Slashdot Mirror


Bacteria Found Alive In Ice 120,000 Years Old

FiReaNGeL notes research presented this morning at Penn State on the discovery of a new, ultra-small species of bacteria that has survived for more than 120,000 years within the ice of a Greenland glacier at a depth of nearly two miles. From the psu.edu announcement: "The microorganism's ability to persist in this low-temperature, high-pressure, reduced-oxygen, and nutrient-poor habitat makes it particularly useful for studying how life, in general, can survive in a variety of extreme environments on Earth and possibly elsewhere in the solar system. This new species is among the ubiquitous, yet mysterious, ultra-small bacteria, which are so tiny that they are able to pass through microbiological filters. Called Chryseobacterium greenlandensis, the species is related genetically to certain bacteria found in fish, marine mud, and the roots of some plants."

326 comments

  1. Young earth creationists by genner · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Have another reason to point and laugh.

    1. Re:Young earth creationists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      My Lordship/Friend, Calvary greetings in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, I am former Mrs Sikiratu Seki Adams, now Mrs Comfort Faith Adams, a widow to Late Saheed Baba Adams. I am 72years old, I am now a new Christian convert,suffering from long time cancer of the breast. From all indications, my condition is really deteriorating and is quite obvious that I may not live more than six months, because the cancer stage has gotten to a very severe stage. My late husband was killed during the Gulf war, and during the period of our marriage we had a son whowas also killed in a cold blood during the Gulf war. My late husband was very wealthy and after his death, I inherited all his business and wealth. My personal physician told me that I may not live for more than six months and I am so scared about this. So, I now decided to divide part of this wealth, by contributing to the development of evangelism in Africa,America, Europe and Asian Countries. This mission which will no doubt be tasking had made me to recently relocated to Nigeria, Africa where I live presently. I selected your church after visiting the website for this purpose and prayed over it, I am willing to donate the sum of $3.000,000.00 Million US Dollars to your church/Ministry for the development of evangelism and also as aids for the less privileged around you. Please note that, this fund is lying in a Security Company in Holland and the company has branches, therefore my lawyer will file an immediate application for the transfer of the money in the name of your ministry. Please, do not reply me if you have the intention of using this fund for personal use other than enhancement of evangelism. Lastly, I want you/your ministry to be praying for me as regards my entire life and my health because I have come to find out since my spiritual birth lately that wealth acquisition without! Jesus Christ in one's life is vanity upon vanity. If you have to die says the Lord, keep fit and I will give you the crown of life. May the Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the sweet fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you. I await your urgent reply. Yours in Christ Mrs. Comfort Adams. Christ Live Church, Bodija, Ibadan, Nigeria. "To her [Mary] I entrust you, that the New Woman, Mother of the Church and of the New Humanity, may be your inspiration in the discovery of a new feminine identity in the Gospel perspective." - John Paul II, Sept. 4, 1988

    2. Re:Young earth creationists by negRo_slim · · Score: 0

      Newsflash: some people don't believe in science. Get over it. Haha, that as it was typed from what? A wooden keyboard and steam powered eMachine?
      --
      On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
    3. Re:Young earth creationists by murky_lurker · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, I guess that just about wraps it up for God.

    4. Re:Young earth creationists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you realize how much money $3,000,000,000,000.00 ("$3,000,000.00 Million") is?

    5. Re:Young earth creationists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Calvary greetings,

      that is almost a million billion11

    6. Re:Young earth creationists by geekoid · · Score: 1, Insightful

      No, and that's not what he is saying.
      He is saying it's another piece of scientific evidence that shows that then literal translation of the most recent translation of the Bible is wrong.

      Of course anyone who actually studied the bible and it's actual history knows its a parable.

      FYI it's a very tiny number of believers that think the creation is literal.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    7. Re:Young earth creationists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're not supposed to believe in science. That's the point; repeatability and maintaining a healthy scepticism.

    8. Re:Young earth creationists by geekoid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Newsflash: some people don't believe in science. Get over it."

      I have never seen anyone so succinctly indicated there lack of understanding what science is.

      Newsflash: It doesn't require belief.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    9. Re:Young earth creationists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      About 1/3 of the U.S. public debt?

    10. Re:Young earth creationists by rhombic · · Score: 4, Informative

      FYI it's a very tiny number of believers that think the creation is literal.

      The Gallup poll says otherwise. Average of '05, '06, & '07 polls indicated 31% of Americans believed that the bible is the "Actual word of God, to be taken literaly".

      ~100,000,000 people is not a very tiny number.

      --
      1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.
    11. Re:Young earth creationists by TFer_Atvar · · Score: 1

      "I have never seen anyone so succinctly indicated there lack of understanding what science is." I have never seen someone so succinctly demonstrate their lack of grammatical understanding. :P

    12. Re:Young earth creationists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      God put those bacteria there to test our faith

    13. Re:Young earth creationists by Idiomatick · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well that certainly is convenient. I wonder why the bible has so many specific dates if its not literal. Anyways if you read any book that was filled with non-literal stories why would you believe any of it. Thats the exact same as trusting a known liar. If creation is just a metaphor then so is god, jesus and everything else in the bible. Either believe it all or none of it. I hate pick and choose believers. Too cowardly to abandon an ancient book yet too sensible to believe it.
       
        I'm sure i'll get modded down for bashing the religious folk. Before you do, re-read it and pretend i was talking about a religion you don't like such as satanism or .... wicca.

    14. Re:Young earth creationists by geekoid · · Score: 4, Funny

      AS soon as I hit commit, I saw my "There" mistake and new there would be a comment about that.
      Not that it matters, there are plenty of best sellers and classic with bad grammar.
      Yes, I know there are others.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    15. Re:Young earth creationists by RanCossack · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I've yet to hear a proof that there is no God that would not serve equally well to prove there is no DM when used in-character in D&D.

    16. Re:Young earth creationists by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is a small number, compared to the 4 billion believers.

      Also, they are provable wrong.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    17. Re:Young earth creationists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if these pieces of scientific evidence continue to highlight the fallacies in the bible why hasn't it been re-translated? Maybe the original gods (that's right, plural bitches :) can make a reappearance?

      And if you wanna fight about, i'm pretty sure my imaginary friend can kick your imaginary friends ass :D

    18. Re:Young earth creationists by wizardforce · · Score: 0, Troll

      Ignorance is bliss.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    19. Re:Young earth creationists by geekoid · · Score: 1

      No, you missed the point.

      I didn't say t was filled with non-literal stories, I am saying that the creation myth is just that.
      There are Many non-literal pieces, but not all of it.
      You don't understand interpretations and translation of ancient text.
      You don't need to believe all of it. Documentation during that period is poor, at best.

      "Thats the exact same as trusting a known liar."
      No, it's not. Not even close. You might as well said "Thats they exact same thing a banana wrench monkey."

      I am not a believer, but it's not my place to say there is no God, however I will point out facts, and the fact that the Bible has changed over the ages. This is well documented, as are there translations quirks between languages.

      Wicca are religious folks as well. Almost all of them are woeful ignorant of their history as well.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    20. Re:Young earth creationists by scott_karana · · Score: 1

      While it certainly doesn't require belief, it does require a measure of trust.
      While many scientific concepts make sense (I hesitate to say that they're intuitive), many are beyond the imagination or capacity of Average Joes to understand, even if they use the benefits of technology day-to-day.
      Such is the case with silicon microprocessors, for most people; V=IR is the upper limit of most peoples' understanding of basic electronics.

    21. Re:Young earth creationists by Wandering+Wombat · · Score: 4, Funny

      Don't you watch Moral Orel? God made Technology to make our lives easier. The Devil made Science to prove God wrong.

      --
      I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
    22. Re:Young earth creationists by Idiomatick · · Score: 4, Funny

      :/ you can't DISPROVE god.... but thats not the point, you can't PROVE god is. The burden of proof is on the religious....
       
        Also i could probably prove the DM exists in most D&D campaigns from the characters POV.... though i do like the analogy, it should replace cars on slashdot to represent the world. Nerdier than cars and if anything weird happened we could blame it on gnomes.

    23. Re:Young earth creationists by Veggie13 · · Score: 1

      In fact, science DOES require belief, which is ironic considering that the default stance of scientific inquiry is skepticism. The idea that "adopting the scientific method will lead us to a model of the world that more closely resembles the truth" is a philosophy that could be wrong; we all hold on to it with some small degree of faith. How's that for a Socratic notion? We might not actually know anything at all... Not to say that I don't personally believe in science. ;)

    24. Re:Young earth creationists by genericpoweruser · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Are you saying there are 4 billion Christians? Is that true? I always imagined it was pretty evenly split between Christianity, Muslim, and Buddhism.

      --
      A fool and his lamb are worth two in the bush.
    25. Re:Young earth creationists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Newsflash: some people don't believe in science. Get over it."

      They don't believe until they realize that they will fall to their death at 9.81 m/s^2 if they jump out a plane without a parachute.

    26. Re:Young earth creationists by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

      I don't think i did or i still am haha. If a book was found to be wrong or misleading many times. Is poorly translated, filled with metaphor and poorly documented to begin with. Then why after seeing 20 things i know are wrong would i blindly trust other things in the book? I would count it as an unreliable source.... just like a known liar. Though i suppose the wording was a bit harsh. And i never thought you were religious, you said you studied its history which is really unlikely for a religious person to do.
       
      Oh and just for you http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=254 .... it seems 6% of evangelicals and 1/3 of other christians believe in natural selection. So i doubt the number believing in a 6000year old earth will be 'very tiny' as sad as that may seem.

    27. Re:Young earth creationists by Stanistani · · Score: 1

      Thats they exact same thing a banana wrench monkey I am tempted to make that my new signature.

      It has a certain dada quality.
    28. Re:Young earth creationists by rhombic · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is a small number, compared to the 4 billion believers.
      If you want to tie other religions into it, the number of literal believers is going to go way way up. About 38% of your 4e9 believers are Muslim, and non-heretical Muslims believe the Qur'an (in the original Arabic) to be the literal word of God (as part of the Aqidah). As many of the older Jewish & Christian biblical stories are recounted in the Qur'an, I'd suggest that whether or not you consider 100 million people to be a tiny number, it is difficult to consider a fourth of the world's population to be tiny.

      The other trick is, of course, that God put the dinosaurs there, messed with radioisotope levels, etc etc etc to test the faithful. Nice argument that can't be rebutted.

      --
      1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.
    29. Re:Young earth creationists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      new knew no

    30. Re:Young earth creationists by Peaker · · Score: 1

      It does require some belief.

      Belief in Occam's razor.
      Belief that if things behaved a certain way in the past, they will continue to behave that way in the future.

      Of course, everyone (including YEC's) believe in these principles and apply them to their lives all the time (so I guess I am just nitpicking :-)

    31. Re:Young earth creationists by It'sYerMam · · Score: 1
      Do you believe in science, or don't you? Because your post indicates that you don't believe in science.

      This is interesting. Belief just means giving your assent to a proposition.

      --
      im in ur .sig, writin ur memes.
    32. Re:Young earth creationists by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This to me sounds strangely like religion. Somewhere along the line you have to place trust or belief in something. Nothing is empirical when you're trusting an "authority" on a subject.

      The difference is that I can interrogate a scientist and demand his evidence for his beliefs, then draw my own conclusions. When God allows me to interrogate him to prove his existence, then God will be on the same level of trust as scientists.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    33. Re:Young earth creationists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mad props for being able to slip by a Douglas Adams reference unnoticed on /.

    34. Re:Young earth creationists by taylortbb · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't think the GP was saying they don't believe in science, hence their claim "there are no YEC's on slashdot." The GP was merely pointing out that some people lack faith in the scientific method.

      You say science doesn't require faith, but it does require a small bit, a belief that past trends are indicative future events. I personally consider this to be a simple obvious truth, and therefore I personally have complete faith in the scientific method. For some reason however not all people share my belief in the scientific method. The rest of the world can ridicule them and laugh at them, but so called "flat earthers" do exist, whether they should or not.

    35. Re:Young earth creationists by cheater512 · · Score: 1

      If you dont believe in them then your a freaking loony anyway. :)

    36. Re:Young earth creationists by taylortbb · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The thing is it's 31% of Americans. This isn't an anti-US flame, but the truth is the numbers are different in other countries. I would personally expect them to be much lower based on my observations from living in another country, though I readily admit I have no evidence to back this up.

      As an aside, not that statistics actually matter. There are too many ways to bias that final number, and I doubt anyone here would take the time to fully research a poll's methodology.

    37. Re:Young earth creationists by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well that certainly is convenient. I wonder why the bible has so many specific dates if its not literal. Anyways if you read any book that was filled with non-literal stories why would you believe any of it. Thats the exact same as trusting a known liar. If creation is just a metaphor then so is god, jesus and everything else in the bible. Either believe it all or none of it. I hate pick and choose believers. Too cowardly to abandon an ancient book yet too sensible to believe it.

      Yeah, after all, why would you want to spend the time trying to understand the meaning, when you can just make a binary "all myth" or "all fact" choice that completely ignores all the nuance? I mean, it's not like the text itself could possibly contain any hints as to which is which! It's a-priori all or nothing!

