Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Alberta Scientists Discover Largest-Ever Cache of Dinosaur Bones

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the dino-mother-lode dept.

Canada 154

Cryolithic writes "The largest cache of dinosaur bones ever found has been unearthed in Alberta. From the article: '... officials at the Royal Tyrrell Museum say the Hilda site provides the first solid evidence that some horned dinosaur herds were much larger than previously thought, with numbers comfortably in the high hundreds to low thousands. ... Rather than picturing the animals as drowning while crossing a river, a classic scenario that has been used to explain bonebed occurrences at many sites in Alberta, the research team interpreted the vast coastal landscape as being submerged during tropical storms or hurricanes. With no high ground to escape to, most of the members of the herd drowned in the rising coastal waters. Carcasses were deposited in clumps across kilometers of ancient landscape as floodwaters receded.'"

cancel ×

154 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

It's not what it would seem. (4, Funny)

migla (1099771) | more than 4 years ago | (#32619006)

"God put those there to test our faith."

Re:It's not what it would seem. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32619128)

...I don't get it...

Re:It's not what it would seem. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32619212)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrZcztxRquo [youtube.com]

And O, Jesus and the disciples walked to Nazareth, but the trail was blocked by a giant brontosaurus, with a splinter in his paw. And O, the disciples did run shrieking, "What a big fucking lizard, Lord!"

Re:It's not what it would seem. (1)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 4 years ago | (#32619976)

He's a trickster god!

Re:It's not what it would seem. (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 4 years ago | (#32621756)

He's a trickster god!

What's funny... strange... revealing... is that the people who offer this argument in defense of their beliefs wouldn't consider for a moment the notion that their Trickster God created sacred texts to lead *them* astray.

Re:It's not what it would seem. (2, Informative)

migla (1099771) | more than 4 years ago | (#32619288)

I was quoting the stand-up comedian Bill Hicks making fun of people who think the earth is not as old as scientists claim. Here's part of a transcript leading up to that quote:

"Fundamentalist Christianity - fascinating. These people actually believe that the bi.., er, the world is 12 thousand years old. Swear to God. What the..? Based on what? I asked them. "Well we looked at all the people in the Bible and we added 'em up all the way back to Adam and Eve, their ages - 12 thousand years." Well how fucking scientific, okay. I didn't know that you'd gone to so much trouble. That's good. You believe the world's 12 thousand years old? "That's right." Okay I got one word to ask you, a one word question, ready? "uh huh." Dinosaurs."

There's plenty of funny (and/or offensive) Bill Hicks clips on youtube.

Re:It's not what it would seem. (1)

Sam36 (1065410) | more than 4 years ago | (#32619490)

It is pretty easy to explain. God made it that way. He even made current reptile dna similar to dinosaur dna. When God made Adam, how old do you think the guy looked? But how old was he really?

Re:It's not what it would seem. (1)

Merls the Sneaky (1031058) | more than 4 years ago | (#32619958)

He even made current reptile dna similar to dinosaur dna.

Really because I though recent evidence suggested dinosaurs were more closely related to birds.

Re:It's not what it would seem. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32619148)

Could be that or maybe it is an ancient cemetery.

EXACTLY! (1)

Motard (1553251) | more than 4 years ago | (#32619682)

It's the first dinosaur cemetery ever discovered. They're often mis-dated because dinosaurs were really big and could dig really deep. All the way down to where we find oil fields today.

The biblical flood clearly put a mile of water above another massive site located under the Deepwater Horizon rig.

Re:EXACTLY! (1)

jamesh (87723) | more than 4 years ago | (#32621768)

That's rubbish and you know it. All the scientific evidence points to the fact that dinosaurs cremated their dead.

Re:It's not what it would seem. (1)

gyrogeerloose (849181) | more than 4 years ago | (#32622242)

All other things aside, can you imagine how bad hundreds to thousands of rotting dinosaur corpses must have smelled?

Re:It's not what it would seem. (1)

JustNilt (984644) | more than 4 years ago | (#32622516)

I guess "bad" or "good" depends on whether you wanted to scavenge their rotting corpses or not. Mmmm ... tasty dino flesh.

Re:It's not what it would seem. (1)

jacob1984 (1314123) | more than 4 years ago | (#32619158)

Ha! That's what you think! It's just proof there was a world wide flood!

Re:It's not what it would seem. (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 4 years ago | (#32619232)

"Oh look, the earth went through a global warming period in the 2000s just like this ancient book says! The rest must be true too!"

Re:It's not what it would seem. (1)

pyrothebouncer (1595641) | more than 4 years ago | (#32622172)

Not world wide flood, world wide overflowing river. Get your facts straight. Oh wait, maybe it was a world wide tropical storm (wasn't there a movie about that?).

Re:It's not what it would seem. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32619278)

"Thank God I'm strapped in right now here man. I think God put you here to test my faith, Dude."

Re:It's not what it would seem. (4, Informative)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32619428)

I'm about 99% certain you were doing that for the lolz and you're not some bible-thumping-hick, but regardless I'm going to go ahead and troll a response that is related to the article.

