The World's Deepest Dinosaur 312
FiReaNGeL writes to tell us BiologyNews.net is reporting that Norway has uncovered their first set of dinosaur remains. The catch? They found it 2,256 meters below the ocean floor. From the article: "It is merely a coincidence that the remains of the old dinosaur now see the light of day again, or more precisely, parts of the dinosaur. The fossil is in fact just a crushed knucklebone in a drilling core - a long cylinder of rock drilled out from an exploration well at the Snorre offshore field."
Forget the dinosaur... (Score:3, Funny)
Obligatory (Score:5, Funny)
Everybody find the dinosaur!
Re:Obligatory (Score:3, Funny)
Drill into the Core.
Everybody find that DINOSAUR!
Re:Obligatory (Score:2)
Wow (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Wow (Score:2)
Re:Wow (Score:2)
Re:Wow (Score:5, Funny)
They'll probably collapse onto the sand and shout "You maniacs! You blew it up! Damn you! Damn you all to hell!"
Re:Wow (Score:2)
I imagine that if we found fossils that evidenced some highly developed dinosaur blew themselves up, we'd be a interested in it, but nobody would be crying over the matter.
Re:Wow (Score:2)
I wonder how this dinosaur fits into the standard archeological time-scale, age judged by the rocks around it etc
the beauty of the system... (Score:2)
if we manage to do it with biologicals, well.. we're then the planet is fucked.
Re:the beauty of the system... (Score:2)
To create workable new species, sex presumably works better than irradiation (which tends to break a lot of things), whatever the 50s' scifi movies say.
sex is slow.. (Score:2)
Damned Dirty Mod Points (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Damned Dirty Mod Points (Score:2, Funny)
Can we stop now...
Re:Damned Dirty Mod Points (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Damned Dirty Mod Points (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Wow (Score:3, Funny)
Or the Slashdot servers. Holy crap, what if they're reading this post?! I for one welcome our 200 million year future overlords! (Just put my knucklebone somewhere nice please)
Re:Wow (Score:3, Funny)
Hey, Marge! They had knucklebones! The Slashdot users were dinosaurs!
Re:Wow (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Wow (Score:2)
Only the end of an age, not the world.
Re:Wow (Score:4, Interesting)
What will remain of us in 200 million years? (Score:5, Interesting)
Voyager 2 and Pioneer 10 will outlive the Earth.
Re:What will remain of us in 200 million years? (Score:3, Funny)
I hardly think getting blown up by a bird of prey counts as outliving.
Re:What will remain of us in 200 million years? (Score:2)
Good luck finding them by then though...
Ob: conspiracy nut comment (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Wow (Score:2, Informative)
Likely
The pyramid's surface was stolen... (Score:2, Informative)
I believe that their nice shiny white outer surface was actually stolen/reused... in the nice shiny white buildings around Cairo. People cant resist shiny stuff... so maybe that actually proves your point that they wont be around for ever, but it wasnt environmental factors that have removed their brilliant coverings...
a ref [egyptgiftshop.com] that says so... i have read it elsewhere too...
Re:The pyramid's surface was stolen... (Score:2)
This of course is nothing new, proper building material has always been hard to come by and already prepared stone blocks from some old ruins nobody cares about are always tempting. It's been done all over the world.
Re:Wow (Score:2)
Re:Wow (Score:2)
yeah cuz they're actually just very large sandcastles... it's no real mystery how they were built, large buckets, filled with sand and patted down, and emptied on top of each other. So either rain, or an beach-style-egypt-bully comes along and stamps on 'em... yeah that's it
Re:Wow (Score:4, Insightful)
It's worth noting that these are examples of landmarks that are exceptionally well-preserved. In Eqypt there is hardly a shortage of stone for construction, and Rome has been continually inhabited by people who considered the builders of the Coliseum their ancestors.
In parts of Europe where stone is scarce the only signs of Roman presence are Roman milestones found in newer stone constructions like city walls and castles. The towns and roads are completely gone, and we can only guess where they were once located.
