean floor.
You're correct in the first sentence. It's your application of that principle where you go wrong.
The concept of God cannot be disproven. Thus science cannot say much about it. Science can speak to our perception of God, how the concept shapes our society, etc. The concept itself, however, cannot be disproven and is beyond science.
Suppose there is an interesting phenomenon with a 'supernatural explanation'. A scientist examines it. They apply natural stimuli and observe the natural results. Either the the results are consistent and interesting, in which case the stage is set for building a second, natural explanation of this phenomenon; or they aren't, in which case the scientist is quite justified in saying, well, statistically speaking, this supposed phenomenon is not observable (or, rather, not different from other phenomena), and therefore does not—in scientific terms—exist, and does not require or warrant an explanation.
You see? It is not logically or physically possible for science to generate a supernatural explanation. It is observable and reproducible, in which case it gets a scientific treatment (a shallow one at first, getting deeper as the mechanism is explored), or it is not, and (according to science's own rules) does not, because, speaking purely scientifically, it is not there.
I'm waving my hands in one small way: the matter of arithmetic. What really seems to set scientists apart from their social opponents in the current round of dispute is that scientists believe that adding up a really a lot of small numbers produces a big number. This is the point their opponents actually (though indirectly) dispute. The scientist says 'we observe that this piece of land moves a millimetre in a year. If it did this for a million years, it would move a thousand kilometres'; the opponent says 'no way! A thosand kilometres is too far!'—seemingly they truly believe that 1,000,000 * 1/1000 is around 10. Similarly, even the most rabid creationist does not seem to dispute the existence of variation, of sex or of (in the biological sense) death. What they dispute is that stochastically directed microchanges can sum to a macrochange—that the sum of small things can be big.
Once, this might even have been a cogent idea. Once, no one had real personal experience of numbers over a million, unless they were really compulsive about counting grains of sand. But today, anyone who owns a computer has the experience that, even though a gig is a big number and two is a small one, putting in a second stick of RAM really does double the amount of memory in the computer....
>>Our (human) pyramids are only 6000 years old, and their outer surface is gone)
Actually, the reason that the outer surface is gone is not attributable to erosion but rather to human theft.
The Giza Pyramids, built during the Fourth Dynasty, were constructed of stone with polished limestone casings. The limestone blocks were later used to construct buildings in Cairo.
(http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/giza.htm
Quite a shame.
"Our (human) pyramids are only 6000 years old, and their outer surface is gone"
Their outer surfaces are gone... because they were made of a more valuable mineral, and were quarried for other purposes.
Yes. There's no other way this could have happened. The most reasonable explanation is there was a flood so massive that water covered the entire surface earth for a month and ten days.
Then Noah sent a bird off and he returned with an olive branch???? Was it a leaf or a branch? Either way, there'd be none of either because all the trees on the planet would be dead and their leaves would have washed away.
I'm getting off my point, when are you guys gunna stop believing this silly crap? I'm sure there were floods, even big ones, just as there are now. It was especially relevant to the lives of people at the time since most people lived by oceans, lakes, or rivers (and they still do). But the flood myth is silly! Stop injecting it everywhere you crazy fundamentalists!
"I'm not religious, but at the same time I don't get why science always has to have something to prove."
The leg bone is connected to... the red thing!
The red thing is connected to... my wristwatch!
Uh-oh.
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
Just in case, just in case...
"This thing does science so hard, you say, 'I've never seen that much science.'" -Sam
The purpose of science is to explain how things work
Not quite. Everything in science is a theory therefore it is not an explaination. The purpose of science is to come up with the "why" things work not how. The romans were a great civilization, but they focused on the how things work, rather than examining why they worked. It's easy to explain how something works with superstition.... Actually probeing as to why something works is a bit farther in...
/* TODO: Spawn child process, interest child in technology, have child write a new sig */
Every dinosaur bone I've ever seen was fossilized, and I've seen quite a few.
Therefore fossilization can't possibly be rare, since it occurs in 100% of the fossil record, as confirmed by 100% of my sample base.
