ladyfractal's Comments (1058)

“Eye bleach please! I want to un-see it!!!!

Oh sweet and sour Jesus that was, perhaps, the cheesiest thing I've seen since I watched Plan 9 From Outer Space 25 years ago. One can only wonder if these "rappers" realize how completely and utterly pathetic they look.

Cheers
LF”

“Yes, thank goodness for small favors re: no reference to the LHC creating a black hole. And yes, I get what you are saying regarding the oversimplification.

(I have to admit that all I want for X-mas is a new 27" iMac and a 7TeV supercollider for my own)

Cheers
LF”

“I didn't call you ignorant. I said that there is a great deal of anti-science ignorance here at HuffPo. Again, I refer you to *either* of the recent discussions on the LCROSS mission and various comments re: "bombing the moon will throw women's menstrual cycles off" or "bombing the moon will upset the balance of the Universe".

Cheers
LF”

“What you don't appear to recognize is that in your post, you articulate--as well as I could--the very strength of science. IF evolutionary biology is wrong (and it almost certainly is NOT wrong) then it will eventually be discarded. However, evolution has passed every single test thrown at it for the last century and a half. Every. Single. One. A scientific theory is not a guess, by the way--in fact, it is about as far away from a guess as it is possible for human knowledge to be!

Evolution has been demonstrated time and time again. Let me suggest that you spend a year or two, read every book on evolutionary biology you can lay your hands on and then come back and have this conversation.

Cheers
LF”

“YOu don't get it, GOD made the car, GOD put oil in it, GOD moves electrons around, GOD cures your bacterial infection, GOD regulates the temperature in your home, GOD connects your cell phone to other cell phones, GOD regulates your insulin, etc.

(I don't believe this, I'm just taking these folks beliefs to their logical, non-stretched conclusion)

Cheers
LF”

“Zen:

Let me ask you a couple of pointed questions. Why should I let slide, for instance, the person who says that God hates gays and lesbians and, as a Christian nation, we should make laws that actively discourage homosexuality or, at best, not treat homosexuals equally under the law? If someone tells me that their religion, which I do not share, says that my relationship with my wife is inherently sinful and while they wish me no harm, they also want an America where I can lose my job because I'm a lesbian, why am I obliged to let that go as "one person's opinion"? Why are THEY accorded a right to believe as they do and to attempt to pass laws that directly harm me but *I* am supposed to suffer that indignity and injustice in silence?

Why am I, as a biologist, supposed to take it in stride when people want to have religion taught in biology class?

Cheers
LF”

“Eric:

While I agree with you that we have fallen away from the delicious Noodly Wisdom given to us by the FSM (peace and sauce be upon Her, Ramen) I must take issue with your characterization of the Flying Spaghetti Monster as a He. It is obvious to all who have discernment that the Flying Spaghetti Monster (PASBUH) is a SHE. Is it not the case that mothers take their babies to their breast and nourish them. In so doing, are not all mothers only reflecting how the FSM gives us pasta in all its wonderful forms--from tortellini to angel hair--for the nourishment of our bodies and minds? Is not alfredo like mother's milk?

You need to get right with the Flying Spaghetti Monster that you may enjoy much grog, booty and wenches in that Great Pirate Cove.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster (PASBUH) is reaching out to you with *HER* Noodly Appendage.

Cheers
LF
(Rev Lady Fractal, HIgh Pasta Priestess, First Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (Reformed) )”

“Penguin:

Now, I'm curious:

Do you see anything in science like the three points I put forward in my prior post?

1) Does science seek to appropriate any gods or supernatural entities? No.

2) Does science have a defined and non-optional moral code? No. There are rules of professional conduct but that is true for airplane pilots, doctors, lawyers and soldiers and I strongly doubt that you would say that the ethical rules for, say, doctors or lawyers make the practice of medicine or law a religion.

3) Does science make non-evidence based claims about nature? No.

So how is it that if science does not have the hallmarks of a religion, it is just another religion?