Metal is also continually reused. Our large constructions will only survive if there is no mankind around. Places in ancient Eqypt, Mesopotamia, Persia, etc. are preserved because of desertification.
Re:Wow (Score:2)
It's worth pointing out that the [Egy
Re:Wow (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Wow (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Wow (Score:2)
Re:Wow (Score:2)
Unless we find oil in space and figure a way of bringing it back, plastic may become a valuable material...
Re:Wow (Score:2)
Re:you can check it out now (Score:3)
We make a lot of things out of stone and ceramics too, and given the size of our civilisation, I'd say we make a hell of a lot more of them than those "olden cultures".
Taller structures may fall, but granite plinths, retaining walls, foundations and even smaller detailed pieces have as good a chance of surviving as a dinosaur bone had.
Likely Evidence (Score:4, Funny)
Quick! someone call CSI!
The dinosaur isn't as amazing as. . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The dinosaur isn't as amazing as. . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Amazing (Score:3, Funny)
Receded ? (Score:2)
Obviously the areas now covered by Ocean were once the domain of the angels who spent there time planting "dinosaur" bones and other "evidence" in there ready for
Thats strange... (Score:3, Funny)
Dinosaurs all the way down... (Score:5, Funny)
Old song... (Score:2, Funny)
Cue the.... (Score:4, Funny)
Drilling for fossil fuel? (Score:4, Funny)
Obligatory... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Obligatory... (Score:3, Funny)
Who do you think you are? (Score:2)
Ahtu?
Ahiiieeee! and though you are known by by a hundred hundred names, here on the slashdotted plane your name shall be "Monkey" as only Nyarlathotep is obligated to speak the great deep one's true name.
And lo' it was written:
"There was the immemorial figure of the deputy or messenger of hidden and terrible powers - the 'Black Man' of the witch cult, and the 'Nyarlathotep' of the Necronomicon."
You are that messenger... obviously.
Sign of Age (Score:2, Interesting)
On the whole... (Score:2)
(You've also got to consider that rocks don't always progress linearly. Folding - where older rock
It's a balrog (Score:5, Funny)
The Lord knew. (Score:2, Funny)
Damn devil ... (Score:4, Funny)
Ocean != Sea (Score:3)
Re:How did it get there? (Score:4, Interesting)
A worldwide flood perhaps?
Dinosaur drilling accident (Score:2)
Moral of the story kids: Oil was bad for the dinos and it will be bad for us too.
Killer asteroid... (Score:2)
Re:How did it get there? (Score:5, Funny)
Also, if during the course of the scientific investigations, the researches should become hungry, they should eat food rather than praying for their hunger to end. Similarly, if their mode of transportation should run out of fuel, they probably would be better served by buying a tank full of gas, versus merely "wishing real hard" that they could get where they were going.
And, of course, if they post on Slashdot, they shouldn't Karma-whore by posting the BLEEDING OBVIOUS.
Re:How did it get there? (Score:2)
Re:How did it get there? (Score:4, Insightful)
The ultimate goal of science should be a complete, rigorous explanation of the natural world to the exclusion of supernatural phenomena.
This is a rediculous statement. The purpose of science should be to find the truth--whether that includes "supernatural phenomena" or not cannot be a foregone conlcusion for any _truely_ scientific search for truth.
That would be like somebody 100 years ago saying "The ultimate goal of science should be a complete, rigorous explanation of the natural world with the exclusion of the theory of relativity."
If scientific exploration is limited to our currently understood views of the world, and physical laws, then it's not science any more.
Until science _disproves_ something, that thing should not be discounted as a possibility. That includes God, goblins, and pink dinosaurs under the ocean floor.
Having said that, that doesn't mean we need to _assume_ these things exist, either. It simply means that an open mind, even to possibilities we may personally consider to be impossibilities, is necessary if the results we're going to get are to be unbiased.