(I'm looking for a job doing science for the Bush administration, in case you were wondering.)
Landfills/garbage dumps.
Especially since prehistoric garbage is what seems to hold the richest finds in most archeological sites today.
Piles of highly refined "nuggets" of all kinds of metals, plastics, glass, organics...
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
- W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
Did you find any coins?
Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!
http://financialpetition.org/
A floods doesn't deposit 2000 m. of sediment, well at least not in one or even a few attempts.
There are plenty of signs that make tectonic movement the typical mechanism for these type of finds.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Creationism was only held to be true because people relied on religious mythos--thus inventing the supernatural--to explain what they didn't understand instead of using logic and the scientific method.
If you simply allowed things to be explained by the existence of the supernatural, then any natural phenomenon you don't understand can be attributed to supernatural forces. The entire premise behind establishing scientific models and testing them through experimentation and observations is the belief that there are absolute universal rules that govern all things in the universe. When new experimentational data is found to contradict accepted scientific models, new models which fit the new observations are formulated. This is done because explaining things through the supernatural is useless in the pursuit of knowledge. Attibuting things to the supernatural has no scientific value, and is basically saying, this can't be explained/understood through science.
Nothing attributed to the supernatural has ever been found to be incapable of being understood from a logical and scientific standpoint. It has always been due to a lack of understanding of natural phenomena. Even if one cannot adequately explain a phenomenon with current understanding of science, one still shouldn't attribute those phenomena to the supernatural, as that runs counter to the very spirit of scientific learning.
I'm sorry, but what did you think geologists did? Sit around and make up stories? I think flipping through a couple books titled things like Sedimentology, Stratigraphy, or Historical Geology would help make this a reality to you, or this site from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedimentology. This is really not so difficult to imagine with a little knowledge. Determining depositional environments of ancient places is a huge part of geology. For one thing, erosion might make 200 Ma deposits visible to us. Without erosion and tectonics, we wouldn't be able to see a hell of a lot besides recent deposits. And there's so much more...
Belief in 'the supernatural', is the belief that some things just can't be explained through science and logical deduction because they do not obey the natural laws of our universe--laws which science presupposes to be absolute and universal, thus observations which contradict current scientific models always require those scientific models to be revised, rather than simply attributing the phenomena to supernatural forces.
Rejecting the belief of there being things in our universe which do not obey natural laws does not mean rejecting that there cannot be things which escape our current understanding of the natural universe. It just means that if one day we observe a phenomenon that defies our current understanding of the universe, that we do not attribute it to the supernatural, and that it simply means our understanding of the natural universe is flawed.
That doesn't mean that there can't be ghosts or demons. It just means that if there are such things, they would not be supernatural entities. That such findings would instead require us to revise our scientific models to account for these natural phenomena.
If it were just a matter of nature, the Giza pyramids would last longer than that. The outer casing (still found tightly fitted at the top of the Khefre pyramid) erosion rate is estimated at 5mm/kyr, the inner stones at 50mm/kyr. In addition, they're set well back from likely meanders of the Nile over the next few millenia. The Giza pyramids lost their outer surface to Cairo after it's Islamic conquest. Some of today's more wild eyed Islamic radicals in Egypt are all for reducing all evidence of it's pre-Islamic past to dust.
Left to the elements, the Giza pyramids might lose about 15 feet in 100kyrs. Left to people, they might not make it to the next century.
Luke, help me take this mask off
Although this post is a troll, it raises an interesting question Would scientists who discover something that shattered evolution, or any other theory, cover it up or deny it? I've seen a lot of intelligent people who accept the current scientific beliefs as perfect without question.
dino bone hah! that was what was left of Adam and Eve's dog's lunch. These scientists I tell you...rover just dug a hole and buried it like all dogs do.
Find a job you like and you will never work a day in your life.
Saying "I don't rule out supernatural causes for some phenomena" is quite different to attributing those phenomena to the supernatural, ie: this phenomena IS caused by (insert your supernatural preference here).