Cheers
LF”

“I also want to clarify what is meant by religion:

Religion: N.
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods

Now, I would add to that definition the following:

1) Religions have non-optional (or close to non-optional) prior commitments to a particular metaphysical stance. So, for instance, in order to be a Christian you must believe that there is a god, that this god had a son named Jesus, that this Jesus character took human form and came to Earth where he was crucified and rose from the dead. Whatever *else* you might believe as a Christian, to meaningfully call yourself that you MUST believe that.

2) Religions also have mandatory moral prior commitments to them.

3) Religions make non-evidentiary based claims about the nature of reality.

(cont)”

“Penguin:

The problem isn't offense, the problem is accuracy. Let me ask you this (and I'm only being slightly tongue-in-cheek) since you are a Linux user: is the vi vs. emacs battle religion or a matter of choice? Is Gnome vs. KDE religious or a matter of choice? The way you are using religion--saying that science is just another religion--would be like saying that your choice to use vi or Gnome is a *religious* decision, indeed using your definition I could say that you have made a theological statement in your choice of XWindows interface and text editor.

Now, all joking within the UNIX and/or FOSS community about the theological wars between XWindows systems or text editors not-with-standing, the choice to use emacs over vi is NOT theological in any meaningful sense of the word. Yet, if we use your definition of religion then the belief that emacs is a better text editor is a *religious* belief of the same character as the belief that God, in the person of Jesus, sent himself to die so that he would be appeased from his own anger. Are these, in fact, the same kinds of statements? Is the statement "KDE is a better overall XWindows interface than either Gnome or Enlightenment" on a par with "there is no God but God and Mohammed is his messenger"?

Cheers
LF”

“If only I could be certain you were joking. Given the anti-science ignorance here (see bombing the moon will 'throw off the balance of the universe) at HuffPo, I fear you aren't.

Cheers
LF”

“What you are proposing is not a theory unless it can be falsified. By *definition* anything invoking god cannot be falsified and therefore is not a theory as that term is used in science.

Cheers
LF”

“Only if you stretch the word 'religion' to mean "any proposition that someone accepts as true". If THAT is how you are using the word 'religion' then you are correct because you've defined the word in such a way that you cannot help BUT be correct. However, science has NONE of the hallmarks of a religion.

Cheers
LF”

“One cannot help but note that, all the hype that was going on here a year ago on the day of the Great On-Turning (sorry couldn't help the Douglas Adams reference) not-with-standing about the LHC creating a mini-black hole and destroying the Earth, the planet is still here.

Cheers
LF”

“Particles is, in fact, the appropriate term to use.

Cheers
LF”

“Because for most laypeople (I'm not saying you) evolutionary biology and Darwinian theory are the same thing. There's a lot of vibrant discussion within the literature about how to weight the types of considerations I mentioned in my prior post but Kirk Cameron or other evolution deniers are *not* talking about these legitimate disputes and debates---in fact, they are largely unaware of them! Rather, what they are attacking is evolutionary biology in general.

Also, part of why you don't see this in other areas of science is that, on the whole, the general public leaves most other areas of science alone, thank you very much. With the exception of quantum mechanics (which is roped in to justify all manner of New Age nonsense) the general public is stunningly uninformed on most scientific matters. The reason you don't see a full-throated defense of, say, thermodynamics is that most laypeople wouldn't know the First or Second laws of thermodynamics if they came up and introduced themselves and wouldn't care if they were explained to them.

For some strange reason the public is obsessed with evolutionary biology even though they know no more about it than they do, by and large, classical mechanics. It is entirely appropriate for scientists and our defenders (I'm a student in bioinformatics) to try to explain evolutionary biology when people make completely non-sensical statements about it.

Cheers
LF”

“What, precisely, do you want to know?

Cheers
LF”

“PLEASE tell me you forgot to use sarcasm tags. PLEASE, I need to believe that no one would actually think this in all seriousness.

