Slashdot Mirror


Spectacular Fossil Forests Found In US Coalmine

Smivs passes along a report up on the BBC about the fossil forests found in coal mines in Illinois. "The [US-UK] group reported one discovery last year, but has since identified a further five examples. The ancient vegetation — now turned to rock — is visible in the ceilings of mines covering thousands of hectares. These were among the first forests to evolve on the planet, [according to] Dr. Howard Falcon-Lang... 'These are the largest fossil forests found anywhere in the world at any point in geological time. It is quite extraordinary to find a fossil landscape preserved over such a vast area; and we are talking about an area the size of [the British city of] Bristol.' The forests grew just a few million years apart some 300 million years ago; and are now stacked one on top of another."

197 comments

  1. Note on Units by Gat0r30y · · Score: 3, Funny

    Cities of Bristol is now an accepted measurement of area? And here I thought I was paying attention to SI conventions. How many libraries of congre

    --
    Prediction: The real iPhone killer is going to be sex robots from Japan. Think about it.
    1. Re:Note on Units by CaptainPatent · · Score: 4, Funny

      Duh,
      47 libraries of congress to a Bristol measured at 47 degrees Reaumur 83 furlongs above knee level,
      Man, I've know that for about a microcentury.

      --
      Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
    2. Re:Note on Units by iamhigh · · Score: 1

      Not that hectares is much better. Why not use furlongs... or dog miles (that's 1/7th of a mile)?

      This must be obscure measurements day.

      --
      No comprende? Let me type that a little slower for you...
    3. Re:Note on Units by LighterShadeOfBlack · · Score: 4, Funny

      Anyone with worldly knowledge knows that Bristol was the standard unit of measurement for area within the British Empire for over 200 years. It seems I'll have to break it down for you ignorant Americans:

      Bristol has an area of 1,184,832,000 square feet (source)
      The Library of Congress has an area of 2,100,000 square feet (source)

      Therefore 1 Bristol (and TFA's fossilised forest) == 564.2 Libraries of Congress

      --
      Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
    4. Re:Note on Units by the_B0fh · · Score: 5, Funny

      It depends on how pregnant that Bristol is.

      OK, bad bad taste. My coat's the one full of shot.

    5. Re:Note on Units by Otter · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm accustomed to American news reports converting approximate metric quantities into foolishly precise non-metric numbers. (6213 miles, for example, or 220 pounds.) When this story hits the US news, the fossils will be 81% the size of Bristol, TN or 124% the size of Bristol, CT. (Those numbers are made up off the top of my head, so no correction from Wikipedia-crazed doofuses is necessary, BTW.)

    6. Re:Note on Units by plopez · · Score: 4, Funny

      And how many firkins of beer could you keep at 45 deg. F for a fortnight assuming an ambient 70 deg temp assuming that each dram (weight, not fluid) of coal has 1373 btus of energy. Please state all simplifying assumptions. Keep 3 sig. figs.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    7. Re:Note on Units by CaptainCarrot · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm sorry, but these units don't properly convert. The Library of Congress isn't a measure of area, but of data storage. 1 Library of Congress = about 10 terabytes. (Oddly, this is easy to discover by googling "1 Library of Congress in megabytes". Google itself doesn't do the conversion, but the equivalence is in the top search results.)

      --
      And the brethren went away edified.
    8. Re:Note on Units by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "And here I thought I was paying attention to SI conventions."

      "Hectare" is not an SI unit.

      There is no "thousands of hectares," there is only "tens of millions of square meters," or "thousands of square hectometers," if you prefer.

    9. Re:Note on Units by Trogre · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I hope this guy's address isn't anywhere near Switzerland...

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    10. Re:Note on Units by DanielLC · · Score: 0

      The idea here is to use measurements that people are familiar with. There are obviously more people who know the city of Bristol well enough to know the area it covers than there are people who have seen a meter stick.

    11. Re:Note on Units by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Answer: 0.000

      Simplifying Assumption: I drank it all.

    12. Re:Note on Units by MicktheMech · · Score: 1

      If you're going to try and make a joke about units at least define which "deg temp" you're referring too. There are at least four in common usage.

    13. Re:Note on Units by sokoban · · Score: 3, Funny

      My coat's the one full of shot.

      Unfortunately, Bristol's baby's daddy's latex coat was not full of shot. That's why she is now pregnant.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 is the magic number.
    14. Re:Note on Units by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      African of European firkin?

    15. Re:Note on Units by moortak · · Score: 3, Informative

      He did.

      --
      Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
    16. Re:Note on Units by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Which four temperature systems are symbolized by F again?

    17. Re:Note on Units by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that 10 terabytes, i.e. 10^13 bytes, or 10 tibibytes, i.e. 10*2^40 octets? I'd hate to format my brand new Library of Congress and have a few hundred gigs of storage missing.

    18. Re:Note on Units by Whiteox · · Score: 1
      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
    19. Re:Note on Units by Uber+Banker · · Score: 1

      What efficiency level are we speaking? $0.50/TCE?

    20. Re:Note on Units by SmokeyTheBalrog · · Score: 2, Funny

      Awe common, you guys are too rough.

      Parent had a somewhat vaguely pertinent comment.

      You know Seagate named a line of harddrives Barracuda; just so they'd have a bunch of jokes on hand when someone asked about missing bites.

      Here's to hoping I used the ; properly, probably not, since I'm just guessing.

    21. Re:Note on Units by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, the laden airspeed would effect heat transfer...

    22. Re:Note on Units by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that would need to be one of your "assumptions".

    23. Re:Note on Units by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Freezing
      F-F-F-F-F-reezing
      Fucking cold
      F-F-FUCKING C-C-C-OLD!!!!

    24. Re:Note on Units by plopez · · Score: 1

      deg F

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    25. Re:Note on Units by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FAIL (that's 4 sig. figs.)

    26. Re:Note on Units by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

      The libraries prefer to be known as "Libraries of Congrii", if you don't mind.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    27. Re:Note on Units by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bristol = Bristol City = tittie

    28. Re:Note on Units by sa1lnr · · Score: 1

      You don't know what the size of a pair of Bristols is?

    29. Re:Note on Units by JaBob · · Score: 1

      Ok - Now repeat the problem under the condition that the now 'processed' beer is bottled and sold under the brand 'Budweiser.'

    30. Re:Note on Units by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      at least define which "deg temp" you're referring too.

      Different degrees of temporariness ?

      • Well, there's common or garden temporary - you might need it for a few minutes, hours or days (giving around a x1440 range of coverage).
      • Then there's the fleeting degree of temporary - like a fleeting thought, oh! she's got a nice pair of tits (being gender neutral here, you might be a hetrosexual male, though it's unlikely on /.). The sort of stuff that would take longer to write down than it would retain it's usefulness. Half-life in SI units of only a few seconds.
      • Then there's barely apparent degree of temporariness. Normal humans generally don't quite experience this except when trying to read quantum-mechanics papers when it is felt as that feeling that occasionally you actually understand what the fuck they're writing about. This is actually the QM half-life of the Schrodinger's Cat-like co-existence of your states of both understanding the QM paper and not understanding it, before the state collapses. A few humanoids actually do collapse into the "understand QM" state, but for most of us, it's just that "flicker at the corner of the attention" feeling that you might possibly understand this one day. This degree of temporariness is wide ranging, possibly covering from human lifetimes to well under a femtosecond, depending on intelligence, ability to read, whether you can add 2+2 without getting the calculator out.
      • The final degree of fleetingness - the lifetime of the universe after the LHC achieves beam collision at 115% of initial design criteria. That's when all those people who thought they understood QM start to say "Oh fuck," but don't get very far into it.
      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  2. Post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You too will be a fossil.

  3. "And they'll burn great!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We've got an energy crisis to deal with, remember?

    1. Re:"And they'll burn great!" by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      The fossils are NOT coal, they're rocks. These are known (were formerly known?) as "petrified forests". They're ROCKS.

