A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #171  
Old September 26th 18, 08:07 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gary Harnagel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 645
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 6:52:19 AM UTC-6, Martin Brown wrote:

On 26/09/2018 12:11, Gary Harnagel wrote:

On Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 2:01:11 PM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

And how do you know that intelligent civilisation will not
self-destruct within a few millennia or so?


Out of MILLIONS of civilizations, all that's needed is ONE to survive.


We don't know of any other ET civilisations though. As yet we haven't
found life arising independently on another planet either


That's because we haven't looked except in a very few places. Wanna
bet on the oceans of Enceladus?

although there may be hints of life having been on Mars back when it had
liquid water. (it may still be there deep in underground rocks or
dormant as cysts)


I wouldn't consider proof of life elsewhere in the solar system as proof
of interstellar life. It could have come from earth.

Anyone with a grasp of probability theory and no preconceived
notions would disagree with you.

No, they would disagree with you.


I have a grasp of probability theory and I disagree with YOU.


You have a rather weak grasp of probability theory


You are very funny :-))

and an even weaker grasp of the Drake equation. Planets now appear to be
far more common than was once thought but a lot of them are hot Jupiters
tidally locked to their parent star (a side effect of present experimental
methods which are particularly good at detecting planetary transits and
Doppler shifts as the hefty planet orbits its parent star close in).


And you seem to be very weak on present theory that posits Jupiter having
started out close to Sol.

Comparatively few have been found in the Goldilocks zone (although that
may be a selection effect of present observational techniques).


Indeed. We should be looking at OLD G and K-type stars for old civili-
zations. Tabby's Star may qualify although it's a 6-billion-year-old
F-type.

You do need a sufficient base of actual data to be able to say
anything about the probability, otherwise you are just guessing.


We have actual data on one civilization. YOU are just guessing about
its longevity, but that's irrelevant because an example of one AND
proof that almost every star has planets (via Kepler), it is a VERY
good "guess" that life has developed elsewhere.


It is certainly possible. But whether or not it is common for life to
evolve beyond the single celled stage is still an open question.


"Life will find a way.” -- Michael Crichton

One awkward upper bound on the timescale that a technological civilisation
can operate without having to develop space faring technology is the
time it takes to exhaust the finite resources of their home planet.


As I said, it only takes ONE civilization to make it. It can then spread
to other galaxies in a few million years, a very short time in the universe..

You are the one who is biased here, not me,


:-))

since I have not claimed any probability figure about that.


THAT is YOUR bias speaking.

We just know too little to be able to do that reliably.


Just the sheer numbers of planets in the universe shred that assertion.


If intelligent life was really common in our galaxy then there should be
some residual signals for our radio and optical astronomers to see.


Not necessarily. The time that a civilization uses radio technology may
be quite short. Consider our own civilization. It's mostly beamed or
fiber.

That or we would have seen self replicating probes by now a la Fermi
paradox.


Not if there is an over-arching civilization that has already been here.

And why isn't theology an exact science like physics? Why
aren't our most powerful computers running simulations of God?

There, now you have some things to think about...


I thought. You got nuttin'! We don't know enough about how life
started to do believable simulations. We don't even know if it
started here.


The chemists and molecular biologists are slowly getting closer to
finding out answers. The tricky step is more likely to be the point
where single celled simple life makes the transition to complex
multicellular organisms. Science is always a step by step refinement
from present knowledge by way of experiments.

https://www.the-scientist.com/featur...-complex-42874

What they find will be way more convincing than a "Just So" story.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown


Indeed. But haven't complex organic molecules been found in the solar
system?
Ads
  #172  
Old September 26th 18, 10:07 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Mike Collins[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,789
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 22:16:25 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

Why should knowability influence opinion? I think it is likely that
the true nature of reality, the underlying "why" of universal laws

are
unknowable.


So what is your opinion about this unknownable "why"? Why are the
universal laws as they are, according to your opinion?


