Did we Evolve to astrological seasons?

[swansont]

• support has already been given' date=' regardless if their warrants are in conflict
  [*']they can very easily find the support their self
  and/or
  
• they ignore the support given anyway as a means of avoiding departure--such as people overstaying their welcomes in threads and discussions and/or nosing in under the disguise of "publicity"

 

They are your claims, and the burden of proof is upon you.

 

NASA and the obvious cultural effects and their relevance into Evolution, earth, and life is irrefutable based on a field-view. If you can't accept it, leave.

I honestly believe they have such a huge effect on Evolution.

There's no doubt to me that we have indeed evolved to the stars.

I absolutely would see no reason why changes in the stars have no direct effects/correlations on life itself.

I'm quite positive life still does and IS AT THIS MOMENT and always will take these into account and notice them.

They must have some sort of effect, and I think it's foolish to take one of the most important aspects to earth out of the equation.

 

 

These are not statements containing evidence. They are assertions. If you make them (and you did), you are expected to back them up. It is not incumbent upon anyone else to go out and dig up the evidence.

[Hellbender]

Well, I am glad you pointed out this is a debate forum, I suppose I hadn't realized the entire forums were centered around only debate...

I'm not saying thats all you have to do here, but it is what discussions turn into most of the time.

which explains why I do not appreciate the constant chain-arguing which is less constructive than actually learning. Perhaps I can work on this new found realization or perhaps I will leave.This applies to all people, then, or else I will notice an imbalance

We aren't going to learn anything if you simply tell us what you think. You seem to have a deal with providing evidence, then turn around and say how you want us to learn from you. It doesn't really follow. I might have jumped the gun a little in saying that you have to debate here, but in a scientific discussion, making a claim is always followed by what evidence and how you think it logically relates. That is how we will best learn what you have to say.

This applies to all people, then, or else I will notice an imbalance

Most of us here don't make assertions on people's personality or motives the way you do.

The forums say, "Science Forums and Debate", I guess I interpreted "and" to mean "and" and not "only".

Like I said, I may a have jumped the gun a little. Discussion and debate are slightly different things, and you aren't necessarily obligated to do only one or the other. However, discussions usually turn into debates here, and I felt that right now, in this thread, we are debating, as is evident with our point-by-point exchanges.

Perhaps they should be renamed to "Science Debate Forums", then, because I am presently justified, otherwise, in saying that I did not want to pursue all chain-arguments.

If you do not want to pursue the point-by-point format, then simply stop posting responses to us. However, this is not "Science Soapbox and Debate". Expect your points and claims to be evaluated and criticized.

[Christ slave]

They are your claims, and the burden of proof is upon you.

Yes, this is true. Are you done asserting the worst now, continually suggesting I make no effort to respond to you? You know I do. Let's move on, please.

NASA and the obvious cultural effects and their relevance into Evolution, earth, and life is irrefutable based on a field-view. If you can't accept it, leave.

Yes, NASA is obvious a cultural reality, and since Evolution takes no breaks, then why evidence do I need to provide that NASA is a part of Evolution (as it continues on-going even now just as it did 3 billion years ago) since it is a part of life which is a part of Evolution, that NASA is a part of earth, and yes, as I said, that NASA is a part of life?

 

What evidence do you need to prove that Evolution is still continuing to this day, that NASA is a part of our lives as it is on earth, and that NASA likewise as an organization amongst evolving creatures is a part of Evolution and thus for proves the stars are affecting Evolution?

 

Like I said, these are field-views, and unless you personally are not convinced the Evolution is real and still exists and takes no breaks, I don't know what it is you're looking for--other than attempting to make me look bad and make yourself look intelligent, right, and better?

I honestly believe they have such a huge effect on Evolution.

Okay, so you want me to provide evidence that I honestly believe they have a huge effect on Evolution? If you don't believe me to be honest about my belief, that is your problem not mine. And, as I said, "I believe", so it's not your business to judge this a claim past my beliefs--let it go, stop trying to entrap me.

There's no doubt to me that we have indeed evolved to the stars.

Again, this is speaking of my own beliefs--not your business, and if you cannot believe I am being honest, I cannot provide further support to prove my belief. However, being descendents and neighbors of creatures living under the stars, and even more recently those who observe and label the stars (anyone who looks at the stars/star-gazers, astrologers, astronomers, etc.), it is so obvious the stars do have a relevant effect in society and affect us--all of this energy is a part of Evolution, so if you're looking for support, then you're quite uneducated in what Evolution really is.