      There are a few kinds of people who burn rocks:
      Geologists
      Physicists
      Vulcanologists (who don't burn rocks but study the burning rocks)
      crackheads

  4. What I find more interesting by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 5, Interesting

    are the places where there is both coal and limestone. The same place that was once a forest that got fossilized then got covered by the sea. Scratch through the limestone and you find fossilized sea shells etc. Go deeper and you find fossilized twigs and leaves.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:What I find more interesting by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The top of Mount Everest is partially limestone.

    2. Re:What I find more interesting by bendodge · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's because it was all covered with water at one point.

      --
      The government can't save you.
    3. Re:What I find more interesting by beadfulthings · · Score: 1

      Birmingham, Alabama. There is an expressway cut through Red Mountain, and the various layers--coal and limestone, but also iron ore--are beautifully exposed. They had a wonderful museum there for a while, mostly for kids but fascinating for everyone. You could go along an elevated walkway and see fossils from all the levels. The museum seems to have closed, but even wandering around somebody's back yard there can yield a pocket full of small treasures. I recall sitting on someone's stone patio one time and realizing that the stones were full of fossils.

      Road cuts in general can be sources of great fascination for those brave or stupid enough to climb them. Having a nice elevated walkway is a real bonus.

      --
      "Here's what's happening. You're starting to drive like your Dad..." - Red Green
    4. Re:What I find more interesting by Aaron+Aardwolf · · Score: 0, Troll

      There is coal at the top of K2.
      That's why it is called K2 (Koal2)
      British Imperialists attempted to climb it simply to extract the coal. It was cheaper than paying wages to striking Newcastle miners.
      But after an avalanche, and an attack by Paki terrorists, the upper-class twits went home.
      So now the Taliban are mining K2. (Mining in the peaceful sense)
      With their experience, they hope to blow the whole mountain down, just like those Buddhist statues, and then hold the world to Coal ransom, once the oil runs out.
      Huh. Have your chador ready.

      .

      --
      - Aaron A. -
      Bringing Pinoqachole to the natives since 1643.
    5. Re:What I find more interesting by HJED · · Score: 1

      prehaps it was deposited there befor Mt. Everest was a mountain.
      no realy

      --
      null
    6. Re:What I find more interesting by rts008 · · Score: 1

      Also prevalent between Joplin and Springfield, MO. Especially on the Springfield end of that stretch.

      I never thought to check out fossils though. Usually I was just passing through.

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    7. Re:What I find more interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scratch through the limestone and you find fossilized sea shells etc. Go deeper and you find fossilized twigs and leaves.

      Just let me know when you get to the turtles.

    8. Re:What I find more interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A physicist friend of mine once summarized a complicated description of a typical river delta this way: "sea goes out, sea goes in, wash, rinse, repeat as necessary". It's not a bad summary.

      These successions tend to be cyclic and often involve marine or lake sediments alternating with land-deposited sediments. When the river dumps sediment in the areas, the land surface builds up higher. When the river channel switches somewhere else and dumps at another location (remember: no Army Corps of Engineers to keep the channel levees fixed back in the Carboniferous Period), the previous dumping area subsides, becomes swampy (this is where the coal forms), and then eventually sinks below sea level (where the shelly critters live, and if they are abundant enough, they make limestone). Think Mississippi Delta and New Orleans -- without human intervention -- and you won't be far off from the type of environment once represented in that area of Illinois. It was close to sea level and intermittently inundated or turned into dry (okay, swampy) land as either the river or the sea won out.

      From time to time, trees growing on the top are pretty likely to get buried by the river sediments in such conditions. The cool part is actually seeing it preserved and then exposed by the mining operation over such a large geographic area.

    9. Re:What I find more interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, Noel Odell found fossils in the limestone of Everest on June 8, 1924, just before Mallory & Irvine disappeared on their summit bid. As Odell later wrote in his journal:

      "At 12.50, just after I had emerged from a state of jubilation at finding the first definite fossils on Everest, there was a sudden clearing of the atmosphere, and the entire summit ridge and final peak of Everest were unveiled. My eyes became fixed on one tiny black spot silhouetted on a small snow-crest beneath a rock-step in the ridge; the black spot moved. Another black spot became apparent and moved up the snow to join the other on the crest. The first then approached the great rock-step and shortly emerged at the top; the second did likewise. Then the whole fascinating vision vanished, enveloped in cloud once more." (from http://mountainworld.typepad.com/mountainworld/2007/08/noel-odells-fin.html)

      Amazing!

      -Jake Norton
      MountainWorld Productions
      www.mountainworldproductions.com

  5. Ten Thousand Square Meters by sexconker · · Score: 3, Funny

    A hectare is fine, too.

  6. why looking at the ceiling? by nietsch · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What I don't understand from the article (yes I RTFA) is why this fossil forrest needs to be viewed from below? Was all the commercially interesting coal beneath the tree fossils, or is there a scientific reason to approach it bottom up?

    --
    This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
    1. Re:why looking at the ceiling? by omris · · Score: 5, Informative

      The coal was produced primarily by rotting leaves and soil, which yes, would have been under the trees.

      So you have a layer of petrified leaves and trees and a layer of coal beneath it. They take out the coal and you get a really big long cave, where you can look up at the bottom of the fossil bed.

      Cool stuff. Now I'm waiting patiently for someone to mention the global warming comment.

    2. Re:why looking at the ceiling? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      global warming comment

    3. Re:why looking at the ceiling? by kesuki · · Score: 4, Interesting

      well, finding that in a very short period of time, of natural global warming, that rainforests are replaced with giant ferns is a little disheartening. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

      this is a wonderful find, oh and BTW the area where the coal was mined was actually a peat bog, that turned into a forest in the carboniferous period, then turned into sea several times and then back into a forest, and was also a ferny weedy place. most likely earthquakes from changes in plate tectonics played a huge role in how the land mass changed, from being above land, below land, and the erosion of nearby mountains provided the silt to cover the land when it was above ground.

      so no the coal was not the result of the forest, although it may have added slightly to the coal, when it was submersed, most coal is formed from wetlands where vastly more biomass concentrates and is preserved from decaying due to water covering it thus preventing microbes from getting the oxygen to decay the plant matter. if you want coal you look for places where the water was stagnant like prehistoric wetlands, or former continental shelf areas.

    4. Re:why looking at the ceiling? by kesuki · · Score: 1

      "from being above land, below land, "
      from being above sea level and below sea level

      is what i meant, whoops. i reread it and still didn't catch it ugh.

    5. Re:why looking at the ceiling? by againjj · · Score: 1

      Looks like omris did just at the time you submitted.

    6. Re:why looking at the ceiling? by ignavus · · Score: 1

      Cool stuff. Now I'm waiting patiently for someone to mention the global warming comment.

      Um, you just did.

      --
      I am anarch of all I survey.
    7. Re:why looking at the ceiling? by Paltin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Think about a peat bog forming--- thick layer of plant material that will later be turned to coal.

      As the oceans begin to transgress (the 50-cent geologist term for sea level rise), the existing forest is quickly buried and you end up with a snapshot of the forest remaining. After removing all the coal, you end up with a cave where you look up to the interesting part. Well, interesting for me, since I'm a paleontologist. :)

      Interestingly, this work is only done because the coal mining company is really, really, nice. They don't have any real incentive to let paleontologists in after they're done with operations. Kudos to them!

    8. Re:why looking at the ceiling? by Paltin · · Score: 1

      At the time all this carbon was being stored, the earth gradually changed from a long-term period of warm temperatures (hot-house) to colder temperatures (ice-house).
       
      http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm
       
      Currently, we're in an ice-house period (this is a much longer term cycle then the glacial ones we are familiar with).

      Makes you wonder what will happen when all that sequestered carbon is released...

    9. Re:why looking at the ceiling? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fun part is when the fossilized stumps fall out of the ceiling.