      I hate people who try to tell others how they should believe in a religion that they themselves don't even believe in or understand. Guess what? You don't get to decide what someone believes. You don't get to call something "picking and choosing" just because you don't grasp the concept that somebody read the book and understood parts of it to be allegory, parts of it literal. You don't get to decide that it is impossible for something to contain both the literal and the figurative, in this case because that's idiotic.

      I'm sure i'll get modded down for bashing the religious folk. Before you do, re-read it and pretend i was talking about a religion you don't like such as satanism or .... wicca.

      Okay. Stop telling Wiccans what is a valid way to view and practice their religion, you ignorant bigot.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    38. Re:Young earth creationists by CowTipperGore · · Score: 1

      Well that certainly is convenient. I wonder why the bible has so many specific dates if its not literal. Anyways if you read any book that was filled with non-literal stories why would you believe any of it. Thats the exact same as trusting a known liar. If creation is just a metaphor then so is god, jesus and everything else in the bible. Either believe it all or none of it. I hate pick and choose believers. Too cowardly to abandon an ancient book yet too sensible to believe it. "The Bible" is not a single entity - it is an accumulation of stories gathered over a thousand years or more. Your rant here is no less ignorant than the fundamentalist Evangelicals who think that Baby Jesus gave us the King James Version of the Bible. The creation story very well could be an ancient myth passed down from nomadic tribes 3,500 years ago while a person named Jesus actually lived 2,000 years ago. These are not mutually exclusive.
    39. Re:Young earth creationists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe there is order and structure to the universe. I'd say that's believing in science. I can't prove there is order and structure, and neither can you. We believe in it.

    40. Re:Young earth creationists by zifferent · · Score: 1

      Clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap! Bravo.

      --
      cat sig > /dev/null
    41. Re:Young earth creationists by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      Off the top of my head, how about this one. When a cleric prays for regeneration of limbs god never responds. This is not always true in D&D.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    42. Re:Young earth creationists by RanCossack · · Score: 1

      Oh, certainly gods are easier to prove in D&D. I was referring to the fact that there is a DM... and that, for example, the world of Forgotten Realms is only around 40 years old, however much the weight of evidence is on the scale of centuries. Some characters even have "memories" that go back ages earlier. Heck, leaving religion out if it, I can't prove that we're not all in the 22nd Century version of The Sims, a new game started five minutes ago. Or even more frightening, Civilization XII.

    43. Re:Young earth creationists by RanCossack · · Score: 1

      Thanks; I'd like to see what jokes would come out of that myself, before it got overused and died out. Or failed to die, this being Slashdot. Well, you can't, but I think there is only a burden of proof when trying to convert someone or argue for the use of religion alone as policy. For me, there is a very real social benefit to it all.

    44. Re:Young earth creationists by Kingrames · · Score: 1

      Clearly, this bacteria has traveled back through time - over and over again. ...you insensitive clod.

      --
      If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
    45. Re:Young earth creationists by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      That poll did not have the answer that I would have chosen, which is that it is the word of God and contains both literal meaning and parables. It's a big book, it doesn't have to all be one or the other. To me, that Gallup poll was like asking to choose one of: Does it rain all the time, or is it sunny all the time.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    46. Re:Young earth creationists by rumli · · Score: 1

      Newsflash: It doesn't require belief. Careful there. Of course science requires belief. At a very basic level, you have to make the choice, as most people do, not to be a solipsist -- to believe in science (as we generally use the term), you need to believe that your mind is not the only thing that exists.
    47. Re:Young earth creationists by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Anyways if you read any book that was filled with non-literal stories why would you believe any of it.
      So any work of non-fiction which contains a fable, parable, allegory, metaphor or simile is out? I would have to throw out all my science and math textbooks. They are chock full of word problem examples that didn't really happen.
      For that matter, I read a lot of fiction. Does that mean that I can not learn something from these books? When lost in the woods, should I abstain from trying to fashion a makeshift compass because I learned how to do it from a work of fiction?

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    48. Re:Young earth creationists by AmigaMMC · · Score: 1

      Wow! I can't believe I read it entirely, I usually skip these messages. I, too want to give another 3 million million dollars and double the sum. Please feel free to send me all your private information and as a sign of good faith I'll buy Slashdot new servers. To verify the authenticity of my claim, feel free to call my lawyer, his number is (900) 555-1234, that number will be activated right after your deposit.

    49. Re:Young earth creationists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      AS soon as I hit commit, I saw my "There" mistake and new there would be a comment about that.

      Commit? Why isn't there a ROLLBACK TRANSACTION button?

    50. Re:Young earth creationists by MadnessASAP · · Score: 1

      Science doesn't need to be beleived in it simply is. You might as well believe in a rock, not that it will care much that rock will continue to be a rock regardless.

      --
      I may agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to face the consequences of saying it.
    51. Re:Young earth creationists by HeadlessNotAHorseman · · Score: 1

      Newsflash: It doesn't require belief

      You only say that because you believe in it!
       
      P.S. This is a joke.
      --
      I like my coffee the way I like my women - roasted and ground up into little tiny pieces.
    52. Re:Young earth creationists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Civilization XII. If this is in fact true and we are living inside a CivXII game, then I have only one request to make in this life - one thing that would truly make this whole experience meaningful - to destroy a battleship using nothing but a phalanx shield and spear.
    53. Re:Young earth creationists by Mephistro · · Score: 0, Troll

      ...and contains both literal meaning and parables... In other words: you don't think that the Bible is the literal word of God and should be followed literally.
    54. Re:Young earth creationists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, you can prove that God exists in less than 1 minute.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYBz6NMwjvw

    55. Re:Young earth creationists by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 3, Funny

      I bet Bush wishes he had replied to that email now doesn't he.

    56. Re:Young earth creationists by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      In other words, I think that the Bible is the literal word of God and should be followed literally, and that some of the stories are illustrations rather than a description of actual events.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    57. Re:Young earth creationists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why not pick and choose? the bible wasn't written as a single, point-by-point philosophical work. there have been countless authors, editors, censors, and translators. imagine what the linux kernel sources could be like in 2000 years and you'll see what I mean.
      perhaps for you, it would be bravery to abandon the ancient book, but for many others, we could just as easily say that it would be bravery to hold on to it and find ways to reconcile things that resonate with them in the bible.
      i seriously doubt that the majority of christians in history ever felt that the *entire* bible resonated with them.
      and don't forget that there were many books that were left out (gnostic gospels, and so on) of canon. The bible itself is a work of "picking and choosing".
      I'm just an anonymous coward, but I mod you down to 1:Insightful. Your comments are just plain ignorant, even to this atheist.

    58. Re:Young earth creationists by Copid · · Score: 1

      When lost in the woods, should I abstain from trying to fashion a makeshift compass because I learned how to do it from a work of fiction?
      No, but you might want to think twice before assuming that the method you read in that work of fiction will actually work. You should also be willing to concede that the makeshift compass construction method is part of the "fiction" part of the book if you try it and it doesn't work.
      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    59. Re:Young earth creationists by jd · · Score: 1

      I can't think of too many specific dates. Lots of ages, but no indication of how they relate to each other, or how they are measured. (Let's take the extreme example of Adam. Since he did not age until after he left the Garden, there was nobody around to make the measurement, and was never born in any of the usual versions of the story, from what do you measure his age?)

      --
      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)
    60. Re:Young earth creationists by BigDumbAnimal · · Score: 1

      You have your chance to ask now. And you will definitely have your chance in the future.

    61. Re:Young earth creationists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How exactly does science not require belief?
      My understanding of science is that:
      1] people posit theories about natural phenomena
      2] the theories are tested through experimentation
      3] if experimentation shows that the theory is believable, the theory is taken into the scientific discussion, and people elaborate or contradict said theory with more theory and experimentation.

      its a pretty nice model for knowledge, but it relies on belief just like a religion. you could say that scientific knowledge is on sturdier ground than religious theories attempting to explain the same phenomena. however, the ground is only sturdier if you believe that knowledge gained through experimentation and logic is more sound than knowledge gained through a religious experience or forged by years of tradition.

    62. Re:Young earth creationists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The burden of proof is on the religious"

      This isn't a debate, there is no burden of proof. You are taking your own life in your hands whether you believe in God or not.

    63. Re:Young earth creationists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You certainly cannot prove that I, "A. Coward" am not the super-being. The burden of proof is on you sir. And I know all about your incident with the souvenir bat and Jergen's lotion back on August 6th 1998. Sicko. You thought no one knew. But I do.

    64. Re:Young earth creationists by Qiadron · · Score: 1

      You can assume a rock exists until it gets renamed a dwarf rockate or somesuch.

    65. Re:Young earth creationists by Rocketship+Underpant · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Science is a process (the scientific method, some people here haven't heard of it), and it's meant to be useful. Whether it's "truth" or not is a question for philosophers.

      --
      He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
    66. Re:Young earth creationists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      everything a child is told by his parents is not literal truth. should the child stop believing anything he is told by his parents at all?

      no, a child is told the closest thing to the truth that he can understand at his level of development.

      that's pretty much how i see the bible.

      could a day have been measured to be one spin of the earth before there was an earth? would the 7 days of creation really measure out to 168 hours?

      i tell people i install the internet as my job, if i feel like saying more i say i install the systems that provide DSL to customer lines. i rarely tell people that i go in, line up the relay racks, drill holes in the appropriate places, put anchors in the holes and tighten them down, run out the appropriate number of DS0 cables, fasten the connectorized ends into place, etc...

      a simplified version of the truth is not a lie if it's intent is not deception. in other words there are more choices than simply "literal, exact truth" and "TOTAL LIES!!!!!"

    67. Re:Young earth creationists by Dr.+Cody · · Score: 1

      I've yet to hear a proof that there is no God that would not serve equally well to prove there is no DM when used in-character in D&D.
      Penny Arcade, Something Awful, Slashdot, 4Chan...

      None of them can hold a candle to that. I will quote you for as long as there is someone there to get the reference, as that is easily the nerdiest thing I've heard all year.

      I hereby humbly offer my Level 1 Golden Manbaby to you, good Sir.
    68. Re:Young earth creationists by Goalie_Ca · · Score: 1

      Even science papers have errors. I'd guess myself that about 50% of the papers have some merit but have serious problems.

      --

      ----
      Go canucks, habs, and sens!
    69. Re:Young earth creationists by thealsir · · Score: 2, Informative
      --
      Do not downmod posts "overrated" simply because you disagree with them.
    70. Re:Young earth creationists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What next will you retards be calling a half a twoth? or second perhaps?

      You're like a second tooth growing out of my ass right now.

    71. Re:Young earth creationists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Before people even start to have the conversation on whether they should believe god exists (and whether a chance exists to prove it), they have to first define the meaning of the term god (strictly for the purpose of the conversation).

      Otherwise you're screwed... You're not having a rational conversation and you are BOTH just babbling...
      The second you DO start making headway in the "pre-conversation" phase, you will both invariably end up agreeing with each other ("God=Truth=Reality in its purest=What science can only attempt to measure") leaving no point to continue things, or the believer will change his definition of the word ("Who can know the mind of G-d? I must not understand his true nature. Thanks to you I am closer in my understanding, by knowing what he can not be. Negative knowledge is still knowledge! Just ask Mr. Holmes!") and you are back to not being able to communicate again.

      They call it faith for a reason.

    72. Re:Young earth creationists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't ASS-U-ME!

    73. Re:Young earth creationists by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You have your chance to ask now.

      I ask, but funny enough, nothing happens. I also ask Ra and Zeus to appear, and the identical thing happens.

      And you will definitely have your chance in the future.

      Should that happen, I will definitely ask him why he set up such a stupid system. If he wanted to be worshipped, he shouldn't have set everything up to appear as though he doesn't exist, and he shouldn't have made religion so absurdly irrational. I'd also probably ask him why, if he's all powerful, why he cares whether we worship him or not. Does it hurt his feelings or something? Or maybe he needs the ego stroke? If I was setting up a universe as my plaything and/or experiment, I'd hardly care about whether the individual pawns are worshipping me. It's kind of like caring whether people in The Sims are aware that a god outside their universe is watching them.

      Or maybe that's the point of the experiment -- give people intelligence, sprinkle a few hints early on in ancient history, then put mountains of contrary evidence around, and see how long people take to overcome the early conditioning that God existed.

      In fact -- I bet that's it! God will reward those who don't believe in him, because they used the intelligence God gave them to overcome irrationality and the fear instilled by the church. The ones who will be punished are the ones who rejected the intelligence that God gave them. If I was God, that's how I would dole out rewards. And given that God is rational and intelligent (though, the Old Testament kind of argues against both those, but I digress), this is clearly what will happen, should there actually be an afterlife. Better repent your beliefs now, just in case I'm right!

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    74. Re:Young earth creationists by 0111+1110 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm sure i'll get modded down for bashing the religious folk. You must be new here.
      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    75. Re:Young earth creationists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay creationists, take a break from laughing at the scientists. What's the difference between a bacteria existing in a nutrient starved environment for 6,000 years or 120,000 years? If it can survive there it can survive there-- especially given the fact that I'd guess the nutrients which we typical think they're surviving off of would've run out within a few thousand years let's say... Seems like the bacteria is just unlike anything we've never seen, not a proof of religion or darwinism or creationism. Oh by the way, how do you explain fossils again?

      http://yecs.org/fossils.htm

    76. Re:Young earth creationists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, sometimes children are fed lies to make it easier to violently and sexually abuse them. That's how I see the bible, and it's why I like to tell people they should just say no and refuse to believe it.

