Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Hindu Wishful Thinking in Space Bug Capers

Expand Messages
  • craigmolstad@yahoo.com
    First, notice that the Hindus take a big interest in this? That is because the Hindu religion calls for over 8 billion life sustaining planets in the Universe
    Message 1 of 14 , Aug 1 10:27 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      First, notice that the Hindus take a big interest in this? That is
      because the Hindu religion calls for over 8 billion life sustaining
      planets in the Universe (panspermia). These experiments are no more
      legitimate than when Christians annually try to explain the Star of
      Bethlehem -- comet, asteroid, nova, Venus, etc.

      Hoyle is a total whack job. First, he believed in the Steady State
      cosmology theory long after everyone else had abandoned it in favor
      of the Big Bang (remember that he coined the word Big Bang in
      derision). Second, he was still looking for little green men until
      recently. Finally, the guy must be 90 years old. No offence, but
      few people do their best work at that age.
    • ANNE V. GILBERT
      ... Hoyle has certainly been around a long time. I remember my father reading one of his books(although my father didn t normally enjoy science fiction). And
      Message 2 of 14 , Aug 1 12:14 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        To all:

        > Hoyle is a total whack job. First, he believed in the Steady State
        > cosmology theory long after everyone else had abandoned it in favor
        > of the Big Bang (remember that he coined the word Big Bang in
        > derision). Second, he was still looking for little green men until
        > recently. Finally, the guy must be 90 years old. No offence, but
        > few people do their best work at that age.

        Hoyle has certainly been around a long time. I remember my father reading
        one of his books(although my father didn't normally enjoy science fiction).
        And yes, he *has* supported the idea of panspermia. He even testified on
        behalf of creationists in one of the court cases where creationists tried to
        get creationism taught in schools, back in the 1980's. I wouldn't say he is
        a "whack job", exactly, but his thinking certainly has its limitations.
        Anne G
      • Ian Robinson
        ... Lets not get carried away here. Fred Hoyle has done lots of very good science. He was instrumental in working out the pathways involved in the stellar
        Message 3 of 14 , Aug 1 2:23 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          At 5:27 pm +0000 , craigmolstad@... wrote:

          >
          >Hoyle is a total whack job. First, he believed in the Steady State
          >cosmology theory long after everyone else had abandoned it in favor
          >of the Big Bang (remember that he coined the word Big Bang in
          >derision). Second, he was still looking for little green men until
          >recently. Finally, the guy must be 90 years old. No offence, but
          >few people do their best work at that age.

          Lets not get carried away here. Fred Hoyle has done lots of very good
          science. He was instrumental in working out the pathways involved in
          the stellar synthesis of elements heavier than Helium. He predicted
          an unknown resonance state in Carbon-12 that would be needed for the
          synthesis to be possible. This was confirmed by experiment.

          The other theories of panspermia and quasi stead state cosmology,
          whilst most people don't support them, are valid science that they
          back up with predictions and experiment. The evidence doesn't support
          them though.

          Cheers,

          Ian
          --
          Ian Robinson - Belfast - UK
          <http://www.canicula.com>
        • lflank@ij.net
          ... No, that wasn t Hoyle, it was Wickramasinghe. And he ended up testifying that only an idiot would believe the universe was less than millions of years
          Message 4 of 14 , Aug 1 4:54 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            On 1 Aug 01, at 12:14, ANNE V. GILBERT wrote:

            > Hoyle has certainly been around a long time. I remember my father
            > reading one of his books(although my father didn't normally enjoy
            > science fiction). And yes, he *has* supported the idea of panspermia.
            > He even testified on behalf of creationists in one of the court cases


            No, that wasn't Hoyle, it was Wickramasinghe. And he ended up
            testifying that only an idiot would believe the universe was less
            than millions of years old.



            =======================================================
            Lenny Flank
            "There are no loose threads in the web of life"

            Check out my reptile page:
            http://www.geocities.com/lflank/herp.html
            Suncoast Serpentarium
            http://www.suncoastserpentarium.org
            Creation "Science" Debunked:
            http://www.geocities.com/lflank
          • shubi@cinci.rr.com
            ... good ... support ... Oh well, he is a good scientist then. Who needs any evidence? :-) shubi
            Message 5 of 14 , Aug 1 5:30 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In DebunkCreation@y..., Ian Robinson <ian@c...> wrote:
              > At 5:27 pm +0000 , craigmolstad@y... wrote:
              >

              >
              > Lets not get carried away here. Fred Hoyle has done lots of very
              good
              > science. He was instrumental in working out the pathways involved in
              > the stellar synthesis of elements heavier than Helium. He predicted
              > an unknown resonance state in Carbon-12 that would be needed for the
              > synthesis to be possible. This was confirmed by experiment.
              >
              > The other theories of panspermia and quasi stead state cosmology,
              > whilst most people don't support them, are valid science that they
              > back up with predictions and experiment. The evidence doesn't
              support
              > them though.