I don't think it's a meaningful question. They are what they are.


The answer in that case is perfectly knowable. I can count the

grains
and know for certain.


I would like to see you count several billion of grains of sand.


It matters not that it would be tedious, or difficult, or take years.
The point is that the sand is countable. Whether there are an even or
odd number is knowable.

I've certainly never met anybody who had no opinion on the question

of
gods.


True, you haven't met me...


I do not believe you have no opinion on the matter. You do not appear
to be stupid. Indeed, you come across as rather silly pretending to
have no opinion.

To have no opinion about the existence of God is no stranger than to
have no opinion about why the laws of nature are like they are.


The laws of nature exist. They are describable. Even assuming that the
question of "why" is meaningful, not being able to answer that simply
reflects a lack of knowledge. We know beyond reasonable doubt that God
(that is, the Abrahamic monster) doesn't exist, because it is
logically incoherent and we can see how it was invented out of earlier
gods. It is as silly to suggest it is real as to suggest Harry Potter
is real. We can't say with certainty that no other gods exist, but we
can observe that there is zero evidence for them, and that there is no
question about the Universe that requires a god or is better answered
by positing one. So the only intellectually honest position is to
assume none, in the same way we assume that Russell's Teapot doesn't
exist.


Actually Elon Musk missed our here. He should have put a teapot on the
Tesla he launched.


  #173  
Old September 27th 18, 11:42 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Martin Brown[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 158
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On 26/09/2018 20:07, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 6:52:19 AM UTC-6, Martin Brown wrote:

On 26/09/2018 12:11, Gary Harnagel wrote:

On Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 2:01:11 PM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

And how do you know that intelligent civilisation will not
self-destruct within a few millennia or so?

Out of MILLIONS of civilizations, all that's needed is ONE to survive.


We don't know of any other ET civilisations though. As yet we haven't
found life arising independently on another planet either


That's because we haven't looked except in a very few places. Wanna
bet on the oceans of Enceladus?


Life in the oceans perhaps, intelligent at the level of an octopus maybe
but there is very little chance of them having any kind of technological
civilisation in water even if they reached the hunter gatherer stage.

Eventually they will get their opportunity when the sun expands and the
temperature rises enough so that there is liquid water at the surface.
(we will be toast by then)

although there may be hints of life having been on Mars back when it had
liquid water. (it may still be there deep in underground rocks or
dormant as cysts)


I wouldn't consider proof of life elsewhere in the solar system as proof
of interstellar life. It could have come from earth.


Depends whether or not it uses the same DNA code, handedness and amino
acids. If it uses different choices to those on Earth then the odds are
very good that it arose independently. If it uses the exactly the same
compounds as on Earth then terrestrial contamination is by far the most
likely reason. One reason to carefully sterilise anything sent to a
pristine potentially life supporting environment on another planet.

Until we have seen life arise in at least one other place then you are
on a hiding to nothing guessing at the probability of life elsewhere. I
am inclined to think that it will arise spontaneously where ever and
when ever the conditions permit given how quickly it got going on Earth.
But until we see another example it is just an educated guess.

Much life may remain stuck at the photosynthetic slime stage though.

Anyone with a grasp of probability theory and no preconceived
notions would disagree with you.

No, they would disagree with you.

I have a grasp of probability theory and I disagree with YOU.


You have a rather weak grasp of probability theory


You are very funny :-))

and an even weaker grasp of the Drake equation. Planets now appear to be
far more common than was once thought but a lot of them are hot Jupiters
tidally locked to their parent star (a side effect of present experimental
methods which are particularly good at detecting planetary transits and
Doppler shifts as the hefty planet orbits its parent star close in).


And you seem to be very weak on present theory that posits Jupiter having
started out close to Sol.

Comparatively few have been found in the Goldilocks zone (although that
may be a selection effect of present observational techniques).


