Subject: Biology and creation Topics: }Life is too complex to have happened by chance. }Mu

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

Subject: Biology and creation Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway From: jmeritt@mental.mitre.org Message-ID: <9306231608.AA03174@asia.mitre.org> Newsgroups: talk.origins Topics: }Life is too complex to have happened by chance. }Mutations are almost always harmful. }Mutations rarely occur. }3000 years was time enough for all languages, religions to develop. }Complex organs couldn't have arisen from a single mutation }Evolution doesn't explain the simultaneous origin of two traits }Mendelian inheritance says that recessive characters reappear }Hybrids are infertile, so a newly evolved individual couldn't breed. }Evolution doesn't explain personality, emotion, reason, conscience, etc. }"No people of English descent are more distantly related..." }The animals couldn't have distributed themselves all over the globe. }Vestigial organs }Embryology }"impossible gulfs" }evolution doesn't make sense }Evolution doesn't explain abiogenesis or how genes are expressed. }half of the amino acids should be right-handed }Mathematical probability }changes calling for numerous coordinated innovations >The puzzle of how organs, once evolved, come to be lost (degeneration). }The failure of some organisms to evolve at all. }No new phyla, classes, or orders have appeared. }The occurrence of parallel evolution, in which similiar structures evolve }The existence of long-term trends (orthogenesis). }Pre-adaptation: Organs appear before they are needed. }"Overshoot" or evolutionary "momentum" occurs. }How do organs, once evolved, come to be lost? }Why did man lose his hair and tail? }Over-specialization with no adaptive value. }Can this all be just mutation and natural selection? }mitochondrial DNA showes that mankind arose from *one* female. }chaos theory & biology }The fundamental principle of evolution contradictory to established laws }There is no evidence of biological life anywhere else in the universe. }vestigal organs are probably the results of mutational changes }Embryology offers testimony to a great Designer }Similiarities are explained as made by the hand of a common Designer. }All the great phyla appear quite suddenly in the fossil record. }what is known to be true about evolution? }Why are men alone so murderous of their own species? }Misc biblical wonderings... }Geographic Distribuion of Quadrupeds }we have never seen any natural processes which result in a complexity increase. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- }- Life is too complex to have happened by chance. The theory of evolution doesn't say it did happen by chance. This argument completely ignores natural selection. Please read: Life in Darwin's Universe G. Bylinsky, Omni Sept 79 The Evolution of Ecological Systems May, Scientific American, Sept 1978 Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life Dickerson, Scientific American, Sept 1978 The Evolution of the Earliest Cells Schopf, Scientific American, Sept 1978 The Evolution of Multicellular Plants and Animals Valentine, Scientific American, Sept 1978 } Mutations are never benefical The textbook example of the effects of radiation upon genes is the old "carnation seeds exposed to radiocobalt". Clearly some of the flowers produced are prettier than the originals. Therefore, the "never" is disproved. }- Mutations are almost always harmful. Note: "almost". A lot happen in a large population over long times. }- Mutations rarely occur. Note: "Rarely". A lot happen in a large population over long times. } - 3000 years was time enough for all languages, religions to develop. Actually the premise is false. The Sino-Tibetan family of languages is distinct from the Indo-European family of languages, which English seems to have been derived from. Considering how long ago the 50 arguments were written (was it around 1930?), this ethnocentrism is not surprising. }- Complex organs couldn't have arisen from a single mutation, and } just part of the organ is useless. Favorite examples are eyes and } insect wings. there have fairly good descriptions, on the net, of how eyes could have evolved, and of how bird lungs could have evolved. These were nice rebuttals of the claim that "it wasn't useful until finished, so it couldn't have got started". And how many of these "numerous coordinated innovations" can be caused by one change? Check out, for instance, the effect of changing the age at which bone growth stops in human beings. There *are* semi-venemous snakes, and in fact the issue was discussed earlier how some snakes "drip" the venomous saliva while ones with more developed systems "inject" the saliva via hollow teeth. Whales have semi-legs (ok, so they're not fish). How about the cooperating jawbones that have slowly become our hearing mechanisms, seen to be incrementally represented from reptilian jawbones. The complete developmental flowchart of the nematode worm--what cells divide to form what other cells all the way from the 1-cell egg to the thousand-cell adult--has been determined. It contains numerous examples of repeated tricks that look very much like subroutines. For example (this is from memory and may not be precise) there is a patten of a cell dividing twice to form two muscle cells, one neuron and one cell which dies that occurs dozens of times in the worm's development, not always in exactly the same situation-- different kinds of nerve cells are produced--but with exactly the same pattern (that is, it is the most posterior cell which dies, and so forth). People often assume that to evolve a new structure requires new code. In this case at least, however, a new nerve with attendant muscle fibers could be made (and there are mutants which do this) just by triggering this subroutine in a cell which normally doesn't do it. } The