HMS Beagle (Possibly) Found 435
With the Beagle 2 lander lost on Mars, good Beagle-related news has been lacking, until now. British paper The Observer is reporting that the original HMS Beagle, the ship Darwin travelled on during his famous voyage, may have been found. Marine archeologists believe they have found the ship, which has been resting at the bottom of some Essex marshes for the last century.
1 down, 1 to go. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:1 down, 1 to go. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:1 down, 1 to go. (Score:4, Funny)
9 out of 10 readers' reactions (Score:5, Funny)
Re:9 out of 10 readers' reactions (Score:3, Funny)
"We lost it?"
Other famous Beagles in the news (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Other famous Beagles in the news (Score:5, Funny)
CSI Gil Grissom suspects foul play as several small, yellow feathers were found at the scene.
You meant fowl play, right?
Re:Other famous Beagles in the news (Score:5, Interesting)
When I die, this is how I want to be memorialized.
134 years to find (Score:5, Funny)
Re:134 years to find (Score:2, Funny)
Everyone had been looking where the light was better until recently.
Re:134 years to find (Score:5, Funny)
I have only one word for people who refuse to accept evolution.
Dinosaur.
Thank you. Good night.
Proof of Evolution (Score:5, Insightful)
IMHO you are deluded.
Evolution is not a theory. Scientists aren't trying to prove that evolution happened. It is accepted to be a real fact.
The THEORIES of evolution surround what the mechanisms of evolution are, was it genetic mutations, natural disasters, etc. HOW did evolution occur, not DID it occur.
It's a stupid point to argue about. If you need a single holy creator, than you need to work him into the scheme of the big things: millions of galaxies and galaxy clusters, a potentially life rich universe, why is there life at all? Don't argue the small points like the evolving body of genetics found on Earth.
Re:Proof of Evolution (Score:3, Informative)
Re:They don't conflict... (Score:2, Interesting)
And besides; that's my kind of humor.
Re:They don't conflict... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:They don't conflict... (Score:3, Interesting)
The behavior you refer to is attributed by biblical scholars to the polytheistic period of Judaism, where Yahweh Sabaoth was the god of war (think the plagues of Egypt and the exodus). This deity evolved into the one and only God, Yahweh, in post-Babylonian monotheism.
You should read Karen Armstrong's excellent book, A History of God [amazon.com], for a complete historical account.
Re:They don't conflict... (Score:3, Funny)
Hmm, that much be the smell of burning karma...
Re:They don't conflict... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:They don't conflict... (Score:3, Insightful)
I understand allegory. The problem is that the vocal religious right does not
Have you listened to what modern Literalist Christians actually say? Take the Book of Job as an example. Most people would consider it to be an allegory designed to convey a theological point. However, there are a significant number of Christians (of the Falwell/Robertson brigade) would would maintain that Job is a literal and accurate transcription of actual historical events.
My p
Re:134 years to find (Score:5, Funny)
GOD: "Ok, so there are these things called atoms.. they're really small and.."
MAN: "Wait ummm Lord. Did you say Adam?"
GOD: "Sigh.. ok, yeah. There was this guy named Adam..."
Re:134 years to find (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.icr.org
The institute for creation research (icr) is a place that has nothing to do with science. They just try to claim they do. I suggest the talk.origons website [talkorigons.org] as a better reference for the creation/evolution debate.
-MDL
Evolution: It's Not Just for Liberals (Score:5, Informative)
What about conservative American patriots who actually believe the theory of evolution? Not all conversative American patriots are troglodytes, you know.
-kgj
Re:Evolution: It's Not Just for Liberals (Score:3, Insightful)
Me, I'm a patriotic liberal anti-war pro-gun atheist evolution-believing veteran. The grandparent poster probably has never even imagined that people like me exist.