    10. Re:why looking at the ceiling? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mr. Gore, why didn't you tell us!

      Of course, as we all know, only people cause global warming. Therefore, this is conclusive proof that humans were here before dinosaurs!

      Anonymous Coward (a different one)

  7. Nice Catch by loteck · · Score: 1

    "It is quite extraordinary to find a fossil landscape preserved over such a vast area; and we are talking about an area the size of [the British city of] Bristol."

    Without the edit, I may have thought it was a reference to someone else...

  8. Great! by kestasjk · · Score: 5, Funny

    Let's burn it!

    --
    // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    1. Re:Great! by weirdcrashingnoises · · Score: 2, Funny

      but do fossilized witches float?

      --
      sigs... don't talk to me about sigs....
    2. Re:Great! by GayBliss · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This one has been burning since 1962 and could continue to burn for another 1000 years.

    3. Re:Great! by RoboRay · · Score: 1

      Who are you who are so wise in the ways of science?

    4. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if she's made of...fossilized...wood...

  9. Re:Here we go... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Babylonians didn't exist?

  10. Some better images by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 5, Informative

    Some images better than the crappy one with TFA. Or just go to the source: http://www.isgs.uiuc.edu/research/coal/fossil-forest/

    1. Re:Some better images by couchslug · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "The funny thing about atheists is that most of them will never understand the irony of their faith."

      Atheism is merely the absence of theism.

      Anything else a person may attribute to their non-theism or use to explain it is their problem/baggage, but it isn't atheism. Atheism is a "faith" like not collecting stamps is a hobby.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    2. Re:Some better images by bendodge · · Score: 0, Troll

      Atheism is believe in one's self.

      --
      The government can't save you.
    3. Re:Some better images by zippthorne · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Atheism is a "faith" like not collecting stamps is a hobby.

      Gaah, I'm really quite sick of this mantra. For one thing.. it's a mantra. That does not make sense.

      For another, if you put as much effort into not collecting stamps as most of the atheists on slashdot put into not believing in god, people would be suggesting support groups for your aphilatelism problem.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    4. Re:Some better images by couchslug · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Gaah, I'm really quite sick of this mantra."

      Then be sick of it, but it is still accurate. One may be theism-free quite easily. One may also defend their right to not be imposed upon by the agendas of the superstitious, and as superstitions are vigorous they sometimes require vigorous opposition.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    5. Re:Some better images by c6gunner · · Score: 4, Funny

      Fine, how about a new mantra? If atheism and religion were sex ....

      Atheism would be like masturbation - you know you're there by yourself, but hell, you're having a good time!

      Religion would be like masturbating with a happy face drawn on your hand - it's still only you, but you like pretending that you're not alone.

    6. Re:Some better images by zunicron · · Score: 1

      You must have masturbation on your mind. Go for it.

    7. Re:Some better images by wellingj · · Score: 1

      So when do you get a partner is what I'm wondering? Or does that stretch the analogy to thin?

    8. Re:Some better images by wellingj · · Score: 1

      True. But if you are talking about beliefs in the general sense, there are very few rational (by my terms, others may have their own...) philosophies or religions that don't have belief in an identifiable 'self' as such.

      Maybe you were looking for the term faith?

    9. Re:Some better images by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      That happens when you replace religion with an oppressive pseudo-religious personality cult, like in North Korea. Then you end up with everyone trying to stop the government from raping them, by screwing everyone else.

      ... yeah, you're right, maybe that's stretching the analogy a bit thin :)

    10. Re:Some better images by bendodge · · Score: 1

      Yes, that would be more accurate.

      --
      The government can't save you.
    11. Re:Some better images by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      It's interesting that trees that dominated at the time have all but disappeared and left only a handful of diminutive living relatives such as horsetails ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsetail ), which are related to calamites; and Quillwort ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quillwort ), which are related to Lycopsids. We're lucky to have a handful of relatives around after 300 mil years (if human activity doesn't finally finish them off).
           

    12. Re:Some better images by Digital+End · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He's saying it's inaccurate. I think something like "Athiesm is to faith as bald is to hair color" or "Athiesm is to faith as naked is to fashion" would be better

      --
      Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master.
    13. Re:Some better images by quantaman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Atheism is a "faith" like not collecting stamps is a hobby.

      Gaah, I'm really quite sick of this mantra. For one thing.. it's a mantra. That does not make sense.

      Actually it does. Faith is believe in something for which there is insufficient evidence, not believing in something for which there is insufficient evidence does not require faith.

      For another, if you put as much effort into not collecting stamps as most of the atheists on slashdot put into not believing in god, people would be suggesting support groups for your aphilatelism problem.

      I tried to believe in God when I was younger, I really did, but the evidence was so overwhelming that I finally accepted that there was no god.

      Not believing in God is very easy for me. Theism, when I tried it, was extremely difficult for all the contradictions I had to ignore.

      However, one place I do expend some effort is going out like this and explaining my views to theists. The reason I expend this effort is I've seen the damage that religion does and I'm quite honestly trying to make the world a better place.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    14. Re:Some better images by Al+Dimond · · Score: 1

      No partner. This is Slashdot, remember?

    15. Re:Some better images by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Perhaps. But when was the last time you heard someone describe themselves as an aphilatelist? anumismatist? What about "area man" who "doesn't watch television?"

      You may have managed to avoid it, but the fact is that many who think they do not, have a religion, and it is none. They are evangelical, they have dogma, they demonize those who are not of the faith. They even have priests with vestments: A white lab coat.

      Not doing something can be just as intense as doing it, only with 61.8% more smug.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    16. Re:Some better images by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Perhaps. But when was the last time you heard someone describe themselves as an aphilatelist? anumismatist? What about "area man" who "doesn't watch television?"

      Theism has always been the default state for our human societies. Therefore a special label is useful to differentiate people. That doesn't make it a faith, it just makes it slightly unusual. I don't go around thinking "I'm an atheist!", but if someone questions me about religion it's a useful label.

      You may have managed to avoid it, but the fact is that many who think they do not, have a religion, and it is none. They are evangelical, they have dogma, they demonize those who are not of the faith. They even have priests with vestments: A white lab coat.

      Militant atheists are certainly more more vocal about arguing with religion, and some do go so far as making somewhat exaggerated generalization about theists (though not nearly as much as some claim). But your claims of "dogma" and "priests" simply aren't applicable to the vast majority of atheists.

      I, nor any other atheist I can think of, would claim that someone Charles Darwin or Richard Dawkins is some flawless fountain of truth. We just admire them a lot since they make some very good arguments and have good rational minds.

      There really is a fundamental difference between atheists and theists in that regard. Theists believe that some people had/have a direct line to god, and as a result everyone who doesn't have this line is fundamentally further from the truth.

      Atheists believe no one has the absolute truth and we simply keep learning. I admire the heck out of Darwin, but the fact is that I probably know a lot more about evolution than he did. I'm not particularly smart or educated in evolution, I just have the benefit of knowing a little bit of the 100+ years of research that followed.

      I don't actually care that much about Darwin but he's talked about a lot because theists seem to think in terms of these great saints with a line to god. Since they have all their christian saints they start looking for the corresponding atheist saints and go after Darwin.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    17. Re:Some better images by Urkki · · Score: 1

      For another, if you put as much effort into not collecting stamps as most of the atheists on slashdot put into not believing in god, people would be suggesting support groups for your aphilatelism problem.

      Well, imagine if there were people who were trying to actively convert you to a stamp collector or at least force you to life your life so it won't offend the stamp collectors... Would you put any effort into not collecting stamps then, or would you just submit to the tyranny of stamp collectors?

    18. Re:Some better images by jimdread · · Score: 1

      Well, imagine if there were people who were trying to actively convert you to a stamp collector

      There are such people. I regularly see advertisements encouraging people to collect stamps. The Post Office publishes some of the advertisements.

      or at least force you to life your life so it won't offend the stamp collectors... Would you put any effort into not collecting stamps then, or would you just submit to the tyranny of stamp collectors?