instinct of Animals: proves wisdom of a "higher order". Again, argument by design. The complexity and specialization of characters is evidence of a designer, in this view. Proves that it something stupid is wired in you don't get descendants. }- Mendelian inheritance says that recessive characters reappear, and thus we } should expect humans with characteristics of apes. They do. Tails, for instance. And other "ape" traits that happen to also be "human traits". Like toes, body hair,... This disregards the basic mechenisms of natural selection and genetics. It makes the wrong assumption that ape-like characters are recessive and that all of the traits in the ancestor population are present but usually unexpressed in the supposed descendant population. Neither idea is true. }- Hybrids are infertile, so a newly evolved individual couldn't breed. Hybrids are often not fertile or robust. They may be desirable to man if man amde, but they may not succeed in an evolutionary sense. The premise is incorrect. First, what is meant by "hybrid" is unclear in this context - is it a hybrid only if it is infertile? And even in those cases in which the offspring is usually infertile, that is not always the case. As witnessed the horse and the donkey. It is not individuals that evolve but populations. A population evolves by gradual changes in gene frequency until it becomes a distinct species that is no longer capable of interbreeding with similar populations that shared a common ancestor. All of the individuals within the population can mate successfully with each other so there is no problem with "hybrids". There are quite a few examples of different populations of the same species which have trouble interbreeding, in other words the hybrids are not viable. These populations are evolving and may become separate species. It is a common mistake to assume that a new species begins when an individual "mutates" or "evolves" in a single step - this is simply not how evolution works. }- Evolution doesn't explain personality, emotions, abstract reason, } conscience, etc. Please read: The Evolution of Behavior Smith, Scientific American, Sept 1978 Xenopsychology R. A. Freitas, Analog Apr 81 Directly Interacting Extra-terrestrial Technological Communities Viewing, JBIS, vol 28, pp 735-755, 1975 Computer Simulation of Cultural Drift: Limits on Interstellar Colonization Bainbridge, JBIS, vol 37, pp 420-429, 1984 The Improbability of Bahavioural Convergence in Aliens - Behavioural Implications of Morphology Coffey, JBIS, vol 38, pp 515-520, 1985 The climatic background to the birth of civilization Lamb, Advancement of Science vol 25 pp 103 - 120 1968 }- "No people of English descent are more distantly related than thirtieth } cousin," which doesn't allow enough time for evolution. Incorrect argument. The island population of Great Britian might well have interbreeded more than is the case if it were mixed with the rest of the world's human population, if you are inclined to believe Davenport's claim at all. }- The animals couldn't have distributed themselves all over the globe. This is written at the time Wagener proposed Continebtal Drift for the first time. He is rejected by the geologists of the day, but now Plate Tectonics is well accpeted among geologists and is used to construct paleobiogeography that explains fossil distrubutions. The Supercontinent Cycle Nance, Worsley, & Moody, Scientific American, July 1988 Alfred Wegener and the Hypothesis of Continental Drift A. Hallam, Scientific American Feb 1975 And like horses (that man transported), camels, pandas, kangaroos, marsupials,.. In fact, this supports the evolutionary postulates in that the distribution matches transportation capabilities. What is more interesting is why are not animals everywhere? If they all got themselves originated from one place (did this twice, supposidely - everyone was originally present in Eden for the naming and everything was together again in the ark) why are not marsupials found everywhere? Ibid old world vs. new world species. } Geographic Distribuion of Quadrupeds Since the creationists (from the biblical account) would have had EVERY animal in the same place (twice, in fact. Once for the naming in Eden, once again for the rescue in the arc.) why are the quadrupeds distributed so differently? There are a number of large animals that are strictly on one continent, unless somebody moved them (in fairly recent recorded history). They could NOT have gotten there on their own RECENTLY (evolved there, yes), nor could a selective extinction removed every individual of the opposite set. Please explain: New World Only: Old World Only =============== +============ Sapajous (Monkeys) Horse, zebra sagoins (monkeys) sheep, goats, antelopes Opossum wild boar Cougar, jaguar panther, leopard Coatis hyena, civet Stinking weasels porcupine, hedgehog Agoutis apes, baboons, true monkeys Armadillos scaley lizard Ant-Eaters Sloths detached species detached species tapir elephant Cabiai rhinoceros Llama hippopotamus Peccary giraffe camel lion tiger }- Vestigial organs: "If the perfect organ were better than the rudimentary } organ, how can man be the 'survival of the fittest'?" This is the appeal to progress and perfection that biases alot of thinking about evolution, even by some biologists of the past. The changes seen are just adaptations of existing structures, not perfections or progress toward a goal. Note: "fittest" is not "optimal". } Embryology: "it is hard to see why the history of the species should } be repeated by the embryo." This is similar to the argument used by Bob Bales that it is hard to see evolution in the fossil or living evidence. The problem with this claim is that the understanding of what you would look for comes from first looking at living things, fossils, and in this case embryos. You must know how to describe these things in some detail before you can decide if the claims that similar structures indicate common ancestry, or that embryonic stages mimic ancestrial forms. "It is hard ", means you haven't looked. Present an objection based on what all agree is evidence. That is more a function of his "hard to see" than why it does. } A staggering speculation: essentially that evolution doesn't make } sense given the lake of common animals between the major groups. This doesn't make sense. The "major groups" are definied by human classifications that often are there for ancestrial reasons that support evolution (via the "family trees") or are fairly arbitrary (for instance, by location or discoverer) and make perfect sense. }- Evolution doesn't explain abiogenesis or how genes are expressed. To the creationists. And it does explain how to study the unknown, rather than bowing out. }- If life arose by chance, half of the amino acids should be right-handed; in } fact, all are left-handed. Once the preference for one enantiomer over another gets started in nature, it is relatively easy to see how this preference is perpetuated. Biological reactions work much like machines having templates, stamping out the preferred, and ONLY the preferred configuration generation after generation after generation. As to how one became initially started, there are many possibilities: 1. Luck. The first one to form just happened to be L, and then the rest followed. 2. There may be some effect during formation due to coriolis force or the (hemisphere dependent) magnetic fied (as lightening went DOWN, the effect may be polarized) 3. Quantitative calculations indicate that the fundamentally left-handed neutral-weak force with the electromagnetic force could introduce an energy preference (very slight). Aside from any steric preferences, one form could be energetically more stable than the other. William C. McHarris Professor of Chemistry and of Physics and of Astronomy at Michigan State University "Handedness in Nature" January 1986 Analog } Mathematical probability: "it is so improbable that one and only } one species out of 3,0000,000 should develop into man, that it } certainly was not the case". Whence the 3,000,000 number, and how is the "improbability" assigned? Some say inevitable... If 500 developed into man, how would you tell? Besides, given the way evolution works, one would dominate and 499 would have (while developing) be suppressed, quite likely into extinction. The "less successful" are extinct or in zoos. }4) The repeated occurrence of changes calling for numerous coordinated } innovations, both at the level of organs and of complete organisms. First, how do you determine that "numerous coordinated innovations" are required? That may merely be your evaluation. For instance, some of the common examples: poisonous snakes - fangs & poison glands. A Gila monster has poison glands with no fangs, and there are snakes with furrowed fangs with no poison glands. fish to land animal - legs and lungs. The mudpuppy is a fish without lungs that goes on the land, and the ceoclanth (sp) has almost legs with no lungs. And then there is the African Lungfish, the floridian walking catfish,... Coral snakes (southern US) don't have a very sophisticated delivery system - they also chew on their victims to deliver the poison. I'm not very familiar with the anatomy of a coral snake, but it does not have the usual "fangs" associated in the popular mind with a poisonous snake - as I recall there is just a small sac or pore at the base of what look like ordinary reptilian teeth. The last time I studied poisonous snakes (some years ago), it was thought that poison delivery had evolved several times, independently, in snakes. This was based on differences in toxins and in delivery systems, as well as its occurance in otherwise distantly related snakes, all of which have closely similar non-poisonous forms. The delivery systems cover the whole range from the simple, rather typical, teeth of the coral snake to the elaborate, retractile, tubular fangs of pit-vipers. Some have slightly elongate "fangs" with simple grooves on one side, for instance. Thus, we can see almost the entire range of intermediate anatomies in evolving fangs purely in *living* species. Gap?? What gap? We do not even need the fossils, which we also have. And how many of these "numerous coordinated innovations" can be caused by one change? Check out, for instance, the effect of changing the age at which bone growth stops in human beings. This needs to be elaborated. If a genome is being stressed to some metastable level where its states can multiply, then rapid changes to more than one structure in the organism can occur simutaneously. >11) The puzzle of how organs, once evolved, come to be lost (degeneration). Evolution operating on the amplification and dimminution of structures is well known. The appearence of vestigal structures, at all, reflects on the use of prexisting developmental pathways, rather than on the purposefulnessor efficiency of the process. }- The speed at which evolution occurred varies. Why is that a problem? You change the mutation rate and the selection rate and the change rate also alteres. }12) The failure of some organisms to evolve at all. There are no known examples of organisms that have not evolved over a period of time and this includes cockroaches, lungfish, lampreys, sharks, bacteria, and all other organisms that some people claim are "frozen in time". Some of these species appear to be morphologically similar to ancestors that lived in the past but evolution is much more than external appearance. When the structure of their genes and proteins are examined it becomes obvious that they have evolved at the molecular level. In fact the rate of evolution of these species is similar to that of species whose external appearance has changed more drastically. It is incorrect to claim that some