Re:134 years to find (Score:3, Funny)
Re:134 years to find (Score:3, Funny)
However... (Score:5, Funny)
So what went wrong? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So what went wrong? (Score:5, Funny)
Hang on. If European engineering can produce something that will survive 150 years in Essex, landing a buggy on Mars should be peanuts in comparison. What went wrong?
Both were British made.
Re:So what went wrong? (Score:2)
Re:So what went wrong? (Score:2)
<oldfart>
You call that a ship? Hah, back in my day we built ships so good you could put it in a swamp for 150 years and it would still hold together. </oldfart>
Re:So what went wrong? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:So what went wrong? (Score:5, Funny)
I wonder... (Score:5, Funny)
Soon, I'm sure examples such as this will crop up all over, as ships start to pass on their abilities to survive under marshes to their offspring.
What the hell was... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What the hell was... (Score:2)
Re:What the hell was... (Score:5, Informative)
That "mystery" has already been solved. Statistically there are less ships and aircrafts gone missing there then in other regions of the Atlantic. For example the Atlantic is a lot more dangerous close to the Spanish coast.
Re:What the hell was... (Score:3, Funny)
No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!
Re:What the hell was... (Score:5, Insightful)
If people were swayed by facts, or were even capable of recognizing them, superstition would have died centuries ago and most politicians would be unsuccessfully trying to sell used cars instead of feeding at the public trough.
Re:What the hell was... (Score:2)
Any of Darmins stuff on board (Score:5, Insightful)
I doubt there will be anything of Darwins on board. It did many things after his travels in it and was eventualy stripped down by someone else. It's like getting a used car with several owners before you. Will you really find anything worth wild from the first owner. Maybe an old green fry in the seat. Who wants that.
Answer the question we're all asking already! (Score:4, Funny)
Evolutionist propaganda (Score:5, Funny)
Any right thinking Christian in this country knows that the whole Beagle voyage was a scam. There was no Beagle, Darwin was a heretic ponce at best, 'evilution' (sick) is self masturbation by atheists.
There can only be one nation under God. And if gays are allowed to marry, we might start a backwards evolution into snails and other amoral beings.
Thank you, amen and God bless America, Christian science and the GOP.
Please, oh please... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Please, oh please... (Score:2)
Re:Please, oh please... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Please, oh please... (Score:3, Funny)
Raiders of the Lost Beagle (Score:2, Funny)
"There's a picture of it here."
"What's that coming out of it?"
"Lightning, Wrath of God type stuff."
"Bush is said to be a nut about this stuff. He's got teams out searching for it."
"The army that carries the Beagle in front of it is invincible"
Found in a hidden compartment... (Score:4, Funny)
"Truly we can see God's works through this evolution. I feel my work can help all men have a better understanding of the ways of the Lord in Heaven and His divine plan." ... " I hope that these notes don't get separated or there might be quite a bit of a silly misunderstanding, what with the monkeys and all."
Name the Next One Titanic (Score:5, Funny)
Ok, so we have a ship that was designed to cross vast stretches sea that's been lost for centuries... so what do they do? Take a probe that is designed to cross vast streches of space and give it the same name!
Good plan. How about naming the probe set to visit the asteroid belt "Titanic"! :)
Blockwars [blockwars.com]: free, multiplayer gaming
Re: (Score:2)
If it's really his ship... (Score:5, Funny)
*
this reminds me of a joke (Score:5, Funny)
q: Why does the French Navy have glass-bottom boats?
a: So they can see the old French Navy
That's great (Score:2, Funny)
One step to getting it floating again (Score:4, Funny)
no wonder it was hard to find (Score:3, Funny)
Darwinism (Score:3, Interesting)
People in our time lose sight of how radical a change Darwinism brought to the philisophical outlook of man. It was one of the great sea changes in modern thought.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism
This is the golden age of shipwrecks (Score:5, Informative)
The two superpowers had their various deep benthic submersibles that they've used for stuff like tapping each other's deep-sea cables and pulling up each other's dead subs and so on. (You might want to Read "Blind Man's Bluff" for an okay popular history of that stuff.) Now that the cold war's over, there are private markets for the technology, and the navy's happy to lend its stuff to Robert Ballard to poke around the Meditteranean, looking for history.