      I'd get on with doing whatever I want to do, and just ignore the stamp collectors. Who cares what they think? And if they say I really really really have to collect stamps because it's so great, I'd still ignore them if I'm not interested in stamp collecting. And I'd continue doing whatever I wanted to do. Suppose it was gardening. If somebody asked me what hobbies I enjoyed, I'd say "gardening". I might even say that I was a gardener. I wouldn't go around telling everybody that I am an "anti-stamp-collector" and getting into never-ending stupid arguments with stamp collectors. I'd just ignore them, because I don't care about stamp collecting. I like gardening. I'm a gardener.

      And I'd never talk about stamp collecting again. On the internet, I wouldn't go to a big Stamp Collecting Forum and argue with stamp collectors about how their hobby is so lame and dumb. I wouldn't go to an Anti-Stamp-Collecting Forum and rabbit on about how bad stamp collectors are. I'd go to a big Gardening Forum and talk about gardening, which I like.

    19. Re:Some better images by Urkki · · Score: 1

      I'd get on with doing whatever I want to do, and just ignore the stamp collectors. Who cares what they think? And if they say I really really really have to collect stamps because it's so great, I'd still ignore them if I'm not interested in stamp collecting. And I'd continue doing whatever I wanted to do. Suppose it was gardening. If somebody asked me what hobbies I enjoyed, I'd say "gardening". I might even say that I was a gardener. I wouldn't go around telling everybody that I am an "anti-stamp-collector" and getting into never-ending stupid arguments with stamp collectors. I'd just ignore them, because I don't care about stamp collecting. I like gardening. I'm a gardener.

      And I'd never talk about stamp collecting again. On the internet, I wouldn't go to a big Stamp Collecting Forum and argue with stamp collectors about how their hobby is so lame and dumb. I wouldn't go to an Anti-Stamp-Collecting Forum and rabbit on about how bad stamp collectors are. I'd go to a big Gardening Forum and talk about gardening, which I like.

      Gardening!? Aargh, blasphemer! Sometimes stamps get thrown in to composts and this is a deadly sin! Some liberal stamp collectors would allow you garden in privacy, like if you had high enough fence around your garden, but they're on the slippery slope. All gardening must be forbidden and gardeners thrown into jail (and see how lenient we are, in the olden days of the great inquisition you would have been burned at stake after torture!), before they corrupt our youth.
      </hyperbole>

      I grant you that there are atheists for whom atheism is an ideology, a belief. It's still not religion any more than, say, a nationalism is, but they can still be vocal about it. And just like nationalists easily go against foreign influence, these atheists go against religious influence.

      I personally think that religion is important to humanity, a direct result of our tendecy for spirituality. The problems start only when religions state that everybody else needs to follow and obey their spiritual beliefs. Extreme cases are going to war by saying "it's a mission from God" or something to the effect. This seems to be the case (unless said christian leaders are just lying) with current war in Iraq, for example. There are people *dying* in there, both Iraqis and other nationalities.

      So you'd just keep "gardening" and not care about those deaths? *That* kind of religion is something I think everybody, atheists and believers alike, should be opposing.

    20. Re:Some better images by Permutation+Citizen · · Score: 1

      If people collecting stamps were as painfull as theists, I would also proudly claim to be aphilatelist.

    21. Re:Some better images by jimdread · · Score: 1

      Suppose a stamp collector comes up to me and says "Hey, how about that stamp collecting?" I can smile and say "Sorry, I don't want to talk about stamp collecting. Would you like to talk about gardening?" So that problem is pretty much solved.

      I don't see why doing some gardening would have to exclude caring about the war in Iraq. It seems possible to do both.

      As for some hypothetical leader lying when they say that God told them to have a war, why should that be a surprise? They've been telling lies about so much other stuff, why wouldn't they lie about that too? Why should we specifically oppose a war because a politician said that "it's a mission from God"? Shouldn't we support or oppose a war based on many other factors, rather than what one person might have said about it?

      Yes people are dying in Iraq. What are you saying I should do? Go join the Army and go to Iraq? How would having more soldiers there stop the war? How would more guns stop people from dying? How about if everybody involved in the war stops fighting and starts gardening instead? That would end the war and stop the killing.

    22. Re:Some better images by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks, now I know where they are at... about 1.5 hours from where I live now (Lafayette; GO PURDUE!)

      funny how the article mentions Bristol but never mentions where the heck the mines are in Illinois! Oh well, who would expect someone from the UK to know where Danville is anyway (they aren't missing much!)

      Riola and Vermilion
      Grove underground coal mines,
      just southwest of Danville.

    23. Re:Some better images by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 1

      >> For one thing.. it's a mantra. That does not make sense.

      Perhaps, but if you don't stop collecting stamps, and start collecting coins, you're going to burn in the tormenting fires of hell for all eternity.

    24. Re:Some better images by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most atheists Non-Stamp-Collectors I know would rather be doing other stuff and completely ignoring the Stamp Collectors. Problem is, the Stamp Collectors are utter freakin fanatics who demand that every public policy decision involve their pet hobby.

      The establishment clause of the constitution (realizing this is a USian phrase) precludes this. And the damn 'stamp collectors' keep trying to recapture the area beyond this exclusionary threshold. Don't kid yourself about non-SC's zeal being hobby-like --THAT attempt to strip our rights is why people that challenge the metaphysical and temporal value of the hobby do so stridently. We don't want you running our lives.

    25. Re:Some better images by steelfood · · Score: 1

      Miracles are masturbating after having sat on your hand long enough - it feels like an external force is acting on you.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    26. Re:Some better images by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1
      Atheism precludes the possibility of a god by its definition. This is belief in the absence of evidence, which is the same flaw that all religions suffer from.

      Agnosticism says it's not possible to know whether a god or gods exist; I find that to be an attitude much more in keeping with scientific principles than dogmatic belief that there is not now, nor could there ever have been a god.

    27. Re:Some better images by wall0159 · · Score: 1

      It makes perfect sense - I think you're mistaken.

      "if you put as much effort into not collecting stamps as most of the atheists on slashdot put into not believing in god"
      Strawman. I don't put effort into not believing in god, but I am atheist and religion just isn't important to me (my wife is Catholic, and we get along fine). The only time religion bothers me is when religious nutters (usually fundamentalists) say and/or do stupid, selfish, hypocritical and/or violent things.
      I hope this has cleared things up for you, and that you won't go sprouting these ridiculous statements again.

    28. Re:Some better images by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right it's not a perfect analogy. But I'll put it this way: The only time I feel particularly inclined to point out that I don't collect stamps is when people bring up, at length, how wonderful the stamp collecting hobby is, how I must be morally deficient if I don't agree with how wonderful it is, or if I don't agree that politics should be deeply involved with stamp collecting.

      I do respect people's right to collect stamps if they want, of course, and will strongly protect their freedom to do so, but the rest of the time I really don't think much about stamps.

    29. Re:Some better images by Urkki · · Score: 1

      Fundamentalis stamp collectors wanting to kill gardeners aside, there are plenty of christians who want to do more than ask if they can tell their version of the ultimate truth to you. Especially annoying is that they'd very much want force feed their version of the ultimate truth to my kids weekly, if they just would get the chance.

      You probably think this is ok. I don't know if you're with the crowd who thinks that for example plate tectonics is part geology religion, but I'm sure you know there are such christians even if you're not one of them. They'd like every geology class to teach that "alternatively the mountains were magicked into existence by the God Almighty (no, not that god, that god doesn't exist, we mean our God, the real God).

      Now everybody is entitled to believe what they want, but once they start trying to brainwash my kids, they become something that needs to be opposed.

  11. no, no by commodoresloat · · Score: 3, Funny

    The GP post asked about "libraries of congre," clearly a misspelling of "libraries of conger" as in [[daggertooth pike conger]], a species of fish. So we're really talking upwards of 7,000 libraries of conger rather than 47 libraries of congress.

