[SES1066]

Best proof Astrology is less than scientific? Take the base concept that the 'zodiacal' stars/planets permanently influence the baby at birth. Should not two babies born in the same hospital at the same time have identical astrological characteristics?

Now take two prominent astrologers of your choice, have them each interview each adult independently. If Astrology was a science, there should be at least some common characteristics. Astrology is not a science, it is not falsifiable and its' hypotheses are inconsistent through its belief community.

[Let's Roll]

You mean like the many cases of twins that were separated shortly after birth and went on to lead remarkably similar lives - not even knowing they had a twin somewhere until they were adults?

[Maceman]

Should not two babies born in the same hospital at the same time have identical astrological characteristics?

They will be pretty similar, although obviously environmental influences will also play a large role in the development of their personalities.

[jstone78]

{"....Now take two prominent astrologers of your choice, have them each interview each adult independently...."}

By the way, I do recognize the fact that astrologers are very intelligent people, otherwise, they would not get away with manipulating so many people.

I can just imagine what they discuss at astrologers' conventions. They probably snicker about all the suckers that they milk. After all, people who attend such conventions are rational men and women, who know the tricks of the trade.