Underwater archaeology's taking off as a result. We've had an amazing run of shipwreck-finding, haven't we? Heck, let alone shipe -- we get Black Sea villages that've been preserved in anaerobic environments since "THE flood." All sorts of sailing vessels. Nazi subs. It's a great time to be looking for ships down there. Go down off of the canaries, and you almost have too many ships to choose from.
(William Broad's "The Universe Below" is a decent run through the military history of this stuff, and concentrates more on the shipwrecks side than, say, Richard Ellis's "Deep Atlantic." Broad also considers the legal and ethical problems -- who does a shipwreck from 1500 belong to? Ellis is more about the biology, which is cool too.)
Shipwreck buff touts Kodiak treasure opportunity (Score:3, Informative)
Audience members heard stories of silver, gold and jewels salvaged in recent years from wrecks dating to the days of the Spanish galleons. Hess recalled his excitement at seeing real treasure chests burstin
Re:I wonder.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh yeah? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Oh yeah? (Score:3, Funny)
Read The F? Article.
Re:Oh yeah? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Oh yeah? (Score:5, Funny)
Sarcasm is when...oh, shit.
Re:I wonder.. (Score:2)
Might I remind you that you are talking about Slashdot...
Re:Too bad... (Score:3, Insightful)
Darwinism has been studied relentlessly by thousands of teams of scientists and skeptics. No one has yet been able to prove it wrong. Quite the contrary, actually; most times evid
Re:Too bad... (Score:2)
" I hope you are joking. Your post is the intellectual summation of 2000 years of fear of the truth. Not saying that Darwin is the end-all-be-all truth, however, it is and always has been the fundemantal Christian's way to hide the eyes and lash out at anything that doesn't support the ultimate in tall tales and outlandish theories.
Darwinism has been studied relentlessly by thousands of teams of scientists and skeptics. No one has yet been able to pro
Re:Too bad... (Score:2, Insightful)
Creationism is also a Theory, nothing more. Nothing has proven it correct (yet) and nothing has proven it wrong either. I say yet for creationism, because unlike Darwinish there's a chance that God may yet speak up and claim his wayward creations.
What I can't get over is why none of the Darwin advocates can accept that there's a chance that the wood cabin in the middle of the woods just happen and insist t
Re:Too bad... (Score:5, Insightful)
You need to learn the difference between a theory, a hypothesis, and a fairy tale. You cannot pull any idea out of your ass and call it a theory -- until you have tested it and produced supporting experimental and/or observational evidence it's (at best) hypothesis.
Re:Too bad... (Score:3, Interesting)
"[it depends on whether you trust the scientists or the priests] and I would rather trust the scientists than the priests. They actually can work miracles, not just point to alleged past ones or promise future ones.
"Are we still living in caves and wearing tin pans for protection? You can have fire by lighting a match, light by flipping a switch. You will never have to worry about dying from pneumonia and the plague, and if you catch those you'll go to a hospital and g
Re:Too bad... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Too bad... (Score:4, Insightful)
On the other hand, there is a lot of testable material in Darwinism: You can go into a lab and demonstrate evolution at work in a petri dish. So portions of Darwinism are provable (within scientific standards... that is you can never prove a theory, just demonstrate that it is the best one for the job at the moment...).
Now there are corollaries that are not provable (primal genertor being one of the more controversial), but there is a solid body of reasoning, and a lot active thinking going about this. The same cannot be said for Creationism.
Re:Too bad... (Score:4, Insightful)
- A valid scientific theory must be falsifiable -- it has to allow for some means for it to be proven false. Darwinism passes this test, Creationism does not. Your complaint that "Creationism has to be proven right" is because creationism does not allow for disproof -- any conflicting evidence is dismissed with the "it's that way because God made it that way" handwave.