Also, many reports of "supernatural" activity do not by their nature rule out logical and scientific expanations, for example, the well known story of David and Goliath (whether you believe it or not). It would seem fairly obvious that the rock embedded in Goliath's forehead would be sufficient explanation for his death, yet it does not disprove supernatural explanation. The attribution of David's victory to God didn't mean he hadn't practised alot with that sling.
From the motivation of wanting to advance scientific enquiry, it would be better to neither dismiss or depend on supernatural explanations, as it would seem that the supernatural does not seem inclined to present itself for scientific investigation, and can therefore neither be proved or disproved by science. So, check out that sling (so to speak) whether or not you attribute the outcome to supernatural events or not. Claiming supernatural causes is not science, and neither is denying them.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
You don't seem to get it. Ruling out the supernatural is absolutely necessary for scientific inquiry. Belief in the supernatural directly conflicts with the epistemological basis of science, and you simply can't rely on supernatural "explainations" in science. The concept of the supernatural is completely useless to science.
First off, the story of David and Goliath is a piece of religious mythology, and science is not concerned with mythology. Secondly, if a person killed another person with a slingshot, why would you suspect any kind of supernatural involvement? That's a simply jumping to groundless conclusions lacking any kind of proof. It is completely unscientific and illogical to explain a natural phenomenon as being the result of a supernatural deity. It's just like saying that 9/11 was caused by God's wrath. There is no evidence supporting such a claim, it is not a scientific hypothesis which can be tested, and it has no value to science whatsoever.
Once again, the supernatural, by definition, cannot be explained or understood through science/reason. Such a belief runs counter to the spirit of science. Attributing a particular phenomenon to the supernatural assumes that that phenomenon simply cannot be understood/explained through science, and that is a very ignorant mentality which has been proven again and again in history to be very mislead and counter to scientific progress. As such, a true scientist must rule out supernatural explainations, always.
Sadly, I've seen a lot of intelligent people who think that a few minutes of "common sense examination" of data they see in the popular press is good enough to overturn the deep analysis and primary source data covered in the literature that they never read. Fewer, but still a surprising number, are amazingly quick to appeal to a conspiracy by scientists to make the results from their own field wrong. Their reasons range from the Atheist Agenda to the grant money that, of course, allows all research biologists to live in oppulent splendor.
There may be some subset of scientists who would cover up groundbreaking work, but I would venture to say that they're the subset of scientists who are too stupid to actually do any groundbreaking work in the first place.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
can u imagine in a million years from now, some battle ship will blow up some solid rocky silicate mantle and find skeleton's of us and call it 'primitive life form'....
By the way, considering the depth they found it at, all that DRILLING its a wonder they jus did not end up sculpting another dinosaur all together.
There is nothing permanent except 'Change'- HERACLITUS,6TH CENTURY B.C
While i agree with the 200million year statement, please remember that for the most part the poor 'shape' the pyramids are in is due to man, not nature.
Most of the 'capping' limestone was stolen.. which aside from the immediate damage, helped nature do her work even more to the unprotected areas.
But yes, 6000 years isnt long in the grand scheme of things, and 200million is...
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Actually, I think it's you who doesn't get it. If, as you say, the concept of the supernatural is completely useless to science (which I suspect wouldn't get an arguement from most people), it is surely also of no effect on science, provided one bases science on evidence. There have been too many scientists over history who have held various religious beliefs for a rational person to say that belief in the supernatural prevents good science. It just doesn't agree with known facts to state such a thing. You can study the effects of gravity, for example, equally well as a Christian, Muslim, Buddist, atheist or any other belief or lack of it. It is simply a denial of reality to say that only people who rule out supernatural belief can be true scientists. History disagrees with you.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
I never said a scientist can't be religious. But in science, one must rule out the supernatural. So when you are trying to figure out how a dinosaur bone ended up 2,256 meters below the ocean floor, scientifically, you rule out supernatural explainations. And you can still be 'spiritual' without accepting 'supernatural' beliefs that mainstream religons try to conflate with spirituality. There are many ways to approach spirituality, and even religion, so it is possible to be religious but not believe in angels and demons. Most progressive individuals don't take the Bible literally these days anyways.