              Oh well, he is a good scientist then. Who needs any evidence? :-)
              shubi
            • Michael E. Suttkus, II
              ... Hoyle reminds me a lot of Alfred Russel Wallace, that other guy who discovered natural selection and who shared co-credit with Darwin for the paper
              Message 6 of 14 , Aug 1 8:42 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In DebunkCreation@y..., Ian Robinson <ian@c...> wrote:
                > At 5:27 pm +0000 , craigmolstad@y... wrote:
                >
                > >Hoyle is a total whack job. First, he believed in the Steady State
                > >cosmology theory long after everyone else had abandoned it in favor
                > >of the Big Bang (remember that he coined the word Big Bang in
                > >derision). Second, he was still looking for little green men until
                > >recently. Finally, the guy must be 90 years old. No offence, but
                > >few people do their best work at that age.
                >
                > Lets not get carried away here. Fred Hoyle has done lots of very
                > good science. {snip examples}

                Hoyle reminds me a lot of Alfred Russel Wallace, that other guy who
                discovered natural selection and who shared co-credit with Darwin for
                the paper describing it. Both Hoyle and Wallace have keen minds and
                can be very skeptical when they want to be, but are also strongly
                capable of fooling themselves that they are being skeptical about
                ideas they don't like or are personally in favor of. Wallace's later
                life was consumed with proving "spiritualism" to the world and even
                demonstrating what today we would call ID.

                > The other theories of panspermia and quasi stead state cosmology,
                > whilst most people don't support them, are valid science that they
                > back up with predictions and experiment. The evidence doesn't
                > support them though.

                There's a difference between them, though. While Panspermia isn't
                supported by the evidence, neither is it really contradicted. Who
                knows? Maybe we were seeded with life from other planets. Then
                again, there's no evidence that it was necessary.

                Steady state, on the other hand, is dead.
              • Ian Robinson
                ... It s still valid science. Ian -- Ian Robinson - Belfast - UK
                Message 7 of 14 , Aug 2 12:02 AM
                • 0 Attachment
                  At 12:30 am +0000 , shubi@... wrote:
                  >
                  >Oh well, he is a good scientist then. Who needs any evidence? :-)

                  It's still valid science.

                  Ian
                  --
                  Ian Robinson - Belfast - UK
                  <http://www.canicula.com>
                • shubi@cinci.rr.com
                  ... The article said the high altitude bacteria were very much like ordinary bacteria. Maybe someone sneezed at high altitude. LOL Now, if they had found
                  Message 8 of 14 , Aug 2 12:37 AM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In DebunkCreation@y..., Ian Robinson <ian@c...> wrote:
                    > At 12:30 am +0000 , shubi@c... wrote:
                    > >
                    > >Oh well, he is a good scientist then. Who needs any evidence? :-)
                    >
                    > It's still valid science.
                    >
                    > Ian


                    The article said the high altitude bacteria were "very much like"
                    ordinary bacteria. Maybe someone sneezed at high altitude. LOL

                    Now, if they had found high altitude organisms with a different type
                    of replicant, or DNA with some unusual characteristic, I might take
                    notice. So far, it looks like a publicity stunt.
                    shubi
                  • Ian Robinson
                    ... I don t think they have published yet. I ll wait until they do. If they have anything to say they will publish. This differentiates Hoyle et al. from the
                    Message 9 of 14 , Aug 2 1:12 AM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      At 7:37 am +0000 , shubi@... wrote:

                      > So far, it looks like a publicity stunt.

                      I don't think they have published yet. I'll wait until they do. If
                      they have anything to say they will publish. This differentiates
                      Hoyle et al. from the other proponents of "alternate" theories.

                      Does anyone know why this is in the news at the moment? Was there a
                      conference or something on where results were presented? The actual
                      data was recorded in Nov 2000 from what I can see.

                      Cheers,

                      Ian
                      --
                      Ian Robinson - Belfast - UK
                      <http://www.canicula.com>
                    • Ian Robinson
                      ... There is an news article about this in the new issue of New Scientist. This will be available on the web page next week sometime. One interesting point
                      Message 10 of 14 , Aug 2 4:22 AM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        At 7:37 am +0000 , shubi@... wrote:
                        >
                        >The article said the high altitude bacteria were "very much like"
                        >ordinary bacteria. Maybe someone sneezed at high altitude. LOL

                        There is an news article about this in the new issue of New
                        Scientist. This will be available on the web page next week sometime.
                        One interesting point made in the article is that even if the
                        bacteria are terrestrial in origin the collection experiment has
                        extended the altitude that we knew where life existed upwards. So our
                        knowledge is extended either way which makes it a valid thing to do
                        in my opinion.

                        This assumes that there was no contamination. The experiment
                        consisted of at least 6 cannisters attached to a balloon. As the
                        balloon rose 4 of the canisters were opened at different altitudes to
                        collect air samples. Two of the canisters were not opened.