First and foremost, I'm going to have to say that the Royal Tyrrell Museum is quite possibly the most badass museum on the face of the planet. Let me go ahead and also go out on a limb and say that Drumheller (the city/town in which the Royal Tyrell Museum resides) would probably be the best place for a kid to grow up. Do a google image search if you don't believe me, but the town is literally littered with dinosaur tourist traps. Dinosaurs everywhere. It's not uncommon for people to go on random excursions and find a dinosaur bone or two sticking out of the hills, which have ever-shifting mud and dirt being in the badlands region that they are. I grew up in Calgary so I was about an hour and a half away from Drumheller, but I still don't think I go there often enough, even though I go at least once a summer.

So, to say that the biggest cache of dinosaur bones found in Alberta does not at all strike me surprised. I think we probably held the previous 3 records as well. Even in the mountain ranges people find dinosaur bones, which always kind of struck me as odd, but I guess it suggests how young some mountains really are. You may have heard of these fossilized things called ammonites [fossilmuseum.net] - they are pretty common in mountain ranges all over the world. Old reminents of ancient sea life. However, only in this certain region in Alberta do they get this rainbowy colour. I found it kind of interesting. Alberta is also known for its Oilsands, one of Canada's sources for oil nowawdays, and if I had to venture a guess, its because we had lots and lots of dinosaurs.

In response to the whole "test our faith" - anyone who believes that HAS to go to the Tyrell Museum. They have set up an amazing display of how we've actually linked the timeline. Aside from the first exhibit, which is sort of their "Prize displays" - everything is in chronological order. You go back hundreds of millions of years and see some of the marine life fossils, then you work your way into dinosaurs, mix in marine reptiles every now and then, then you get a mix of neanderthals and ice age and tribal stages of life, working into today.

All in all, by the end of it, if you don't believe in dinosaurs, you've managed to ignore rock solid (pun intended) evidence presented to you before your eyes.

Re:It's not what it would seem. (1)

Man On Pink Corner (1089867) | more than 4 years ago | (#32619684)

All in all, by the end of it, if you don't believe in dinosaurs, you've managed to ignore rock solid (pun intended) evidence presented to you before your eyes.

Five minutes in the primate house of any major metropolitan zoo should be enough to convince any thinking person that humans are part of the same evolutionary tree, but it's obviously not. If you've been indoctrinated as a child to believe certain absurd things in order to save your soul from an eternity of torment, you may not be able to shake off the bullshit just by reading author X, taking course Y, or visiting exhibit Z.

Religion is nothing but child abuse, and no truly enlightened society would tolerate it.

Re:It's not what it would seem. (1)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 4 years ago | (#32620090)

Religion is nothing but child abuse, and no truly enlightened society would tolerate it.

Yes. Enlightened people. They just won't tolerate intolerance.

Re:It's not what it would seem. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32620304)

Yes. Enlightened people. They just won't tolerate intolerance.

(Shrug) We became a better society when we stopped tolerating racism. The same will happen when we stop tolerating superstition.

Re:It's not what it would seem. (1)

twidarkling (1537077) | more than 4 years ago | (#32620780)

Responses like this have always struck me as moronic, and I hope that you were just joking. There's a difference between tolerant and fully permissive. Tolerance has limits.

Re:It's not what it would seem. (1)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 4 years ago | (#32621758)

But those limits have nothing to do with many people's religious beliefs. As long as they continue to make it their business, and not others' (not that this always happens by a long shot), tolerance is in order.

Not to mention that calling religious teachings "child abuse", or insinuating that it is as bad as racism (as the above AC did) is pathetic. Ironic that such mindless fanatics are the ones so loudly denouncing mindless religious fanaticism.

Re:It's not what it would seem. (1)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 4 years ago | (#32621650)

No truly enlightened person would claim that someone else's honest, peaceful attempt to teach their children truth (as they see it, however wrong they may be) is child abuse. Just saying.

Re:It's not what it would seem. (1)

Man On Pink Corner (1089867) | more than 4 years ago | (#32621776)

No truly enlightened person would claim that someone else's honest, peaceful attempt to teach their children truth (as they see it, however wrong they may be) is child abuse. Just saying.

Really? How much do you know about Fred Phelps and his family, out of curiosity?

Re:It's not what it would seem. (1)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 4 years ago | (#32621818)

Only what a cursory reading of Wikipedia gives, but it doesn't matter. There are good religious people, and bad religious people. There are good atheistic people, and bad atheistic people. It's not too hard to see that if religion (or lack thereof) was the cause of people's good/bad character, there would be no people with similar religious beliefs, but opposite moral characters. Religion, then, while no doubt an important factor in a person's development (as are any number of other things), is not the sole cause... and it would need to be the sole cause for claims such as yours to hold up.

Re:It's not what it would seem. (1)

jamesh (87723) | more than 4 years ago | (#32621822)

That's a tricky one. I've listened to a few radio interviews with a guy who was previously the highest ranking member of the kkk. He's enlightened now, but has a good understanding of how he came to hate certain people as much as he did. In his case he was brainwashed by people other than his parents, but if those people had kids you can bet that's what they'd do, and IMHO that's abuse even if it's done in the spirit of a perceived 'truth'.

