Talk:Fred Hoyle

message: Dawkins is clearly right, Hoyle made a really stupid blunder. The reason is that Hoyle based his computation on a currently existing enzyme. No biologist claims that those enzymes were generated by abiogenesis or any sort of pure random chance, but they are assumed to have evolved. For that reason, and for some other reasons, Hoyle's computations are disingenious to the extreme. His understanding of biology was terribly bad, and Hoyle is the one building a strawman here, not Dawkins. All those creationists who claim that Hoyle was misrepresented are as incompetent as Hoyle was. --Hob Gadling 17:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only is what you say correct, it's not at all controversial among biologists.  I see no reason to hide these simple facts by excluding them from the article. Alienus 17:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "They are excited about the existence in or on comets, of biochemicals that would surely not survive falling through our atmosphere, at any time, in a cometary meteorite."  At the risk of entertaining a "blog discussion", I must note that there have been multiple research projects that simulate and re-enact material and embedded microorganisms entering Earth's atmosphere, and while the outer shell of the object usually gets shocked, the interior has been shown to protect the embedded chemicals and life forms, which then fall at terminal speed. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dawkins misrepresentation claim 

message: I am Agnostic, which shouldn't be material to my point but often is in the eyes of others.
Regardless, If Fred Hoyle converted to Christianity and died as such, then he should be labeled as such under his picture in the short biography off on the right.
Staffa  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.108 (talk) 21:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been unable to find any evidence that Hoyle ever converted to Christianity. In fact, these two creationist sites (1) (2) call him an atheist; surely they would be trumpeting his conversion if he had had one.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aardvark92 (talk • contribs) 05:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Prob not, thinking that "if this atheist [emphasis] also claims our claims, then we can't be wrong". They have an interest in labelling him atheist. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 08:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

text: There is a huge difference between imagining "some sort of a God  -- aka Intelligent Designer" -- and being a Jew, Muslim, or Christian. DaveyHume (talk) 16:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Atheist

message: Seriously question this statement  "Britain's radar project employed more personnel than the Manhattan project, and was probably the inspiration for the large British project in The Black Cloud."2600:1700:9750:AC50:DCC7:D3FF:45ED:AC69 (talk) 09:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seriously Question British Radar Research Had more people than US Manhattan Project 

message: Would someone kindly type here any quote from his book {Evolution from Space, Omni Lecture, Royal Institution, London, 12 January 1982; Evolution from Space (1982) ISBN 0-89490-083-8} that refers to either Intelligent Design (pp. 27–28) or Panspermia? Charles Juvon (talk) 22:05, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolution from Space