 

What all of this star-gazing and whatnot means for the future, that is yet to be seen...however, I can state my belief that the stars didn't only showup among life when a person first looked at them--there are other senses which are effected by the stars, including the cells of our bodies, earth itself, etc. which is receiving the light of the stars. Any cell which takes in the light of a star, and over billions of years, has to in some way be affected by it--everything has an effect on everything in Evolution. I shouldn't have to teach you a course on what Evolution is and what life is.

I absolutely would see no reason why changes in the stars have no direct effects/correlations on life itself.

Again, this is speaking of my perception--I am not obligated to support my beliefs to you, and I still ask if you want to learn about Evolution. I for one believe Evolution is an expression/adaptation to the environment--whereby everything is noticed/taken into account (not necessarily just what we eat or life and death, but even our own consciousness: the thoughts we think, the things we sense, etc.). I believe psychology plays a role in Evolution, so if you believe this to be true, then you should consider this the answer/justification you were looking for.

I'm quite positive life still does and IS AT THIS MOMENT and always will take these into account and notice them.

Evolution takes no breaks--this is my belief, as what I know. If you think otherwise, I hold no competence over you.

They must have some sort of effect, and I think it's foolish to take one of the most important aspects to earth out of the equation.

Evolution takes no breaks.

 

Are we done now? I gave you reasons (support) for these claims, and warrants...essentially you seem to be asserting one, some, or all of these:

a) psychology/consciousness/lifestyle is out of Evolution

b) the elements are out of Evolution

c) some things, such as lightwaves or gravity from stars, are somehow, although they reach earth and perceive them and know about them because they reach us in some form, are somehow untallied in Evolution (suggesting Evolution takes breaks)

 

If you believe any of these, I will ask that you end this discussion, because I am not interested in such a chain-argument.

[Christ slave]

If you do not want to pursue the point-by-point format, then simply stop posting responses to us. However, this is not "Science Soapbox and Debate". Expect your points and claims to be evaluated and criticized.

No, I simply question your own understanding; I am not attempting to stop trying to provide evidence. For one thing, most/all of the things you are questioning me on you yourself appear to think is such a grand challenge that I think is simply stupid--if you'll read the post I posted in this thread just above this post to swansont, you'll see my point. Most of my claims are based on sheer reality--to argue or challenge them, asking for support to something common sense to someone with understanding can answer for them, certainly leaves the arguer in suspicion as to the challenger's own understanding.

 

As you would see, all of his challenges are based on providing proof to claims that are backed up (warranted) by Evolution, and how Evolution is and always has been an ongoing effort--it doesn't take breaks...and, Evolution won't ever take breaks--as if something can separate itself into an unbiased state of being idle.

 

I don't challenge your competence to ask for support, I simply question/challenge why you do it (is it because you lack understanding? Or, is it because your beliefs are simply contrary to mine?). For what sort of "proof" do I have to offer to Evolution, as it is a theory? I am attempting to widen people's horizons into seeing the bigger picture (the forest among the individual trees). Humanity, the environment, plant life, air, elements, life, death, food, everything is a part of this on-going breathing, living universe whereby all life is affected by it. Culture itself is a part of Evolution and life.

 

If you can't believe this, I asked you to please stop discussing...and yet some of you seem to get offended--I am not saying don't ever talk to me again, I am simply informing you that if you cannot accept what I believe to be true as well as many other people in regard to life, Evolution, etc., then you should stop hounding me to succumb to your views.

 

You seem to be very interested in using a scientific method for debating, however, you are disrespecting the fact that warrants can be warranted by beliefs, and beyond which you are attempting to enter into religious discussions with me, and even though a lot of you seem to think it is me who makes everything religious, it is actually the other person a lot of the time that does it. Why? Perhaps because my username is "Christ slave" and you know I believe in God and Christ, and so when warrants are warranted by beliefs, you instead are inclined to disrespect/forget your so-called "scientific method" by demanding I somehow prove my faith to you, such as my beliefs regarding Evolution and life, just because your beliefs conflict with mine.