You stuck the words 'honest', and 'peaceful' in there as a sort of disclaimer, but white supremacists are warped enough to believe that they are promoting peace by wiping out people they don't like. Ditto for almost any other group based on hate.

Re:It's not what it would seem. (1)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 4 years ago | (#32621898)

I agree that people can be warped, but I mean actually peaceful, not someone who is twisted into believing that they are doing good while they do evil. When you talk about certain beliefs full of hate and vitriol, I can understand denouncing them, but the GP's claim was simply "religion". I refuse to acknowledge a statement as truthful which says that ALL religion is child abuse. There are plenty of religious people out there whose beliefs are truly harmless (although you or I may find them silly). For every Fred Phelps that rants about how God hates gays, there's a Christian who believes that God loves everyone, regardless of if they do something "wrong", and will keep his beliefs to himself and just be a friend, rather than trying to badger some gay man into submission to God.

That person does exist. While I am not myself a believer in any religion, I know plenty of people like I described. That two such types of people can exist, and both espousing their beliefs based on "religion", makes it clear to me that we can't make sweeping condemnations such as the GP made (and conversely, we can't make sweeping praises such as some people try to do). "Religion" is simply too diverse for such general judgements to be truthful.

Re:It's not what it would seem. (1)

Man On Pink Corner (1089867) | more than 4 years ago | (#32622014)

I agree that people can be warped, but I mean actually peaceful, not someone who is twisted into believing that they are doing good while they do evil

That's just more weasel-language, though. What's "evil"? To me, the fact that Leonardo da Vinci didn't have his own 8-core Mac Pro is "evil."

Teaching kids ridiculous things backed up with threats they're too young to understand has an effect that goes beyond the immediate families involved. All of civilization suffers when we indulge superstition. Sound radical? Well, that's the reasoning that brought us public education, isn't it... stupidity costs us all.

Religion, being opt-in stupidity, certainly costs us all... yet here in the US, our own government actually nurtures and promotes it.

Re:It's not what it would seem. (1)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 4 years ago | (#32622104)

That's just more weasel-language, though. What's "evil"? To me, the fact that Leonardo da Vinci didn't have his own 8-core Mac Pro is "evil."

Oh, please. The fact that a term is difficult to nail down precisely doesn't mean it can't be used to communicate effectively. If that were the case, we would have stopped using the term "art" long ago.

Religion, being opt-in stupidity, certainly costs us all...

Speak for yourself. It's never cost me a thing. Furthermore, your assertion that it's "stupidity" isn't really well-founded, since the fundamental concept behind religion (existence of a deity) is purely a matter of opinion, and can neither be proven nor disproven. Certain tenets of certain religions may be argued to be stupid (I think that the usual arguments against creationism are fairly strong, for example), but I don't think you can reasonably argue that religion itself is "stupidity" based upon such.

Re:It's not what it would seem. (1)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 4 years ago | (#32622116)

Oh, and I should add that even if I were to accept as true everything you say here (which I don't, obviously)... that still would not make religion "nothing more than child abuse". Child abuse, in my book, requires the intent to harm the child. At worst, you could say that a parent is guilty of negligence for passing their religious beliefs along to their children.

Re:It's not what it would seem. (1)

Man On Pink Corner (1089867) | more than 4 years ago | (#32622206)

At worst, you could say that a parent is guilty of negligence for passing their religious beliefs along to their children.

A negligence charge might be a good first step. In the US, failure to send your child to school or otherwise account for his/her K-12 education is indeed a criminal matter, and I think it's fair to apply the reasoning behind truancy laws here as well. If your child grows up without the knowledge that 2+2=4, or who George Washington was, or what a cell is -- or with the knowledge that a cosmic Jewish zombie will send her to hell if she doesn't beg forgiveness for (not) taking part in certain events involving a talking snake and a magical fruit tree -- then the parent should be held responsible for harm done to society as a whole.

Re:It's not what it would seem. (1)

wisty (1335733) | more than 4 years ago | (#32622230)

All in all, by the end of it, if you don't believe in dinosaurs, you've managed to ignore rock solid (pun intended) evidence presented to you before your eyes.

Five minutes in the primate house of any major metropolitan zoo should be enough to convince any thinking person that humans are part of the same evolutionary tree, but it's obviously not. If you've been indoctrinated as a child to believe certain absurd things in order to save your soul from an eternity of torment, you may not be able to shake off the bullshit just by reading author X, taking course Y, or visiting exhibit Z.

Religion is nothing but child abuse, and no truly enlightened society would tolerate it.

Five minutes in any middle school should be enough to convince any thinking person that humans are part of the same evolutionary tree, but it's obviously not.

Re:It's not what it would seem. (1)

pyrothebouncer (1595641) | more than 4 years ago | (#32622330)

Five minutes in the primate house of any major metropolitan zoo should be enough to convince any thinking person that humans are part of the same evolutionary tree, but it's obviously not.