- A valid scientific theory must have predictive value. Darwinsim has predictive value, creationism does not.
Because creationism is not scientifically testable, it is not a scientific theory. You could call Creationism a hypothesis if you were feeling generous (and a fairytale if you are not). It's not a theory and never will be because it lacks the defining attributes of a scientific theory.Re:And this means what? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:And this means what? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not looking to start a theological debate here, but just make the statement that it bugs me when some of the more fundamentalist Christians outright oppose evolution in schools because they see it as a blasphemy. Same thing happened when folks were debating the planet being round or that it isn't the center of the galaxy.
I know your comments weren't on this extreme level at all, but it just made me think of others who have taken such stances [google.com].
Re:And this means what? (Score:4, Insightful)
It should be clear to any rational thinker that the most, if not all, of the Bible is intended to be metaphorical rather than literal. EG, the Book of Job is allegorical rather than a record of actual events. The basic problem with the literal interpretation theory is that even if you accept that the Bible is the result of Divine Inspiration, it is still a *human*, and therefore flawed, interpretation of God's word. (IIRC) According to (self-contridictory) [awitness.org] Judeo-Christian tradition [Specifically Exodus 24:12-15], the only physical writing to come directly from God was on the first set of stone tables Moses carried down from the mountian.
Re:And this means what? (Score:2, Interesting)
Few Christians have ever believed that the earth is flat. What they told us all in school about Christopher Columbus sailing around the world to prove it was round is a lie. Just do a little googling.
Second, the issue of heliocentricity was unfortunately blown all out of proportion. A great many educated people in the days of Copernicus and Galileo did believe that the earth was the center of the universe, but not because they were
Re:And this means what? (Score:2)
It's quite clear that the Old Testament is the collection of the writings
Re:And this means what? (Score:2)
Thanks!
-B
Re:And this means what? (Score:5, Insightful)
I am not opposed to teaching evolution in schools, I am in favor of treating it as a theory though.
The problem here is that you don't know what a theory is. A theory is not a hypothesis. The exact definition is fairly complex, but the rough meaning is that, by all emprical methods, a theory is as right as we can get with the data we have.
Newtonian gravity is "just" a theory. It's also been overthrown: The only way to overthrow a theory is to make one that A. mechanically encompasses explains all observations explained by the existing theory, B. by the same* mechanism encompasses, explains, and/or corrects observations not covered by the previous theory, or in conflict with the previous theory. Relativity covered everything the old theory of gravity did, plus it corrected for things like Mercury orbiting too fast and partially explained why Neptune and Uranus are all out of orbital-mechanical whack.
My biggest problem is that it is used as a defense to try and disprove the truth of the Bible and is treated as fact when it has yet to be and probably can not be proven.
I'm not going to get into the proof, but there's enough of it that Henry Morris as encorporated evolution (or what he calls "selective diversification") into his antievolutionary model. He dresses it up nicely, but in the end, he's showing you a Zebu and calling it a Nene, and banking on the fact that most people probably don't know the difference anyway.
Anyway, science has NEVER, and in fact CAN never attempt to use Evolution against any Theological construct, because the bible covers matter that is not proximate in nature. Science can cover the proximate all it wants, because it has access to the proximate within its means of action.
It can draw no conclusions on nonproxmiate or superproximate events or actions, and in fact has very clear boundaries set on just where it has to stop.
It is Christianity that bears full and complete responsibility for saying that Evolution means the end of Christianity, and all that other slippery slope gloom and doom. Christians published The Genesis Flood, God and Evolution, and The Fall of Noah. Not scientists, but Christians. They had help from a few secular philosophers like Sagan and Asimov, but for every secular attack on Christianity, there's a thousand self-inflicted wounds.