    1. Re:no, no by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      {{Wikiformatting_doesn't_work_here}}

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
  12. I've seen this before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    My dad and grandfather used to work in the coal mines in the southwest Virginia and eastern Kentucky area. They used to find bits of fossilized plants all the time.

    Though I doubt they found anything as largescale as what is presented in the article, my grandfather did bring out of a mine a fossil tree trunk/root system that he placed in his front yard. I very distinctly remember playing on it as a child, it was quite large.

  13. My apartment is approximately 675 nano-Britols by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    My apartment is approximately 675 nano-Britols.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  14. Football Fields by hax0r_this · · Score: 1

    Who cares about Bristol, how many Football Fields is it?

    1. Re:Football Fields by shawb · · Score: 2, Funny

      American or European football?

      --
      I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
  15. Anything else? by actionbastard · · Score: 1

    The BBC article, as well as the OP, are quite devoid of additional linkage. Anybody have anymore on this? Don't be a smartass and point to Google or you'll be the first one tossed into the LHC singularity.

    --
    Sig this!
    1. Re:Anything else? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
    2. Re:Anything else? by Paltin · · Score: 2, Informative

      http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/35/5/415 There's the link to the abstract from their work last year.

  16. Stacked forests? by Daimanta · · Score: 1

    I see a solution for global warming...

    --
    Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
  17. Re:300 million years ago??????? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    God, how I love the lunatics who believe all those urban legends. Where would we be without them? Oh, yes. We'd be in a modern society where science is taught and skeptical thinking encouraged.

  18. I read that wrong at first... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought it said Fossil Ferrets

  19. Re:300 million years ago??????? by CaptainCarrot · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You realize, don't you, that you're suggesting that coal seams have been laid down within the past 100 years? Thinking about it rationally would suggest to you that these items were dropped in the coal mine by miners, not laid down along with the coal. Or how do you propose they got there, to be found many meters below ground?

    --
    And the brethren went away edified.
  20. Re:300 million years ago??????? by Vectronic · · Score: 1

    I was going to ask for a citation, but a simple Google for "items found in coal" resulted with Impossible Stuff Found In Coal And Rock

    Going from there you'l find more, but its odd that they are (from what ive found) all from the late 1800's/early 1900's... which my scepticism seems to over-ride as just wives-tales sort of stuff... a sort of joke that got taken seriously... or just to make the papers...

    Not to say that I necessarily believe that its 300 million years old either, because coal can be made in a 10 thousand years as well, and probably even sooner given the right conditions...

  21. Noah's Flood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More evidence for Noah's worldwide flood.

  22. Re:no, no, no by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 1

    >clearly a misspelling of "libraries of conger" as in [[daggertooth pike conger]]

    You've used the wrong collective noun for such an aggregation of conger. According to this it should be a swarm of [conger] eels. They just don't seem very bookish to me. :-) They are tasty, however.

    --
    Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
  23. Why in a UK News Site by N8F8 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is this not a big enough story for US news companies to cover?

    --
    "God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
    1. Re:Why in a UK News Site by Ritchie70 · · Score: 1

      I think they covered it a year or two ago, actually; it seems familiar.

      --
      The preferred solution is to not have a problem.
    2. Re:Why in a UK News Site by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Is this not a big enough story for US news companies to cover?

      This study is being done by the University of Bristol, and was first reported at "the British Association Science Festival in Liverpool".

      Word will get around shortly, but it's not at all surprising that the UK press gets the first shot at the story.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  24. Constantly amazed by Earth by M0b1u5 · · Score: 1

    I never cease to be amazed by the Earth's ability to record it's own history in the most remarkable detail.

    --
    How many escape pods are there? "NONE,SIR!" You counted them? "TWICE, SIR!"
    1. Re:Constantly amazed by Earth by bendodge · · Score: 1

      That's why I'm very interested to see how different these fossils are from modern plants. I'm betting about zilch.

      --
      The government can't save you.
    2. Re:Constantly amazed by Earth by mcsporran · · Score: 1

      Which is probably the amount of money you would be prepared to "bet".
      If you were actually interested, you could probably do the research and make a good guess about which species, both extinct and extant, you would find.
      I'm up for that bet, if you actually want to bet.

      --
      This is NOT a signature.
    3. Re:Constantly amazed by Earth by Paltin · · Score: 1

      The actual plants being found are already scientifically known in great detail, but usually only in fragmentary form (think a leaf or two, maybe a cone in there).
       
      The interesting part of this study is that the forest can be examined as a whole -- ecology level, instead of single plant level.
       
      And yeah, most of the major lineages from the fossil forest are extinct- but hey, how different is one plant from another anyways? :)

  25. Cataclysm, people cataclysm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Forests still standing while getting fossilized? Wood not rotting? Something must have covered them in a very short time.

    1. Re:Cataclysm, people cataclysm. by Ziest · · Score: 1

      ummmm mud? Pyroclastic flow ?

      --
      Another day closer to redwood heaven
    2. Re:Cataclysm, people cataclysm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > ummmm mud

      Quite a stutter you have there.

  26. Re:300 million years ago??????? by wombert · · Score: 1

    its odd that they are (from what ive found) all from the late 1800's/early 1900's...

    Might it have something to do with the decline in home coal use and/or far more automation of coal transport in the mines? Meaning fewer people who see an odd piece & have opportunity to break it open?

    Just wondering if that could be part of the explanation...

    --
    Did I say overlords? I meant protectors.
  27. Re:300 million years ago??????? by geekoid · · Score: 1

    In this case, the coal has to be older then the trees. Thay's where they get the date.

    I can show you links of people claiming to see big foot, ghosts, and angels. That don't make it so.

    I mean look at that tripod post.

    An unverified find by a 10 year old boy from an unidentified location containing an unidentified bell with unquantified composition claimed to be encased in a material that was believed to be coal.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  28. Re:300 million years ago??????? by geekoid · · Score: 1

    Since all these 'finds' are unverified I wouldn't look to hard.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  29. Burning limestone? Maybe we will. by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1

    And not just for cement materials. You might be able to burn it for the carbon compounds.

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
  30. Shut down the coal mine! by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    As we all know protecting fossils is more important then energy.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  31. Re:300 million years ago??????? by florescent_beige · · Score: 1

    It's laughable where they come up with these astronomical numbers. Items that have been found in coal seams include bells, shoe soles, toys, spoons, spark plugs just to name a few. Yes they appeared to be "fossilized" in the coal but if we are to believe these guys, that spark plug that was found has been there for 300 million years. Unbelievable.

    You're having us on, aren't you? Oh you mischievous rapscallion you! Well played sir, indeed!

    --
    Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
  32. Atheism requires faith by mosb1000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The absence of theism is not an absence of faith. For that you want agnosticism. Atheists require faith to believe that there is no God, and nothing else outside their perceived world. In reality, this viewpoint requires more faith than any religion, because all religions offer "proof" that they are true. Not so for atheism.

    1. Re:Atheism requires faith by c6gunner · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Atheists require faith to believe that there is no God, and nothing else outside their perceived world. In reality, this viewpoint requires more faith than any religion, because all religions offer "proof" that they are true.

      Nonsense - you simply need analytical ability and a basic grasp of logic.

      Using your "logic", you would likewise require proof in order to believe that there is no Santa Claus. In fact, NOT believing in Santa Claus would actually require more faith than believing in Him, since the TV shows Him to us all the time, and we even see Him at the mall during the Christmas season.

      The absence of theism is not an absence of faith. For that you want agnosticism.

      Also wrong. Agnosticism is the way you approach a problem, not an answer to a problem. If you're agnostic about a question, that means that you accept that it can never be 100% proven or disproved. It doesn't answer the question of whether you think there is a god, though. It just means that your willing to consider both possibilities, and weigh them in a fair manner.