It just doesn't make any logical sense though. If there really are some sort of slightly evolved apes or monkeys or primates whatever you want to call them that were the previous edition of "modern day" humans, why aren't they still around? Why don't we find whole skeletons of these millions of years old humans/primates like we do the millions of years old other fossils? Why can't we teach ANY of the primates in the zoo to speak (not sign language either, out loud as most of us not at computers tend to communicate)?

I've seen the so called fossils, the skulls made out of fragments of bone, the pinky, toe, arm bones that someone thought would be the latest and greatest link. It just doesn't make logical sense. You complain about how the religious like to force feed you their doctrine and beliefs, but I am sick and tired of being fed the same nonsense coming from the "science" community about how we came from primates and how they are finding new evidence to prove their theories (oh, wait, I think they said it is fact, then why does it still need to be proved?) Stop looking for clues to bolster up your theory if it is fact!

Everyone has some sort of religion, whether it is something they visit weekly, or just something they think about and argue for on forums and in comments. Everyone has a religion. Not necessarily religion based on books, or gods, or something to worship, but something they base their beliefs and morals on, something that sets apart right and wrong for them, something that gives them a reason to live life and be a "good" person (or a "bad" person if they so choose). It may not have a name with an "ism" or "ity" at the end of it, but it is still something that the beliefs and morals are based on.

Funny how you say that religion is child abuse, I just find that funny.

Re:It's not what it would seem. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32622436)

If there really are some sort of slightly evolved apes or monkeys or primates whatever you want to call them that were the previous edition of "modern day" humans, why aren't they still around?

Africa. It's full of them.

Re:It's not what it would seem. (1)

pyrothebouncer (1595641) | more than 4 years ago | (#32622548)

Haha, oh wait, thats not funny. If so, why only Africa though?

Re:It's not what it would seem. (2, Insightful)

snowraver1 (1052510) | more than 4 years ago | (#32619708)

These wern't actually found that close to Drumheller. They were found near the tiny village (hamlet?) of Hilda, which is about 50 KM NE from Medicine Hat.

Re:It's not what it would seem. (3, Informative)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32619804)

Point is, if you make a square from Jasper to Medicine Hat, there are bones all the way through there.

One of their prize exhibits, The Black beauty, was found all the way out by crowsnest pass.

Re:It's not what it would seem. (1)

Joe Snipe (224958) | more than 4 years ago | (#32619838)

Sure like I'm gonna believe some monkey

Re:It's not what it would seem. (1)

ModelThyself (712756) | more than 4 years ago | (#32619930)

Be sure to hit the Big Valley Creation Science Museum [bvcsm.com] on the way home to set yourself straight again.

Re:It's not what it would seem. (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32620114)

I've decided I have to visit that place this summer.

I mean I'll feel weird having to fork over $5 to someone I think I'll disagree with, but it'll be interesting to see what evidence they have. My girlfriend has studied human history quite a bit and has a few geology courses under her belt, so she'll be my guiding star.

Re:It's not what it would seem. (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#32620940)

And this comment, defensive as it is, is a perfect example right here of why the religious retards are gaining ground:
Defensive means that the defender thinks that without his defense, he would lose the argument. Or else he would not have to defend it.
Which means he himself puts himself in the weak position, even though there is absolutely no reason to do so in the first place.
We don’t have to defend our claims.
They have to defend theirs.

Just remember that one thing when arguing with an idiot: The more you defend, the more you play by his rules, the more you lose.
The only winning move, is not to play.

Or in other words: If the arguments were already stated, never repeat them. Simply because they still hold, and his “arguments” did nothing. And if you are face to face, always be the one who is calmer, more secure, does not feel the need to win anyone over, and shows this in his voice, gesture and everything. :)

Re:It's not what it would seem. (1)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 4 years ago | (#32621660)

We don’t have to defend our claims.

Everyone has to defend their claims. Maybe you're trying to say that said claims have already been sufficiently defended, but that's different.

Re:It's not what it would seem. (0, Flamebait)

Randle_Revar (229304) | more than 4 years ago | (#32621376)

>Drumheller (the city/town in which the Royal Tyrell Museum resides) would probably be the best place for a kid to grow up

Except for the part where it is in Alberta, the Texas of the North.

Don't get me wrong, I love the Tyrell (only went there twice as a kid, it's a fair drive from Montana), and Canada is pretty cool, but Alberta in general is only suitable for visiting (sorry, I'm just more of a BC/Washington coastal type of guy).

>Alberta is also known for its Oilsands, one of Canada's sources for oil nowawdays, and if I had to venture a guess, its because we had lots and lots of dinosaurs.

Oil isn't dinosaurs. Oil is mostly marine in origin and mostly from single cell algae. As far as age, Alberta does have plenty of Cretaceous-origin oil (from the Cretaceous Seaway/Western Interior Seaway - the flood plains that bordered it were responsible for today's spectacular dino fossil beds), but there is also a lot of Mississippian and Devonian oil.

Re:It's not what it would seem. (1)

hkmwbz (531650) | more than 4 years ago | (#32619434)

There are probably quite a few people who are like that :)

"God exists because there's evidence to the contrary!"

Re:It's not what it would seem. (1)

aeortiz (1498977) | more than 4 years ago | (#32619456)

A massive flood...don't get me started.