Cheers
LF”

“While I understand the offense (and am offended by it) I think that the Democrats are making yet another tactical error. It's a well-worn one for Democrats and it is this: they are showing that language like this bothers them. While the Dems are *correct* that the comments are out-of-line and offensive, they make the twinned mistakes of a) believing that the conservatives will *care* (they won't) and b) that this makes the conservatives look bad.

What it does is make Democrats look *weak* and one thing we should all have learned on the playground is that you never, ever, show weakness to the bully. Never. Should Vitter apologize? Of course he should! Will he? Of course he won't! And every request for apology will simply make Limbaugh, Beck, et. al. gleeful at the perceived distress which will only spur them on.

Cheers
LF”

“Actually, Genesis has light existed before any stars. You DO realize that, right?

Cheers
LF”

“Who are these evolutionists who dismiss evolution? There's debate in the biology community on how powerful of an engine natural selection is as opposed to, say, sexual selection (which was also first articulated by Darwin) or what (if any) role group selection plays but I know of not a single evolutionary biologist who doubts that evolution *happened*. Names, please. I want to know who these evolutionary biologists are who deny evolution happened.

Cheers
Lf”

“Watched it. The movie is simply riddled with errors. In fact, I'm surprised that they managed to avoid getting Ben Stein's name wrong.

Cheers
LF”

“Yes they do. To the poster who said that the tea-baggers don't know who Ayn Rand was, you may be right--sadly so.

I had a co-worker who is firmly in the tea-bag contingent. He *genuinely* believes that health care reform is socialism and is, largely, libertaria­n---except where it comes to social issues where he is a more conventional, evangelical conservative. One day, I was talking with him about conservative writers and I asked if he had read Burke, Hayek or Friedman (Milton not Tom) and he had not. Now this is guy who is a reader. What I found interesting is that there are no small number of die-hard, fire-brand conservatives who do not know much about the roots of their political philosophy. He knew who Rand was and, in fact, was familiar with her writings. I asked about Alan Bloom and William Buckley. Now, while he had heard of--but not read--Buckley he had no idea about who Bloom was (although he parroted much of Bloom's thought).

I find it ironic that many rank-and-file conservatives, even those who consider themselves conservative intellectuals (as my friend does) have an almost total ignorance of their intellectual foundations.

Now, before anyone says it, I realize that many liberals are *also* unaware of where their ideas come from. That said, I've tried to educate myself on the foundational writers of both American liberalism and conservatism..

Cheers
LF”

“Is there anyone here who is in the least bit surprised by this? The Tea Party Patriots are, by and large, libertarians and devotees of Ayn Rand who believed that altruism is a vice. That's right a *vice*.

We should not be in the least bit surprised that the tea-baggers should heckle a woman who has lost loved ones. They have theirs and it's a shame about yours but the important thing, the ONLY important thing, is that they have theirs.

It is amazing to me that people who begrudge paying taxes for, say, public schools want us to believe that if they *didn't* have to pay taxes they would willingly and generously donate to charity. If you believe that, I have some lovely bridges for you to purchase at cut-rate prices.

Cheers
LF”

“This will be interesting. Will the GOP base actually *support* someone who has an openly gay running mate OR will this person be put in the same category as the rest of us who are 'threats to traditional families'. The man, by the accounts I've read so far, is pro-gay--meaning that he's in favor of gays and lesbians having full and equal civil rights in this country (and not in that cheeky sense of "well, no heterosexual can marry someone of the same gender either so it's fair" or "well, people can lose their jobs for any number of reasons, losing your job because you are gay is the same as losing your job because you are incompetent").

This means that the GOP base has to make a choice now. How much do they REALLY mean their anti-gay rhetoric? If they mean it, then they cannot want and will not tolerate this man being a heartbeat away from the governorship. If they don't mean and can support him, then that means that they don't actually *mean* what they say about gays. If it's the latter case, then the Democratic party could find itself in serious trouble because if the GOP does *not* mean the anti-gay rhetoric, then it would behoove gays and lesbians to split their allegiances and try to move the GOP in a more inclusive direction. If, of course, they mean their rhetoric then it's the status quo ante.

Cheers
LF”