      Technically speaking, I'm agnostic about the existence of Santa Claus. I can never prove for certain that he DOESN'T exist. But that doesn't mean that the chances of him existing or not existing are 50/50. I can use logic, observation, and deductive reasoning to come to the most likely conclusion, and I can even assign it a rough probability.

      In the end, everything does come down to belief, since no question can be answered with 100% certainty. But there is a WORLD of difference between belief based on scientific observations and critical thinking, and a belief based on blind faith.

    2. Re:Atheism requires faith by Sabz5150 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Firstly, I'd love to see some of this "proof". Secondly, there is no faith required in the idea that something does not exist. That's like saying I need faith to say that there isn't an invisible pterodactyl sitting on the back of my chair. Religion requires faith in something you cannot readily prove the existence thereof (like my pet pterodactyl), whereas I don't need any faith to say "Nope, there's no pterodactyl there."

      --
      "Who modded this informative? Whoever it is must've been smokin' some of that martian pot!"
    3. Re:Atheism requires faith by Vellmont · · Score: 1


      The absence of theism is not an absence of faith. For that you want agnosticism.

      That's really a semantic argument, and nothing more. Not everyone defines atheism so narrowly. But if you want to argue, go argue with a dictionary.

      In reality, this viewpoint requires more faith than any religion, because all religions offer "proof" that they are true. Not so for atheism.

      Huh? I don't believe in invisible unicorns on neptune either, simply for lack of evidence. Does that mean I have "faith" that the invisible unicorns don't exist? I think you're confusing faith and non-belief.

      --
      AccountKiller
    4. Re:Atheism requires faith by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      No one ever believes with complete certainty that something is true. Everyone has doubts. If you want to say that makes everyone agnostic, go ahead. It doesn't mean anything if it applies to everyone.

    5. Re:Atheism requires faith by burnin1965 · · Score: 1

      Atheists require faith to believe that there is no God, and nothing else outside their perceived world. In reality, this viewpoint requires more faith than any religion, because all religions offer "proof" that they are true.

      Care to share that proof? Atheists do not have faith in the belief there is no god, they are skeptics and to date not one individual or organized group of faithful followers of any god have provided a single shred of proof which is compelling evidence of the existence of a god.

      Oh, and a couple of important points for the faithful to keep in mind...

      Unless you subscribe to every theological rendition that has ever come to be or currently exists, guess what, you are an atheist yourself. Do you believe in Zeus, Apollo, all of the many Hindu gods, etc. ad infinitum? If you deny the existence of these gods then you to are an atheist. :P

      And a heads up, not believing in some magical being does not automatically mean believing in only what you perceive. For the most part atheists have no problem with science and things that cannot be perceived but can be tested. Example, you cannot perceive an electron, but you sure can test the properties of electrons and other atomic particles once you've developed the technology necessary to measure those properties. Can't say the same for some magical being dreamed up in your head. Then again there are studies of electromagnetic fields and how they can be used to induce a religious experience.

    6. Re:Atheism requires faith by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      It's analogy time:

      An atheist would say: I don't believe there's life on mars.

      A theist would say: I do believe there's life on mars.

      An agnostic would say: I don't believe one way or the other.

      This is not a semantic argument, nor are these narrow definitions.

    7. Re:Atheism requires faith by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      No one ever believes with complete certainty that something is true.

      Apparently you've never talked to any religious fanatics. Or conspiracy theorists. Or communists :)

      If you want to say that makes everyone agnostic, go ahead. It doesn't mean anything if it applies to everyone.

      It makes rational people agnostic, but you're right, it doesn't really mean anything. It certainly doesn't define a system of belief, or even an opinion on a particular topic. When people identify themselves as being "agnostic", they're not really telling you anything about their belief in god, they're just saying "I'd rather not answer that question".

    8. Re:Atheism requires faith by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      Why fight about the definitions of words? I obviously define atheist to mean someone who believes there is no god. My post doesn't make a whole lot of sense otherwise, does it?

    9. Re:Atheism requires faith by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      Oh, I've met people who say they believe these things with certainty. But in my experience, the more radically someone defends their belief, the more doubts they have about it themselves.

    10. Re:Atheism requires faith by Copid · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The absence of theism is not an absence of faith. For that you want agnosticism. Atheists require faith to believe that there is no God, and nothing else outside their perceived world. In reality, this viewpoint requires more faith than any religion, because all religions offer "proof" that they are true. Not so for atheism.

      Person A: "I believe that 499,999 of the 500,000 religions out there are false. I reject their evidence. I accept one of the 500,000 religions, mainly because {I accept their evidence, I had a religious experience, My parents raised me that way, It makes me feel good, etc.}."

      Person B: "I agree with person A about the first 499,999 religions. I also think that because the evidence for the 500,000th one looks a whole lot like the other 499,999 {It makes claims that are hard to reconcile with observed fact, Provides no real hard evidence to distinguish it from other ridiculous sounding stories, etc.}, I don't believe in that one either."

      Person B is, by your definition, exercising more faith than person A? As I see it, all of those religions offer insufficient "proof" that they are true in the face of the incredibility of their claims, so I reject them.

      If I claim that God exists and created us three days ago with memories intact, and the evidence that I offer is what appears to be the face of Barry Bonds on a piece of toast, does it take more faith to reject that claim or to accept it? Or is the only rational option to reserve judgment?

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    11. Re:Atheism requires faith by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spoken as a true upholder of the faith.

    12. Re:Atheism requires faith by Digital+End · · Score: 1

      Funny thing though, is according to the bible, if you doubt for even a second it's unforgivable... even if you're really sorry and really believe afterward. So yeah, anyone who claims to have honestly thought about it is going to hell anyway.

      My advice; Avoid hell. Throw out your computer and tv, burn your books, move into the woods. Let us sinners enjoy our 80 years like the fools we are... then after the rapture, you'll spend the first billions of billions of years laughing at us all.

      Seriously. Go. Leave.

      --
      Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master.
    13. Re:Atheism requires faith by Digital+End · · Score: 1

      An athiest would say: Our scans of mars show there are no elephants. We feel that the studies we have done, coupled with our understanding of biology, show beyond a doubt there are none there.

      A thiest would say: There are elephants on mars. The reason we have not seen them is they are behind rocks and the studies where done in the wrong places. You can't disprove the exsistance of elephants on mars, so there are elephants on mars.

      An agnostic would say: You can't know for certain one way or the other.

      --
      Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master.
    14. Re:Atheism requires faith by Plutonite · · Score: 1

      The absence of theism is not an absence of faith.

      and

      In reality, this viewpoint requires more faith than any religion, because all religions offer "proof" that they are true. Not so for atheism.

      are two false statements, and the first is largely unimportant. Like any other logical deduction about the world, if there is no reason to think something is true or that it exists, then it is probably false; and so both absence of faith in deities and faith in the absence of deities are both sensible and logical viewpoints. The entirety of science (which uses logic to make statements about the universe around us) is based on this idea. If something doesn't follow from what we [provably] know, and doesn't have evidence in itself, why should we think it exists? Indeed, why should we think it is not nonsense? Atheists are reasonable people who don't believe in deities in the sky, because they have no reason to. It is not easy to be athiest, yes, but only because humans evolved to worship, not because there's any logical jump to conclusions involved.

      As for your second statement, you clearly do not understand. "Faith" in the religous sense is a silly notion that you should state something to be true without any evidence for it, and be rewarded for your blindness in some bizarre game played by the gods. "Faith" in scientific terms is rarely used, but it denotes our understanding that what our modelling of how something works via theory and mathematic representation need not be exact to reality. We live in a world of probabilities, and we slowly build our knowledge. Through experiments and reasoning, we try to make statements that seem to be true, and we therefore "believe" in them, to the extent of the evidence we find.

      Compare that to religious people, who want to believe in what they say, and when pressed will offer "proof" (which you correctly put between quotes) in the form of arguments stemming from ignorance. Questions that they don't even understand. Who did such and such? How did X happen? Why is Y like so? We don't know yet? GREAT, then deity Z did it!

      So please don't even compare the two.