Re:It's not what it would seem. (1)

mischi_amnesiac (837989) | more than 4 years ago | (#32619824)

God made the world just like it is He made the fossils just to tease us Old bones to test our faith in Jesus Yeah, this'll all be on the quiz http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIwiPsgRrOs [youtube.com] Great guy, great guy. I especially like his "Ted Haggard Is Completely Heterosexual" song.

Re:It's not what it would seem. (1)

jameskojiro (705701) | more than 4 years ago | (#32620284)

No! You got it wrong Dummy! SATAN put them there to turn peopel away from God and the Bibble.

Re:It's not what it would seem. (1)

gyrogeerloose (849181) | more than 4 years ago | (#32622260)

No! You got it wrong Dummy! SATAN put them there to turn peopel away from God and the Bibble.

I actually had someone say that to me in all seriousness. Totally unexpected and coming as it did from an otherwise pretty smart guy, it left me speechless.

Re:It's not what it would seem. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32622280)

Actually, if one is to accept the "young earth" premise, I think that the only conclusion that doesn't turn God into a practical joker is that the apparent inconsistency is actually just a result of a prevailing but incorrect interpretation of the evidence at hand.

snu snu! (1)

thhamm (764787) | more than 4 years ago | (#32619078)

"they seem to have died in some kind of dino org ... uhm, you know."
"what was the exact cause?"
"crushed pelvises."

They died in the great flood (3, Funny)

aristotle-dude (626586) | more than 4 years ago | (#32619136)

They discovered a large herd of animals which died in a a large flood event.

What did this remind you of?

Put away your bullshit anti-religious rhetoric and look at the evidence honestly. Mitochondrial Eve, this flood evidence are all examples of science rediscovering what people have known for centuries. Scientist see something right in front of them but they just have to change a few details around to keep themselves from sounding like "creationists" to their colleagues.

Science now knows that it is possible for humans to live for centuries if their Telomeres were to not deteriorate. There have been examples this phenomenon. Google "immortal cells" for a story about cancer cells that are still alive when their original host had passed on long ago.

Re:They died in the great flood (1)

zill (1690130) | more than 4 years ago | (#32619206)

Damn you Noah! Why didn't you bring some dinosaurs on your ark?

Now I'll never fulfill my childhood dreams of having a pet velociraptor.

Re:They died in the great flood (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 4 years ago | (#32619964)

Damn you Noah! Why didn't you bring some dinosaurs on your ark?

Maybe they were hiding and playing silly games [youtube.com] .

Re:They died in the great flood (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32619242)

YECs..rolls eys.....ok ok, explain the fact that we have asexual organisms (checkered whiptail for instance) on earth.

If all animals were made in the Garden, and only male and females were on the ark (says it twice in Genesis), then how come these animals are here and didnt perish in the flood.

The Bible (especially Genesis) is not literal.

Re:They died in the great flood (3, Funny)

Chih (1284150) | more than 4 years ago | (#32619264)

Mod Parent YHWH

Re:They died in the great flood (1)

Lundse (1036754) | more than 4 years ago | (#32620546)

Mod parent Jesus?

Re:They died in the great flood (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 4 years ago | (#32620744)

Mod parent Jesus?

What does my gardener have to do with this?

Re:They died in the great flood (2, Interesting)

Relic of the Future (118669) | more than 4 years ago | (#32619300)

"See! See! If you squint real hard and ignore all the details, it looks like I could maybe have been right."

Or:

"See! See! A flood happened once, and there's also a flood in the Bible, therefore it must all be true!"

Or: I have been epically trolled, in which case, well done. Either way, I have to admit that the use of He-La as an appeal to biblical-infallibility, that's the first time I've seen that; a most impressive stretch, and kudos on it as well.

Re:They died in the great flood (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32619312)

They discovered a large herd of animals which died in a a large flood event.
What did this remind you of?

Hurricane Katrina?

They died in 'a' great flood, not The Great Flood (3, Informative)

zorak (47944) | more than 4 years ago | (#32619352)

The religious have always managed to adapt their pet mythologies to the evidence of the day. Scientists avoid sounding like creationists in front of their colleagues by following the evidence, rather than exclaiming "GODIDIT!", rolling around on the floor, and speaking in tongues. Nice try, tho.

Re:They died in 'a' great flood, not The Great Flo (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#32619558)

I'll bite. What disproves - not Biblically speaking, but just the simple idea - the idea that there was a global flood? Because it seems like a lot of fossils are created during "great floods." Nobody seems to ever even suggest the idea that there was a global flood... every other idea is proposed (numerous "great floods," meteors hitting the earth, etc) but why is a global flood not proposed?

Is it simply because a particular religion has that in their beliefs, or is there actual evidence for numerous "great" floods as opposed to one global flood?

Re:They died in 'a' great flood, not The Great Flo (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32619652)

What disproves [...] the idea that there was a global flood? Because it seems like a lot of fossils are created during "great floods." Nobody seems to ever even suggest the idea that there was a global flood... every other idea is proposed (numerous "great floods," meteors hitting the earth, etc) but why is a global flood not proposed?

Because there simply isn't enough fucking water on the planet?