There are so many scientific breakthroughs that we've seen throughout history that would never have been reached if they had been approached with your attitude--from flight, to electric light, to the theory of relativity, to space travel, to the "supernatural" time travel theory used by the time machine I used I used to get here to leave this post.
Re:How did it get there? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that supernatural phenomena is untestable. Whether things like God or goblins exist are interesting questions, but without physical evidence, it remains speculation and is not within the realm of science. Fortunately, we don't need physical evidence to believe in God (or goblins)- this requires faith which by definition is NOT something we can see/hear/etc. Science can only deal with things that are testable. I do not know anything about the theory of relativity, except that my understanding is that it is largely based on mathematical modeling as well as physical laws, which again, are testable and completely within the realm of science - I think people will respond to you, offended that you believe that this scientific theory is "supernatural." Sometimes indirect testing is in order, but it still works. An open mind is required as you suggest, but to put forward an untestable hypothesis will get you nowhere, as no one can either agree or disagree with you, and therefore the answer will not be found.
I also call your bluff on you owning a time machine.
--
Better go now, running out of room.
Re:How did it get there? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, the completely generic and abstract question "Is there a God?" is untestable. However, the Bible is full of testable questions and ev
Re:How did it get there? (Score:2)
Such as...
Re:How did it get there? (Score:2)
"Until science _disproves_ something, that thing should not be discounted as a possibility. That includes God, goblins, and pink dinosaurs under the ocean floor."
Wrong. First, define God, goblins and pink dinosaurs under the ocean. You'll quickl
That is contrary to falsifiability (Score:2, Troll)
"Until science _disproves_ something, that thing should not be discounted as a possibility. That includes God, goblins, and pink dinosaurs under the ocean floor."
The existance of god and the supernatural is not falsifiable, and therefore must be discounted as possibilities when conducting rigorous science.
Check the wiki for more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability [wikipedia.org]
See also: proving a negative, division by zero, perpetual motion and the recent Intelligent design trial.
Jud
Re:That is contrary to falsifiability (Score:2)
The existance of god is not falsifiable, but it may be provable. If, for example, the Second Coming ends up happening, then there's going to be some pretty chunky scientific evidence for the existance of god. Likewise, assuming Jesus existed and did what the Bible said, there would be some pretty good scientific evidence for assuming he had unexplained powers. O
Re:That is contrary to falsifiability (Score:2)
Exactly, this is what many scientific reactionaries forget. I'm a scientist in training, I have the whole provability/evidence/theory/etc thing down pat, and I know that it's impossible to disprove the existence of god, So why does that lead to the assumption that god does not exist? I stick with a firm "I Don't Know For Sure But Wake Me Up If They Find Something That Survives Rigorous Inspection" then I get on with my life, having been sati
Re:That is contrary to falsifiability (Score:2)
The Riemann Hypothesis is supernatural.
"this statement is false" is supernatural.
The next, undiscovered, mersenne prime is supernatural.
uh-huh.
Please enjoy the universe full of boogy men you live in.
Re:How did it get there? (Score:2)
Actually, that's wrong. By definition, supernatural is:
1. not of natural world: relating to or attributed to phenomena that cannot be explained by natural laws
Science is the study of natural facts. It is looking at the known facts, coming up with a possible explanation, predicting new facts, and
Re:How did it get there? (Score:2)
That is the hookiest definition of a scientific law I've ever seen. Scientific laws are not defined by a preponderance of evidence. That's civil suits. Scientific theories are laws if and only if they can be reduced to a simple statement and that statement proven. From wikipedia: "a physica
Re:How did it get there? (Score:2)
'The supernatural' is defined as that which does not obey the natural laws governing our universe--thus it cannot be explained or understood through science. This precludes any usefulness of incorporating the concept of the supernatural into scientific models or theories.
