Please reveal the evidence that certain people born at a certain time of year are more egotistical than people born at another time of year because a certain configuration of stars kind of suggested the outline of a lion.
Or that other people born at another time of year were more sexual than other people born at another time of year because a certain configuration of stars kind of looked like a snake and a snake resembles a penis.
Please reveal the evidence done from personality studies on how some people born at a certain time of year are more stubborn than people born at other times of the year because a given configuration of stars kind of resembles a bull.
"Reasonable conjecture" is not science. Theories that attempt to explain existing evidence is. And there is absolutely no evidence that personality traits are concurrent with the perceived likeness of a configuration of stars as interpreted by a bunch of ignorant savages (non-christian - non Hebrew) a couple thousand years ago.
While were at it let's resurrect the Aztec practice of cutting the hearts out of people to appease the gods.
Hey, it just might stop global warming !!!
You seem to be well versed in the weak science of astrology. Maybe you can explain the difference between "reasonable conjecture" and "theories that attempt to explain existing evidence." Neither constitute direct observation of current phenomena and testability in real time, which is part and parcel of science in the strict sense. If you think the essence of science is merely explaining the existing evidence (as revealed in geologic records and such), then it is no wonder you are willing to grant the philosophy of evolution "scientific" status in the classroom.
You have such a way of presenting things that justify some people's erroneous preconceptions that it's amazing.
Anyway, the concept that one's birthday is related to their personality or "luck" is just ridiculous. The evidence of fraternal twins should easily demonstrate the falicy of astrology.
Science in no way supports astrology. Why you equate the two is a mystery. Except that it is a handy rhetorical tool for you to bash your demon, evolution, without any real argument in hand.
"Absolutely no evidence."
Isn't that a rather absolute claim to make for someone who has not investigated whether any evidence really exists? Or have you already investigated all aspects of astrology and found this to be the case? My gut feeling is that you've made this assertion via gut feeling, and not scientific, let alone personally extensive, research.
BTW, I would have used the words "related to" as opposed to "concurrent with," but that's just me.
Not very charitable of you to make such ascriptions to those who have gone before us. Our forefathers were not a "bunch of ignorant savages" any more than you are one.