Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Worlds in Collision

Expand Messages
  • Victor
    ... seems to be a good time to reconsider the challenging writings of Immanuel Velikovsky, of whom the great Albert Einstein was conviced that his work
    Message 1 of 6 , Jul 2, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Laurie Appleton" <lappleto@o...>
      wrote:
      > To All,
      >
      > Since this group seems to have temporaly "ground to a halt," it
      seems to be a good time to reconsider the challenging writings of
      Immanuel Velikovsky, of whom the great Albert Einstein was conviced
      that his work justified very careful and adequate scientific testing.
      The following introduction to an article in a Readers Digest, nearly
      30 years ago, is well worth being "reconsidered":
      > --------------------------
      >
      > "Has the world narrowly missed collisions with planets
      > wrenched into new orbits? Twenty-six years after its
      > publication, a startling theory of cosmic catastrophe ---
      > one that most scientists considered heresy and some have
      > tried to suppress --- is still being hotly debated by
      > scholars the world over."
      >
      > "But recent space probes and the moon landings have
      > given the author of the theory, Immanuel Velikovsky, the
      > satisfaction of seeing an extraordinary number of his
      > "crazy" predictions proved.
      >
      Immanuel Velikovsky certainly stirred up a hornet's nest 40 years ago.
      He did predict a number of unexpected thing in the solar system, such
      as on Venus. But he tends to misquote the Bible to support his
      claims. That said, he is on target about ancient society's records of
      historical encounters with the planets, sometimes catastrophically.
      For example, the tablet Ennuma Elis describes in graphic detail the
      smashing of a great watery planet apparently by a moon of another
      great planet, Jupiter. It says all the planets milled about during
      the battle and the seasons and orbits were changed after the smash up.

      Christians should carefully read what the Bible says about such
      encounters, because we do not hold Emmanual Velikovsky or the pagan
      stories as being without error, but the Bible and its Emmanuel as
      truth personified.

      The Bible clearly makes references to catatrophic events in the solar
      system. It even uses the exact same phrases as the Canaanites in
      describing these events. Most Christians are unfamiliar with these
      texts in Isaiah and Job.

      Most Christians are unfamiliar with the fact that every society in
      antiquity had similar stories that have many common features all over
      the world.

      Those that are familiar with these things often ascribe the biblical
      references to pagan, poetic imaginary. Why would a God of truth need
      to use pagan imagery to ascribe greatness to himself?

      The main reason why people, Christians and non Christians, have
      difficulty accepting close encounters is that we demand a
      mathematical, causal explanation.

      Of course the Bible has an explanation, but it cannot be made
      mathematical. It is called a first principle, the fundamental
      assumption, the basic idea that is the foundation for scientific
      reasoning itself. This historical little assumption is denied by the
      Bible in the clearest terms. If the modern first principle, the most
      elementary of assumptions, is false, then planetary orbits would
      gradually, incrementally change over the centuries. In that case, the
      biblical statements about solar system encounters would most likely be
      valid exegeses.

      Peter says the first thing to know is this first principle, this
      arche, the most elementary of assumptions that every Western person is
      grounded in, and yet no one ever seems to vocalize about. There is
      not a shred of evidence that supports this assumption that is not
      circular. Think about it. Can God really do what He says He will?
      Can he really defeat the wisdom of the world with their own reasoning?
      Can he even defeat logic, and mathematics and science?

      Christians need to stop using the assumptions that we got from the
      pagan Greeks, the foundation for scientific reasoning, as the standard
      by which we interpret what the Bible. The evidence that supports the
      Bible, even in the matter of the few generations and the vast age of
      the earth, have reasonable explanations once we stop thinking with the
      elementary assumptions of the pagan Greeks philosophers. Dear
      Christian, think about it. Peter says it is the first thing to know.
    • Laurie Appleton
      To All, ... From: Victor To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2005 5:25 PM Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: Worlds in Collision Victor responded:
      Message 2 of 6 , Jul 4, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        To All,
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Victor
        To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2005 5:25 PM
        Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: Worlds in Collision


        Victor responded:
        Imanuel Velikovsky certainly stirred up a hornet's nest 40 years ago.
        He did predict a number of unexpected thing in the solar system, such
        as on Venus. But he tends to misquote the Bible to support his
        claims. That said, he is on target about ancient society's records of
        historical encounters with the planets, sometimes catastrophically.
        >

        LA> It is rather an unusual experience to find someone on this or other groups, who takes a reasonable and moderate view of the work of Velikovsky. This is welcomed, whereas the angry and intemporate reactions of most respondents is rather puzzling. After all the great and famous scientist, Albert Einstein, was convinced, not long before his death, that Velikovsky's views and theories definitely justified proper and careful testing.

        LA> The intemperate reactions of the "establishment scientists" to Velikovsky was NOT because he rejected evolutionism as such, but because he vigorously rejected the then ruling paradigm of Darwinian "Uniformitarianism". It is significant therefore, that since then "uniformitarianism" has been largely replaced by Catastrophism, which is of the very essence of Velikovsky's whole approach.

        LA> We are entitled therefore to conclude that for perhaps 150 years, the public and students were misled and misinformed by the ruling academic elite. We can also conclude that evolutionism, which was so squarely based on uniformitarianism, was an unfortunate failure. No wonder that it was concluded in 1980, in an Historical Conference of some of the world's leading scientists that;
        --------------------

        "It is no wonder that scientists part reluctantly with
        Darwin. His theory of natural selection was beautiful in
        simplicity, and it has served well for over a century. To
        tamper with it is to raise a host of questions for which
        there are no answers."

        "The new theory also raises the troubling question of
        whether man himself is less a product of 3 billion years of
        competition than a quantum leap into the dark-just another
        hopeful monster whose star was more benevolent than most"

        (Adler J. & Carey J., "Is Man a Subtle Accident?",
        "Newsweek", November 3, 1980, p. 55).
        ================


        LA> Naturally all of that tends to support and vindicate the traditional Creation science position and leaves atheism and evolutionism in tatters scientifically.


        Laurie.

        "No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seems to happen."
        (Niles Eldredge, famous evolutionary scientist, 1995)



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Laurie Appleton
        Hi Alan, ... From: Alan C To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 12:31 PM Subject: Re: [OriginsTalk] Worlds in Collision Thanks Laurie
        Message 3 of 6 , Jul 4, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Alan,
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: Alan C
          To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 12:31 PM
          Subject: Re: [OriginsTalk] Worlds in Collision


          Thanks Laurie for posting that about Velikovsky.

          I searched the Web for his name and got some interesting reads. Will
          read some more.

          - Alan


          LA>To All,
          >
          > Since this group seems to have temporaly "ground to a halt," it seems to be a good time to reconsider the challenging writings of Immanuel Velikovsky, of whom the great Albert Einstein was conviced that his work justified very careful and adequate scientific testing. The following introduction to an article in a Readers Digest, nearly 30 years ago, is well worth being "reconsidered":
          >--------------------------
          >

          LA> There is no doubt that Velikovsky really created a major "storm" in academic orthodoxy. The Readers Digest in 1976, published an article which gives one of the best and most straight forward appraisals of the matter. The following is a brief portion of its first page;
          ---------------------------

          "Has the world narrowly missed collisions with planets
          wrenched into new orbits? Twenty-six years after its
          publication, a startling theory of cosmic catastrophe ---
          one that most scientists considered heresy and some have
          tried to suppress --- is still being hotly debated by
          scholars the world over."

          "But recent space probes and the moon landings have
          given the author of the theory, Immanuel Velikovsky, the
          satisfaction of seeing an extraordinary number of his
          "crazy" predictions proved.

          (When the Sky Rained Fire, Fred Warshofsky, Reader's Digest,
          February, 1976, p.156)
          =================

          LA> More excerpts from that article can be provided for those interested, as well as lots of other quotations from his various books. It is significant, however, that although some Christians at first regarded Velikovsky as practically "one of their own" he apparently spurmed such an association. I have always assumed that he was atheistic, but I have been unable to document that so far.


          Laurie.

          "From my earliest training as a scientist, I was strongly brainwashed
          to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate
          creation. That notion has had to be painfully shed."
          (Chandra Wickramasinghe, noted ex atheistic scientist, 1981)




          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Alan C
          There are all kinds of anti-Big Bang theorists, anthropic principle scientists, anti-darwinists, who believe in all kinds of things nowadays. Buddhists,
          Message 4 of 6 , Jul 5, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            There are all kinds of anti-Big Bang theorists, "anthropic principle"
            scientists, anti-darwinists, who believe in all kinds of things nowadays.

            Buddhists, Hindus, Moslems, Hindus, Transcendental Meditationers (a
            version of Hindu I think), even atheists who have other theories,
            including all kinds of cockamamie fantasies about how the anthropic
            principle happened by accident.

            - Alan


            > LA> More excerpts from that article can be provided for those interested, as well as lots of other quotations from his various books. It is significant, however, that although some Christians at first regarded Velikovsky as practically "one of their own" he apparently spurmed such an association. I have always assumed that he was atheistic, but I have been unable to document that so far.
            >
            > Laurie.
            >
            >
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.