Indeed. We should be looking at OLD G and K-type stars for old civili-
zations. Tabby's Star may qualify although it's a 6-billion-year-old
F-type.

You do need a sufficient base of actual data to be able to say
anything about the probability, otherwise you are just guessing.

We have actual data on one civilization. YOU are just guessing about
its longevity, but that's irrelevant because an example of one AND
proof that almost every star has planets (via Kepler), it is a VERY
good "guess" that life has developed elsewhere.


It is certainly possible. But whether or not it is common for life to
evolve beyond the single celled stage is still an open question.


"Life will find a way.” -- Michael Crichton


Just because your favourite science fiction writer said it does not make
it true.

One awkward upper bound on the timescale that a technological civilisation
can operate without having to develop space faring technology is the
time it takes to exhaust the finite resources of their home planet.


As I said, it only takes ONE civilization to make it. It can then spread
to other galaxies in a few million years, a very short time in the universe.


So why aren't they here then?

You are the one who is biased here, not me,

:-))

since I have not claimed any probability figure about that.

THAT is YOUR bias speaking.

We just know too little to be able to do that reliably.

Just the sheer numbers of planets in the universe shred that assertion.


If intelligent life was really common in our galaxy then there should be
some residual signals for our radio and optical astronomers to see.


Not necessarily. The time that a civilization uses radio technology may
be quite short. Consider our own civilization. It's mostly beamed or
fiber.


If they were as common as you suppose there should be one inside the
range of our radio telescopes by now. Technological civilisations are
not going to be non-thermally radio bright for very long.

That or we would have seen self replicating probes by now a la Fermi
paradox.


Not if there is an over-arching civilization that has already been here.

And why isn't theology an exact science like physics? Why
aren't our most powerful computers running simulations of God?

There, now you have some things to think about...

I thought. You got nuttin'! We don't know enough about how life
started to do believable simulations. We don't even know if it
started here.


The chemists and molecular biologists are slowly getting closer to
finding out answers. The tricky step is more likely to be the point
where single celled simple life makes the transition to complex
multicellular organisms. Science is always a step by step refinement
from present knowledge by way of experiments.

https://www.the-scientist.com/featur...-complex-42874

What they find will be way more convincing than a "Just So" story.


Indeed. But haven't complex organic molecules been found in the solar
system?


Plenty. It is amazing what sort of a cocktail you can brew in a dense
molecular cloud illuminated by fast burning brilliant young blue giants.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown
  #174  
Old September 27th 18, 01:27 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gary Harnagel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 645
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 4:42:54 AM UTC-6, Martin Brown wrote:

On 26/09/2018 20:07, Gary Harnagel wrote:

On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 6:52:19 AM UTC-6, Martin Brown wrote:

On 26/09/2018 12:11, Gary Harnagel wrote:
We don't know of any other ET civilisations though. As yet we haven't
found life arising independently on another planet either


That's because we haven't looked except in a very few places. Wanna
bet on the oceans of Enceladus?


Life in the oceans perhaps, intelligent at the level of an octopus maybe
but there is very little chance of them having any kind of technological
civilisation in water even if they reached the hunter gatherer stage.

Eventually they will get their opportunity when the sun expands and the
temperature rises enough so that there is liquid water at the surface.
(we will be toast by then)

although there may be hints of life having been on Mars back when
it had liquid water. (it may still be there deep in underground rocks
or dormant as cysts)


I wouldn't consider proof of life elsewhere in the solar system as proof
of interstellar life. It could have come from earth.


Depends whether or not it uses the same DNA code, handedness and amino
acids. If it uses different choices to those on Earth then the odds are
very good that it arose independently. If it uses the exactly the same
compounds as on Earth then terrestrial contamination is by far the most
likely reason. One reason to carefully sterilise anything sent to a
pristine potentially life supporting environment on another planet.


I suspect that ALL life will have the same DNA.

