Spectacular Fossil Forests Found In US Coalmine

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

Re:300 million years ago???????

[CaptainCarrot]

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

Why in a UK News Site

[N8F8]

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

Re:What I find more interesting

[bendodge]

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

Re:Some better images

[zippthorne]

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

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

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

Atheism requires faith

[mosb1000]

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

Re:Some better images

[couchslug]

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

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

Re:Atheism requires faith

[c6gunner]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Atheism requires faith

[Sabz5150]

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

Re:Some better images

[Digital End]

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

Re:Some better images

[quantaman]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Slow, gradual change... out the window

[Urkki]

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