    15. Re:Atheism requires faith by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      Yeah I really hate it when peoples understanding of the meaning of words differs from the definitions I've simply made up myself.

      Interestingly I definie your nick mosb1000 as idiot, fancy that !

    16. Re:Atheism requires faith by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, no. The absence of god(s) is the default case, as is atheism. You did not have a religion when you were born. It was taught to you.

    17. Re:Atheism requires faith by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      My complaint is that by trying to argue for the adoption of a different definition you aren't accomplishing anything. You are basically trying to say that I said something that I didn't mean, then arguing against an argument that I never intended to make. It's pointless.

    18. Re:Atheism requires faith by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      Oh, and I've got all those other religious fanatics beat. I'm so serious about my faith that I won't even lie about it.

    19. Re:Atheism requires faith by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you smoking? Do I also require "faith" to believe that there are no real pokemon, or that Jar Jar Binks isn't real? Or do we all have to label ourselves "jar jar-agnostics" now, because no one can definitively PROVE that Jar Jar doesn't actually exist on some (mercifully) distant planet in a galaxy far far away?

    20. Re:Atheism requires faith by Sabz5150 · · Score: 1

      Spoken as a true upholder of the faith.

      There's an invisible pterodactyl on the back of your chair, too. He says he wants money.

      --
      "Who modded this informative? Whoever it is must've been smokin' some of that martian pot!"
    21. Re:Atheism requires faith by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      define: atheist

      someone who denies the existence of god; A person who does not believe that deities exist; one who lacks belief in gods; etc.

      So, do you believe in Zeus, Apollo, Balrama, Indra, Kali, etc.?

      Or I suppose you are not an atheist because you believe in one god? Well, technically that would be correct, but technically you also have more in common with the atheist than other theists, you just need to stop kidding yourself about that last god and you'll be set.

    22. Re:Atheism requires faith by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      But there is a WORLD of difference between belief based on scientific observations and critical thinking, and a belief based on blind faith.

      I agree. Agnosticism fits this perfectly. Atheism is blind faith in the lack of existence of a god/higher power/etc. Agnosticism allows for the possibility of such a creature, but doesn't commit in the absence of supporting evidence.

    23. Re:Atheism requires faith by wall0159 · · Score: 1

      "Atheists require faith to believe that there is no God,"
      That is simply not true, and it relates back to the quote
      "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
      I'm an atheist and I don't believe in god because there's no evidence of there being a god. Similarly I don't believe in a flying spaghetti monster (cue humourous comments) or santa claus. Of course, I could be wrong: I know I don't know everything.

      For contrast, agnosticism means believing that god vs no-god are approx equally likely.

    24. Re:Atheism requires faith by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      I agree. Agnosticism [merriam-webster.com] fits this perfectly.

      Sorry, but you're wrong. Just read the dictionary definition which you yourself provided:

      a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

      By that definition, any reasonable person would have to be agnostic about the question since there is no definite answer either way. However, saying you're agnostic doesn't answer the question of whether or not you believe that there is a god.

      If I ask you whether you believe that unicorns exist, you could likewise answer that you're agnostic. There is no evidence for their existence, but there is also no way to prove 100% conclusively that they do not exist. However, nobody would ever claim to be agnostic about unicorns - such a statement would be met with derision. You can keep an open mind and be willing to examine new data, but you still need to pick a position based on the data currently available. Otherwise, what you're really saying is that you're too lazy to put any thought into the matter, and would rather change the topic.

      Claiming to be agnostic about god is likewise laughable. Sure, you can say you're agnostic in the sense that you're not sure, but you still need to answer the question of what your opinion is. Therefore you can be an agnostic theist, an agnostic deist, or an agnostic atheist, but you can not be purely agnostic. It's simply not a tenable position.

    25. Re:Atheism requires faith by Dracolytch · · Score: 1

      On the topic of Santa Claus:

      An interesting topic that I've thought about a lot... Because Santa is an interesting phenomenon that people tend to not take seriously, but can lead to some interesting insights (For example: Unlike God, you can talk about Santa at work, and nobody gets offended/defensive, the philosophical discussion usually stays lighthearted).

      In one on-line community, there's been much debate about what is "real". My father (though not Christian) looks like, and loves playing, Santa. Starting about this time of year, we'll be walking around the local mall, and from time to time a small kid will point at my father (Usually with a whispered "Mom! It's him!" to a nearby parent). My dad responds with a knowing wink and a smile.

      And herein lies the problem: Due to all of my math, science, and physics, I am 100% certain that there is no workshop on the north pole. Yet in that wink, that fleeting moment of the shared secret between child and bearded stranger, Santa exists.

      Something else to consider: Reindeer or not, millions of children wake up to gifts from Santa Claus every year. The immiediate response is that the cause is wrong: That the parents/friends/kids bought the presents and put them under the tree. The counter-argument is then: Why did the parents buy the presents? Is the expectation of Santa Claus part of Santa, causing the distribution of christmas gifts in the sleighs now taken the form of UPS, FedEx, and DHL?

      I think if Santa Claus is viewed as more of an experience (Like joy, or heartache), it will qickly become apparent that Santa does not need to be corporeal to be real.

      Can God been seen in the same way? Depends (Very much!) on the religion.

      ~D

      --
      This sig has been enciphered with a one-time pad. It could say almost anything.
  33. Great discovery! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now, how much energy can we get out of these old deadbeat forests!

  34. This one since 1884 by Sanat · · Score: 5, Informative

    This one is a few miles from my house.

    n 1884, coal miners working the Black Diamond mine in New Straitsville, southeastern Ohio, went on strike when the Columbus and Hocking Coal and Iron Company cut their pay from 60 cents a ton to 40 cents. Legend has it that other miners, unhappy with the work stoppage, loaded several coal cars with oil-soaked firewood and rolled them into the mine.

    It's hard to imagine what benefit they anticipated, but I bet they never dreamt of what resulted.

    For the next 122 years and counting, the underground fire, called the Devil's Oven, has burned in the coals seams around the Monday Creek area. At times the fires have been prominent and close to the surface. In fact, in the 1930's tourists came to the area to watch their guides cook meals over smoking holes in the ground.

    During the depression, a WPA crew was dispatched to the area to fight the fire, with indifferent success.

    The Ohio Department of Natural Resources estimates that to date the Devil's Oven has consumed 276 million tons of coal, or 20 square miles of the black gold. Today the fire is burning about 40 feet underground... from blog of Tom Barlow

    --
    And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make
    1. Re:This one since 1884 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The miners were just trying to create some of that geothermal energy.

    2. Re:This one since 1884 by Harold+Halloway · · Score: 1

      Where's the oxygen coming from? I would have thought that the fire would suffocate itself very quickly.

    3. Re:This one since 1884 by JTsyo · · Score: 1

      There's another one in PA that started in 1962.
      http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=479

      On another note:
      "It's a really exciting experience to drive down into these mines; it's pitch black," the Bristol University research said.

      It's funny that they would do research on such simple things as the amount of light available deep underground. Or maybe it was research on the emotions felt when driving into mines. arrg why does the wording have to be so confusing?

    4. Re:This one since 1884 by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 1

      I could be wrong, but my understanding is that O2 is let in in limited quantities naturally due to convection caused by the heat via mineshafts and fissures in the rock.

      This limited O2 is what has caused the thing to smolder for a century rather than erupt in a blazing inferno

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
  35. Hmmm by Schmyz · · Score: 1

    ...How would a dog react in a fossil forest??? Would it be like the old bugs bunny cartoon that ends with the book. "A tree grows in brooklyn?"

  36. More Detail... by actionbastard · · Score: 1

    Thanks to AC, we have some more detail as to what this fossil bed reveals about this ancient forest:

    http://www.isgs.uiuc.edu/research/coal/fossil-forest/fossil-forest.shtml

    Thank you.