Until we have seen life arise in at least one other place then you are
on a hiding to nothing guessing at the probability of life elsewhere.


Some guesses are better than others. I think it's very arrogant to
believe that nobody's out there, and it's even more arrogant to believe
they haven't been around longer than we have.

I am inclined to think that it will arise spontaneously where ever and
when ever the conditions permit given how quickly it got going on Earth.
But until we see another example it is just an educated guess.


Educated versus arrogant.

Much life may remain stuck at the photosynthetic slime stage though.


I sometimes entertain panspermia thoughts.

You have a rather weak grasp of probability theory


You are very funny :-))

and an even weaker grasp of the Drake equation. Planets now appear
to be far more common than was once thought but a lot of them are
hot Jupiters tidally locked to their parent star (a side effect of
present experimental methods which are particularly good at detecting
planetary transits and Doppler shifts as the hefty planet orbits its
parent star close in).


And you seem to be very weak on present theory that posits Jupiter
having started out close to Sol.

Comparatively few have been found in the Goldilocks zone (although
that may be a selection effect of present observational techniques).


Indeed. We should be looking at OLD G and K-type stars for old civili-
zations. Tabby's Star may qualify although it's a 6-billion-year-old
F-type.

It is certainly possible. But whether or not it is common for life to
evolve beyond the single celled stage is still an open question.


"Life will find a way.” -- Michael Crichton


Just because your favourite science fiction writer said it does not make
it true.


He's not my favorite, but just because a SF writer said it doesn't make
it false.

One awkward upper bound on the timescale that a technological
civilisation can operate without having to develop space faring
technology is the time it takes to exhaust the finite resources
of their home planet.


As I said, it only takes ONE civilization to make it. It can then
spread to other galaxies in a few million years, a very short time in
the universe.


So why aren't they here then?


How do you know they aren't? Surely a billion-year-old civilization has
capabilities to completely hide themselves from us. OTOH, I sometimes
wonder about UFOs ....

I read Ruppelts "The Report on UFOs" back in the 50's, then a couple
of years ago I read his 1960 updated version where he said that no
credible sightings occurred with radar confirmation, so I switched back
to thinking they were natural phenomena. And then this happened:

https://video.search.yahoo.com/searc...b&action=click

If intelligent life was really common in our galaxy then there
should be some residual signals for our radio and optical
astronomers to see.


Not necessarily. The time that a civilization uses radio technology may
be quite short. Consider our own civilization. It's mostly beamed or
fiber.


If they were as common as you suppose there should be one inside the
range of our radio telescopes by now.


As you said, probability is a guess. What I said was that all that is
needed is ONE civilization. One civilization early in the galaxy's
life (say, 4 billion years ago in our 9-billion-year-old galaxy) can
spread a mere 100 thousand lightyears in a few million years.

Technological civilisations are not going to be non-thermally radio
bright for very long.


I'm having trouble with your triple negative :-|

I think you're saying that such civilizations will become radio bright
in a non-thermal manner in a short time? I say that radio-brightness
is a phase that civilizations go through in a fairly short time. They
may develop means for communication and energy distribution that we
can't detect at our present level of technology. IR brightness, OTOH,
is more difficult to control due to energy dissipation.

That or we would have seen self replicating probes by now a la Fermi
paradox.


Not if there is an over-arching civilization that has already been here..

The chemists and molecular biologists are slowly getting closer to
finding out answers. The tricky step is more likely to be the point
where single celled simple life makes the transition to complex
multicellular organisms. Science is always a step by step refinement
from present knowledge by way of experiments.

https://www.the-scientist.com/featur...-complex-42874

What they find will be way more convincing than a "Just So" story.


Indeed. But haven't complex organic molecules been found in the solar
system?