Re:They died in 'a' great flood, not The Great Flo (-1, Troll)

aristotle-dude (626586) | more than 4 years ago | (#32621638)

What disproves [...] the idea that there was a global flood? Because it seems like a lot of fossils are created during "great floods." Nobody seems to ever even suggest the idea that there was a global flood... every other idea is proposed (numerous "great floods," meteors hitting the earth, etc) but why is a global flood not proposed?

Because there simply isn't enough fucking water on the planet?

Uh... the planet we are on is an ocean planet. It is covered mostly by water. A sudden melting of the ice caps and a shift in the ocean floor upward in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans would result in the entire earth being covered by water.

Several movies have depicted such a situation including Waterworld and the recent 2012.

Re:They died in 'a' great flood, not The Great Flo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32622052)

Anybody that offers Hollywood movies as part of the evidence supporting their argument...

Oh, screw it. You're am utter moron. An imbecile. I'm amazed you can figure out how to post to Slashdot without sustaining a mortal wound from your keyboard. In fact, I'm rather astounded that you've managed to stay alive long enough to be able to leave that post here.

I'd tell you to go measure the depth of the ocean with this handy yardstick, but you'd probably accidently impale yourself upon...

Hey, howzabout you take this yardstick and back up your argument by measuring the average depth of the ocean? I'll wait.

Re:They died in 'a' great flood, not The Great Flo (4, Informative)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | more than 4 years ago | (#32619870)

I'll bite. What disproves - not Biblically speaking, but just the simple idea - the idea that there was a global flood? Because it seems like a lot of fossils are created during "great floods." Nobody seems to ever even suggest the idea that there was a global flood... every other idea is proposed (numerous "great floods," meteors hitting the earth, etc) but why is a global flood not proposed?

Many different reasons:

First, there's not enough water on Earth. So if it did occur, where did the other water go?

Second, we don't see in the geological record evidence for a flood all at the same point in history. We see at different levels in the geologic column floods in different locations and some with no floods at all. If there were a global flood we'd see a universally dated flood (much as we see a universal iridium layer at the major asteroid impact 65 million years ago). This by itself should be enough.

Third, and related to the above, we don't see any global die off that is closely connected to flood deposits.

Fourth, we don't see the genetic bottlenecking that would have wiped out that many species. The genetic diversity of many species shows us that a global flood could not have occurred in the last 50,000 years at least, on genetic evidence alone.

So the upshot? No global flood in the last 50,000 years just by easy genetic evidence. No global flood at all given lack of water. No global flood at all based on the geologic columns. If it turned out there had been a global flood anytime in the last billion years, we'd have to be so wrong about so much of basic science that it is difficult to find a good analogy for how wrong we'd have to be. We'd have to be about as wrong as it turning out that Julius Caesar never existed.

Re:They died in 'a' great flood, not The Great Flo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32620976)

What don't you know? God drank all the water, he got thirsty after making a hot pocket so hot even he couldn't eat it.

Re:They died in 'a' great flood, not The Great Flo (0, Troll)

NemoinSpace (1118137) | more than 4 years ago | (#32622024)

First, there's not enough water on Earth. So if it did occur, where did the other water go?

atmospheric escape? metal oxidation? ejection? Recent science says the moon's crust contains lots of water.

we don't see in the geological record evidence for a flood all at the same point in history

That's like saying WWII was not a global war because we saw no evidence of it in Ireland and Portugal.

we don't see any global die off that is closely connected to flood deposits

Um, the article is about the largest amount of evidence ever found!

So the upshot? I think there is plenty of validity to your facts. Enough to make me question mine, but your arguments require just as much faith as I already have. Don't be so hard on religion, You obviously believe in lot's of things you don't understand too.

Re:They died in 'a' great flood, not The Great Flo (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 4 years ago | (#32621888)

I'll bite. What disproves - not Biblically speaking, but just the simple idea - the idea that there was a global flood? Because it seems like a lot of fossils are created during "great floods." Nobody seems to ever even suggest the idea that there was a global flood... every other idea is proposed (numerous "great floods," meteors hitting the earth, etc) but why is a global flood not proposed?

Is it simply because a particular religion has that in their beliefs, or is there actual evidence for numerous "great" floods as opposed to one global flood?

Because to be a global flood it has to happen everywhere at the same time.

And for a biblical flood the water has to be 5-1/2 miles deep.

As for what disproves it, other than the utter lack of evidence, is the fact that every living creature would show an extreme genetic bottleneck in the recent past.

But let's cut to the chase: For those of you who believe in the biblical flood, why did God try to fix the stated problem with a solution that didn't work. Forget the fact that He drowned all those babies and kittens, and the fact that he magicked up a gazillion gallons of water when he could have just as easily magicked all the evil people dead. Why are you worshipping a reputedly all-{knowing,powerful} God who can't come up with a solution that works?

Re:They died in the great flood (3, Insightful)

mellestad (1301507) | more than 4 years ago | (#32619406)

So the world was flooded for months with over a mile of water, then all the bodies, still whole, settle in the same region, then they are trampled and eaten by dinosaur scavengers (presumably they just ran really fast from Noah's ark back to Alberta). Awesome, that explains everything.

