ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) (08/02/85)
As I understand it, net.origins is primarily concerned with
evolution. I feel that a discussion Immanuel Velikovsky's works
is appropriate for net.origins simply because Velikovsky's theory
regarding evolution (catastrophic evolution) is the only one
which is logical or comes close to working.
Darwinism clearly isn't logical and doesn't work, and that
fact represents the most major failure of modern science. Bad
laws such as prohibition or the 55 mph speed limit destroy
respect for the law; a bad major theory such as Darwinism
destroys respect for science.
Darwinian evolution, i.e. slow and imperceptible evolution,
represents a major investment in time and energy on the part of
the scientific community. However, after one hundred years of
indoctrination in the schools, the American people have never
bought the idea. Polls on the subject repeatedly show this. The
American public, by and large, is as fair and well educated a
jury you could hope for in the world.
Four or five years ago, in Roanoke, Va., a debate took place
between creationists and evolutionists. By all accounts, the
debate was conducted fairly, the Christians in the audience
behaving themselves in exemplary fashion. And by all accounts,
including those of reporters from the Washington Post, Richmond
Times, and Norfolk papers, the creationists won the debate going
away. The evolutionists haven't managed to work up the guts for
a return match since or, at least if they have, I've not heard
about it. This makes me wonder if any of our so called
"scientists" ever feel shame. I mean, if I'd ever lost a debate
to Falwell and his minions, I'd still be out in the forrest
somewhere hiding underneath a rock.
Any competant Baptist minister could destroy Darwinism in 15
minutes; a really dedicated creationist like Ron Kukuk (whom I
enjoy reading) can apparently destroy Darwinism in 116 ways.
That's really heavy. Even in the most one-sided contests I've
ever seen or read about, Sitting Bull vs Custer, Genghis Khan vs
Persia, Duran-DeJesus III, Oklahoma vs Kansas State 1971, nobody
ever got demolished 116 ways. Maybe 112 max.
Most of Ron's arguments seem logical enough to me. However,
he doesn't even need most of his arguments. It should be obvious
even to evolutionists (so simple even they could understand it),
that if even five of his 116 points are valid, Darwinism along
with the notion of uniformitarianism in geology and astronomy are
untenable. ALSO UNTENABLE WOULD BE THE NOTION OF THE HUGE TIME
FRAMES WHICH NATURAL SCIENTISTS ARE SO FOND OF. What are the
odds against Ron being correct on fewer than five of 116 counts?
If Ron's 116 aren't good enough, I've got several more. The
one that really kills Darwinism as far as I'm concerned goes as
follows: chance mutations are mostly harmful or fatal and even
these are rare. The ones which aren't harmful are extremely rare
and are isolated in time and local e.g. a child with six fingers
may be born in Paris in 1725 A.D. and the next such child in
Chicago in 1912 A.D. What are the chances of these two marrying
and having six-fingered children? Further, many higher animals
will simply kill mutants. Amongst humans, in every century prior
to this one, this phenomenon took the form of the witchcraft
trial. Picture walking around with six fingers in medieval
France?
The same argument cannot be used against the notion of
catastrophic evolution. Apparently, during the Noachian deluge
and also at the times of the disasters described in Worlds in
Collision, as well as during earlier catastrophies which lie
outside of human memory, huge amounts of energy and radiation
were unleashed upon this planet. Mutations abounded, most of
which were detrimental and short-lived, but some of which were
useful; like mutants were able to form new species fairly
quickly. Survivors of old species were too occupied saving
themselves to worry about killing off mutants. Finally, each of
these disasters ruined the world for a period of years
afterwards. Heightened competition for survival between old and
new species in a ruined world did actually insure the survival of
the fittest OF THOSE WHOM THE DISASTER ITSELF HADN'T EXTIRPATED
ROOT AND BRANCH.
In recorded history, no entire species has ever perished
from a major continent other than at the hand of man. Ancient
man was not capable of this, especially not against sabre-tooths,
super-lions, Pterotorns etc. ONLY VELIKOVSKIAN EVOLUTION CAN
EXPLAIN EXTINCTION. Whole species became extinct not from being
unfit, but from being at the wrong place at the wrong time as
tidal waves rolled over whole continents and other unhealthy
events occurred. The largest animals were particularly
susceptible to extinction since they had the hardest time getting
to high ground or cover. That is, of the large animals which
perished long after the flood. Others, including a few left-over
large dinosaurs, perished when the force of gravity itself
changed on the earth, shortly after the flood.
The pteratorn was basically a 250 lb golden eagle with a
thirty foot wingspan. Considering that 20 lb Berkut eagles
(found in Khirgiz country in the USSR) can kill wolves and deer
and pop NFL footballs in their talons, a pteratorn could probably
have killed about anything which ever walked this earth. Man
certainly didn't cause his extinction. His whole body was made
for aerial maneuver and for killing creatures our size and
carrying them off into the sky. His range of operations might
have been the entire world. But the biggest birds which fly
today are less than 30 lbs and they can barely take off. A
pteratorn couldn't fly today for the same reason that 250 lb
athletes don't compete in gymnastics.