    77. Re:Young earth creationists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More to the point, there MUST be life on Mars. We haven't found it yet, and probably won't after launching 500 more probes and re-landscaping most of the surface of Mars, but it's there all right, cause Bacteria can live in ice cubes and meteorites! Just because we can't find it doesn't mean it's not there!! Stop doubting and BELIEVE!!! Halleleujah!

    78. Re:Young earth creationists by misanthrope101 · · Score: 1

      Les Miserables was partly set in Paris, yet is fiction. This means...what, exactly? There really was a Herod, and even an Egypt. Does that mean that Jesus loves you? No. Learn some nuance, please.

    79. Re:Young earth creationists by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      What next will you retards be calling a half a twoth? or second perhaps?

      You're like a second tooth growing out of my ass right now. I don't even have a first growing there! Owch!
      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    80. Re:Young earth creationists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...if anything weird happened... ...blame it on gnome... I agree, that's why I switched to KDE.
    81. Re:Young earth creationists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyways if you read any book that was filled with non-literal stories why would you believe any of it. You sir, are correct. Don't believe a single thing Orwell wrote.

      Either believe it all or none of it. This would make sense. For a book... not written over thousands of years by multiple people in different cultures. Especially when you refer to anything pre-moses, when the bible consisted of an oral history, prone to reinterpretation and oversimplification. Also, when you read any book, you have to attempt to understand it through the eyes of those for whom it was written. I would love to see you explain "5 billion years" or the concept of "evolution" to someone in the bronze age.

      Before you do, re-read it and pretend i was talking about a religion you don't like such as satanism or .... wicca. I'm sorry, but it is foolish to attempt to discredit something I don't understand, and given my knowledge of satanism/wicca, and the points you present, I know nothing to connect the two. pretend it's like a bitmask:
      1B004E3 - my knowledge
      00AFD14 - Your Argument
      ------------ - operation
      0000000 - Result[/code]

      And, as a believer in the bible, I can't disagree with much of the foundation of satanism. Sorry, I know squat about wicca.
    82. Re:Young earth creationists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but for '08 the official average is "a very tiny number".

    83. Re:Young earth creationists by Reverse+Gear · · Score: 1

      I agree that this should pose a problem for those who read the translations of the bible as a day meaning a literal day.
      But it doesn't really make a difference for those who doesn't see "a day" as 24 hours as we know a day today. (Think about it, how would you define a day before the earth was created?).
      Some of those who believes that the term "day" in Genesis and other places in the bible is this is Jehovah's Witnesses [warning religious content].
      Anyhow I guess I am stupid to start discussing religion here on /. and trying to be serious about it, don't mean to be trolling. I just thought that saying that this is a problem for young creationists is true, but saying that it poses a problem for anyone who believes in the bible (or God?) is to take it a step to far.

    84. Re:Young earth creationists by laejoh · · Score: 0

      What are you going to prove next? Black is white?

      Beware of the zebra crossing!

    85. Re:Young earth creationists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or perhaps they are intelligent enough to realize that it was written by people a long time ago... who didn't understand and wouldn't be able to comprehend how the earth was really formed.

      In other words, just because there is a mistake (or a metaphor to explain something the writer couldn't possibly understand) in a book you are stupid enough to discount the whole thing...

      And no I'm not religious, but your point is ridiculous...

    86. Re:Young earth creationists by smashin234 · · Score: 1

      Your comments premise is wrong, and therefore is offbase. Although I did enjoy reading it, and I will admit its something to make one think at least.

      The premise of the bible is free will (Paraphrased obviously: God's greatest gift to mankind is free will), not an unhealthy belief in God as your argument is premised behind, so therefore as enjoying as your argument is, it fails to catch the point that given free will, there can be no proof, because with proof, there is no free will.

      Is it a stupid system? Well thats a different argument, but lets not judge too harshly, because at least you have a choice in this system.

    87. Re:Young earth creationists by Ed+Avis · · Score: 1

      We have decided to crush your worthless civilization. Prepare for WAR!

      --
      -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
    88. Re:Young earth creationists by vegiVamp · · Score: 0

      > You don't get to decide what someone believes.

      Go tell the religious nutjobs that. And don't worry, you can find them in any religion that suits your taste.

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
    89. Re:Young earth creationists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, that would be their acceleration, not speed, and it applies only in certain parts of the world (the downward acceleration you experience on the north pole is a slightly different from the one you'd experience on the equator). Also, resistance from the air would apply.

    90. Re:Young earth creationists by erlendoos · · Score: 1

      And Americans are reliable people, the rest of the world are suckers So if only 1 percent believes in something, it can't be true. History repeats itself. Because nobody believed columbus when he explained that the earth was not flat end 15th century, it still was true. Nobody of us was there when God created everything, so what are we talking about? About some guesses of othere monkeys that were not there at that time eighter?

    91. Re:Young earth creationists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Other than the "Jesus Spammer" who obviously is quoting from the movie am I the only person that had John Carpenter's The Thing come to mind http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084787/ when I read this story?

    92. Re:Young earth creationists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      come on, God does not actually say "And I your God tell ye that the Earth is not older than 4,000 years of the usual length".

      Come back when you have a poll (and you can find one, they exist) that asks "Is the Earth older than 4000 years old?". Hell, you don't even have to bring religion into it. Just see what percent of the population answers that question with a 'yes', don't even ask about their religion (to keep from reminding them of it).

    93. Re:Young earth creationists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Should that happen, I will definitely ask him why he set up such a stupid system. If he wanted to be worshipped,

      Right. Because if there is one thing Christianity has failed at, it's getting anyone to worship God.

    94. Re:Young earth creationists by mopower70 · · Score: 1

      I hate people who try to tell others how they should believe in a religion that they themselves don't even believe in or understand. Guess what? You don't get to decide what someone believes. Well YOU'RE obviously not a Jerry Falwell Christian.

    95. Re:Young earth creationists by UNKN · · Score: 0

      No you aren't they should put it back and pretend they didn't find it.

    96. Re:Young earth creationists by Wizard+Drongo · · Score: 1

      It means exactly what Les Mis. means. It's a story, something to entertain the bored masses whilst they kill some time.

      Just like Christianity was a story to keep the 'proles' under control; "See? Even though lifes hard now, even though the rich man takes all your food for taxes, you'll get your reward in heaven; don't knock the boat!". No. There is no Sky Wizard, no miraculously undead Jew, no Noah, no Adam, no Eve, no Satan and no talking bushes. No one parted the Red Sea, no one made the blind see or the lame walk. It's a book of stories to keep the masses in check, provide a "higher authority" to the priests to justify taxing folks, allow for a moral framework to be imposed, and explain the stuff we just don't know, like why it's cold in winter and warm in summer..God did it! See?
      Only when you know we get seasonal variation because Earth spins on a 23 degree variation from vertical, it kinda takes the magic from the "god" thing.
      Maybe we could use the "god" thing against modern conundrums, but I doubt people would fall for it anymore. Why is the Universe heavier than it should be? Is it dark matter? No, it's God, he's really god damned heavy. Hasn't done any sit-ups in years and is addicted to Celestial Fried Chicken.

      Nah, didn't think so. The gullible will continue to believe their crap about sky wizards and flying winged dudes blood rites and stuff, and the rest of us will get back to science and rationalism.

      --
      The truth shall always be free: Boris Floricic is Tron.
    97. Re:Young earth creationists by Wizard+Drongo · · Score: 1

      Okay. Stop telling Wiccans what is a valid way to view and practice their religion, you ignorant bigot. Why? Plenty of Christians do. In fact, according to a lot of them, it's not a "valid religion" anyway. Wicca is worshipping demons and Satan and all that, it's ungodly. Except when they do it, they're not being "bigoted", they're practising their religion.

      -- Not Wiccan.
      -- Different sort of Pagan/Heathen though.
      --
      The truth shall always be free: Boris Floricic is Tron.
    98. Re:Young earth creationists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >If creation is just a metaphor then so is god, jesus and everything else in the bible

      HOLY SHIT, I JUST HAD A RELIGIOUS CONVERSION.

      I shit you not. I now believe in God, Jesus, and everything else in the bible -- METAPHORICALLY.

      BRB, founding denomination.

    99. Re:Young earth creationists by Roxton · · Score: 1

      Even more impressive, while the Gallup poll shows that 31% of the Americans self-identify as literalists in those very strong terms, a 2007 Princeton Survey poll for Newsweek shows that 44% believe that the earth was created within the last 10,000 years.

      Article: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/05/creationists_in_the_american_c.php
      Dataset: http://roperweb.ropercenter.uconn.edu/cgi-bin/hsrun.exe/Roperweb/Catalog40/Catalog40.htx;start=summary_link?archno=USPSRA2007-NW05

    100. Re:Young earth creationists by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      I would personally expect them to be much lower based on my observations from living in another country, though I readily admit I have no evidence to back this up.
      I've met (in real life, non-trivially, on repeated occasions) two serious YECs in the last couple of decades and one such online idiot. (I don't count the people I've met in obviously biased places like talk.origins ; YECs actively seek these places out for masochistic sex-displacement activities.) To a first approximation I'll have met several thousands of people on a similar basis over the same period, who were not YECs (or who kept their beliefs quiet out of cowardice. As a professional geologist, I'd expect all people who I meet professionally to know what my position would be on creationism, and most people I meet socially would have "what do you do for a living?" somewhere in the top half-dozen questions exchanged.)

      So, for the UK, that suggests that the prevalence of YEC meme infestation is on the order of 1 per thousand of the population. Or, to be more precise, the prevalence of people infested with the memes for [ {courage || reckless envangelism} && YEC ] is around 1 per thousand. It is possible that there are more examples of the YEC meme around, but the people bearing the meme see me coming and hide.

      I don't let YECs get away with their sloppy excuse for thinking in public. Regardless of their position (toolpusher or teacher), I consider it to be part of my professional obligation.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    101. Re:Young earth creationists by Talderas · · Score: 1

      Further, don't some scientific theories with physics and mathematics rely on values that have yet to be proven?

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    102. Re:Young earth creationists by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      It does require some belief.

      Belief in Occam's razor.
      Occam's razor is a tool which you can choose to apply or not, and you can choose how aggressively you apply it ; the formulation I tend to use most often is to "avoid the generation of excessive unnecessary entities in an explanation", and often one can have honest disagreements about valid explanations for phenomena. That's particularly the case when there's a paucity of evidence on an issue. (I am of course talking about general problem solving in life or in work. For example, correlating lithological sections between offset wells and the current well, when you only have a partial suite of measurements on the current well and you're working in real time ; it's a real question how many entities are necessary to invoke in order to get a good model of what is happening. Bigger questions like "science or god" have no shortage of evidence.)

      Of course, everyone (including YEC's) believe in these principles and apply them to their lives all the time
      That's the thing ; they want the benefits of science, but they're unwilling to take the necessary underpinnings of methods of analysis. The disgusting hypocrites should go back to living in shit-filled caves and dieing in childbirth. But they don't have the courage of their convictions.
      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    103. Re:Young earth creationists by EvilAlphonso · · Score: 1

      The premise of the bible is free will (Paraphrased obviously: God's greatest gift to mankind is free will), not an unhealthy belief in God as your argument is premised behind, so therefore as enjoying as your argument is, it fails to catch the point that given free will, there can be no proof, because with proof, there is no free will.

      You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means...

      "Do as I say or you'll spend eternity in the fiery pits of hell" indicates coercion.

      "Act according to your conscience, whether there is a big wizard in the sky or not" indicates free will.

      Ephesians 1:4 "For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight"

      If I accept the concept of an omniscient and omnipotent being that created me and already selected me before time to be holy and blameless, where is my free will?

    104. Re:Young earth creationists by falcon9x · · Score: 1
      I don't talk much (I don't think much of what I could say would add much to the conversation), but I thought I'd add my two cents in here.

      If creation is just a metaphor then so is god, jesus and everything else in the bible. Either believe it all or none of it. I hate pick and choose believers. Too cowardly to abandon an ancient book yet too sensible to believe it.
      From the Wikipedia article on the Bible, it says the Bible is "the collection of religious writings of Judaism and of Christianity." "Collection of religious writings" being the key here. I don't see why there is a problem with saying that some of the religious writings are literal, and some are not. As a for instance, I think something like the book of Acts is to be read literally, while the book of Revelation is most likely metaphorical. This isn't the best example, but when I read a collection of short stories, and one of them is based on a true story, while another is science fiction, I don't discount the true story. They are separate stories that may have been collected because they share an over-arching theme. Clearly there are some things in the Bible that can be taken literally. A quick look at Bible archaeology (thanks Wikipedia!) reveals that. And finally, I just want to comment on your the other part of your post:

      I'm sure i'll get modded down for bashing the religious folk. Before you do, re-read it and pretend i was talking about a religion you don't like such as satanism or .... wicca.
      Maybe you aren't reading the same /. that I read, but it seems to me that many posts that bash religious folk are modded up. Maybe its just perception though. Curiously, I don't think I've seen too many posts about satanism or wicca.
    105. Re:Young earth creationists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course anyone who actually studied the bible and it's actual history knows its a parable. FYI it's a very tiny number of believers that think the creation is literal. I agree that the Creation in Genesis is a parable. However, more people that you think believe it's the literal telling of events. http://www.jeepforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=490745 Evolution: 56.11% Intelligent Design: 38.15%
    106. Re:Young earth creationists by somersault · · Score: 1

      Actually it says "$3.000,000.00 Million", so that's only 3 million no matter how many zeros you put after it. Putting 2 periods in there probably makes it an undefined value though :p

      --
      which is totally what she said
    107. Re:Young earth creationists by somersault · · Score: 1

      How do you know that the rock will continue to be a rock? What happens when it is carved into a statue or crushed into dust when you are not looking? I don't doubt the scientific method, but you have to make assumptions and have beliefs in a few basic things.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    108. Re:Young earth creationists by IchNiSan · · Score: 1

      Either that or it is proof that God is a joker. Or maybe he really does play dice with the universe.