If you plan to talk to your kids about evolution, remember not to build a dam around your house in the river. The more parents attempt to protect, misinform, uninform, or isolate their children, the more those children learn about things for themselves, and when they do, they know nothing but their parent's determination that what they're told on Sunday disagrees with what they see the other seven days, and the more we drive our own children out of the Church forever.
Re:And this means what? (Score:2)
Re:And this means what? (Score:2)
Amen. The prime reason I am no longer a practicing Catholic. Man, what an "Ask Slashdot" question that would be. "How do you balance Science with Religion".
Re:And this means what? (Score:2)
I have been posting in this thread and also have been modded as flamebaiting and trolling for comments that clearly are not inflammitory. It shows how touchy this issue is. Simply stating that you don't accept evolution is seen as inflametory language! At the time of this post, nearly all the the posts critiquing or disagreeing with evolution have been modded down, regardless of their tone or
Re:And this means what? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And this means what? (Score:5, Insightful)
What value did Ballard's discovery of the Titanic and Bismark have? They wouldn't have been nearly as important if they had been some anonymous freighter that sank during a storm, even though the technological achievement would have been identical.
These are ships with history -- with stories that we deem important, interesting, or compelling. The stories that we value as a culture (species?) are part of what define who and what we are.
The value of the Beagle's discovery is purely historic. And in defining it as important or unimportant, we define something about ourselves as individuals and a society.
Re:And this means what? (Score:4, Interesting)
I think you've misread Genesis.
Genesis I (v.11-24) states quite clearly that God created plants on the land on the third day, didn't get round to doing the Sun until the fourth day, created the swimming and flying creatures on the fifth and left the land animals (including Man) until the sixth.
Which is nothing like the order science has determined. So you have to say that Genesis managed neither the precise order nor the general themes correctly.
Of course that's just one of the Creation stories in Genesis. There is another in Genesis 2 which places Man as the first living thing followed by plants, animals and finally Woman.
At least one of the stories has to be wrong.
Best wishes,
Mike.
Re:And this means what? (Score:3, Insightful)
About the only thing creationists have as evidence is 'Because the book says so' and not so long ago it would be followed by 'and if you don't believe us were gonna burn ya'
Seriously, what evidence are you basing your creation theory on? The majority oppinion of the people around you?
My evidence is a bunch of skeletons showing the various stages of evolution, got anything better?
Jeroen
You realize of course (Score:2)
Which is not to say that evolution is wrong. Just that the skeletal evidence doesn't PROVE anything one way or the other.
Really, what do you base your arguments on? The majority opinion of people around you?
Re:You realize of course (Score:3, Informative)
Utah Man was a fabrication by antievolutionists, although they like to twist it around and say they weren't really the ones to be fooled. It was originally found, and claimed to be a human tooth and jaw, the presence of which (in North America) would prove that man didn't have time to evolve and migrate from Africa. It was triumphantly presented to a scientific institute, and rejected because
Re:And this means what? (Score:2)
How do you explain the remarkable genetic match between humans and chimpanzees, up to the point where diseases can make the leap between them and us? Was God just lazy and copy/pasting code?
See, the thing with evolution is that we don't have a complete map from the earliest life to any current species. Anti-evolutionists like to say "ha! no complete and fully detailed evi
Re:And this means what? (Score:2)
You could rewrite your sentence
"I have found the theory of creation lacking for scientific reasons. It is a fascinating idea, but far from proven."
Very little in this world is proven absolutely. Scientific theories are only theories. We hang onto them because (a) describe the world as we see it, and (b) can predict things we can't see.
It's not uncommon for one theory to be disproven only to bring others crashing d
Re:And this means what? (Score:4, Insightful)
The theory of evolution doesn't predict anything.
Baloney. Evolution has predicted huge numbers of things. Here are some examples:
1. Darwin predicted, based on homologies with African apes, that human ancestors arose in Africa. That prediction has been supported by fossil evidence and genetic evidence [Ingman et al. 2000].