But he flew then. He was a creature flawlessly adapted to a
world in which the force of gravity itself was a fraction of what
it is now, a world which Noah and his sons actually lived in. In
reality, it is the world which Darwinists invented, the world in
which only the slowest and most inperceptible changes ever take
place in biological and in geological forms, which is the fairy
tale world.
Velikovskian evolution can easily explain the transmutation
of species which is so clearly evident in the fossil record, as
well as the extinction of so many ancient life forms. That puts
Immanuel Velikovsky way the hell in front of Charles Darwin.
Darwinism can explain Down's syndrom, Tay-Sachs disease,
sickle-cell anemia etc. and that's about it, period.
Can Velikovskian evolution explain the rise of complicated
life forms from one celled animals? The answer to that question
is unknowable. It is possible, but I doubt it. The weight of
evidence seems to show that the earth is far younger than natural
scientists like to believe (several evidences of this are cited
by the afore-mentioned Kukuk). I think it more likely that life
as we know it was either transported to or created on this
planet, and has evolved since. There are all kinds of
possibilities.
The only possibility I rule out altogether is Darwinism and
the uniformitarian rubbish which is taught in our schools. Even
Jerry Falwell's notion of an omnipotent Deity with a Hart
Schafner and Marx suit on and a "honk if you love Jesus" sticker
on the bumper of his El Dorado makes more sense than that.bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (08/03/85)
> Four or five years ago, in Roanoke, Va., a debate took place > between creationists and evolutionists. By all accounts, the > debate was conducted fairly, the Christians in the audience > behaving themselves in exemplary fashion. And by all accounts, > including those of reporters from the Washington Post, Richmond > Times, and Norfolk papers, the creationists won the debate going > away. The evolutionists haven't managed to work up the guts for > a return match since or, at least if they have, I've not heard > about it. This makes me wonder if any of our so called > "scientists" ever feel shame. I mean, if I'd ever lost a debate > to Falwell and his minions, I'd still be out in the forrest > somewhere hiding underneath a rock. These days, debates between Creationists and Evolutionists are regularly won by evolutionists. Reason? Evolutionists now are familiar with the bogus arguments of creationists and know how to blow them out of the water. Five years ago this was not the case. Sorry about that. > Any competant Baptist minister could destroy Darwinism in 15 > minutes; a really dedicated creationist like Ron Kukuk (whom I > enjoy reading) can apparently destroy Darwinism in 116 ways. > That's really heavy. Even in the most one-sided contests I've > ever seen or read about, Sitting Bull vs Custer, Genghis Khan vs > Persia, Duran-DeJesus III, Oklahoma vs Kansas State 1971, nobody > ever got demolished 116 ways. Maybe 112 max. NOT A SINGLE ONE OF RON'S ARGUMENTS IS VALID. Nor has he bothered to defend them against the criticism they deservedly got on the net. If there had been any shred of validity to them, he would surely have defended his postings. Silence, in this case, is eloquent. I have heard Jerry Falwell argue against evolution. It was evident that he is scientifically illiterate. So much for Baptist ministers. By the way, I am still waiting for anyone, anywhere, to post just ONE SINGLE VALID PIECE OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR CREATIONISM. That was what Ron's postings were supposed to be, but we drew a blank. In more ways than one. > Most of Ron's arguments seem logical enough to me. However, Naive people are easily fooled by Creationist Bogosity. > he doesn't even need most of his arguments. It should be obvious > even to evolutionists (so simple even they could understand it), > that if even five of his 116 points are valid, Darwinism along > with the notion of uniformitarianism in geology and astronomy are > untenable. ALSO UNTENABLE WOULD BE THE NOTION OF THE HUGE TIME > FRAMES WHICH NATURAL SCIENTISTS ARE SO FOND OF. What are the > odds against Ron being correct on fewer than five of 116 counts? The "probability" that ANY of Ron's arguments is valid is precisely 0. In science, it is not the number of arguments, but their correctness, that counts. > If Ron's 116 aren't good enough, I've got several more. The > one that really kills Darwinism as far as I'm concerned goes as > follows: chance mutations are mostly harmful or fatal and even > these are rare. The ones which aren't harmful are extremely rare > and are isolated in time and local e.g. a child with six fingers > may be born in Paris in 1725 A.D. and the next such child in > Chicago in 1912 A.D. What are the chances of these two marrying > and having six-fingered children? Further, many higher animals > will simply kill mutants. Amongst humans, in every century prior > to this one, this phenomenon took the form of the witchcraft > trial. Picture walking around with six fingers in medieval > France? Groups of humans with six fingers are known. The trait breeds true. There is one such group in (I believe) Appalachia. Usually this happens because the group is relatively small, so there is a lot of inbreeding. As a result, a trait can more easily become fixed in the population. Many examples of beneficial mutations have been documented in this newsgroup. Obviously you haven't been