Talk:Fred Hoyle

Dawkins misrepresentation claim
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)


 * 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)

There are quite a number of space technology enthusiasts who believe the reverse of what I consider the fundamental objection to panspermia. 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. Still less would they survive the temperature and ionisation that a large bolide would reach on simply hitting the hard, or molten surface of a bare Earth. We may also note that the notion of extraterrestrial existence of vastly superhuman (not Divine) intelligence is inconsistent chiefly with the now generally accepted fact of a less than twenty billion years' existence of the Universe. Hoyle was not by any means an isolated rebel in disliking that idea. I am quite certain that when he first studied astrophysics it was assumed that the Universe was infinitely old. The fact that it isn't is pretty certain, but it's still quite shocking. DaveyHume (talk) 15:57, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "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)

Atheist
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)


 * 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)


 * 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. ( m bork3 !) 08:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)

Why famous?
As far as I see, Hoyle developed a lot of unproven theories. What he had really done, looks like scientific detail work. And he criticized other theories. Theories, wthat were later proven. He was talented to be wrong. Could it be, that he was more famous than successful? Otherwise the article should show the meaning of his work. 92.209.25.250 (talk) 01:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * See article: "Sir Fred Hoyle FRS (24 June 1915 – 20 August 2001)[1] was an English astronomer who formulated the theory of stellar nucleosynthesis." That is an achievement.
 * What are you trying to do? This page is for improving the article. It is not a forum. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Seriously Question British Radar Research Had more people than US Manhattan Project
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)

Evolution from Space
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)