The concept of the supernatural is an artifact of religious and cultural traditions of relying on mythos rather than logos to explain natural phenomena. It creates an artificial division of reality into the supernatural and the natural, w
Re:How did it get there? (Score:2)
You can't disprove a negative. All you can do is exhaustively apply tests which should detect the phenomena that some people claim (without evidence of the phenomena to back it up). If the result is repeatedly negative, it may as well not exist. It is not reasonable to continuously look for something for which there is no evidence that it exists i
Re:How did it get there? (Score:2)
The best a scientist can do to "prove" the supernatural is to show, in so far as much is possible, that a certain phenomenon happens in defiance of the laws of natu
Re:How did it get there? (Score:2)
Ah, yes truth [stanford.edu]..... There is a difference between "supernatural" and unexplained but many people see them as the same thing.
"Until science _disproves_ something"
Science does not "disprove" anything, I mean how would you prove to me that pigs can't fly?
Re:How did it get there? (Score:2)
He explicitly said that we shouldn't assume such things exist just because we're not assuming they don't exist.
You cannot establish any scientific theory without some evidence. What he's saying is to simply not form a theory one way or the other until such time as you actually have some evidence.
You can be open to the possibility of something without assuming it's true. If you can't, then yo
Re:How did it get there? (Score:2, Informative)
That's not what Flimzy said at all. Read the post.
Until science _disproves_ something, that thing should not be discounted as a possibility. That includes God, goblins, and pink dinosaurs under the ocean floor.
Having said that, that doesn't mean we need to _assume_ these things exist, either.
Waiting on evidence before making a decision is hardly unscientific. The whole idea that something should not be regarded
Re:How did it get there? (Score:2)
But they would have seemed so at the time. Cutting it to the core, what the grandparent was saying is that you should discount nothing that has not been scientifically disproved. People have said heavier-than-air flight was impossible, space travel was impossible, hell, there were probably people saying (or grunting) that controllable fire was impossible. The point i
Re:How did it get there? (Score:5, Informative)
2256 meters after 200,000,000 years gives a sinking speed of *11 microns per year*.
Re:How did it get there? (Score:2)
Re:How did it get there? (Score:4, Informative)
From this [dinosaurer.uio.no] page, it says that the Snorre field is located approx 140km west of the coast. The ocean depth is at around 300-300m, but the reservoir is some 2500m down. It also says that the reservoir differs from most of the other fields in the North Sea in that the rock consists of fossil riverbeds from a time (triassic period) when the North Sea was dry land containing big rivers.
I'm guessing it doesn't really matter how much it has moved, since things were probably very different then anyways.
Re:How did it get there? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:How did it get there? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:How did it get there? (Score:2)
Re:Assuming a lot (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Assuming a lot (Score:2)
Which would also account for the depth at with the fossil was found. The rivers deposit a continous flow of silt on to the bottom of the ocean so the fossil gets buried quickly.
I wish I could mod you up so other people can read (Score:3, Insightful)
I think it is clear that NO ONE was around back then. Does that mean we should stop studying fossils, and stop acquiring evide
Re:I'm pretty sure... (Score:2)
http://www.whalesongs.org/cetacean/sperm_whales/s
seems to have a decent diagram of a flipper which contains a knuckle bone.
Re:Proof! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Proof! (Score:2)
The flood myth came to mind when I saw pictures from the 26 December 2004 Tsunami in the Indian Ocean.
Re:Proof! (Score:2)
Re:Proof! (Score:5, Interesting)
The flooding of the Marmara sea and the Babylonian flood circa ~2,200 B.C.E. are fairly well-known, along with a number of other floods in the region. Some of these flood myths, such as the Turkish one, actually recalls the specific flood itself.
There is some evidence, though disputed, of extensive flooding about ten thousand years ago, during the end of the last ice age, that wiped out an extant bronze-age civilization. I don't put a whole lot of stock in it, though it is a nice fancy.
Re:Proof! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:2000 metres... (Score:2, Funny)
"floated down"??
Is that at all like "sank"?
Re:Subduction explains the 'below the floor' part. (Score:2)
Re:Spice Rubbed Steak with Quick Garlic Fries (Score:2)
Re:I don't understand.. (Score:2)