paying attention. Finally, mutation is probably a minor (though important) mechanism in evolution. Duplication and rearrangement of genetic material are thought to be much more important, and they are experimentally well documented. > In recorded history, no entire species has ever perished > from a major continent other than at the hand of man. Ancient > man was not capable of this, especially not against sabre-tooths, > super-lions, Pterotorns etc. ONLY VELIKOVSKIAN EVOLUTION CAN > EXPLAIN EXTINCTION. Whole species became extinct not from being It is well established that the first people in the Western hemisphere were responsible for the extinction of most of the large mammals in North and South America. They had nothing but stone weapons, but their methods were extremely effective. > unfit, but from being at the wrong place at the wrong time as > tidal waves rolled over whole continents and other unhealthy > events occurred. The largest animals were particularly > susceptible to extinction since they had the hardest time getting > to high ground or cover. That is, of the large animals which > perished long after the flood. Others, including a few left-over > large dinosaurs, perished when the force of gravity itself > changed on the earth, shortly after the flood. Really? And what mechanism do you propose to "change the force of gravity on the Earth"? And you call this 'science'? Evolutionists are sometimes accused of speculation, but this is orders of magnitude wilder than anything we are accused of! What nonsense! No, wait. It just struck me. You are really a sensible person and are giving us a parody of Creationists and Velikovskyites, to show up how ridiculous their ideas are. Well, you could have fooled me. -- "Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from religious conviction." -- Blaise Pascal Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp) bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA (ARPANET)
throopw@rtp47.UUCP (Wayne Throop) (08/04/85)
Since Proof-by-Assertion seems to be allowable in this line of
discussion, I'll have a go:
> What are the odds against Ron being correct on fewer than five of 116 counts?
Lesse now, hmmmm, unscrambling the double negative, odds "against ...
Ron ... correct [about...] fewer than 5" would be the same as the odds
*for* Ron correct about 5-or-more, which is zero.
(In case it isn't clear, I'm ridiculing the notion of using such silly
"odds" calculations to prove or disprove the validity of anything at all.)
(And by the way, this satirist is improving. I didn't take *this*
posting seriously for even a moment.)
--
Wayne Throop at Data General, RTP, NC
<the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!rtp47!throopwfritz@phri.UUCP (Dave Fritzinger) (08/06/85)
Having read just a few lines of this posting, let me make a couple of
points.
1) I didn't know that scientific truth depended on popularity.
If it did, I guess that we would have to believe in astrology,
UFOs and quite a few other things that Americans believe in, but
have no real basis in fact.
2) As far as Ron Kucik's (or however you spell his name) postings
are concerned, I think that the amount of science in them has
been shown to be minimal at best. See various postings by
Sarima and numerous other *scientists*
Now, why don't we put postings like this where they belong-in net.bizzare
--
Dave Fritzinger
Public Health Research Institute
NY,NY
{allegra!phri!fritz}
"Blasting, billowing, bursting forth with the power of 10 billion
butterfly sneezes..."
Moody Bluesbch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes) (08/14/85)
This whole discussion is silly. We have gone over this ground before. The
notion that evolutionary theory is somehow "uniformitarian" in the sense that
it does not allow for catastrophic events or extinctions due to catastrophic
events is a red herring put forth by the creationists. Natural Selection
takes place within an environment whose attributes have to be considered.
A second red-herring which Ted, among others, continually introduces is
the notion of an abrupt evolution -- a "reptile giving birth to a bird"
which conjures images of Godzilla giving birth to Donald Duck. What these
folks fail to recognize (or admit) is that reptile<->bird is a continuum
wherin the difference between creatures close to the human-created "division"
line may be quite imperceptable. To paraphrase the I Ching, "because we
create categories of creatures does not mean the creatures are somehow
obligated to fit themselves cleanly into our categories."
At issue is whether the catastrophe in question is that particular catastrophe
which Velikovsky and his camp-followers say it is. Ted has yet to present
a shred of evidence to say it is or that it is to be preferred over a more
"garden variety" meteor hit which would not ask us to rewrite physics. I
am anxious to see his evidence from myths (sorry, Ted, most scientists
think that mythical evidence is good "indicatory" evidence for things like
the eruption of Santorini -- physical evidence must be found to corroborate,
however.)
Finally, you don't need guns, cannons or even cliffs to kill a Mastodon.
Archeological evidence indicates the easiest way to kill a Mastodon is
simply to keep it on the run until it dies of thirst, starvation or both.
This remained a hunting method used by primitive people up into recorded
history. Whether or not this method caused the extinction of a species
is an irrelevant point, however.
--
Byron C. Howes
...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch