Einstein admitted in a letter to Velikovsky that catastrophism rang true. So why does 'The Science' ignore proofs contrary to its narrative of endless time? What does 'Science' actually know?
Thank you. Very comprehensive. What I liked about V. is that he challenged as you call it the sacred immutable laws of 'the science'..."His approach questioned the "sacred laws" of science like the assumed age of the solar system and the Earth's harmonious revolution. He challenges the notion that scientific knowledge was nearing completion"
Great summary of Immanuel Velikovsky's most well-known tome. I strongly suspect that one of the main reasons there was such a hysterical backlash against Velikovsky by "The Science" was because, even though he wasn't writing it for Christian apologetic reasons, the secondary tendency of his work is to show the Bible to be historically accurate. How is "The Science" supposed to vindicate its porn, premarital sex and other forms of moral rebellion, if the Bible is more than just a fairy tale? Notice how once of Velikovsky's most vocal critics was Carl Sagan, who is often seen as something of a patron saint and guiding star among the hordes of bitter, unattractive low-status Reddit Atheists. The same thing happens in the recently published "In The Beginning" book, which can also be utilized for Christian apologetic reasons.
Thanks Michael, yes 'The Science' was apoplectic that someone, even a secular non-practicing Jew, might try to explain the OT stories using their own methods - namely materialism and physicalism. Worse yet was to support the contentions with cultural artefacts and 'legends'. Every culture discusses the end of an age (or ages). Carl Sagan was more a science fiction writer than a scientist, one of the many well funded romance scribblers to conjure up various theories and declarations to support the materialist narrative. Like the long agers, Darwinistis or Einstein he produced no mechanical evidence. It was all philosophy. It is really embarrassing that people quote Hawking or Sagan in support of their 'science'. Neither proved anything.
I read the book 30 years ago. I read many crazy things at that time and this looked like one of those to take it too seriously. I hope I did not throw it away as I did with many books from that time. It might be interesting to look at it through my current lenses.
The Science said there was life on Venus, even flying dinosaurs.
Velikovsky said nyet, it is a new, immature planet, saturated with Co2 and with a surface temp of 1000 F. The heretic was of course right. The Science as usual wrong. But I am to believe that the heretic is the quack. :)
Excellent. Poor old Einstein - a victim of his own success. One thing we never hear about is any other work he did or book he wrote. Looks to me as if he sat around reading Velikovsky. I am with you on catastrophism - because there is some good evidence for it. How do fossils get on top of mountains? Venus could have been another moon of Jupiter or Saturn that moved. It does not have to be a comet necessarily. That would explain its shape. Coral reef analysis might be a way to get some idea about the time frame. Also what about fossils. What are they? For years I have tried to find out and come up with nothing? Do you have any idea at all what a fossil might actually be? The whole science of dating the earth needs to be looked at again. Current orthodoxy is obviously just assumption sold as fact. Science did not "open our eyes" it closed them. We are more brainwashed, propagandized, ignorant, and enslaved than we have ever been. Great work. I look for your posts first in my in box. Even better than Mentor Pilot.
Good ideas on Venus. The Greeks maintained Venus came out of Jupiter or Zeus. It might well have been a moon or caused by some monumental collision. Fossils and coral in the Arctic is pretty good proof that the poles have flipped and the climate has been much warmer and is hardly static. Totally agree on fossils and dating. Will publish a series on those. Needless to say, the long ages are tautologically arrived at. C14 has plenty of issues as do isotope and isochrony dating. Fossils are only found in sedimentary layers and there are no missing links. This indicates a massive flood where the fossil is formed instanteously, from water and sand. There is no other way to make one. The forms are fully developed. Another embarrassment for the Darwin religion.
You may be interested in this recent summary
https://unbekoming.substack.com/p/worlds-in-collision
Thank you. Very comprehensive. What I liked about V. is that he challenged as you call it the sacred immutable laws of 'the science'..."His approach questioned the "sacred laws" of science like the assumed age of the solar system and the Earth's harmonious revolution. He challenges the notion that scientific knowledge was nearing completion"
Great summary of Immanuel Velikovsky's most well-known tome. I strongly suspect that one of the main reasons there was such a hysterical backlash against Velikovsky by "The Science" was because, even though he wasn't writing it for Christian apologetic reasons, the secondary tendency of his work is to show the Bible to be historically accurate. How is "The Science" supposed to vindicate its porn, premarital sex and other forms of moral rebellion, if the Bible is more than just a fairy tale? Notice how once of Velikovsky's most vocal critics was Carl Sagan, who is often seen as something of a patron saint and guiding star among the hordes of bitter, unattractive low-status Reddit Atheists. The same thing happens in the recently published "In The Beginning" book, which can also be utilized for Christian apologetic reasons.
Thanks Michael, yes 'The Science' was apoplectic that someone, even a secular non-practicing Jew, might try to explain the OT stories using their own methods - namely materialism and physicalism. Worse yet was to support the contentions with cultural artefacts and 'legends'. Every culture discusses the end of an age (or ages). Carl Sagan was more a science fiction writer than a scientist, one of the many well funded romance scribblers to conjure up various theories and declarations to support the materialist narrative. Like the long agers, Darwinistis or Einstein he produced no mechanical evidence. It was all philosophy. It is really embarrassing that people quote Hawking or Sagan in support of their 'science'. Neither proved anything.
I read the book 30 years ago. I read many crazy things at that time and this looked like one of those to take it too seriously. I hope I did not throw it away as I did with many books from that time. It might be interesting to look at it through my current lenses.
The Science said there was life on Venus, even flying dinosaurs.
Velikovsky said nyet, it is a new, immature planet, saturated with Co2 and with a surface temp of 1000 F. The heretic was of course right. The Science as usual wrong. But I am to believe that the heretic is the quack. :)
One always learns something new. I thought dinosaurs are living on the inside surface of our hollow globe.
Excellent. Poor old Einstein - a victim of his own success. One thing we never hear about is any other work he did or book he wrote. Looks to me as if he sat around reading Velikovsky. I am with you on catastrophism - because there is some good evidence for it. How do fossils get on top of mountains? Venus could have been another moon of Jupiter or Saturn that moved. It does not have to be a comet necessarily. That would explain its shape. Coral reef analysis might be a way to get some idea about the time frame. Also what about fossils. What are they? For years I have tried to find out and come up with nothing? Do you have any idea at all what a fossil might actually be? The whole science of dating the earth needs to be looked at again. Current orthodoxy is obviously just assumption sold as fact. Science did not "open our eyes" it closed them. We are more brainwashed, propagandized, ignorant, and enslaved than we have ever been. Great work. I look for your posts first in my in box. Even better than Mentor Pilot.
Good ideas on Venus. The Greeks maintained Venus came out of Jupiter or Zeus. It might well have been a moon or caused by some monumental collision. Fossils and coral in the Arctic is pretty good proof that the poles have flipped and the climate has been much warmer and is hardly static. Totally agree on fossils and dating. Will publish a series on those. Needless to say, the long ages are tautologically arrived at. C14 has plenty of issues as do isotope and isochrony dating. Fossils are only found in sedimentary layers and there are no missing links. This indicates a massive flood where the fossil is formed instanteously, from water and sand. There is no other way to make one. The forms are fully developed. Another embarrassment for the Darwin religion.