Plenty. It is amazing what sort of a cocktail you can brew in a dense
molecular cloud illuminated by fast burning brilliant young blue giants.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown


Yeah, and in the nursery where our sun was born, we may have been quite
close to one or two of those. Our DNA may be shared with a whole swarm
of stars spread all over the galaxy. Or maybe the biblical account is
not so far off: that old, old civilization may have planted us :-)
  #175  
Old September 27th 18, 03:04 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,860
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 05:27:17 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

I suspect that ALL life will have the same DNA.


That seems unlikely. We have created alternate forms of DNA in the
lab, using different bases than A, G, T, C, and U. And which code
differently. I can believe we might see similar genetic chemistry, but
many different bases and coding.

Some guesses are better than others. I think it's very arrogant to
believe that nobody's out there, and it's even more arrogant to believe
they haven't been around longer than we have.


Life, yes. Technological life, maybe no. We appear on the verge of
destroying ourselves, and that may be the norm for technological
species. They may not get much older than us.

  #176  
Old September 27th 18, 04:35 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Quadibloc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,925
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 6:27:20 AM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:

I suspect that ALL life will have the same DNA.


Why?

Some forms of life on Earth actually code for proteins slightly differently from
most, and so even if DNA were the only way to store genetic information, the
genetic code would be completely different in life that had developed
independently.

John Savard
  #177  
Old September 27th 18, 04:42 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Quadibloc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,925
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 6:27:20 AM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:

Yeah, and in the nursery where our sun was born, we may have been quite
close to one or two of those. Our DNA may be shared with a whole swarm
of stars spread all over the galaxy. Or maybe the biblical account is
not so far off: that old, old civilization may have planted us :-)


The notion of life being seeded on Earth by an alien civilization is something
used in a lot of science-fiction stories, and, for that matter, in some of the
flying-saucer literature.

There are basically two forms this notion could take.

One is that aliens put *man* on an already-living planet.

Now that we know how similar humans are to chimpanzees genetically, the idea
that we have alien DNA is hard to take seriously. Plus, of course, there are
fossils of H. erectus and of various forms of Australopithecus.

Australopithecus skeletons strongly resemble those of chimpanzees, but with
adaptations to walking upright, and larger brains.

The other is that life is what the Earth was seeded with.

If so, except for ensuring the Earth had life on it, the aliens would not have
had much influence on what type of life it had. The development of life from its
earliest forms took place on Earth - slowly, over billions of years. This is
recorded by fossils in the ground.

John Savard
  #178  
Old September 27th 18, 04:50 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Quadibloc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,925
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 5:11:40 AM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:

Out of MILLIONS of civilizations, all that's needed is ONE to survive.


I have no quarrel with the statement that it is possible, and it even seems
likely, that there should be aliens far more advanced than humans out there.

Now, of course, somebody has to be first, and the fact that aliens don't seem to
have made themselves obvious in the Universe could be taken as evidence that
they don't exist. But that is projecting our own behavior on them.

Yes, it's a universal characteristic of life to expand as far as its environment
will allow. And, at the moment, humans don't really show that much sign of
behaving differently than aphids or yeast in this matter.

That we could grow up, and limit our reproduction for the sake of responsible
stewardship of our world, however, is not something I would characterize as
impossible; indeed, it would be a necessary condition for long-term survival.

No, my quarrel is far more simple. Those you speak of are in the category "elder
brother", not "father"; we should heed their greater wisdom, but not worship
them in the place of God.

John Savard
  #179  
Old September 27th 18, 09:17 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gary Harnagel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 645
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 8:04:27 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 05:27:17 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

I suspect that ALL life will have the same DNA.


That seems unlikely. We have created alternate forms of DNA in the
lab, using different bases than A, G, T, C, and U. And which code
differently. I can believe we might see similar genetic chemistry, but
many different bases and coding.


That depends on what one's assumptions are.

Some guesses are better than others. I think it's very arrogant to
believe that nobody's out there, and it's even more arrogant to believe
they haven't been around longer than we have.


Life, yes. Technological life, maybe no. We appear on the verge of
destroying ourselves, and that may be the norm for technological
species. They may not get much older than us.