 

 

 

So, perhaps you should work on realizing that just because you have a conflicting warrant/belief, that doesn't mean scientifically one is obligated to go into a religious-war with you on such beliefs. Nobody should have to go desperately scourging through research to backup his or her beliefs. Evolution is a theory based on faith, and there are wide-spectrums of beliefs regarding it. I told you my warrants, and beyond that I have no interest to get into a huge religious-war with you about who's right and who's wrong regarding their faith. You may faithfully believe Evolution takes breaks and I for one do not. How can we prove this? Well, if you're challenging my belief and want to form a chain-argument, then actually, oh ignorant one, it is you in this instance morally obligated to provide proof that Evolution takes breaks. How can you prove this?

 

Show me evidence that Evolution takes breaks and is not an endless on-going process of time. You cannot, can you? Are you ready to stop being a curmudgeon, now?

[swansont]

Regarding post 53:

 

Boy did you miss the point.

 

I am not asking for you to provide evidence that you have beliefs. But you state those beliefs as if they are factual. I am asking you to provide evidence that what you assert are facts are indeed facts. Science is based upon evidence, not beliefs.

 

IOW, If someone were to say, "I believe the moon is made of cheese" and I say, "Evidence, please" I am asking for the evidence of the cheese, not the evidence of the belief.

 

Got it?

[Hellbender]

Show me evidence that Evolution takes breaks and is not an endless on-going process of time. You cannot, can you? Are you ready to stop being a curmudgeon, now?

Don't put words in my mouth. I never disagreed with this claim. What I do disagree with you on, I will make clear here.

 

1) Astrology exists, it works and it is useful, outside of the placebo-effect.

 

2) Evolution is guided directly by the stars or "astrological seasons".

 

3) Starlight has a profound effect on evolution.

 

4) We don't have the right to ask that you back up your beliefs, even if you use assertions of them in place of evidence and expect us science people (who logically demand that all claims in a scientific disscussion should be backed up be evidence) to accept that.

 

5) Disagreement with your beliefs is a blatant attack on them.

 

6) We are all close-minded, dogmatic scientists who hide our head in the sand whenever we hear a claim that on a topic that science doesn't support. We disagree with pseudoscientific claims not becuase we don't like the nature of the claim, but because they are usually fanciful and not supported by evidence at all.

 

Thats where I stand, I felt I had to list them to clear things up, for future reference.

[Christ slave]

Regarding post 53:

 

Boy did you miss the point.

 

I am not asking for you to provide evidence that you have beliefs. But you state those beliefs as if they are factual. I am asking you to provide evidence that what you assert are facts are indeed facts. Science is based upon evidence' date=' not beliefs.

 

IOW, If someone were to say, "I believe the moon is made of cheese" and I say, "Evidence, please" I am asking for the evidence of the cheese, not the evidence of the belief.

 

Got it?[/quote']Yes, well you still have yet to tell me, do you believe Evolution takes no breaks and that everything in life affects Evolution? You seem to be arguing against my faith that Evolution is forever ongoing and then everything is taken into account in Evolution as the life of a creature adapts to all conditions. To do so is irrelevant. Likewise, you should understand finally what I am trying to get you to understand, and so if you cannot respect my beliefs in regard to Evolution, I don't want a chain-argument.

[Christ slave]

Don't put words in my mouth. I never disagreed with this claim. What I do disagree with you on' date=' I will make clear here.

 

1) Astrology exists, it works and it is useful, outside of the placebo-effect.[/quote']This has little to do with the topic, and I mentioned that astrology is a true aspect of the effect stars have on people, as astrology involves the stars regarding creatures who are a part of Evolution and life.

2) Evolution is guided directly by the stars or "astrological seasons".

Yes, well, perhaps I wanted to get you to consider?

3) Starlight has a profound effect on evolution.

So, no living creature is affected by starlight? That is a lie. Even an eyeball can see that the starlight has an effect on the creature seeing it--be it its own acknowledgement of the star, its disregard of it, or even if the eyeball doesn't look at it and the starlight is still there beating down on the cells of the creature, etc. The very nature that starlight can be seen and we notice them shows you that starlight is not some weak (nor nonexistent) irrelevant force--apart from our own interest in them (which is profoundly shaping society and the future, anyhow), even our own cells notice them--obviously, as even the cells of our vision can perceive them. Also, what about other animals and plants? Do their cells transcend the stars?