2. Theory predicted that organisms in heterogeneous and rapidly changing environments should have higher mutation rates. This has been found in the case of bacteria infecting the lungs of chronic cystic fibrosis patients [Oliver et al. 2000].
3. Predator-prey dynamics are altered in predictable ways by evolution of the prey [Yoshida et al. 2003].
4. Mayr predicted in 1954 that speciation should be accompanied with faster genetic evolution. A phylogenetic analysis has supported this prediction [Webster et al. 2003].
5. Several authors predicted characteristics of the ancestor of craniates. Based on a detailed study, the fossil Haikouella "fit these predictions closely" [Mallatt and Chen 2003].
Re:And this means what? (Score:2)
Both ideas require the same faith in something you can't necessarily understand or prove.
So people shouldn't look down on religion because of what they see as a fault for requiring this kind of faith.
Re:And this means what? (Score:2)
Both ideas require the same faith in something you can't necessarily understand or prove.
And you've missed the point entirely. There is strong empirical evidence (viz, the cosmic microwave background) that the universe began in the Big Bang, around 11-12 billion years. There is no empirical evidence that the universe was created by an omnipotent deity. These two positions couldn't be further apart: one based on observing the natural world around us, the other based on unsupported conjecture regarding an
Re:hi (Score:5, Insightful)
Is that what you really meant to say jwthompson2?
Jesus man, even the pope believes in the big bang -
Here is a quote on what he feels about evolution:
A 1996 quote from Pope John Paul II:
"Today, almost half a century after the publication of [Pius XII's] Encyclical, fresh knowledge has led to the recognition that evolution is more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory."
I know, you're not catholic, you're southern baptist like I was - before I got a clue. You are out of touch, even by christian standards. This would be a lot longer post if you wanted me to rip your stance completely apart using only Christian points, but trust me it is trivial. Progressive Christian's are seeing the problems associated with centuries of denial - I suggest you try some real critical thinking if you intend to continue being a christian, and not a fundamentalist relic.
Re:It's in the name (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I read that so wrong (Score:2)
Next we'll here that it picked up a strange alien object on its travels.....
One of us is not nerdy enough (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Fun Fact (Score:4, Funny)
Bah, just look where THAT got it. Under 12 feet of mud at the bottom of a marsh.
Re:what i don't get is (Score:5, Insightful)
It has historic value today. It didn't back then - it was only a tool.
A broken civil war rifle or a cracked native american clay pot might have been thrown away as garbage in their time, but today they are valuable artifacts worth $$$ and part of private collections or museums.
Obligatory Indiana Jones quote. "Look at this [holds up a pocket watch]. It's worthless, $10 from a vendor in the street. But I take it, I bury it into the sand for a thousand years and it becomes priceless, like the ark. Men will kill for it, men like you and me."
Re:what i don't get is (Score:4, Insightful)
The Victorian British were not a sentimental bunch about preserving their past. It was a time of enormous technological progress - much more akin to the US of today. Precious few of their technological triumphs still survive.
To give just one example, take the three ocean liners built by Brunel. Great Western, the first successful ocean-going steamship was broken up for scrap in 1856.
Her massive sister ship, Great Britain, the first entirely iron-built ship and the first to be powered by a screw was turned into a hulk for servicing whaling ships in 1886. She was allowed to rot until 1968 - when she was brought back to Bristol where she is being restored.
Brunel's utterly vast Great Eastern was quietly broken up in 1888, despite being by far the largest ship in the World and having laid the first global network of telegraph cables. No one mourned.
Best wishes,
Mike.
PS. Having thought about it - liners are a very good example of the British unsentimentality towards technology. The only surviving British ocean liner is Queen Mary (and then it was the Americans who wanted it, Cunard wanted to scrap her), all the other great liners such as Mauretania, Queen Elizabeth and Canberra all went to the breakers yards.