                        When all the canisters were studied in the lab the 4 that were opened
                        contained the clumps of bacteria. The 2 that where not opened did
                        not. There was also no reduction in the amount of bacteria in the
                        canisters opened at higher altitude as would be expected if the
                        bacteria were carried up from the ground.

                        All in all I think this is an interesting result that warrants
                        further work. Collecting further samples from other locations around
                        the globe would be a good start. Analysis by several independent labs
                        would also be good.

                        Cheers,

                        Ian
                        --
                        Ian Robinson - Belfast - UK
                        <http://www.canicula.com>
                      • shubi@cinci.rr.com
                        ... opened ... labs ... It does seem the controls were in place and the experiment is following accepted principles of design. shubi
                        Message 11 of 14 , Aug 2 6:29 AM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          >
                          > When all the canisters were studied in the lab the 4 that were
                          opened
                          > contained the clumps of bacteria. The 2 that where not opened did
                          > not. There was also no reduction in the amount of bacteria in the
                          > canisters opened at higher altitude as would be expected if the
                          > bacteria were carried up from the ground.
                          >
                          > All in all I think this is an interesting result that warrants
                          > further work. Collecting further samples from other locations around
                          > the globe would be a good start. Analysis by several independent
                          labs
                          > would also be good.
                          >
                          > Cheers,
                          >
                          > Ian

                          It does seem the controls were in place and the experiment is
                          following accepted principles of design.
                          shubi
                        • Dave Oldridge
                          ... Actually, there were some remarkable Jupiter-Venus conjunctions in the right time frame. They would have actually been visible in daylight on at least one
                          Message 12 of 14 , Aug 2 10:43 AM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            On 1 Aug 2001, at 17:27, craigmolstad@... wrote:

                            > First, notice that the Hindus take a big interest in this? That is
                            > because the Hindu religion calls for over 8 billion life sustaining
                            > planets in the Universe (panspermia). These experiments are no more
                            > legitimate than when Christians annually try to explain the Star of
                            > Bethlehem -- comet, asteroid, nova, Venus, etc.

                            Actually, there were some remarkable Jupiter-Venus conjunctions
                            in the right time frame. They would have actually been visible in
                            daylight on at least one occasion. They really are now but you
                            need to know exactly where to look, but when they were together
                            in the sky so close as to merge you would notice!

                            > Hoyle is a total whack job. First, he believed in the Steady State
                            > cosmology theory long after everyone else had abandoned it in favor of
                            > the Big Bang (remember that he coined the word Big Bang in derision).
                            > Second, he was still looking for little green men until recently.
                            > Finally, the guy must be 90 years old. No offence, but few people do
                            > their best work at that age.

                            Yep....but there are some interesting questions still open about
                            just how far into space life can survive. If life can exist in a camera
                            on the moon for months, then perhaps it can make the trip from
                            here to Mars or the reverse. If we ever do find life on Mars, I would
                            vote for a soft-landing of a probe onto Europa to drill a hole in the
                            ice and sample the water.


                            Dave Oldridge
                            ICQ 1800667
                          • Dave Oldridge
                            ... Yes, I would look for extraterrestrial isotope signatures, if I was doing the research. Dave Oldridge ICQ 1800667
                            Message 13 of 14 , Aug 2 1:23 PM
                            • 0 Attachment
                              On 2 Aug 2001, at 7:37, shubi@... wrote:

                              > --- In DebunkCreation@y..., Ian Robinson <ian@c...> wrote:
                              > > At 12:30 am +0000 , shubi@c... wrote:
                              > > >
                              > > >Oh well, he is a good scientist then. Who needs any evidence? :-)
                              > >
                              > > It's still valid science.
                              > >
                              > > Ian
                              >
                              >
                              > The article said the high altitude bacteria were "very much like"
                              > ordinary bacteria. Maybe someone sneezed at high altitude. LOL
                              >
                              > Now, if they had found high altitude organisms with a different type
                              > of replicant, or DNA with some unusual characteristic, I might take
                              > notice. So far, it looks like a publicity stunt.

                              Yes, I would look for extraterrestrial isotope signatures, if I was
                              doing the research.


                              Dave Oldridge
                              ICQ 1800667
                            • ANNE V. GILBERT
                              ... I thought Hoyle and Wikramsinghe *both* testified, but my memory of these things is kind of vague. And are you saying that *Wikramsinghe* testified that
                              Message 14 of 14 , Aug 2 7:32 PM
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Lenny:

                                > No, that wasn't Hoyle, it was Wickramasinghe. And he ended up
                                > testifying that only an idiot would believe the universe was less
                                > than millions of years old.

                                I thought Hoyle and Wikramsinghe *both* testified, but my memory of these
                                things is kind of vague. And are you saying that *Wikramsinghe* testified
                                that only an idiot would believe that the universe was less than millions of
                                years old(not that I disagree with him on that)?
                                Anne G
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.