4) We don't have the right to ask that you back up your beliefs, even if you use assertions of them in place of evidence and expect us science people (who logically demand that all claims in a scientific disscussion should be backed up be evidence) to accept that.

Yes, I made it clear I don't want to debate with you on every little peanut-gallery you buy a ticket to. I am telling you that you've wasted your money, the ticket is as good as trash. Can you now see what respect is, or should I draw?

5) Disagreement with your beliefs is a blatant attack on them.

When you argue, dispite my warning you that I don't want to discuss something you want to discuss (because of your unhealthy worship of debate), then you're disrespecting me--and you seem to think disrespect/rebellion is a privelege, as you continue to bring up your challenges toward things in an attempt to prove me wrong and get me to debate with you when I told you I don't want to debate with some of the things you seem interested in. Respect the topic at hand, as we have come to the conclusion that this forum is called, "Science Forums and Debate", not "Science Debate Forums".

6) We are all close-minded, dogmatic scientists who hide our head in the sand whenever we hear a claim that on a topic that science doesn't support.

Are you ready to let go of your defiance? Are you willing to respect that I am making the choice of not giving you the right to debate with me on anything you want to?

Thats where I stand, I felt I had to list them to clear things up, for future reference.

Good. I hope I have made myself clear as well for future reference...as you seem to be questioning my competence because I don't curmudgeonly debate with you in every aspect that arouses your interest.

[swansont]

(emphasis added)

Yes, well you still have yet to tell me, do you believe Evolution takes no breaks and that everything in life affects Evolution? You seem to be arguing against my faith that Evolution is forever ongoing and then everything is taken into account in Evolution as the life of a creature adapts to all conditions. To do so is irrelevant. Likewise, you should understand finally what I am trying to get you to understand, and so if you cannot respect my beliefs in regard to Evolution[/b'], I don't want a chain-argument.

 

 

I don't care what your beliefs are.

 

I thought I had made that abundantly clear.

 

If you are going to assert something as fact, however, I am going to ask for evidence in support of that assertion. Is this really a difficult concept to grasp?

[Christ slave]

If you are going to assert something as fact, however, I am going to ask for evidence in support of that assertion. Is this really a difficult concept to grasp?

It is not, why do you keep repeating yourself? The fact is, you ranted more than necessary on about how I have failed to serve you. I did not fail to serve you, I have posted several posts in regard to your requests.

 

I know you want to get snippy with me discussing how you don't care what my beliefs are, however, the very nature of the requests that we are talking about involves a belief of whether or not Evolution is an ongoing process.

 

On the same road of being abundantly clear, why do you get upset when I try to inform you that all the while you keep posting like I am avoiding the subject, I am trying to tell you that in meeting your requests, we have come to a breech in the road--it involves two conflicting warrants, I assume, unless you agree with me and just like to keep arguing anyhow...which is considered trolling, but far be it from me to call you a troll, I think that's rude and a selfish slap in the face--in other words, I hate to slap someone in the face and tell them I was trying to get their attention.

 

So, as I said, unless you have no self-consciousness over there on the other side of the Internet (you're not a robot, right?), we have come to a breech in our discussion. Do you understand this? This breech is that you are asking me to support some of my warrants...now, scientifically, if you challenge somebody's warrant, you are challenging their belief. Do you not understand this? This is scientific--you may be oblivious and keep going on and on about how you don't care about this or that, but, being scientific here, if you challenge somebody's warrant, and my warrant happens to be a belief regarding the theory of Evolution, and then that person does not want to enter into your challenge/chain-argument, do you understand that I have the right to refuse your proposed argument?

 

And do you understand that if you challenge a warrant/belief, you are getting involved with the warranter's belief?

 

You are challenging my beliefs, because you ask for support regarding a warrant--this is called a chain-argument, and from my standpoint, if you ask for support regarding a belief, you in fact (although you say you don't), do care about my beliefs.

 

 

 

Do you know what warrants are? Do you know what support is? Do you know what a claim is? Do you know what chain-arguments are? Do you know what a field-view is?

[Hellbender]

This has little to do with the topic, and I mentioned that astrology is a true aspect of the effect stars have on people, as astrology involves the stars regarding creatures who are a part of Evolution and life.

How can you say astrology has little to do with this topic, and then in the very next breath, say that "astrology is a true aspect...". Astrology is not true! Get that through your head. You can believe it all you want, but do not attempt to discuss it here without getting that belief called into question. We discuss here, not soapbox.

