Comments on: Skeptical Pluggery

By: Kevin Runnels

Kevin Runnels — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 06:03:27 +0000

Chinmaya, my comment #6 wasn’t mean to be anti-religous. I was just trying to point out that the technological explanations that were cited in the write-up of the Tipler/Krauss spectacle don’t “help prove the validity” of anything. That seminar seems very similar to Jennifer’s, except she doesn’t suggest that the science/technology she explains in the “Buffyverse” “proves the validity” that Vampires and Vampire Slayers must exist.

I think you can be religious and still be someone’s friend around here

By: Robert O'Brien

Robert O'Brien — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 04:27:01 +0000

Cool. I may have to head up to Pasadena for the Tipler-Krauss debate.

By: Jyotirmoy

Jyotirmoy — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 11:57:28 +0000

Before reading Kevin’s comment on Dr. Tipler’s views, I always took the claim of the H in Jesus H. Christ standing for ‘haploid‘ as an old geneticist’s tale.

By: Kevin Runnels

Kevin Runnels — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 03:11:59 +0000

Sean, you got lucky. What seems interesting to me is that Jennifer’s seminar seems to be about the “physics of” fictional things, like Buffy or what forces would really be at play if Lois Lane fell off a skyscaper and Superman flew up from the ground at 100mph to catch her, etc. Fun and interesting stuff and someone might learn something if they aren’t careful.

But then, at the bottom of the “Caltech Lecture Series” is Dr. Frank Tipler, Professor of Mathematical Physics at Tulane speaking about “The Physics of Christianity”? Dr. Tipler argues that the God depicted by Jews and Christians, the Uncaused First Cause, is completely consistent with the Cosmological Singularity, an entity whose existence is required by physical law. He makes the case for the scientific possibility of miracles, including the Virgin Birth (Jesus was a rare XX male), the Resurrection (a baryon-annihilation process converting flesh into neutrinos), and the Incarnation (reversing the dematerialization process). Tipler outlines practical experiments that can help prove the validity of the â€œmiraclesâ€ at the heart of Christianity. !?! OK, I’m not a scientist, I just admire them, but “…help prove the validity”? I don’t think so. Why do actual scientists, who have a grasp of the scientific method, say things like that? Someone may learn something about science from some of the examples given, but cloaking it as “helping to prove the validity” is the kind of thing that makes non-scientists confused about what science is and what it can or can’t do.

By: Sean

Sean — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 17:33:46 +0000

Amitabha, if you read closely you will discern the searing critique of sexism couched in ironic language. And it’s funny! And she is a babe. Many levels of truth are explored in this deceptively concise post.

Happy International Women’s Day!

By: Allyson

Allyson — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 15:22:51 +0000

I am so there!

By: Mark

Mark — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 12:34:21 +0000

Like you have a shot! She’d never go for a guy like you. Stay home nerd.

By: Sunny

Sunny — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 12:04:29 +0000

She is a “total babe” for sure! I heard she got hooked up with some strange guy who likes to calculate Fourier transform of ocean waves!
PS: stay away from her laser beam cocktail and consider carrying some slaying weapons when you are in the same room.

By: Amitabha

Amitabha — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 11:44:55 +0000

A post on Internatinal Women’s day, on the decision to go to a talk, based on the speaker’s looks?!! Shame on you!

(Isn’t it a dilemma when the speaker your fiancee … you can’t even pretend that you don’t care about her looks.)