    109. Re:Young earth creationists by mpeskett · · Score: 1

      Christianity is the biggest, Islam comes close, Buddhism is pretty small compared to the others.

      http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

      Link is just the first result I got for "graph of religion membership", it lists Christianity at 33%, Islam at 21% and Buddhism at 6%.

    110. Re:Young earth creationists by mpeskett · · Score: 1

      They deduce the age of the Earth by the fact that the lineage of men from Adam all have the length of their lives given in numbers of years, including how old they were when they produced the next one in line. It eventually leads down to someone historical that they can then count back from (or possibly to Jesus, I don't remember precisely)

      Either way, that works out to Adam being created in ~4000BC, so obviously any kind of archaeological evidence from assorted ancient civilisations is alternately falsified by the evil archaeologists who hate God or mis-dated by the evil carbon daters who hate God.

    111. Re:Young earth creationists by beckerist · · Score: 1

      You are wrong. Free will and proof are not mutually exclusive. Free will allows us to seek proof. Without free will, we would have no use for proof.

      You'll have to explain this: by your own premise, the fact we were "given" free will means that proof can't exist? Why exactly? I would assume that if there WERE something who "gave" us free will, then the free will would be used to seek out proof. Why else would I be given the ability to ask questions if I couldn't use it to find answers?

    112. Re:Young earth creationists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who is this god person anyway?

    113. Re:Young earth creationists by Iberian · · Score: 1

      I think you need to read the Bible. The premise of the Bible is Jesus Christ and His death, burial, and resurrection. Given the number of versus referring to predestination and God changing the hearts of men and being able to sway kings I would say the free will is not the premise. The Old Testament points to Christ and the New Testament depicts Christ and His teachings.

    114. Re:Young earth creationists by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Go tell the religious nutjobs that. And don't worry, you can find them in any religion that suits your taste.

      Oh believe me, I do whenever given the opportunity.

      That's part of why the GP pisses me off so much -- he's acting just like a fundamentalist, but of a religion he isn't even part of!

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    115. Re:Young earth creationists by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Why? Plenty of Christians do.

      Yeah, and I'd tell any of em that did it the exact same thing. I do tell them that. I know you don't seriously consider "Plenty of Christians do" an excuse for anything. And neither do I. I also don't consider "I am a Christian" to be an excuse for bigotry either.

      In fact, according to a lot of them, it's not a "valid religion" anyway. Wicca is worshipping demons and Satan and all that, it's ungodly. Except when they do it, they're not being "bigoted", they're practising their religion.

      No, they are being ignorant bigots. They might not think they are, but neither does the GP, hell who thinks they are being an ignorant bigot when they're being an ignorant bigot? I'm pretty sure the state of being a bigot naturally prevents that kind of self-awareness.

      And yes, there are a lot of Christian bigots. I really can't stand them; they're the reason why I so often find myself having to work contrary to people's -- quite understandably acquired -- prejudices against Christians.

      -- Not Wiccan.
      -- Different sort of Pagan/Heathen though.


      And I'm a Christian, and I would never presume to tell you what your beliefs are, or that you aren't doing it right. Not the least reason being that I have no idea what they are, but hey, that obviously doesn't stop the kind of people we're talking about.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    116. Re:Young earth creationists by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

      Word problems are examples. They are known to the reader to be made up scenarios. The bible on the other hand is not clear cut. '6000years old' - myth. 'god turns people to salt' - metaphor. 'methusulah really old' - fable. 'country of good people in the sky' - metaphor? ... 'giant man in the sky controls the universe' - uhhh...
       
        You see my point. If they neatly broke the bible or books into sections you were supposed to believe and sections that were made up. I could buy this. But as there is no way to distinguish them. No guide. They are as misleading as i said.

    117. Re:Young earth creationists by retupmoca · · Score: 1

      You only say that because you believe in it!

      P.S. This is a joke. Only because you believe it is.
    118. Re:Young earth creationists by retupmoca · · Score: 1

      God put those bacteria there to test our faith To get into heaven, you need: An immune system.
    119. Re:Young earth creationists by philspear · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but how do you think they proved the age of these bacterium? It's either through carbon dating or by looking at the layers of ice, both of which young earth creationists have repeatedly disproven with scripture quotes and reductio ad absurdum.

      Of course the bible quotes don't really prove anything unless you already believe it litterally, and the reductio ad absurdum arguments are pretty much always based off of misunderstandings of carbon dating and determining age based off of layers. But the bible tells me to belive the bible and not anything else.

    120. Re:Young earth creationists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FYI it's a very tiny number of believers that think the creation is literal. And they don't really believe it, either - they just like to argue.
    121. Re:Young earth creationists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody believes Adam was created as an embryo, and Jesus supposedly turned water into aged wine. Creation with the appearance of age has been a fundamental part of Christianity long before carbon dating, etc. gave us any indication of the "real" age of the earth.

      If this is evidence against the Bible, the argument might as well be reduced to "God couldn't have created man in the first 6 days of the universe's existence because the man was older than 6 days!" Nobody makes this claim because aged creation is axiomatic in terms of man, but it's rarely thought of in terms of the universe until its pointed out.

      Proof by Contradiction requires that we assume the contrary of our Theorem, which in this case includes the doctrine of aged creation. Just as if a Christian were to see 7th-day Adam appearing as a (20-something? 30-something? whatever...) man, being told that the earth appears older than it is (according to the Christian's belief) is the opposite of contradictory: it's intuitive.

      This doctrine wasn't dreamed up to somehow dodge the issue of modern dating techniques. It's in the very first chapter of the very first book of the Bible, and predates these techniques by thousands of years.

    122. Re:Young earth creationists by spun · · Score: 1

      Your mind could be the only thing that exists, and still be logically self consistent, and therefore amenable to self-understanding through the scientific method.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    123. Re:Young earth creationists by SBrach · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you made some classics mistakes.

    124. Re:Young earth creationists by rhombic · · Score: 1

      Can you forward to me the divinely-annotated version of the bible? Because it doesn't seem obvious to me which stories/rules/etc are supposed to be taken literally, and which ones are illustrations. I.e. homosexuality-- forbidden, punishment death. Disobeying one's parents-- forbidden, punishment death (Deuteronomy 21:18-21, Leviticus 20:9, Matthew 15:4). I'd love to see the version where which rules are actually supposed to be followed is clearly marked up.

      --
      1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.
    125. Re:Young earth creationists by smashin234 · · Score: 1

      "You'll have to explain this: by your own premise, the fact we were "given" free will means that proof can't exist? Why exactly? I would assume that if there WERE something who "gave" us free will, then the free will would be used to seek out proof. Why else would I be given the ability to ask questions if I couldn't use it to find answers?"

      The ability to ask questions IS the fundamental point of free will. If God simply spited everyone who disagreed with him, where is the free will? Proof would mean that your free will no longer existed, because therefore anyone with half a brain would either believe and be saved from hellfires, or spend the afterlife roasting like a hot dog. Thats not free will, thats fear motivating you to worship God. Sure, you can argue that with the proof you can do what you want in this life, but it would take away the fundamental point that you need to believe on your own without fear of the consequences.

      But then again many churches still use fear to sway unbelievers, so I don't know, maybe mankind still has a ways to go on that score...

    126. Re:Young earth creationists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was raised cathloic, went to cathloic school and was taught "The Bible is not a book of science.".

      That was explained to mean that the stories in the bible were just that, stories unless it was specifically stated as the word of God. Remember the Bible isn't a book, it is a collection of many books and writings put together by the early church.

      Many of the stories were there to help people understand a concept, not to explain the details of it. Such as creation, the story of creation as I, a cathloic, was taught simply to relay that God created everything. God created the world, created life, created everything. I was also taught that that didn't mean it was done in days, that wasn't the point of the story, the point of the story to was relay that God created everything.

      Now that is just the view I've always had of the Bible and how it was taught to me in school. So I was taught that some of the stories aren't to be believe but they can still relay a message, I was also taught some of the stories are to be believed.

      I think the problem you have with people believing some and not others is that you view the Bible as one book, not the many books that it is.

    127. Re:Young earth creationists by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      What you call science is merely a set of principles used in establishing facts. Without being believed in those principles become meaningless.

    128. Re:Young earth creationists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      people pick and choose because the Bible wasn't written by one person (or even one group) at one time for the specific purpose of becoming a Bible

    129. Re:Young earth creationists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Newsflash: [science] doesn't require belief.

      Right, because almost every scientist proclaims their _beliefs_ as fact that nobody else has a right to dispute.

      There are plenty of unknowns in science, and faith does play a part whether you want to believe that or not.

    130. Re:Young earth creationists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Also, they are provable wrong.

      You sound just like the Time Cube guy.

    131. Re:Young earth creationists by provigilman · · Score: 1

      As opposed to all the atheist nutjobs who tell me what to believe?

      --
      "Life's short and hard, like a body building elf." -- The Bloodhound Gang
    132. Re:Young earth creationists by provigilman · · Score: 1
      Funny...last I checked, Wiccans actually believed more in stuff like nature spirits and not demons and Satan. Now who's telling other people what to believe?

      And actually, considering that the Bible says we're not to judge, a Christian shouldn't be judging those people anyway. They're free to espouse their beliefs and try to get them to see their way of thinking, just as the Wiccan is, but they're not supposed to judge them if they refuse those beliefs.

      Just because you've met some judgemental Christians, doesn't mean they're representative of everyone.

      --
      "Life's short and hard, like a body building elf." -- The Bloodhound Gang
    133. Re:Young earth creationists by Wizard+Drongo · · Score: 1

      True; they're not representative of anyone but themselves.

      Just so happens though that there are a lot of them.
      True not all Christians think pagans are wrong, or that their beliefs are evil and wrong, but a significant proportion do. And let us not forget that, back-in-the-day, it was official Church policy to burn pagans/heathens at the stake. Point in fact even after reformation there were people being killed for "witchcraft"; Salem in the USA comes to mind. The anti-witchraft laws here in Scotland were only totally repealed in 1997 (with the UK-wide ones going in 1952). So as a whole, the attitude of Christians to Pagans hasn't been one of love and joy. In fact, in the last 2 years it was the Catholic Church, the Free Church of Scotland and a few others that tried to block the Pagan Federation from being present at the multi-faith thingie in edinburgh because they were uncomfortable at being seen to condone or encourage paganism!! That's just pure religious intolerance.

      Oh, and I'm well aware of the religious beliefs of Wiccans and most pagans in general, being I pagan and having a good number of wiccan friends.
      When I said "Wicca is worshipping demons and Satan and all that, it's ungodly", I was paraphrasing what a lot of the aforementioned Christians believe Wiccans do, not stating I thought it to be true, since as you rightly pointed out, it is not. Sorry if the slightly sarcastic tone of my words didn't come through well, it is difficult to do sarcasm in writing, leastways it is for me!

      --
      The truth shall always be free: Boris Floricic is Tron.
    134. Re:Young earth creationists by vegiVamp · · Score: 0

      s/religion/belief system/gi

      I never meant to imply that there aren't nutjobs in non-religious views of life. Hell, there's even nutjobs in the oval office these days.

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
  2. Addendum to the report by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Funny
    Further reports indicate that communication with the Penn State research station that unearthed the bacteria broke off shortly after the discovery. Another nearby research station is planning an expedition to the site, however, after discovering one of the Penn State sled dogs wandering into their camp.

    "This is a great discovery. There is nothing at all to worry about." said the oddly-behaving scientist who discovered the sled dog.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:Addendum to the report by Zymergy · · Score: 1

      Dr. Blair: [throwing a fit in the radio room] You guys think I'M crazy! Well, that's fine! Most of you don't know what's going on around here, but I'm damn well sure SOME of you do! You think that thing wanted to be an animal? No dogs make it a thousand miles through the cold! No, you don't understand! That thing wanted to be US!
      (later...)
      MacReady: [talking into tape recorder] Nobody... nobody trusts anybody now, and we're all very tired... there's nothing more I can do, just wait... RJ MacReady, helicopter pilot, US outpost #31.
      [turns off recorder]
      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084787/

    2. Re:Addendum to the report by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 1

      Dr. Dyer: Base...We've arrived at the camp. All of the men and dogs have been slaughtered. We have discovered a number of star-shaped mounds that Prof. Lake has begun to investigate. There appear to be strange beings buried under each one. Danforth and I are taking the airplane to scout over the mountains. Something seems to have gone that way. We'll be back soon. No worries.