Also, religion is often something people are born into and are brought up to believe, not something one had much of a choice in. In the past, Judeo-Christian religion has been very deeply entrenched in Western culture so that it was almost inevitable that if you lived in Europe or America, you had to be a Christian. Cultural hegemony is a very powerful force in the shaping of societal attitudes. So, rational individuals might have studied science in spite of being raised a Christian, but there has historically been a conflcit between the two spheres. Many past scientists/philosophers, such as Renee Descartes, have tried unsuccessfully to reconcile the two beliefs, but most simply keep them as completely separate matters in order to deal with their innate inner conflict.
And when religious zealots overstep the domain of religion, crossing into the territory of science and rational thought, they usually end up embarassing themselves, such as in the case of Creationism and many issues which the Catholic church has held a reactionary stance on in the past. In fact, if a mainstream religion is to survive into the future, it must periodically make concessions to science and cultural progress in order to keep up with contemporary times. The Catholic church has already accepted biological evolution as an orthodox belief, but their stance on homosexuality and birth-control are still considered very culturally backward.
> I never said a scientist can't be religious. But in science, one must rule out the supernatural.
:)
:) I am sure the same would apply to most supernatural beliefs.
... well, need I say more?
Ok, I see your point and I suppose we're on a similar track, I guess I would say science doesn't acknowledge the supernatural. Ruling it out is making a decision about it without evidence, which I regard as contrary to science. I would say that the supernatural is by nature the unseen, while science deals with the observable. Therefore science should have nothing to say about the supernatural, either to rule it out or rule it in (for want of a better term). So with the example you gave of the dinosaur bone at 2,256 meters, science would IMO not rule out supernatural explanation, nor investigate, suggest or otherwise mention supernatural explanation. No ruling out required, the supernatural is not what science is about. It's a bit like saying mathematics should rule out emotion: it doesn't need to, it's irrelevant.
> Many past scientists/philosophers, such as Renee Descartes, have tried unsuccessfully to reconcile the two beliefs
Not surprising. The bible itself says "for we walk by faith, not by sight." 2 Corinthians 5:7, that is to say, the things of Christian faith are as a rule not observed. How many people do you know that claim to have observed a resurrection? Yet it would be considered by most Christians to be central to their faith. Biology though, has nothing to say about it. It is simply not necessary for a biologist to rule out the possibility of resurrection based on the observation of the bodies of dead Christians, it is outside the scope of science. I don't think I would take a biologist seriously if they wrote in a paper either "This dead body is now prepared for resurrection (being dead)" or "This body won't be resurrected as it is putrifying (or similar comment, I'm sure you get the idea)". Also consider the biblical story of Abraham (makes no difference if you believe it or not, I'm making a point about faith not being observable reality). Abraham means "father of many" a name Abraham took (according to the story) before he had any children at all. Not exactly about science, I know, but still a case of faith being in direct conflict with observable reality.
> Most progressive individuals don't take the Bible literally these days anyways.
All this means is that you don't consider people who take the bible literally to be progressive
I don't consider myself religious as such, but I do have supernatural beliefs. I just don't expect or need my spiritual beliefs to be in agreement with observable reality, neither do I need to deny observable reality if it appears to conflict with my faith. Again in Proverbs 3:5 (Trust in the Lord with all your heart, And don't lean on your own understanding.) a statement essentially the requirement of Christian/Jewish faith will be in defiance of logic/reason, ie: the things of faith are neither logical nor reasonable nor observable, which is to say, not science. Science has no more to say about faith than it does about poetry.
The problem as I see it arises when: 1) People try to say faith is science (In direct contradition to the bible at least, I haven't studied other religious books enough to know what they say about it); 2) People try to say Science (observation) is THE determiner of truth (faith) (eg: ruling out supernatural causes when there is no evidence or necessity to do so) 3) People try to eradicate faith through natural (observable) means, eg oppresion of religion by other religions/communists etc. 4) People try to enforce faith by natural means (force of arms, political power etc)
According to the bible, biblical faith is considered to be foolish by those who don't believe it. I conclude therefore, that any attempt to make it seem reasonable will be either unsuccessful, or a departure from authentic biblical faith (or a conversion, resulting in a brand new unreasonable person
Any attempt to rule out a belief that is by it's very nature illogical, unreasonable, unobservable and foolish by using science
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
A progressive is a free-thinking individual, typically one who is ahead of mainstream society in moral/spiritual thinking. As such, Jesus of Nazareth was a progressive in his time. He espoused many progressive and subversive ideas which resulted in his persecution.