Who the fuck modded this guy up? (2, Insightful)

hellfire (86129) | more than 4 years ago | (#32619416)

Okay I'm not surprised or upset some nut job decided to post the usual whackjob theories. I'm surprised that multiple modded him. I'm upset that you modded him "interesting" and not "funny".

WTF is wrong with you people today?

Re:Who the fuck modded this guy up? (1)

b4dc0d3r (1268512) | more than 4 years ago | (#32622146)

They're just messing with you man, let it go. They figured you'd get a good chuckle out of it.

Re:They died in the great flood (1)

hkmwbz (531650) | more than 4 years ago | (#32619476)

Do you even know what Mitochondrial Eve is? Never mind that she and her "Adam" lived thousands of year apart. Never mind that ME lived 200K years ago. That's slightly more than the "less than 10K" thing YECs are talking about.

A flood is evidence of God? Major local floods have occurred throughout history. That's why all creation myths mention global floods at some point. Because the humans who wrote them didn't know that there was more to the world than their tiny speck of land.

What examples of humans living for centuries are there? I think you will find that "immortal cells" are quite a bit different from an actual human being.

Re:They died in the great flood (1)

Yunzil (181064) | more than 4 years ago | (#32619504)

They discovered a large herd of animals which died in a a large flood event.
What did this remind you of?

All the other large herds of animals which have died in large flood events separated by thousands or millions of years?

Put away your bullshit anti-religious rhetoric and look at the evidence honestly.

OK.... done.

Mitochondrial Eve

Explain what you think Mitochondrial Eve means, and then we'll tell you why you're wrong.

Science now knows that it is possible for humans to live for centuries if their Telomeres were to not deteriorate.

Science now knows that if my aunt had testicles, she'd be my uncle.

Re:They died in the great flood (1)

twidarkling (1537077) | more than 4 years ago | (#32620840)

Science now knows that if my aunt had testicles, she'd be my uncle.

I think I'll be stealing this line and altering it slightly for future use.

Re:They died in the great flood (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32619538)

They discovered a large herd of animals which died in a a large flood event.

What did this remind you of?

It reminded me of dinosaurs that die in a lot of ways many people died.

Are you seriously trying to spout the idea that our species lived along side dinosaurs? Do you have any idea exactly how much evidence there is to refute such a claim?

I seriously don't see how you're linking long living Cancer cells to humans somehow living longer. You do know that Cancer is a BAD thing and that most people who get it are not going to live longer, right?

I feel like you've somehow managed to drop the IQ of everyone in slashdot by posting this.

Re:They died in the great flood (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32619560)

The same scientific reasoning that supports Mitochondrial Eve theory and those "immortal cells" is also supporting dinosaurs and evolution theory. You can't discount scientific thinking by citing more examples of scientific thinking.

Re:They died in the great flood (5, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | more than 4 years ago | (#32619612)

A creationist stands on his hind legs and says thusly:

look at the evidence honestly.

I've debated with Young Earth Creationists such as yourself.

Newtonian physics doesn't mention God. Relativistic physics doesn't invoke God. Maxwell's equations don't involve God. Astronomy doesn't involve God. Electronics theory doesn't involve God. None of the sciences involve God. The biological sciences don't invoke God. Medicine doesn't invoke God. But Creationists such as yourself have no problem benefiting from the results of such science and the technology it helps create.

It's more productive talking to a toothbrush. I'm tired of people such as yourself trying to drag us all back to the 12'th century with regards to knowledge. I've heard it for most of my 44 years on this planet.

No. You're willfully stupid. Go away. And stop using all that Godless science and technology you rely on every day to get through modern life.

Hypocrite.

--
BMO

Re:They died in the great flood (1)

Anonymous Matt (88376) | more than 4 years ago | (#32619646)

They discovered a large herd of animals which died in a a large flood event.

What did this remind you of?

Scientifically, you make sense. Scientistically, there will be many, many other interpretations. ;)

Re:They died in the great flood (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32619686)

Science now knows that it is possible for humans to live for centuries if their Telomeres were to not deteriorate.

But I don't know the "science" that, according to you, knows this. Besides of which, if we stopped telomere-induced aging in humans, we'd get nasty cancer instead and death within a few years.

There have been examples this phenomenon. Google "immortal cells" for a story about cancer cells that are still alive when their original host had passed on long ago.

Henrietta Lacks [wikipedia.org] , anybody? But had you ever studied HeLa cells under the microscope or by any scientific means, you would have found out that they share very little with the human they're the cancer of. Even genetically, there lacks to be identity between the cells and the donor. That's why this is cancer, after all.

PS: They've modded you insightful, troll, and now funny. Insightful? I don't get it. But troll and funny are both very sensible ratings.

Re:They died in the great flood (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32619722)

Lol, Aside the fact that this flood most likely happened a couple hundred thousand years ago. The flood described in the bible happened around 5000 to 4000 B.C. (don't remember the exact time but somewhere around there). That flood was caused when part of the land that once connected Morocco to Spain crumbled away and flooded the area in what is now known as the Mediterranean Sea.