Yes, well, perhaps I wanted to get you to consider?

And then, when we consider it (ask for evidence, discuss it), you get all mad, and say "thats not what I want to do here!!!".

So, no living creature is affected by starlight? That is a lie. Even an eyeball can see that the starlight has an effect on the creature seeing it--be it its own acknowledgement of the star, its disregard of it, or even if the eyeball doesn't look at it and the starlight is still there beating down on the cells of the creature, etc.

I said "profoundly", but its your job as the person making this claim to show that stars do at all, and make sense about it and give examples.

Yes, I made it clear I don't want to debate with you on every little peanut-gallery you buy a ticket to. I am telling you that you've wasted your money, the ticket is as good as trash. Can you now see what respect is, or should I draw?

Expect that when you try to make a point, that it will be challenged and discussed. No one comes here to just tell their ideas/beliefs and then have everyone else say "wow" or "I agree with you". One should always be able to back up there claims with a good argument and/or evidence. It simply doesn't do to say "here's my ideas, don't question or criticize them, I just wanted to tell you what I think". Thats boring, and defeats the purpose of a discussion and debate board. Sharing your ideas is fine, but my point is that they can be called into question.

When you argue, despite my warning you that I don't want to discuss something you want to discuss (because of your unhealthy worship of debate), then you're disrespecting me--and you seem to think disrespect/rebellion is a privelege, as you continue to bring up your challenges toward things in an attempt to prove me wrong and get me to debate with you when I told you I don't want to debate with some of the things you seem interested in.

Actually, we are discussing your topic. The fact that it has no validity, and that you are not forthcoming with any support for it, doesn't affect the fact that we are indeed discussing your topic. If you don't want to discuss it anymore, then fine, get someone to close the thread.

Respect the topic at hand, as we have come to the conclusion that this forum is called, "Science Forums and Debate", not "Science Debate Forums".

And I made the point that it is not "Science Soapbox and Debate". Scientific discussions are not based on unfounded claims and beliefs.

Are you ready to let go of your defiance? Are you willing to respect that I am making the choice of not giving you the right to debate with me on anything you want to?

Fine, but I am not the only one here who will ask for evidence when you make claims like this.

Good. I hope I have made myself clear as well for future reference...as you seem to be questioning my competence because I don't curmudgeonly debate with you in every aspect that arouses your interest.

This is your thread, and we are discussing your topic, which is astrology's supposed link to evolution. We went off topic a little, yes, but I don't know where you are getting that I am "forcing you to debate in whatever arouses my interest" on this thread. If I did that, we would have been talking about video games or salamanders for a while already .

[Christ slave]

How can you say astrology has little to do with this topic, and then in the very next breath, say that "astrology is a true aspect...". Astrology is not true!

I called astrology a true aspect of the effect stars have on people. The very nature that astrologers use the stars and study them, discuss them, spend so much time and energy in them, etc. is a true aspect of a piece of life/Evolution (culture) involving the stars.

 

This does not mean that astrology is not necessarily hog-wash. Do you see where you are wrong in your understanding of what I am saying?

And then, when we consider it (ask for evidence, discuss it), you get all mad, and say "thats not what I want to do here!!!".

Like I said, astrology is a true aspect of culture/people--a true way of life for some people. Whether or not the teachings of astrology as absolutely true or not is another thing. What I mean is, if people get involved with the stars, such as in astrology, NASA, or astronomy, etc., then obviously the stars play a role in life on earth and Evolution, as society has so proved. In other words, even a person looking up at the sky and seeing a star is proof enough.

Expect that when you try to make a point, that it will be challenged and discussed. No one comes here to just tell their ideas/beliefs and then have everyone else say "wow" or "I agree with you".

Some people may...some people post threads to allow others to discuss--to far it's just a bunch of people challenging me. Don't fail to discuss topics with other people.

One should always be able to back up there claims with a good argument and/or evidence. It simply doesn't do to say "here's my ideas, don't question or criticize them, I just wanted to tell you what I think".

No, you keep questioning things because you lack understanding...such as interpreting my affirmative assessment of astrology being an exisiting field as my testimony to the field's inner-validity itself.

This is your thread, and we are discussing your topic, which is astrology's supposed link to evolution.