However, much of the progressive beliefs he preached have long since been incorporated into the common sense morality of most cultures, whether due to Christian or other religious influence, or other cultural forces. And unfortunately, most Christians today, as with most followers of all mainstream religions, tend to be focused on the past. They focus on the dogma and ritual rather than the philosophical ideas behind Christianity. This is the 'orthodox' way to practice most religions, but it leads to very little societal progress, and is rather hypocritical and superficial imo.
The Bible, as with most scriptures, is a static document. It does not change with time. Only interpretations can change with time, and this is the only way that religions are able to keep up with modern times. Luckily, there are individuals who don't just blindly adhere to accepted mainstream interpretations of the Bible, and instead interpret it for themselves. It is these individuals, individuals like Martin Luther (who began the Reformation) and Jesus (who created Christianity out of Jewish traditions), who are the ones that revitalize religious movements which have grown stagnant over time as all static bodies do.
So, progressive Christians are, in my opinion, those who break from orthodox beliefs, and interpret the theological teachings themselves. They approach spirituality with an open and critical mind, and listen to reason in their pursuit of spiritual growth. They do not simply follow rituals and dogma, and recite catechisms from the scriptures. Instead, they read between the lines and try to find the deeper meaning within the text. Progressive theists subvert the influence of reactionary religious institutions which dominate the spiritual culture of our society.
It's easy to interpret the Bible literally, and it's even easier to simply regurgitate oft repeated religious cliches and believe whatever you're told in church and what everyone else believes and expects you to believe. What's hard is interpreting the text for yourself, and likely coming up with a different interpretation which may get you ostricized, labeled an apostate, or persecutated for your dissentious beliefs(sound familiar?). But those individuals are the true Christians, IMHO, and I have a lot of respect for them even though I'm not a Christian.
Well, it's interesting to hear (read) your view. I think we will go quite offtopic if we continue a discussion about what constitutes a true Christian and how doctrine should be taught or understood, although I'm sure it would be interesting.
... is the belief that there are absolute universal rules that govern all things in the universe." People who believe the bible also believe this of the "supernatural".
Science advances in the knowledge of these rules by "experimentation and observations". However, as we have noted, the supernatural does not seem to be available for such experimentation and observations, and so the laws that govern the supernatural (known as moral or spiritual law) is known primarily through revelation. People who believe the bible is that revelation, and complete, are very unlikely to change their interpretation of it in order to be seen as progressive. They may very well try to understand the differences in the culture being addressed in scripture to their own in order to understand/apply the (original) teaching correctly.
...well... unreasonable :)
..." anywhere you want to go. Seeing it in action is what will make the difference, no new doctrine required.
Although you will probably disagree, I will offer this explanation of why many people are happy with the bible, unchanged and not newly interpreted: You said in a previous post (paraphrased) "That behind science
I'm sure this doesn't convince you of anything, but perhaps it will help you understand people that must seem
IMO, people who bring their behaviour into line with biblical teaching have a much better impact than those who change the teaching to suit their changing environment, chameleon believers, if you will. You can hear "Give to the poor, don't judge others, love your enemies
> coming up with a different interpretation which may get you ostricized, labeled an apostate, or persecutated for your dissentious beliefs(sound familiar?).
...don't need new interpretations for that either. A few timely quotes from scripture, or the question "Do you have a scripture reference for that?" in response to being told some acceptable thing is usually sufficient.