There's always a distribution when you have a "norm" and all that's
necessary is a survivor out in the sunny side of the bell curve.
Given the age of our galaxy at nine billion years (and it has
incorporated stars far older than that - there is a red dwarf only
150 LY away that is estimated to be 14 billion years old). So that
one survivor can spread its DNA over the whole galaxy in a few million
years.
  #180  
Old September 27th 18, 09:35 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gary Harnagel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 645
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 9:42:06 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:

On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 6:27:20 AM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:

Yeah, and in the nursery where our sun was born, we may have been quite
close to one or two of those. Our DNA may be shared with a whole swarm
of stars spread all over the galaxy. Or maybe the biblical account is
not so far off: that old, old civilization may have planted us :-)


The notion of life being seeded on Earth by an alien civilization is
something used in a lot of science-fiction stories, and, for that
matter, in some of the flying-saucer literature.

There are basically two forms this notion could take.

One is that aliens put *man* on an already-living planet.

Now that we know how similar humans are to chimpanzees genetically,
the idea that we have alien DNA is hard to take seriously. Plus, of
course, there are fossils of H. erectus and of various forms of
Australopithecus.

Australopithecus skeletons strongly resemble those of chimpanzees,
but with adaptations to walking upright, and larger brains.


Yeah, I don't think that one will fly.

The other is that life is what the Earth was seeded with.

If so, except for ensuring the Earth had life on it, the aliens would
not have had much influence on what type of life it had. The
development of life from its earliest forms took place on Earth -
slowly, over billions of years. This is recorded by fossils in the
ground.

John Savard


The aliens took their time, kind of like the pan-dimensional beings in
Hitchhiker's guide :-)

I suspect that ALL life will have the same DNA.


Why?


See the argument I gave Chris P.

Some forms of life on Earth actually code for proteins slightly
differently from most, and so even if DNA were the only way to store
genetic information, the genetic code would be completely different
in life that had developed independently.


Yes, IF it developed independently.

Out of MILLIONS of civilizations, all that's needed is ONE to survive.


I have no quarrel with the statement that it is possible, and it even
seems likely, that there should be aliens far more advanced than humans
out there.

Now, of course, somebody has to be first, and the fact that aliens
don't seem to have made themselves obvious in the Universe could be
taken as evidence that they don't exist. But that is projecting our
own behavior on them.


Indeed. We are children in an adult universe.

Yes, it's a universal characteristic of life to expand as far as its
environment will allow. And, at the moment, humans don't really show
that much sign of behaving differently than aphids or yeast in this
matter.


Aphids don't build spaceships.

That we could grow up, and limit our reproduction for the sake of
responsible stewardship of our world, however, is not something I
would characterize as impossible; indeed, it would be a necessary
condition for long-term survival.


If there are limits. Certainly, there are limits to growth even in the
solar system, but that's way beyond where we are now. Could some of
these maverick planetary systems with weird worlds be terraformed?
Maybe "terraformed" isn't the right word since we may not be as we
now appear.

No, my quarrel is far more simple. Those you speak of are in the category
"elder brother", not "father"; we should heed their greater wisdom, but
not worship them in the place of God.

John Savard


Some call Jesus Christ "Elder Brother" and they worship Him :-)
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Denial of Neil deGrasse Tyson's Science Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 3 April 24th 17 06:58 PM
NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON DISHONEST OR JUST SILLY? Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 3 August 6th 15 12:14 PM
Neil (EGO) Degrasse Tyson STEALS directly from Sagan RichA[_6_] Amateur Astronomy 4 April 17th 15 09:38 AM
NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON : CONSPIRACY OF THE HIGHEST ORDER Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 July 14th 14 04:32 PM
'My Favorite Universe' (Neil deGrasse Tyson) M Dombek UK Astronomy 1 December 29th 05 01:01 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:37 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.