No, you aren't adding much of anything other than asking me to add something. Some people did add stuff and I'm glad, but this has become an argument and it's sad. <-- Oh yes, rhyming intended.

[Hellbender]

One problem: are you familiar with astrology? Astrology is the unfounded belief that the alignment of the stars at your birth affects what you are going to be like in life, thus lumping people who were born in the first half of july in the category "cancer", for example, and dictating that your personality traits are the same as everyone else on that group. It is also the assumption that the stars alignment during your day will affect what happens and dictate what decisions you should make. Your view of what astrology is sounds like you are indeed confusing it with the science of astronomy, and yes, astronomers do study stars (among other things). Its a very honest mistake, as the two words do sound very much alike.

[swansont]

It is not, why do you keep repeating yourself? The fact is, you ranted more than necessary on about how I have failed to serve you. I did not fail to serve you, I have posted several posts in regard to your requests.

 

Because you have not done anything with regards to presenting evidence in support of your claims.

 

I know you want to get snippy with me discussing how you don't care what my beliefs are, however, the very nature of the requests that we are talking about[/u'] involves a belief of whether or not Evolution is an ongoing process.

 

No, my issue is not whether evolution is an ongoing process. It is with the specific mechanisms you propose, such as the positions of the stars. Simply stating that you believe it to be true does not make it true. Where's your evidence?

 

This breech is that you are asking me to support some of my warrants...now' date=' scientifically, if you challenge somebody's warrant, you are challenging their belief. Do you not understand this? This is scientific--you may be oblivious and keep going on and on about how you don't care about this or that, but, being scientific here, if you challenge somebody's warrant, and my warrant happens to be a belief regarding the theory of Evolution, and then that person does not want to enter into your challenge/chain-argument, [u']do you understand that I have the right to refuse your proposed argument?

 

And do you understand that if you challenge a warrant/belief, you are getting involved with the warranter's belief?

 

You are challenging my beliefs, because you ask for support regarding a warrant--this is called a chain-argument, and from my standpoint, if you ask for support regarding a belief, you in fact (although you say you don't), do care about my beliefs.

 

 

I don't care if you believe evolution is affected by the stars. But you are stating that as a fact, not a belief. I am challenging your facts. Religious beliefs have no place in science. Scientific "beliefs," aka hypotheses, are supposed to be challenged.

[Christ slave]

One problem: are you familiar with astrology? Astrology is the unfounded belief that the alignment of the stars at your birth affects what you are going to be like in life, thus lumping people who were born in the first half of july in the category "cancer", for example, and dictating that your personality traits are the same as everyone else on that group. It is also the assumption that the stars alignment during your day will affect what happens and dictate what decisions you should make. Your view of what astrology is sounds like you are indeed confusing it with the science of astronomy, and yes, astronomers do study stars (among other things). Its a very honest mistake, as the two words do sound very much alike.

What? I know what astrology is--and your birth time affects it as well. What I am saying is, astrology and astronomy are both founded on observing/using the stars--so, the stars are actually a part of culture, both the astrology and astronomy culture and their influence (meaning, if an astrologer or astronomer teaches someone about their field or even if they don't, their very existence is affecting society, life as a whole, and Evolution).

 

Regardless if you think their beliefs are wrong, they both are cultures involving the stars. What don't you understand? If this were a discussion about how Jesus affected the world, we'd talk about how various religions are highly involved with Jesus, most of the world knows or has heard of Jesus, satanists know Jesus--the very nature of his influence is seen. Now, does that mean I agree or want to get into a discussion about what satanists, anti-christs, or even what Catholics believe--and whether or not they're right or wrong? Not necessarily.

 

The same with this instance, I mention astrology as a fine example of how the stars are influencing society, as this is an entire culture shaped around the study of the stars, and I wasn't necessarily testifying to the validity of the teachings of astrology. In other words, if I had neglected to mention astrology but replaced it with a reference to a child who wears pajamas with drawings of outer-space on them, it should be just as valid.

[Sayonara]

"Honest belief" is not going to carry you very far if you don't even perceive a mechanism.

Christ Slave, please hurry up and fail to deal with my earlier point so that this diatribe can come to a conclusion.

[Hellbender]

Okay, its just that in earlier posts, it seemed that you were using astrology and astronomy interchangeably. Astronomy is a legit study; astrology is pure pseudoscience, yet you refer to it in your posts like its not. That was my first objection with this discussion.