      --
      Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
    3. Re:Addendum to the report by cynvision · · Score: 1

      First TV show line comes to my mind is "Scully, get that gun off me!"

      --
      "I got it all together but I forgot where I put it."
    4. Re:Addendum to the report by Kamineko · · Score: 1

      You could have had:
      'Further to the research, Jennifer Loveland-Curtze added "WE'RE NOT WHO WE ARE!"'

    5. Re:Addendum to the report by oblivionboy · · Score: 1

      "This is a great discovery. There is nothing at all to worry about." said the oddly-behaving scientist who discovered the sled dog.

      Another major role for Christpher Lloyd. He's like the Christopher Walkin of sci-fi.

  3. 120,000?? by The_DoubleU · · Score: 4, Funny

    But..... the earth is only 6000 years old.
    Somebody is lying!

    --
    What power has law where only money rules.
    1. Re:120,000?? by SyntaxFeline · · Score: 1

      I think the natural caricatured response would be something along the lines of "God put it there to confuse the nonbelievers".

    2. Re:120,000?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



      http://www.icr.org/article/355/

      http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2007/04/ice-cores-and-age-of-earth-opening.html

      2 Peter 3:1-4

    3. Re:120,000?? by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Quite simeple: The ice was already there before Earth was made. The same goes for the dinosaurs.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    4. Re:120,000?? by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Space ice? Space DINOSAURS?!!!

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    5. Re:120,000?? by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Three words: Biodegradable space suits.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    6. Re:120,000?? by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Ok, now I'm picturing flaming dinosaurs, aerobraking down on to Earth, covered in bouncy landing bubbles...

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    7. Re:120,000?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So are you saying aliens put us here?

    8. Re:120,000?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always thought it strange to assume the Genesis account of creation was literally six 24-hour days.

      Even the Bible admits to a relative perception of time...though most fundamentalists seem to ignore this.

      "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." 2 Peter 3:8

    9. Re:120,000?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But..... the earth is only 6000 years old.

      Somebody is lying! You should be more careful in reading your bible. the earth isn't 6000 years old. according to the bible. if you read it and do some research you will find out that it is MUCH older than that. the biggest problem with unbelievers is lack of understanding and lack of a willingness to learn. i have been a Science man all my life and recently came to the realization of Christ. i believe in GOD and creation. but GOD used evolution.. it isn't hard to find if you would do the research.. Go back and reread your bible. this time take the Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic definitions of the words. MANY Times in the KJV bible a weaker word was used b/c the English language doesn't have strong enough words and meanings. like in the writing of the bible there were 13 or more words that got translated to "love". each on has a different meaning, but in ignorant person just assumes that the earth is 6000 years old according to the bible, b/c they are to LAZY to find the truth. IT ISN'T HARD!!! if ignorance is bliss y'all must be some REALLY HAPPY people!!!
    10. Re:120,000?? by Rob_Bryerton · · Score: 1

      >>I always thought it strange to assume the Genesis account of creation was literally six 24-hour days. Even the Bible admits to a relative perception of time...though most fundamentalists seem to ignore this. "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." 2 Peter 3:8
      And how long is each of these "thousand years"? Not literally a thousand years right?

  4. it's time to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Break out the antibiotics!

  5. But what about quality of life by techmuse · · Score: 5, Funny

    Sure, the bacteria survived. But how do you think it felt, being trapped in ice for 120,000 years? The first few years were probably ok. After that, it probably got really good at checkers. After the 1000th year, it proved that P=NP. At year 10,000, it dreamed of starting its own civilization. But then it started to go mad. Mad. MAD, I tell you. Now that it is free, the bacteria wants nothing but to seek revenge upon all other life forms for continuing to prosper and evolve while it was trapped beneath the ice. Buried alive. Buried alive...

    (Kaaaaahn....)

    1. Re:But what about quality of life by pwnies · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sadly the proof that P=NP that was etched into the ice was melted as scientists began the process of extracting the vengeful bacteria.
      Ironically, the reason for it melting was due to the scientists using more bore holes than necessary to connect all of the pockets of bacteria cultures in the ice.

    2. Re:But what about quality of life by saskboy · · Score: 0

      After watching a fictional killer virus on "I Am Legend", I am feeling nervous about new germs in labs. Fortunately, Slashdotters are seeing the lighter side of it all - Star Trek jokes!

      --
      Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
    3. Re:But what about quality of life by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 1

      Nah the proof was just too long to write in the margin..

    4. Re:But what about quality of life by Zekeums · · Score: 1

      At least it wasn't trapped with its wife.

    5. Re:But what about quality of life by Ageing+Metalhead · · Score: 1

      And the Bacterium started proposing the quickest/shortest route in which it could be transported to all interested university labs.

      --
      The knack of flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. - HGTTG
    6. Re:But what about quality of life by okmijnuhb · · Score: 1

      It's first request was a drink of something hot, and a blanket.

    7. Re:But what about quality of life by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      Sure, the bacteria survived. But how do you think it felt, being trapped in ice for 120,000 years?

      Cold?

    8. Re:But what about quality of life by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      Hmm, what about the archaia that live several kilometers down in the crust of the earth, never to see the light of day? It has been calculated that there is just as much (or more) life in the upper 3 kilometers of rock, as there is on the surface of the earth.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    9. Re:But what about quality of life by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Sadly the proof that P=NP that was etched into the ice was melted as scientists began the process of extracting the vengeful bacteria.
      No, what the bacterium actually wrote was "I've discovered a proof that P=NP, but this glacier margin is too small to contain it."
       
      (Yes, I do know that the ice core was extracted from a central area of the ice cap, nowhere near the margin. But I couldn't resist the Fermat reference once it occurred to me.)
      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  6. Only 120,000 years old? by gyrogeerloose · · Score: 4, Funny

    Hell, I've got bacteria in my refrigerator that's as old as that.

    --
    This ain't rocket surgery.
    1. Re:Only 120,000 years old? by bkr1_2k · · Score: 0, Troll

      Your refrigerator is fine, just don't tell us about the ones in your shorts.

      --
      "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
  7. Anonymouse Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I for one welcome our ice trapped super small bacteria overlords!!!

    1. Re:Anonymouse Coward by Neuropol · · Score: 4, Funny

      In soviet Russia, bacteria finds you frozen in ice thousands of years later.

  8. Hopefully it's harmless by tiedyejeremy · · Score: 3, Funny

    I would hate to discover that this was a rare bacteria that produces greenhouse gasses... and will begin to reproduce rapidly now that it's free.

    --
    Anything you say will be held against you. ... "tits"
    1. Re:Hopefully it's harmless by Loibisch · · Score: 4, Funny

      Maybe it's a bacteria that EATS greenhouse gases and we're all saved (well, except for Greepeace who will be out of a job...)

    2. Re:Hopefully it's harmless by tripmine · · Score: 1

      I would love to discover that this bacteria eats CO2 and shits out diamonds. That'd be sweet.

    3. Re:Hopefully it's harmless by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's a bacteria that EATS greenhouse gases and we're all saved Does it emit a fresh pine scent?
    4. Re:Hopefully it's harmless by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      No this is the bacteria that eats all things rubber and turns humans into stiffs. Fire! Fire!

      Extra points if you figure out where this is from.

    5. Re:Hopefully it's harmless by Loibisch · · Score: 1

      No, but maybe it will after some interbreeding with a Little Tree

    6. Re:Hopefully it's harmless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Andromeda Strain, but it wasn't a bacteria in the movie, it was a completely alien life form. I haven't seen the cheesy-looking TV mini-series remake of The Andromeda Strain to see how much they may have fucked up a good movie.

    7. Re:Hopefully it's harmless by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      Well ya in the book it came from space from some satellite that scooped up some space matter and returned to earth with it but I can't remember if it was a bacteria. I think it was.

    8. Re:Hopefully it's harmless by Fweeky · · Score: 1

      I haven't seen the cheesy-looking TV mini-series remake of The Andromeda Strain to see how much they may have fucked up a good movie. Oh, they fucked it up tonnes. Evidently the original story wasn't good enough, and needed a dose of conspiracy, wormholes, time travel, terrorists, a clumsy out of place and entirely unconnected love scene, a deadly nuclear reactor pool in an unlikely location which seems to warp local physics to allow plot-necessary and otherwise impossible ballistics to succeed.

      It gets worse as it goes on; the first half is passable. Watch only to see how much fail Robert Schenkkan can fit into one script.
    9. Re:Hopefully it's harmless by BKX · · Score: 1

      So it's condom eating Viagra. Score?

    10. Re:Hopefully it's harmless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe this bacteria is harmless. I don't know however, because I didn't read TFA.

      But what happens as the glaciers melt and other possibly dangerous bacteria or virii wash out and start infecting humans?

      Maybe it has happened already.

    11. Re:Hopefully it's harmless by lysse · · Score: 1

      Hey, at least it's not black, oily and sentient.

    12. Re:Hopefully it's harmless by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      No this is the bacteria that eats all things rubber and turns humans into stiffs It's been a while since I read the book, but wasn't the rubber eating mutation harmless to humans? Well at least humans who were not depending on rubber seal integrity for their continued existence.
      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    13. Re:Hopefully it's harmless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course it is a bacteria that eats greenhouse gases. How do you think it got trapped in the ice in the first place? It ate all the greenhouse gases and caused an ice age.

    14. Re:Hopefully it's harmless by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      Yes it was harmless to humans. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda_strain Plus if I remember correctly none of the original mutation survived but only the new mutation that consumed rubber, polymer, etc.

  9. Survival in a harsh environment by mypalmike · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    The microorganism's ability to persist in this low-temperature, high-pressure, reduced-oxygen, and nutrient-poor habitat makes it particularly useful for studying how life, in general, can survive in a variety of extreme environments on Earth and possibly elsewhere in the solar system.

    Sounds like my cubicle at work.

    --
    There are 0x40000000 types of people: those who understand 32-bit IEEE 754 floating point, and those who don't.
    1. Re:Survival in a harsh environment by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      Last week when the A/C was broken it was a high-temperature, high pressure, reduced oxygen, and nutrient poor environment.

  10. Achoo! by cobyrne · · Score: 2, Funny

    Do we ...

    (Achoo!)

    *sniff*

    ... have any immunity?

  11. Just wondering... by jason.sweet · · Score: 1

    "Ultra-small cells could be unknown contaminants in media and medical solutions that are thought to have been sterilized using filters," said Loveland-Curtze.
    Has anyone made sure the melting cup was clean?
    1. Re:Just wondering... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was cleaned thoroughly after the previous use using water sterilized by filtration

  12. I have to wonder... by hyades1 · · Score: 4, Funny

    If you put the bacteria into a radioactive, poisonous desert with a rat, a cockroach, Cher and a lawyer, which would survive longest, and would it actually eat the others?

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    1. Re:I have to wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Yes, she would.

    2. Re:I have to wonder... by AshtangiMan · · Score: 1

      Since at least two of the above are dickless (ie, female) to which one are you referring?

      Disclaimer: people I love are lawyers, but I still find the jokes funny.

    3. Re:I have to wonder... by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      About lawyers...me, too. Some of my best e-mail "customers" for nasty lawyer jokes are lawyers. They often have to deal with the real dickheads that give rise to the stereotypes, and they love to skewer them as much as we do.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    4. Re:I have to wonder... by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 1

      About lawyers...me, too. Some of my best e-mail "customers" for nasty lawyer jokes are lawyers. They often have to deal with the real dickheads that give rise to the stereotypes, and they love to skewer them as much as we do.
      So... most of them give them all a bad name?
      --
      ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
    5. Re:I have to wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean "would *she* actually eat the others?"

      There - fixed it for you

    6. Re:I have to wonder... by Heather+D · · Score: 1

      Hmm. Cher and the lawyer would eat the rats who'd eat the cockroaches and then one of them would eat the other one. They probably wouldn't get all the cockroaches, though, so the cockroaches would eat the survivor eventually.

    7. Re:I have to wonder... by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      I'll point out that bacteria have survived quite handily on equipment left on the Moon; the most radioactive desert you'll find handy.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    8. Re:I have to wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The rat would perform its moral duty and eat the others.

    9. Re:I have to wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they'll survive after you're long gone, so you'll never find out.

    10. Re:I have to wonder... by helpfulcorn · · Score: 1

      Obviously Cher, because she's the only thing *not* living on your list.

    11. Re:I have to wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      enough with the Vegas jokes already.

  13. Great hope for the Phoenix mission by gamemaster_bm · · Score: 1

    With the (hopefully) similar conditions on Mars, this discovery gives hope that Phoenix can find life in that type of environment.

    1. Re:Great hope for the Phoenix mission by DigitalCrackPipe · · Score: 1

      Or, they could send some of this bacteria with the next lander to Mars and resolve the 'is there life on mars' question once and for all.

  14. What's Next? by Dareth · · Score: 5, Funny

    I am sure after all these years, this bacteria is either:

    A) Eager to evolve into an organism capable of having sex.

    B) Eager to start posting regularly on Slashdot.

    Yes, these options are mutually exclusive.

    --

    I only look human.
    My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
    1. Re:What's Next? by MiniMike · · Score: 1

      I have noticed an increase in the number of 'First Post!!1!!' messages, so it seems that option B has been taken. Note that this path rules out option A.