It's turned rather offtopic I think you'll agree. I'm quite happy to continue, but perhaps it would be best over email if you want to discuss this further. rwharbor-subs at yahoo dot com dot au
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
> I will offer this explanation of why many people are happy with the bible, unchanged and not newly interpreted.... the laws that govern the supernatural (known as moral or spiritual law) is known primarily through revelation. People who believe the bible is that revelation, and complete, are very unlikely to change their interpretation of it....
t m
My question is this: How *much* of the Bible have they read?
I was born and raised a Christian (Protestant) by my parents for all my childhood. Part of my upbringing was going to church and Sunday School, neither of which I particularly enjoyed. Despite that, I never questioned the existence of God or the Holy Trinity.
As time went on, however, I began to feel small, nagging doubts about my religion, "like a splinter in the back of your mind, driving you mad." Questions I directed to my pastor and Sunday School teachers received unsatisfactory answers or evasive responses. One answer I consistently got was, "If you want the truth, you can always find it in the Bible."
Okay, I thought, if everything I'm feeling uneasy about can be resolved by the Bible, I might as well read it. All of it. The whole thing. (I was still a kid at the time, and I was already a voracious reader who devoured entire computer programming texts and technical references -- so it didn't seem that crazy to me.)
Big mistake.
Bear in mind that I was writing and debugging programs on my home computer at the time, so I was accustomed to identifying logical inconsistencies and contradictions in documents. The first whopper was in, of all things, the Book of Genesis: there are *two different* accounts of Creation, and they are mutually incompatible! From there it just gets worse and worse. By the time I had *finished* the Bible, my faith was in worse shape than before!
The only way to reconcile such a horribly inconsistent Bible is to read it *selectively* -- picking out valuable passages while disregarding the others. Yet this runs counter to the idea of the Bible as an authoritative reference! Instead of deriving your judgement directly from the Bible, you'd be exercising your individual judgement ON the Bible. In other words, you'd be *interpreting* the Bible's value system through your own unique value system!
Because of this quandary, I ended up "losing my religion." I could not in all honesty put my faith in a Bible that was literally full of holes; to do so would make me a hypocrite. (Ironically, Jesus had some choice words for hypocrites.)
For a more humurous sendup of old-fashioned Biblical values, check this out:
http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/susan/joke/laura.h
"All hands, BRACE FOR IMPACT!"
that's a funny link, thanks.
:) The bible is primarily intended to promote relationships (ie, two most important commandments, love God, love people) and as such does not place highest priority on logical consistency.
> Questions I directed to my pastor and Sunday School teachers received unsatisfactory answers or evasive responses.
I got similar responses as a teenager when asking why shouldn't I smoke pot. Many people in general speak without knowledge. It's probably not surprising that they continue to do so if they become Christians. Unfortunately, as you pointed out before, many people believe because the Pastor told them to, so someone in this position may go for years (lifetime) without having to clarify or justify their doctrine. Especially if people who do question it leave as a result of the unsatisfactory answers.
> My question is this: How *much* of the Bible have they read?
Personally, all of it. It's not that I haven't seen inconsistencies, but many of them have been resolved for me over time. I am sure that if we were to go over them, some I could resolve to your satisfaction, others I could not. Personally, since I have found that some things which have seemed insurmountable have been resolved by just a little more knowledge or a different way of thinking, it seems likely to me that others will be solved in time. As such, again, not particularly helpful to you, but not a big problem for me. For years some passages frustrated me every time I looked at them, sometimes to be resolved very easily.
> I ended up "losing my religion."
Not a bad idea perhaps. I'm not in the religion I was brought up in either, and still don't consider myself particularly religious. Maybe other people do.
BTW, my brother in law is a software engineer and has read all the bible and believes, so being able to think logically and consistenly and biblical faith are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Also, consider that people in highly logical professions (engineers, physicists etc) are not generally famous for their ability to get along with people. To insist on adherence to strict logical structure wont usually get you far in relationships, particularly with women
I think it was Einstein that said you can't solve a problem with the same level of thinking that created the problem. Most people seek God because of a problem. If faith could be understood completely by a person with a problem without first raising the level of their thinking, according to Einstein's logic, that faith could not provide a solution to the problem. As the bible also says "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." and "Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men." and "For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe."
http://marriedmansexlife.com/