Re:They died in the great flood (1)

Target Practice (79470) | more than 4 years ago | (#32619898)

They discovered a large herd of animals which died in a a large flood event.

What did this remind you of?

It reminds me of that one time when Zi-ud-sura had a premonition that the gods decided to destroy mankind in a flood, and so he built an arc and saved humans and lots of animals. Then, when the flood was happening, he chanced on seeing the sun-god, Utu, so he decided to kill a bunch of the critters he brought with him, to show Utu how happy he was to have seen him. And THEN, after the flood was all done, he got a reward of eternal life from An and Enlil for all the cool crap he did (including killing the animals he had saved, but hey, nobody's perfect...)

Sound familiar? Same BS, different era, and far less interesting of a read than Tolkien's mythology. Enjoy the find for what it is: a lot of bones of big things that aren't around anymore. For once, call the garden beautiful without bringing your pretend faeries into it.

Re:They died in the great flood (1)

Mysund (60792) | more than 4 years ago | (#32620472)

Yeah! Intelligent Flooding.

Stop digging up my yard (3, Funny)

Cyclloid (948776) | more than 4 years ago | (#32619162)

Fido I told you to stop burying your leftovers in the yard.

Curator (4, Funny)

Dr. Eggman (932300) | more than 4 years ago | (#32619188)

Former Curator and original collector of many of the bones in the cache, "Skippy," was unavailable for comment. However his lawyers, have stated that he is not pleased with this "discovery" by the human scientists and will be submitting an injunction against removal of any bones after his "walkies."

"Alberta Scientists" = "Beyond Petroleum" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32620500)

Their response was probably "Hey, let's do a test: if we grind these bones up, how will it take to become something useful - like Tar Sands?" , or "nah-these are just Stone Age KFC leftovers - full speed ahead raping the land for oil!"

Fuc-n-l, Alberta Scientists ...

Re:"Alberta Scientists" = "Beyond Petroleum" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32620712)

Actually, the truth is that the hillbillies have run out of tractor-fixers, so they "find" this cache until they're able to kidnap a nerd capable of maintaining a 1948 Ford 8N, who is also a good rape. YeeeHAWW!!!

Outstanding! (1)

decipher_saint (72686) | more than 4 years ago | (#32619220)

There are a lot of crap comments so far but I know I'd like to say to those involved that this is an outstanding find, way to go!

I was heading to Drumheller later this summer anyway but I should see what kind of stuff they might have open to the public now.

Awesome stuff!

Site of (4, Funny)

JustOK (667959) | more than 4 years ago | (#32619402)

They were found near a site that has been described as a prehistoric drive in, along with what appears overturned car.

Flooding? Makes sense (1)

AnotherShep (599837) | more than 4 years ago | (#32619714)

With a State of Emergency declared in most places East of Medicine Hat all the way to the Saskatchewan border, flooding is a bit of a sore spot at the moment. Not that I'm bitter or anything.

It was Bushes fault (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32619820)

Bush caused global warming...

In other news (1)

sunwolf (853208) | more than 4 years ago | (#32620486)

...largest ever cache of dinosaur remains continues to flow from Deepwater Horizon as crude oil.

Study that, archaeologists!

Re: In other news (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 4 years ago | (#32621970)

...largest ever cache of dinosaur remains continues to flow from Deepwater Horizon as crude oil.

Dinosaurs are killing fish in the Gulf of Mexico!

Hmmm... the well isn't far from where the KT meteor struck. I think it just smushed the dinosaurs underground, and now they're leaking back out.

Super Cool (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 4 years ago | (#32621186)

I hear a lot more from you guys that babble about what religious people would say than I do from the people you're talking about. There's not one mention of religion in the summary or article, but there's over 50 out of 65 comments about that severely beaten topic. Way to be super cool, guys. Love your priorities.

Re: Super Cool (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 4 years ago | (#32621904)

There's not one mention of religion in the summary or article, but there's over 50 out of 65 comments about that severely beaten topic. Way to be super cool, guys. Love your priorities.

Slashdot is as much about social commentary as it is about technology.

We even make fun of ourselves here.

I can name the dinos (1)

mpetch (692893) | more than 4 years ago | (#32621294)

Living in Alberta it is generally pretty self evident that there are a lot of dinos in these parts. The most common dino bones we have are Conservativasorous, Republicansorous, and Stelmachochasorous. Most TriKleinotops have been put in museums by now along side the Deficitosaurus.

Re:I can name the dinos (1)

bouchecl (1001775) | more than 4 years ago | (#32622528)

Some of them even moved to Ottawa, where they loosely roam around the city to this day.

I heard through the grapevine that a specimen of a late evolution of the Manningodactyle will someday be exposed at the Canadian Museum of Nature rather than at the Museum of Civilization, on the other side of the Ottawa river, in order to avoid controversy.

This is really great news (2, Funny)

caywen (942955) | more than 4 years ago | (#32621314)

This is great! Now we can have far quicker access to dinosaur bones without high latency.

A "cache"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32621734)

Isn't a cache a deliberately constructed thing? How can a "cache" of dinosaur bones be discovered? Who put them there, and when did they plan to come back for them?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>