    2. Re:What's Next? by Namlak · · Score: 1

      Or just remain friendless, brainless, helpless, hopeless... and unemployed in Greenland!

  15. Lets Start Spreading by alexborges · · Score: 1

    Okay. Here is what I propose in order to save "life [kind of] as we know it", before WE destroy it here first.

    Lets cultivate this little bug, put in on a nice british-silver-martini ice container, and start sprouting it throughout the solar system and beyond.

    By the time they reach Alpha Centauri, we probably will have nuked each other asses and made this rock too hot for anything living.

    This way, at least, we know we let some of our "evolutive" life er... "style", out there in the universe for the Flying Spaghetti Monster to save it and put it in a nicer planet where it will evolve into er... something with a DNA.

    --
    NO SIG
    1. Re:Lets Start Spreading by nguy · · Score: 1

      Lets cultivate this little bug, put in on a nice british-silver-martini ice container, and start sprouting it throughout the solar system and beyond.

      That's probably where it came from in the first place. And you don't need to wrap metal around it, big chunks of ice will do nicely.

    2. Re:Lets Start Spreading by alexborges · · Score: 1

      I strongly disagree: we need to save THE MARTINI as well!

      --
      NO SIG
  16. And PSU promptly... by Roadkills-R-Us · · Score: 1

    1) Granted the bacteria student status
    2) Gave them all accounts on PSUVM
    3) turned them loose on the internet

    1. Re:And PSU promptly... by Geak · · Score: 1

      I for one welcome our new... Connection reset by peer

    2. Re:And PSU promptly... by Mr.+Roadkill · · Score: 1

      3) turned them loose on the internet


      Can't be any worse than other things they've turned loose on the internet, like their Barracuda backscatter^w spam firewalls.
  17. Flesh eating bacteria by WarJolt · · Score: 4, Funny

    This new species is among the ubiquitous, yet mysterious, ultra-small bacteria, which are so tiny that they are able to pass through microbiological filters. I'm always afraid when scientists get a hold of new species of bacteria. They always do something crazy with them like make rabbits glow.
    I can just see it now...

    Breaking news:
    Scientists have genetically engineered flesh-eating bacteria that is too small for scientists to detect. Drinking from your faucet is in advised as no filter can filter them out. Symptoms include explosive diarrhea then your eyeballs will fall out.
    1. Re:Flesh eating bacteria by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      You had me up until the symptoms.

      As per regular medical verbiage, it should go like this:

      "Symptoms include increased stress, mild headaches, upset stomache, an eye tick, itchy skin and vague unusual objects seen out of the corner of your eyes. Some or all of these symptoms may become apparent. After this, the symptoms rapidly move to paranoia and hysteria, followed by a complete collapse of all body tissue. The bacteria can travel through almost any substance, including air and lead."

    2. Re:Flesh eating bacteria by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      Any sufficiently complex theory as to the end of man-kind involves ED (explosive diarrhea not erectile dysfunction).

  18. Oblig. Futurama by Dachannien · · Score: 5, Funny

    But how do you think it felt, being trapped in ice for 120,000 years? Fry: "Bender! What was it like, lying in that hole for a thousand years?"
    Bender: "I was enjoying it until you guys showed up!"
  19. John Mccain called ... by vivek7006 · · Score: 4, Funny

    He wants his ice-cream back

    1. Re:John Mccain called ... by zzottt · · Score: 1

      hahaha nice zinger

  20. Seed Mars! by StatFiend · · Score: 1

    Eurika!!

    Now we can seed Mars! Soon it'll be all green. Suddenly the green will dissappear, prompting a team of astronauts to voyage there to discover, the hard way, that bugs ate the green bacteria!

  21. Bacteria Overlords by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I for one welcome our new Bacteria Overlords...

  22. I think you'll be safe by NIckGorton · · Score: 4, Funny
    If you RTFA, you'll see the thing only grows in cold, low nutrient, low oxygen environments. We are (generally) warm, high nutrient, high oxygen environments.

    After watching a fictional killer virus on "I Am Legend", I am feeling nervous about new germs in labs. That's why its called fiction.
    1. Re:I think you'll be safe by jd · · Score: 2, Funny

      If fictional viruses can be that lethal, just imagine what the real ones can do.

      --
      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)
    2. Re:I think you'll be safe by goldaryn · · Score: 1

      We are (generally) warm, high nutrient, high oxygen environments. Someone RTFA, there's nothing in there about methane is there?
    3. Re:I think you'll be safe by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't call most slashdotters "high nutrient environments".

    4. Re:I think you'll be safe by saskboy · · Score: 1

      You obviously haven't looked under their fingernails, or at their huge bellies.

      --
      Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
  23. If it was small enough.. by eieken · · Score: 4, Interesting

    To pass through a microbiological filter, how did they find it? The article states how they study the bacteria, but how did they know to process this one specific piece of ice for ancient bacteria? Were they just going through thousands of tons of ancient ice core and happened upon it by accident?

    --
    Meet new people, and kill them.
    1. Re:If it was small enough.. by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Were they just going through thousands of tons of ancient ice core and happened upon it by accident?

      No, that would be ridiculous.

      They probably just studied this one ice core that they had, and found bacteria in it. Which would imply that the ice is simply stuffed with bacteria, so it really wasn't much of an accident at all. Which is hardly surprising, since in our modern world it is nearly impossible to find a surface that isn't replete with bacteria.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    2. Re:If it was small enough.. by RockDoctor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      To pass through a microbiological filter, how did they find it?
      Most likely they were examining part of the core and they "slabbed" it for ease of handling and recording. Core comes out of the ground as cylinders, so all faces are curved, and that makes it hard to examine, measure and photograph (looking for dust bands, flow lines etc). So SOP is to cut the core along a chord (leaving two unequal segments) and then to cut the larger segment into two equal halves. Typically (for rock cores, in the oil industry), one of the large segments goes to each partner in the project and the small initial segment goes to the government ; in this case I'd expect one large segment to go straight back to the core store for any necessary replications in the future, while the other large segment and the small one are taken off for whatever your experiment is.

      These two cuts will generate significant waste rock or ice. If I were doing this, with normal 1m-long core sections, I'd clean off the saw and table after each section (giving ice shavings in 1m-long bags), then melt each bag separately and "plate" each bag separately. "Plating" is the taking of an innoculum at (various) dilutions into (various different nutrients) petri dishes and/ or culture bottles and incubating. You'd also check the "blank" regularly - plating your dilution saline, etc. It sounds like they plated both the raw melted ice AND melted ice that had been put through a microbial filter and got the same results from both.

      Obviously their experimental protocol had been designed to include microbiological sampling, so one can assume that clean-room techniques were in operation further up the material-handling pipeline.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    3. Re:If it was small enough.. by MikeDirnt69 · · Score: 1

      Were they just going through thousands of tons of ancient ice core and happened upon it by accident?

      Lots of things are found by accident in science.

      --
      Am I eval()? - http://www.monst3r.com.br
  24. 120,000 Years Old ?? by lexsco · · Score: 2, Funny

    How do they know ? Did they ask it when it's birthday was ? Cut one in half and count the rings ??

    1. Re:120,000 Years Old ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I'm guessing carbon dating..

    2. Re:120,000 Years Old ?? by geekoid · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Cut one in half and count the rings ??" in a manner.
      Depth of ice,number of layers and maybe radiological testing.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:120,000 Years Old ?? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      1) Cut continuous core from surface.
      2) Count the layers from surface down to get a raw.
      3) When you come across layers of dust, check the raw year-count and try to correlate with events like a Laki eruption (2 in the last millennium or so), Tambora, Pinatubo, ... all the usual suspects. This will give you a crude cross-check. Chemical stratigraphy and mineralogy of the dust can tell you which volcano is responsible for any particular dust ban (or at least, reduce the number of suspects).
      4) When you're doing more detailed analysis of the core, look for things like variations in the Be-10 content etc to try to correlate with the solar cycle. Magnetostratigraphy doesn't work in ice (I think).

      Enough detail?

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  25. Alternate Link With Electron MIcroscopic Image by __aanonl8035 · · Score: 5, Informative


    Same exact text, but with a picture, from physorg.

    http://www.physorg.com/news131712233.html

    1. Re:Alternate Link With Electron MIcroscopic Image by FiReaNGeL · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually the link I submitted was http://esciencenews.com/articles/2008/06/03/a.survivor.greenland.a.novel.bacterial.species.found.trapped.120000.year.old.ice

      which has 3 pictures. For some reason the editor changed it.

    2. Re:Alternate Link With Electron MIcroscopic Image by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For some reason the editor changed it.


      Because he's an idiot?
    3. Re:Alternate Link With Electron MIcroscopic Image by xemit · · Score: 1

      I love how there are goggle ads for ice makers around the article.

    4. Re:Alternate Link With Electron MIcroscopic Image by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because your link is broken, dipshit.

  26. FROZEN WATER NOW UNDRINKABLE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've discovered that bacteria grows faster now in California in frozen water than in room temperature water... is this the cause??

    1. Re:FROZEN WATER NOW UNDRINKABLE by wombert · · Score: 1

      I also find frozen water undrinkable, but for reasons wholly unrelated to bacterial contamination.

      --
      Did I say overlords? I meant protectors.
  27. How's this math work by crypTeX · · Score: 1

    Honest question here: Can somebody with knowledge about this give me some data on the ice formation timeline here? I remember reading that a P-51 Mustang was dug out of the ice in Greenland and it was under 268 feet of ice after 50 years in 1992. That nets out to 5.36 feet of ice accumulation per year. Two miles of ice is roughly 10500 feet, or 1970 years. What am I missing? Non-linear accumulation?

    1. Re:How's this math work by jedie · · Score: 1

      perhaps the ice becomes more compacted as the pressure increases?

      --
      "The majority is always sane, Louis." -- Nessus
      http://slashdot.jp
    2. Re:How's this math work by kenaaker · · Score: 1
      Think about comparing the amount of snow that falls on the ocean side of the Sierra Nevada mountains to the amount of show that falls in the high desert on the rain shadow side of the mountains.

      Greenland is the largest island on earth. The amount of snow that falls varies enormously. So, scientists trying to collect data from the past are going to try to drill ice cores from locations that accumulate enough snow to be useful, but no more than that.

    3. Re:How's this math work by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      That nets out to 5.36 feet of ice accumulation per year. Two miles of ice is roughly 10500 feet, or 1970 years. What am I missing? Non-linear accumulation?
      And the lateral spreading as the ice squeezes out to the margins of the ice sheet.
      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  28. Upon further examination... by DetpackJump · · Score: 1

    the team realized they were just studying a hair sample from Joe Paterno.

  29. Science is fixed! by camperdave · · Score: 1
    Is it just me, or does science seem "fixed" somehow:
    • "Mankind evolved from apes"
      Lucy is found.
    • "Dinosaurs evolved into birds"
      Feathered dinosaur fossils found.
    • "We would need a material stronger than steel for a space elevator"
      Carbon nanotubes discovered.
    • "Dinosaurs could be reconstructed from their DNA"
      Soft tissue found in dino thigh bones.
    • "Life might exist on Mars"
      Bacteria thrive in Mars-like environment on Earth.
    Now, I'm probably just receiving the news out of order, but the "X might be true - Voila X!" scenario seems to happen an aweful lot lately. Next I'll be hearing about bacteria that eat CO2, leave diamonds as waste, and are sweet to boot.
    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    1. Re:Science is fixed! by LandDolphin · · Score: 1

      Kind of follows:

      "I want to drive my car"

      Car keys are found

      Seems like people start looking for something, then Viola, they find it. That seems pretty normal. and what your missing, is that there are smaller discoveries that a found that lead to askign the question that lead to the big discoveries

      --
      Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
    2. Re:Science is fixed! by Castletech · · Score: 1

      Could be delayed public information. I am willing to wager they've already found life on Mars. With such a large percentage of people that still think the earth is about 5000 years old... who knows what will happen when word gets out. "god made the bacteria 120,000 years old to test our faith"

    3. Re:Science is fixed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or using /.'s new analogy, "I want to play D&D."

      DM is found.

    4. Re:Science is fixed! by chris_mahan · · Score: 1

      There's an obvious solution: The Bacteria is God.

      --

      "Piter, too, is dead."

    5. Re:Science is fixed! by Castletech · · Score: 1

      Exactly! Forget the god particle, they found god bacteria!

  30. Marine Mud by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

    the species is related genetically to certain bacteria found in fish, marine mud, and the roots of some plants I'm not surprised it was found in Marine mud; those guys' boots get really dirty after all that traipsing around. There must be all kinds of bacteria in that muck!
  31. several things by khallow · · Score: 1

    You get considerable compression with that depth. I think the most relevant part is that air should be completely pushed out at that depth. Ice accumulation also differs by location and time. Maybe the P-51 came down right before a bunch of good decades? Finally, there's the matter of ice flow. Ice under that sort of pressure behaves like a slow liquid. It's flowing downhill slowly. So I suppose it's possible that the ice simply can't accumulate beyond a certain height because it flows out as fast as it accumulates.

  32. Phoenix by lilfields · · Score: 2, Interesting

    When I first read the headline I was hoping it was the a "life on Mars" discovery from the Phoenix...article doesn't deliver...

    Though I do wonder if this has implications for the Mars mission?