    --
    Sig this!
  37. Coal mines are all about the money. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Coal mining used to be the backbone of southern Illinois. My father and his best friend were lifetime miners. My heart would bleed at some of the stories they told.

    Imagine being a young nerdling and hearing stories of intact, fossilized snakes in the ceiling. "Wow! Did you call the university? Who cut it out of the ceiling?"

    No one did. The mines were there for one reason, to produce coal to sell. Priceless finds were blasted every year because the business had no room for science.

  38. Oh, come on now. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  39. Slow, gradual change... out the window by ProteusQ · · Score: 1

    Layers of entire forests do not turn into fossils via slow, gradual change. I'm not trying to ignite any stupid arguments here, but has anyone read of a geological theory that covers such widespread, repeated mudslides or mud bursts?

    1. Re:Slow, gradual change... out the window by Urkki · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There was a long time (like millions of years?) between the forests getting buried. So it could even have been a volcano erupting repeatedly every million years. Or a river where "mother of all floods" would happen with periodic climate shifts (like Milankovitch cycles), causing thousands of years worth of mud deposits to be suddenly released. Huge glacial lakes bursting are one source of huge sudden floods, and they can be triggered both by climate change and by volcanoes.

  40. I'm one of the geologists involved in the discover by slashdotsyncline · · Score: 5, Informative

    Greetings folks,

    I'm Scott Elrick from the Illinois State Geological Survey, one of the researchers involved in the original discovery. Here's a little background:

    * This current story is an extension of a story from a year ago. When the story broke, I popped onto Slashdot to answer questions - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=232903&cid=18936603 (ignore the misspellings in those posts!)

    * As a result of the publicity, I used some of the guts of my postings above to put together this webpage: http://www.isgs.uiuc.edu/research/coal/fossil-forest/fossil-forest.shtml I tried to make a 'general public' kind of site that covers most of the basics and posted all of the pictures we took.

    * From the guts of the webpage, I put together a magazine article for 'Outdoor Illinois' on the discovery. Here's a PDF (direct link) of the article - http://www.isgs.uiuc.edu/research/coal/fossil-forest/Outdoor-IL-art.pdf

    * By the end of the year we made it into the top 100 stories of 2007 in Discover magazine - http://discovermagazine.com/2008/jan/fossils-of-a-300-million-year-old-forest-found

    * There should be an article coming out in Smithsonian magazine about the discovery in a few months time.

    Now to the current news.

    Our colleague Dr. Howard Falcon-Lang of the University of Bristol, UK is heading up a multi year research effort to examine the Desmoinesian - Missourian boundary in the Middle Penn. Howard, Bill DiMichele of the Smithsonian Institute, John Nelson and myself of the ISGS, Isabel Montañez of UC Davis and Neil Tabor of SMU will all be collaborating to work out the paleobotanical, sedimentologic, CO2, and climate history of this large scale climate transition. Really this is more an announcement of further research than of results!

    As flat as Illinois is, we do have a pretty good record of this transitional period Rocks in Illinois? Who knew!

    Cheers!

    p.s. I covered a fair amount of ground in my previous postings last year in terms of answering questions. I'll pop back later this evening and see if any more pop up though.

  41. Re:300 million years ago??????? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone knows that Haekel is a Young Earther...

  42. Re:300 million years ago??????? by CaptainCarrot · · Score: 1

    Sure. I'm just interested in how he's going to weasel it.

    --
    And the brethren went away edified.
  43. Re:I'm one of the geologists involved in the disco by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks!

  44. Breasts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    "Bristol City" is also cockney rhyming slang.

  45. 300 million years ago? by jhylkema · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    The forests grew just a few million years apart some 300 million years ago; and are now stacked one on top of another.

    This can't be - Sarah Palin told me the Earth is only 6,000 years old!

  46. Biogenic theory of coal formation reborn by heroine · · Score: 1

    Seems to support biogenic coal formation. Unfortunately in this age of 25 megapixel pocket cameras, the only record we have of these forests is a 433x253 thumbnail.

  47. Quick! Put Adsense on your site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    before you get /.ed

  48. I'm no expert... by Macman408 · · Score: 1

    ...but since carbon dating is all wrong, obviously this forest existed only 150 million years ago.

    Wait, no, I've just been told that this fossilized forest was created for us to find, around 6,000 years ago. Just like carbon dating.

  49. Old timer navy reference by rts008 · · Score: 1

    ARGHHH! Pirates would care a lot about tackling a ship set up to Bristol Standards (or in Bristol Shape-don't know the correct term...can some Limey Navy buff help me out here?)

    Bristol Standards/Shape meant that the ship was set up correctly, top of the line, all shipshape-ready to kick ass.

    At one time, it meant your ship was 'Ready For Freddy...Bring it on!'

    I think I learned this on Star Trek NG when Picard was explaining it to Riker on a holodeck excursion!

    Correct me if I'm wrong (HaHa! Can't castrate me, I'm already a UNIX!), I would welcome the input.

    P.S. This thread has veered so far from the topic I feel no guilt about muddying the waters further.

    --
    Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    1. Re:Old timer navy reference by Smivs · · Score: 1
    2. Re:Old timer navy reference by rts008 · · Score: 1

      Thanks, that was exactly the usage I was attempting along with a whimsical post.

      Pirates beware!! We are in Bristol Fashion!

      Yes, this sounds right.

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    3. Re:Old timer navy reference by Smivs · · Score: 1

      Of course, today 'Bristol Fashion' is more likely to refer to Alaskan maternity wear!

  50. Re:I'm one of the geologists involved in the disco by greysunrise · · Score: 1

    Exactly how many bristols is it? Will we be seeing Elricks as a sub-measurement of bristols?

  51. Re:I'm one of the geologists involved in the disco by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Exactly how many bristols is it?

    Take care there: in the UK "bristols" is (or was when I was at school) a shortening of the Cockney rhyming slang: "Bristol City" (think female anatomy).

  52. Hey - How About A U.S. Conversion? by aquatone282 · · Score: 1

    What's the U.S. equivalent of a Bristol?

    --
    What?
    1. Re:Hey - How About A U.S. Conversion? by JohnCub · · Score: 1

      Bristol: 42 square miles / 110 square km / 26,880 acres

      --
      -= Why can't I add 'Anonymous Coward' to my list of Foes? =-
    2. Re:Hey - How About A U.S. Conversion? by danzona · · Score: 1

      So the US equivalent in area is Springfield, IL. Source: Wikipedia & demographia.com.

    3. Re:Hey - How About A U.S. Conversion? by aquatone282 · · Score: 1

      Dude, I'm a USian - can't you do the rest for me and give me a U.S. city/town equivalent? Like 1 Bristol = 2 Dubuques, or 1 Bristol = 1 Portland, OR, or something like that?

      --
      What?
  53. blame this on global warming! by peter303 · · Score: 1

    The earth was warm enough during the Carboniferous that there were no ice caps or glaciers. Tropical forest grew like mad close to the polar regions. Atmospheric CO2 could have been a half-percent, or a mganitude higher than now.

  54. I dunno... by Moraelin · · Score: 1

    I dunno... when you get God to actually come down and have a face to face talk with you, _then_ you'll need an analogy with a partner in religion.

    Of course, the guy is playing hard to get. Even Moses couldn't get a talk to him in person. It's the "for the day thou see my face thou shalt die" guy, ya know? So I don't think that both atheists and theists won't need to stretch that analogy any time soon.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
  55. More Recent by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    Theism has always been the default state for our human societies.

    There's little evidence of this before about 10,000 years ago. Confounding the issue somewhat is that there's little evidence of anything man-made from before about 10,000 years ago. And there is some theory that the cognitive evolution that helped us build societies and thus create the capability for leaving evidence also lead to the rise of religions.

    I'm not disagreeing with your main point about practical usefulness, though it is confusing to define people by what they're not, especially when using the label of people who claim moral superiority.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  56. Re:I'm one of the geologists involved in the disco by jafac · · Score: 1

    dude, you rock!

    --

    These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.