Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!

<< home  < Articles

Life on Other Planets? - and Velikovsky

Thread - Life Seems to be Ubiquitous

On 14/10/2002, Zero Sum posted:

 < http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/space/1616042 >

Makes me think that unique as our planet is and however doubtful it  may be that we will ever life unprotected in another planets native environment, perhaps there is a possibility of other intelligent life out there...
--

Karyn added:

Wouldn't it be weird if there were other life-forms on this planet .. that we just don't recognize?

Like they say that it is possible that there is life on Mars etc. but it's "Life Jim, but not as we know it".

but bacteria, that's cool. I wonder if we will ever know, with the current situation in Iraq etc.
On Tuesday 15 October 2002 18:19, Jim Edwards wrote:
> Very interesting, but not new.  It would have been nice if the
> author had acknowledged that exactly this sort of finding was
> predicted by I.Velikovsky in "Worlds in Collision", but to do so may
> have destroyed his career.
Zero Sum replied:

Nice try, but  [no?] cigar.

(1) While, I cannot "know" the motives of I.Velikovsky , I suggest that the books were published for profit motives not scientific motives.  There is no attempt to get numbers or even chemistry correct.
(2) Since there is no "theory" of I.Velikovsky, merely assertions unsupported (and even contradicted) by what we do know, it was not "predicted" by I.Velikovsky, but "guessed".  It is hard to guess everything wrong...
(3) It is a bit like believing in the Bible or creationism, a matter of faith or unreason, not sanity, sense or sensibility.

Given the above, it is obvious to see why "but to do so may have destroyed his career".  people mistrust the insane.
Ian Musgrave added:
>>On Tuesday 15 October 2002 18:19, Jim Edwards wrote:
>> > Very interesting, but not new.  It would have been nice if the
>> > author had acknowledged that exactly this sort of finding was
>> > predicted by I.Velikovsky in "Worlds in Collision", but to do so may
>> > have destroyed his career.
Only if you think that believing flies live on Jupiter equates to a "prediction" of sulphur metabolizing bacteria in the upper atmosphere of Venus
>
>I will not dignify this response with any detailed rebuttal save to say
>that (1) is wrong,

Almost certainly, the good doctor was a crank, a charming, intelligent and personable man, but a crank none the less, and cranks don't need a profit motive for writing books (witness the number of books by Fred Hoyle [another charming and intelligent man] on "genes from outer space", he didn't need the money).

>(2) is wrong, and

Sorry, handwaving and assertion are not "prediction", also, several of these predictions are "retrodictions". Pretending that a belief that flies live on Jupiter is a prediction of sulphur metabolizing bacteria in the upper Venusian atmosphere is pretty silly.

>(3) is ridicuous.

Sadly, no. You have to consistently ignore the bulk of modern physics, astronomy and biology to believe the good doctor. The tenacity by which people cling to his ideas in the face of massive counter evidence is exactly that seen in creationism (and HIV denial, and anti-vaccinationists etc).
Chris Lawson, in response to a further comment by Zero Sum added:

At 09:53 17/10/02 +1000, Zero Sum wrote:
>If (1) is wrong then he must be 'potty'.  That is the only thing not
>taken into account.  Okay, maybe he is potty.  But if not (1) stands.
>If he was serious he wouldn't want to make the mistakes he made and
>could correct them.

Velikovsky was a crank rather than a con man. *He* thought he was doing science, it's just that he had no idea what that meant.
>(2) Definately isn't wrong.  There have bee a fair number of guesses
>that turned out to be true.  Conclusions based on entirely wrong data
>that came to the right conclusion.  It happens.  One could even argue
>that there *is* an aether...

*None* of Velikovsky's hypotheses is right. He clearly had no idea of even basic chemistry or physics. When his supporters say some of his predictions are right, what they mean is this: When Velikovsky first published, one of
the key criticisms levelled against him was that he was a catastrophist; that is, he believed that the Earth's history was marked by major catalysmic events (such as a near-miss by Venus).  In Velikovsky's time this
was seen as anti-scientific and very closely related to Creationism.  The prevailing scientific view was that the world changed very slowly and steadily. We now know that "gradualism", the contemporary scientific view,
was only half-right. While the time scale of change on the Earth tends to run to millions of years or longer, there *are* occasional major events such as asteroid strikes and vulcanic activity and "punk eek" evolutionary
landslides (although this is still controversial) and breaking of land-locked or glacier-locked depressions causing dramatic flooding. V's supporters draw succour from these findings. Of course they are wrong to do so. Scientists have discovered that some cataclysmic events do shape geography and evolution, but none of these cataclysms is even remotely related to those described by Velikovsky, none of the evidence for them was
suggested by Velikovsky, none of the implications were described by Velikovsky, and most importantly, even modern cataclysmic theories have these events separated by vast gulfs of time. While the Chixchulub impact
was a cataclysm, it occurred 65 million years ago. In Velikovsky's book, these sort of cataclysms were happening several times over a few centuries and which were recorded by human observers as Bible stories. Velikovsky did not make a single useful scientific prediction. The fact that his old enemies, the gradualists, were shown to be wrong (and not entirely wrong) does not make Velikovsky right.
>(3) No, not ridiculous.
>Anybody believing in the Bible or Worlds in Collision is clearly
>unsane in that they have chosen not to be rational about it.  Note I
>said "unsane" not "insane" - so that is *not* actionable.

I'm not sure about your choice of words, but I heartily agree with your sentiment. :-)

Jim Edwards replied, and Zero Sum  responded:
On Friday 18 October 2002 00:43, Jim Edwards wrote:

> There seems to be little point in arguing with someone who can only
> fall back on ad hominem aspersions to support his case,
First mistake.  Assertion taken as fact.  I have used other than ad hominem arguments.  It is even doubful that my comments were ad hominem because I made the comment that his ideas were what caused the man to be questioned rather than the man being used to question the ideas.
> but it has been ever thus  with Velikovsky.
Second mistake.  Another assertion expressed as fact.
>  Anyone who has actually read his books would know that he  was not 'potty',
Third mistake.  Same offence.  Assertion dismissed, as I am someone, have read "Worlds in Collision" and regard him as "potty".
> and even if his central thesis was wrong, it was consistent
> with known scientific theories at the time it was written,
Fourth mistake. Another assertion, also incorrect.
> even if these theories were not popularly accepted.  This latest
> research shows that it was others who 'did not get their chemistry
> correct' not Velikovsky.
Fifth mistake.  Yet another assertion, unsupported and incorrect.
> Velikovsky's predictions were all based upon a consistent theory of  recent  planetary history,
Sixth mistake.  Another incorrect assertion.
> based in turn upon an enormous amount of research the extent of
> which can only be glimpsed by reading his historical works.
Seventh mistake.  This "research" remains fictional, not details have been supplied.  Even historical research requires scholarship.
> Although these predictions have consistently been ignored or
> disparaged by mainstream scientists, there are many reputable
> scientists who are prepared to acknowledge his priority even if they
> dispute the basis on which he made them.
Eighth mistake.  Trying to baffle with bulldust.   Which reputable scientists?  Which predictions?  And still, lucky guesses based on totally mistaken theories are not predictions.
> > There must be thousands of archaeologists who have devoted their
> lives to  researching the events recounted in the bible and other
> historical documents.  I am sure they would be happy to know that
> they can now be classified as 'unsane'! 
That depends on their motives.  You seem to have a problem woith 'unsane'.  Would the word eccentric suit you better?  I think the world has a fine tradition of the unsane and the eccentric.  The world would be a far worse place without them.  And some eccentricities pay off (Wilbur and Orville being the classics).  The difference being both in motive and method.

Look, I've always read a lot of science-fiction.  You allow any fictional author one leap from reality, one unquestion assumption, on which to base the book.  If there are too many, then it the book becomes a joke.
> Do not bother to reply to this email, I am sure that other
> subscribers to this list would not be happy to have all these
> arguments worked over again.
Ninth mistake. You throw a provocatory stone and then take your bat and ball and go...  I am quite sure they don't want to hear it again, so why did *you* start it?  Now you want to run away because you know you have no argument.
> I just wanted to acknowledge Velikovsky's priority of prediction in
> the matter of the Cytherian atmosphere because I knew that nobody
> else would.
Tenth mistake. There was no prediction to acknowledge.  If you claim there was something to acknowledge, then please state exactly what that prediction was (quoted from the original) and what evidence validates it?

Nice contradiction too, you don't think that the list members "...want to hear..." but you "...just wanted to acknowlege".  So what you are saying is that you just wanted to throw a rock into a crowd to get a reaction?  and run away going "Nyah! nyah!, nyah!"?  You were not prepared to have somebody say "Don't do that"?  Well, it is called "trolling" and it is not considered proper behaviour.

As has been said many times before Velikovsky's theories are not consistent with the way the world actually works, not just in one discipline, but in many.  For his theories to be valid we would have to have everything wrong and the computer in front of you wouldn't work.  Now if you want to suggest that it happened the way he claims because of divine intervention, well, that is another argument - but it won't be Velikovsky's argumet, it will be yours.
Ian Musgrave wrote:
At 12:43  18/10/02 +1000, Jim wrote:
>>From: Zero Sum <count@SHALIMAR.NET.AU>
>>Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 09:53:21 +1000

[snip Velikovskian wrangling]

>Do not bother to reply to this email, I am sure that other subscribers to
>this list would not be happy to have all these arguments worked over again.
Yes, you can go to the archives and look up the posts where I show with detailed figures how research conclusively proves the good Doctor wrong (December 1998, I believe).

I mean, if he was right, Venus would be a (hot) water world with an atmosphere dominated by steam and hydrogen, with clouds of UV polymerized methane. Instead it is a _very_ dry, rocky world with half billion year old volcanoes, an atmosphere of carbon dioxide and nitrogen, with sulphuric acid clouds. Nice match eh?
>I just wanted to acknowledge Velikovsky's priority of prediction in the
>matter of the Cytherian atmosphere because I knew that nobody else would.
He never made a prediction that Venus would have sulphur metabolizing bacteria. To pretend his idea that there were flies on Jupiter is a "prediction" of bacteria in Venus's upper atmosphere is disingenuous at best, and displays an astounding lack of understanding of what prediction is in science.

Cheers! Ian (Both Venus and Jupiter are particularly beautiful at the moment in the morning and evening BTW)