    1. Re:Phoenix by FurtiveGlancer · · Score: 1

      I think we found our volunteer astronauts for Mars! They'll love the conditions and we'll save loads of money on transportation!

      --
      Invenio via vel creo
  33. MARS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bah, send this bacteria to Mars, and see if it survives. Maybe it will give some Martian pilots the flu, before they get into their war machines to punish us for violating their soil.

  34. so in some way by crazybit · · Score: 1

    the bacteria "knew" the ice was gonna start melting some day?

    if it didn't then what's the purpose of staying "alive" for 120000 years?

    --
    - Human knowledge belongs to the world
    1. Re:so in some way by Pfhorrest · · Score: 3, Insightful

      the bacteria "knew" the ice was gonna start melting some day?

      if it didn't then what's the purpose of staying "alive" for 120000 years? Evolution is not teleological (which means "purposive" or "goal-oriented"). This bacterium happened to be able to survive long periods in the freezing cold due to some mutation or another. This would be a big evolutionary advantage because it could then live and reproduce in areas where most other things cannot.

      Some of these bacteria got frozen for 120,000 years. They weren't waiting for it to thaw out; they're just out there living in the cold regions where nothing else can live, and sticking it out even when it gets too cold for them.

      Analogously, imagine that there is some primitive tribe of humans with no knowledge of climatology, currently living in tropical or desert climes who, unbeknown to anyone, have a mutation which allows them to survive in hibernation in freezing cold temperatures, and then reawaken when it warms up again. They did not evolve this because they needed to survive freezing cold temperatures, they just have a genetic adaptation which is not disadvantageous, and might even correlate with some other adaptation which is advantageous. And because they live in warm climes, nobody knows they have this mutation.

      Then say someday we enter another great ice age, so cold that everybody on Earth dies out, except this tribe, who barely manages to live on for thousands of years, frozen in the ice, due to their mutation. And then eventually the ice age ends and the world gets nice and warm, these people thaw out and start living their lives again.

      Now imagine we're aliens watching this future Earth thaw out. We might ask, did these people know that an ice age was coming? No... they've probably never even heard of ice. So they certainly didn't know that the ice age they never expected was going to end eventually. So what's the purpose of them having this mutation that allowed them to stay "alive" frozen in the ice for thousands of years? The answer is that there was none; they didn't mean to have the mutation, and nobody meant for them to have the mutation, they just had it by chance, and as chance would have it it came in really handy when the whole world froze over and everybody but them died out, which is why they're still around for us to wonder about.

      Or in short: They didn't get the mutation so that they could survive. They survived because they had the mutation.
      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    2. Re:so in some way by Shadow-isoHunt · · Score: 1

      Evolution is not teleological (which means "purposive" or "goal-oriented").
      While evolution isn't, life is. It seems there are two purposes in every form of life:
      1) Spread your genetic material
      2) Don't die.

      It also seems that so long as goal #1 is being fufilled, #2 doesn't matter so much and can be considered a secondary objective. I predict /.ers will have long lives.
      --
      www.isoHunt.com
    3. Re:so in some way by 0111+1110 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While evolution isn't, life is. It seems there are two purposes in every form of life:
      1) Spread your genetic material
      2) Don't die. Someone is watching too much porn. I think you have those in the wrong order. I am alive and have no interest in either of those goals. But especially not #1. In fact just the opposite. I would much rather die than spread any of my genetic material.
      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    4. Re:so in some way by kickdown · · Score: 1

      imagine that there is some primitive tribe of humans with no knowledge of climatology, currently living in tropical or desert climes who, unbeknown to anyone, have a mutation which allows them to survive in hibernation in freezing cold temperatures, and then reawaken when it warms up again. [...] And then eventually the ice age ends and the world gets nice and warm, these people thaw out and start living their lives again. Wow. I would never have imagined Jamaicans to be so ... cool.
      --
      Continuous positive slashdot karma since... uh, maybe next year.
  35. The real question... by smbarbour · · Score: 3, Funny

    How will this discovery save our bananas?

  36. Leave 'em alone ! by CouteauTM · · Score: 1

    We need them to defeat invading aliens!

  37. Andromeda Spoilers by camperdave · · Score: 1

    It was on the other night. There were many similarities between the remake and the movie. The plot was essentially the same: A Scoop satellite deorbits, crash lands in a small town where only a baby and an old sterno guzzling man survive. A bunch of scientists are gathered into a facility called WildFire to analyze the space originating organism. One of the scientists is an epileptic. WildFire has a nuclear self destruct, which has to be disarmed because the Andromeda Strain feeds on radiation. Yada, yada, yada...

    A few differences: The Andromeda strain was a sulpher based life form that used crystals to communicate between various parts of itself. Thus it was able to transmit data concerning WildFire's various attempts to destroy it to other samples of itself, both inside and outside WildFire. The strain was found inside a carbon nanostructure. Since we lacked the technology to create such structures, the strain must have come from an extra-terrestrial source.

    At least, that was the assumption until they took a look at the carbon nanostructure itself. There were two types of non-carbon atoms bound into the nanostructure. Someone thought that perhaps they encoded a binary message. When the message was decrypted, part of it turned out to be an ASCII message, the name of a particular sulfer eating bacteria that lived near the volcanic vents in the deep ocean. The other part is a graphic of a logo. Because the message was ASCII, and the tech was beyond us, the conclusion was that the Andromeda Strain had slipped through a wormhole from the future. The wormhole was what caused the Scoop satellite to de-orbit.

    WildFire gets a sample of the bacteria, and find that it eats the Andromeda strain like it's going out of style. To prevent the strain from communicating this, all samples are destroyed. Except one. One of the WildFire team is pressured into keeping a sample. It is later shown being loaded into one of many small vaults on board a module of the ISS. The module is emblazoned with the logo that was found encoded in the carbon nanostructure.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  38. Terraforming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I imagine that something like this could be very useful in terraforming...

  39. Egotistical by Chapter80 · · Score: 1
    Why do we assume that we discovered the bacteria, and not vice versa?

    Maybe we should introduce this bacteria to the Previously uncontacted Amazon Tribe.

  40. Apparently it's not *that* new... by warprin · · Score: 1

    after all, it's been around likely over 120,000 years. I work at a science research institution in DC where several people have been researching e coli at high pressure and standard atp. Yes, Virginia, there is life at 5 GPa. And beyond. I'm amazed how these microbe survive for years at depths and pressures far below what many people think of as a high pressure regime. It almost makes all the Lost City studies rather silly when researchers make claims about life at the bottom of a 7 mile deep trench.

  41. C'mon... come ooooon... by Reptonised · · Score: 2, Funny

    Clearly the bacteria was waiting for the Nintendo Wii, but overshot the release date a little..

  42. 120,000 year old Bacteria UnEarthed by AKabral · · Score: 2, Funny

    . . . only to die of gobal warming . . .

    --
    The outcome of any serious research can only be to make two questions grow where only one grew before. - Thorstein
  43. Band Saw by joeslugg · · Score: 1

    Is that band saw sterile?

  44. View this NOVA documentary on evolution in school by jweller13 · · Score: 1

    ONOZ! not yet another futile evolution vs. creationism take no prisoners flame war.

    Take a look at this NOVA documentary on the recent Dover, Pennsylvania court battle over teaching evolution in school. It is an incredibly view into the tactic of the creationist movement.

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html

  45. "faith in the scientific method"...huh?? by jweller13 · · Score: 1

    Saying you have "faith in the scientific method" is an oxymoron. That's like saying I have faith that the Earth's circumference is 24,901.55 miles. Here, read up on the scientific method: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/The_Scientific_Method

    1. Re:"faith in the scientific method"...huh?? by Nazlfrag · · Score: 1

      It's like axioms in maths, you must put your faith into certain assumptions made, such as Euclid's fifth axiom. The concept that causality will hold seems self-evident, but there is still no proof that it won't all change next Tuesday, it's just a useful assumption we make to enable the scientific method. The GP was right, you must have faith that the fundamentals are not only valid and true, but will continue to be.

    2. Re:"faith in the scientific method"...huh?? by somersault · · Score: 1

      Do you believe that it's 24,901.55 miles? Because it's not a regular shape for one thing, and even if it was, you do have to just take someone else's word for it unless you have either measured it yourself, or have done some calculation involving your elevation and the the distance to the horizon.

      --
      which is totally what she said
  46. You fools! by professorfalcon · · Score: 1

    The cavemen buried those bacteria for a reason! You have no idea what you've unleashed!

  47. Good God, put it back! by 0tter · · Score: 1

    So... they extracted bacteria from ancient ice that can't be filtered? Wasn't this the premise of a horror movie?

  48. This is pathetic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    An article about science and under it 150 comments,2 of which contain good jokes, 89 containing lame jokes, 40 comments on irrelevant topics and 20 criticizing my addition skills. Not one word about the article.

    And yeah, I'm an AC, so what?

  49. Re: faith in past scientists by b1gp0pp4 · · Score: 1

    I wanted to throw out that in order to advance science, you must trust that the people before you were rigorous, thorough, and any number of synonyms enough that their work is solid to stand upon. Insert quote: That guy... great because he was standing on the shoulders of giants. You know who I'm talking about. That's a bit of faith, and if you find some work to be a sham, or lack an insight that was not possible in the past, then you have to go back to the drawing board.

    --
    A whopping 120 characters to take your mind off topic. Tested in MS Word.
  50. selfish little bastards by rire000 · · Score: 1

    They could have at least had the decency to die and become oil. I'm tired of filling my HumVee for $200.

    1. Re:selfish little bastards by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      They could have at least had the decency to die and become oil. I'm tired of filling my HumVee for $200.
      You chose to drive ; you chose to buy a penis-extension with stupid efficiency ; you're looking for sympathy. Tough luck.

      I'm annoyed by the rapid oil price rise - I'd got my £5 on oil reaching 100 USD/bbl (Brent blend) in 2010, and I've lost that 1 pint bet. Now I'm not even sure if I should bet on USD200/bbl for 2009 or 2010. Damned difficult decision. But at least it's not going to change the cost of my car filling up (£0/month).

      Get a better car, if you have to have one. I doubt you'll be able to find someone stupid enough to buy the HumBug.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  51. slightly more relevant than the creationism debate by Dragoon235 · · Score: 1

    WE ARE...

  52. I hope we don't find by fluffykitty1234 · · Score: 1

    Some virulent virus/bacteria that's been trapped in the ice for hundreds or millions of years...

    And if we do, I hope we fight them there, so we don't have to fight them here.

  53. FTW passes through bio filters? by DragonTHC · · Score: 1

    If this bacteria can pass through microbiological filters, wtf is keeping it in the lab?

    wtf is keeping it from eating our flesh?

    --
    They're using their grammar skills there.
    1. Re:FTW passes through bio filters? by comm2k · · Score: 1

      If you cant remove it by filtering contaminated solutions / equipment then you do the 'other' thing - that is, just cook it up at high temperature and pressure. In addition to that we will just have to build filters with even smaller cut off.

    2. Re:FTW passes through bio filters? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      If this bacteria can pass through microbiological filters, wtf is keeping it in the lab?
      Errr, probably the use of standard lab techniques. UV to kill any that gets into the air ; oxidising agents (hypochlorite or ozone?) and/or heat in the waste water ; incinerate contaminated materials and disposable equipment ; non-disposable equipment goes into the autoclave (a sophisticated pressure cooker). Just the usual suspects. (When I was a student, going down to the microbiology labs for a party after closing time at the pub was normal ; we didn't die.)

      wtf is keeping it from eating our flesh?
      Just because it's a bacterium doesn't mean to say that it necessarily wants to eat your flesh. Remember that you've almost certainly got several kilos of bacteria sloshing around inside you at this moment in time. Are they eating your flesh too?
      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  54. Ha! thats nothing.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..I've known managers who have clung to their positions even after the company shut down!

  55. Proving such a negative is essentially impossible by aepervius · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You should take some logic courses. Which is why the burden of proof is NOT on "proving there is no God", but rather on "proving there is a God". Since the second is also a shaky proposition (up to now the number of evidence which stand even a slight scrutinies is equal to zero), ANY God's existence (Christian or not) stand to be forever on the SAME level as the existence of gnome, leprechauns, dragon, santa and unicorns. The difference is the number of people believing in all those things without having any evidences whatsoever, and that last point is neither a point for or against a more probable existence of any gods. Contrary to what many people believe, the probability existence of a gods is not linked to the amount of believer it was worshiped by. Actually it was the-goddess-mother (the one worshiped 20K-30K or more years ago) the only goddess of creation, and since then we are all screwed because we switched from matriarchal to patriarchal gods, and she don't like that one a bit.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  56. Re:Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I, for one...
    oh, never mind.

  57. Re:yur grammer sux to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    jesus christ, jesus christ..suck on my chocolate, salty balls!

  58. Can sb feel a pandemonium moving emerging here? by marcovje · · Score: 1


    After more then 120000 years, the flesh eating bacteria awakens....

  59. The Thing by kc600 · · Score: 1

    Somebody send Kurt Russell over there quick!

  60. really? by someone1234 · · Score: 1

    The phrase 'the DM is a fucking retard' uttered by any of the PC's usually stops the world.

    --
    Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
  61. 120,000 Years Old? Pfft... by anarkavre · · Score: 1

    that's nothing compared to The Elder Ones.

    --
    "Without curiosity and knowledge, the mind is a vast void. Without the mind, curiosity and knowledge are nonexistent."
  62. BS by Wooky_linuxer · · Score: 0

    You have to have faith in the scientific method. If there is one thing annoy me in rabid atheists is that they usually consider themselves above religious people for lacking faith, when at times they are even more fanatical then some religious zealots.

    If you use the scientific method, you believe that the world is logic, and most of the time, deterministic in an Cartesian way. You believe in cause and effect. Most of the time, you believe in energy conservation and isotropy (and temporal isotropy) of the fundamental laws, even if you don't realize that. You obviously believe in independence between the observer and observed subject (which we know not be true, at a quantum level, incidentally).

    And these people dare to say they do not have faith. Yes they do. Being slashdot, with a large percentage of atheists, mod me down as you see fit. This proves some atheists are no better and no less fanatical than the worst scientologist. They just choose another religion to be a zealot of.

    --
    Where is that guy who'd die defending what I had to say when I need him?
    1. Re:BS by Paranatural · · Score: 1

      And these people dare to say they do not have faith. Yes they do. Being slashdot, with a large percentage of atheists, mod me down as you see fit. This proves some atheists are no better and no less fanatical than the worst scientologist. They just choose another religion to be a zealot of. You had me till then. It is a particularly heinous fallacy to argue that anyone who doesn't agree with you is somehow 'proof' of your position. That's like me saying I'm God and anyone who doesn't agree just proves that they are agents of Satan and thus proves I am actually God.

      For that alone you deserve to be modded down. Because you make bad arguments.

      Additionally, the snide remark at the end about atheists just choosing another religion is one of those fallacious arguments that the ignorant argue, with nothing to support it.

      In short, while it is valid to argue against fanaticism, your argument simply exposes your own heavy biases and faulty thinking with the inclusion of these fallacies, making your entire argument void.

    2. Re:BS by Wooky_linuxer · · Score: 1

      Perhaps I did not make myself entirely clear, after all, English is not my native language. I wasn't referring to all atheists, in the last paragraph; in fact, I was referring to a certain class of atheists (which I called rabid and fanatical) thoughout the whole post.

      That said, I do stand by the concept that even non-fanatical atheists would mod me down simply for criticizing them. It is a kind of groupthink that we see too often here in /., and I meant it was no different from religious fanatics - usually a few people are really fanatic in each religion, but then these somehow manage to overcome the common sense and acceptance of different POV in most of their community - and alas, a so called holy war is born. Basically, people who think they have the right to impose their beliefs and their vision upon others are fanatic no matter whether they are religious or not; and by believing they have this right, they become religious, even being atheists. I see no difference between witch-hunting people that don't believe in God and witch-hunting people that do believe in God.

      Besides, your reply doesn't make much sense. If I had you till the second paragraph, how does the third make my whole argument void? That's nonsense. Now, after a few hours, I agree that the final remark looks snide and even trollish. I would probably word it differently now, but for the better or worse /. lacks an edit function.

      --
      Where is that guy who'd die defending what I had to say when I need him?
  63. Hardly even approaching old ... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

    [a] species of bacteria that has survived for more than 120,000 years within the ice of a Greenland glacier at a depth of nearly two miles.
    Quite a while ago (2000) there was a report in Nature : "Isolation of a 250 million-year-old halotolerant bacterium from a primary salt crystal" Nature, v407, p897- 900.

    While this hasn't been widely accepted, largely due to concern over contamination in the laboratory, it is a serious claim. Indeed, one of the critics of Vreeland's 250 million-year claim is also a worker on this ice core material (see Science v317 p0111 (2007) "Ancient Biomolecules from Deep Ice Cores Reveal a Forested Southern Greenland").

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  64. Send Bush by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

    Religion is the best mass destruction weapon ever!

    --
    Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
  65. deep rock bacteria buried millions of years by peter303 · · Score: 1

    They've bassically found bacteria where ever they've drilled deep. The stuff in oil deposits is obvious - that a source of buriend biomaterial transformation into oil and energy for the bacteria. Less obvious are bacteria found in igneous basement, perhaps from ground water over millions or billions of years.

  66. Obligatory quote by Yvan256 · · Score: 2, Funny

    "The first ten million years were the worst, and the second ten million years, they were the worst too. The third ten million I didn't enjoy at all. After that I went into a bit of a decline." - Marvin

  67. 120,000 years? by jazman · · Score: 1

    How did they determine that 2 miles of ice equals 120,000 years?
    This article seems free from the "haha at evolution" stuff you get on other sites about the lost squadron: http://www.b-29s-over-korea.com/lost_squadron/lost_squadron.html
    250 feet in 40 years suggests a "sink rate" of 6.25 feet/year.
    There are 10560 feet in 2 miles.
    10560/6.25=1689.6 years.

    Compression of the lower layers would obviously skew the results, but as far as 120,000 years?

    1. Re:120,000 years? by kalirion · · Score: 1

      And hey, maybe the bacteria tunneled it's way through there a couple years ago.

      Also, the exact wording seems to imply that the species has survived below the ice for 120,000 years, not that any single bacterium is that old. And that makes sense. I mean seriously, it's not like they cut one of them open and counted the rings. It seems more likely that they meant that a bunch of them got trapped there 120,000 years ago and were able to procreate through all this time.

      "A team of Penn State scientists has discovered a new ultra-small species of bacteria that has survived for more than 120,000 years within the ice of a Greenland glacier."

  68. There's one now... by n0vu5 · · Score: 1

    now what I wanna know is how they radiocarbon dated it without killing the bugger. Or did they just "assume" its 120,000 years old? I mean this could just be another Coelacanth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth incident. Oh sure it's just one now and it's a big event, but give it 30 years and we'll find that there's a modern population growing specifically under the lid of jam jars.

  69. Re:Anonymous Coward by philspear · · Score: 1

    "That's no moon"

    is probably something the researchers didn't say when looking at these samples for the first time.

  70. Here's a thought experiment by spun · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In another universe God set up, froodling is a deadly sin. In this universe, it is impossible to froodle. In both universes, free will exists. If you accept the possibility of this premise, then you must accept the possibility that God could have set up a universe where free exists, but sin is impossible.

    Just be thankful we don't live in the universe where every possible action is a sin.

    As to your point about free will and proof, I simply don't understand how you can say that proof and free will are mutually exclusive. Are you saying that proof in mathematics doesn't exist, or that free will doesn't?

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  71. Hypocrite by spun · · Score: 1

    He may not get to decide for others what they believe, but there is nothing wrong with trying to get others to believe any particular thing, which is exactly what you are doing. He can call anything he likes 'picking and choosing,' and everyone is free to accept or reject that definition.

    I'm sick and tired of people trying to place limits on free speech. If he isn't free to criticize what he sees as stupidity, what gives you the right to criticize him, you hypocrite?

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    1. Re:Hypocrite by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Yes, yes. All statement made in the imperative tense are the same. Thank you for pointing out the inherent irony in saying "Don't tell others what to do." Very insightful, in a way that misses the point entirely.

      Also, I get a kick out of you making it out to be a free speech issue. That gave me a good laugh.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    2. Re:Hypocrite by spun · · Score: 1

      My point is that he fucking well does get to decide, for himself what everything in the entire universe means to him, and he is free to voice those beliefs. You are free to do the same.

      You do get the irony, that both of you are just voicing your opinion, right? But your opinion is, "You don't get to have an opinion," which is so indicative of the stupid, fascist, patriarchal thinking that western religions produce in otherwise intelligent people.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    3. Re:Hypocrite by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      No, genius, pay attention. He's the one who said others don't get to form their own opinion on their own religion, I said that's not true.

      Unless you really think that it's hypocritical to say "Stop telling others what to do", which would make you an idiot, then you're an idiot.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    4. Re:Hypocrite by spun · · Score: 1

      No, pay attention. He was stating his opinion, that he thought people who pick and choose what is literal and what is not from some moldy old book are being stupid, and I happen to agree with him.

      Get it? He was stating his opinion, and you basically said he doesn't get to. Maybe you should reread the post you replied to because it sounds to me like you've made up a little story in your head that bears no relation to reality. Color me surprised.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    5. Re:Hypocrite by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      "Either believe it all or none of it."

      "Stop telling [anyone] what is a valid way to view and practice their religion"

      HAND.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    6. Re:Hypocrite by spun · · Score: 1

      He has a point, but it is still just opinion. It is my opinion that people who pick and choose what is literal and what is not from their religion's holy book are idiots lacking in critical thinking skills. You can tell me not to say that, but I will just laugh in your face, and keep on telling whoever I feel like, whatever I feel like telling them.

      HAND, yourself.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    7. Re:Hypocrite by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      If you don't phrase your opinion as an imperative, then neither will I.

      It is my opinion that people who think a book can contain either complete literal truth or only allegory but never both are complete idiots, and in any other situation they would not believe something so obviously ridiculous. I doubt they would be baffled or alarmed at the idea of a physics text that contained literal expressions of the laws of physics, and apocryphal stories designed to illustrate concepts. It is only their anti-religious bias that makes them think this way, unless their world view really is so black and white that they think "I always lie" is actually a paradox.

      Just more proof that while religion may attract those without critical thinking skills, it certainly does not have a monopoly on them.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    8. Re:Hypocrite by spun · · Score: 1

      Here's why, specifically, Christian's don't get to pick and choose: the whole basis of the authority of the Bible is that the Bible claims the Bible is the literal word of God. If you start to pick and choose, the Bible looses ALL authority. I mean, maybe the part of the Bible that claims the Bible is the literal word of God is just figurative? Maybe the part about Jesus rising form the dead is figurative? Maybe ALL of it is figurative? After you stop believing that part where the Bible says the Bible is infallible, why stop there? Why believe ANY of what it says?

      You remind me of the type of people who believe in psychics. When shown how a particular psychic is a fraud, they say, "okay, but that was just that one guy. Some of them have GOT to be for real!" No, they are all frauds.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    9. Re:Hypocrite by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Here's why, specifically, Christian's don't get to pick and choose: the whole basis of the authority of the Bible is that the Bible claims the Bible is the literal word of God.

      "Literal word of God" is not the same as "The word of God, to be read literally". One is describing the source, the other the interpretation.

      "It was raining cats and dogs" is literally what I just typed. However the phrase itself is not to be taken literally. And unless you really think the Bible intended to claim that the Kingdom of Heaven is literally like a fig tree -- woody, deciduous, and up to ten meters tall -- then this difference should be obvious.

      Fundamentalists don't understand this obvious difference, but they're stupid. You can deliberately engage in the same stupidity if you want. It doesn't make you smart.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    10. Re:Hypocrite by spun · · Score: 1

      Right, how do we know the source is God? Because the Bible says so. But parts of the Bible might be figurative. Including the part about the source. I mean, when the Bible claims it is the word of God, maybe it means that it came entirely from the god-like part of regular old humans.

      That is the issue that any intelligent person has with people who pick and choose what parts of the Bible are literal, and what parts are figurative.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    11. Re:Hypocrite by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      But parts of the Bible might be figurative. Including the part about the source.

      Parts are figurative, but that doesn't mean it's random, and that any given sentence has an equal probability of being figurative or literal. So no.

      I mean, when the Bible claims it is the word of God, maybe it means that it came entirely from the god-like part of regular old humans.

      That God is an aspect of all of us and indeed of the universe itself is one interpretation of the nature of God, a subject about which He is famously terse ("I Am"). What God is precisely doesn't change whether the book is His Word.

      That is the issue that any intelligent person has with people who pick and choose what parts of the Bible are literal, and what parts are figurative.

      I disagree that intelligent people think it is impossible to reason about what is figurative and what is literal, and that it is all up in the air. I think only stupid people think that. But I also don't think that's something you believe with regard to anything but the Bible (or other religious texts), meaning it's an affectation that springs from anti-religious bias.

      You're not religious. You don't believe my book is divine. I get it, and that's fine. Don't transmute that into the illogical conclusion that it is therefore impossible for a believer to interpret this book much as you would any other work.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    12. Re:Hypocrite by spun · · Score: 1

      Okay, sorry for being a dick, but I thought you came down on the OP a little hard, and I was defending his right to state his opinion.

      Honestly I don't know if the Bible is true or not. Same goes for any other holy book. It doesn't make much sense to me, but I've asked for any kind of sign, feeling, or whatever it is that people get with religion anyway. I got nothing, so I can only conclude its not for me. Doesn't mean its wrong, or not for other people.

      To be fair, because I HAVE been a dick, I'll admit that I happen to like most of the honestly religious people I've met, be they Christians or Buddhists or Sufis or what have you. I tend to think that's more because religion attracts decent people than because of any great power religion has to turn bad people good, but you never know.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    13. Re:Hypocrite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honestly I don't know if the Bible is true or not. I've had my doubts about you up until this point, spun, but this has pushed my opinion of you over the edge. You really will say anything to curry favor won't you, you little suck-up? God, what an ass.
    14. Re:Hypocrite by spun · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's me, a suck up. Prove the Bible isn't true, you stupid shit.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  72. melting polar caps - reintroduce ancient bacteria by johnrpenner · · Score: 1


    is it niave to ask if melting polar caps - will reintroduce all sorts of ancient bacteria into the global bacteriosphere?