organisms have not evolved simply because their external morphology has not changed. }- The existence of long-term trends (orthogenesis). So? Study any climatology? The environment has some VERY long-term trends. }- Pre-adaptation: Organs appear before they are needed. Now, how do you tell this??? }- "Overshoot" or evolutionary "momentum" occurs. A not uncommon problem with non-linear search routines, and with systems with very long delay times in the feebdack. }- How do organs, once evolved, come to be lost? "Use it or lose it" is a popular expression which may help the understanding. Maintaining something is a drain on materials and energy. Selection would go against a disadvantageous drain. } Why did man lose his hair and tail? Note that hair and tails ARE still present. The selection process is a statistical phenomena. There is a theory that sometime within Man's evolutionary past he had an aquatic phase. This is upheld by: a. The layer of fat beneith the skin is more characteristic of marine mammals. b. The pattern described by the hair remaining on the body describes fairly closely what would be a flow pattern. Also, the pattern of denser hair (top of head, chin, pubic region) matches the marine growth areas c. Humans have a diving reflex like that of the semi-aquatic mammals that live in cold climates. When the face hits cold water, the entire metabolism slows and the interior distribution of the blood flows. This has been observed in numerous near-drownings in cold water (it doesn't seem to cut in on warm water). Thus, we have the same amount of hair (almost) as any other marine mammal. And for the exact same reasons. We just didn't have a long enough marine phase for further adaptions (lose arms & legs). }- Over-specialization with no adaptive value. How do you determine this? Besides, most nonlinear search routines I am familiar with have a tendency to overshoot... The process is not particularly efficient or purposeful. }Can this all be just mutation and natural selection? Two points: first, although Darwin invoked only variation and selection, modern evolutionary theory also gives a very important role to genetic drift, the occurance of changes due to chance fluctuations in small populations. This force can work in the opposite direction than selection, and can override selection if the population is small enough. (Brown mice do better in the wild than white, but if I start with only two of each in an area I will end up with only whites some of the time.) Second, "mutation" can cover some things which are much more powerful than single changes in genes--specifically duplication of genes and merging of two genes into a new one. These mechanisms can produce new yet highly non-random genes. }the scientific discovery (not creationtific discovery) a few years }back that mitochondrial DNA was identical in all people of various }ancestory >and thus showed that mankind arose from *one* female. First, mitochondrial DNA is NOT identical in all humans. However the differences can be used to construct a family tree of sorts, and the most reasonable interpretation of the data is that all modern humans inherited their mitochondria from one woman, dubbed Eve (possibly to bait creationists), who lived (I think) around 200 Kyears ago. (The mutation rate observed for the mitochondrial DNA was used to establish the times involved.) Second, the fact that the mitochondria of all of us can be traced to one woman does not mean we arose solely from her-- it just means that she's one of our common ancestors. The maternal inheritance of mitochondria is analogous to the inheritance of last names in our paternalistic society. The point is, there may have been many contemporaries of "Eve" who are also common ancestors of ours-- she just happens to be at the node of our common maternal line. If a consistant paternalistic society had existed throughout human history, (and nobody ever changed their names) we would probably all have the same last name; this would not mean that the first man to have this name was solely responsible for the human race, just that he would be at the node of our common paternal line. > As far as the brain obeying certain chaotic processes, the > brain is too structured and controlled to allow anything > like that to occur. Biological processes are very closely > controlled in the body and in the brain. That is necessary > for survival. Reflexes are something the brain cannot > control. Your heart beats regularly and you breathe in your > sleep. Your brain releases hormones at just the right moment > to allow you to run away from a lion, or, when cornered, > fight off an attacker with more strength than you thought you > had. When you consider the mind as it is usually defined > (the thinking, conscious part of the brain), it must also > function properly at all times, or you would not be able > to survive. Evolutionary pressures would not favor a mind > which works on a process based on chaos theory. The connection of chaos with complex real living systems is circumstancial, but suggestive. I do not have a firm demonstration that full-blown living processes are adeqately described by systems of nonlinear differential equations. Two examples I have heard about, I do not have references, are human brain waves can be modeled with a strange attractor, and a good model of cardiac electrical function and sudden failure has been built using chaos. }The fundamental principle of evolution - the concept of development, with }increasing organization and complexity - seems to be essentially }contradictory to the impregnably established laws of energy conservation }and deterioration. huh? If by "development" he means adaption to the environment I have no idea what "increasing organization and complexity" is fundamental for. And maybe by "deterioration" he means "entrophy or enthalpy"? }There is not the slightest genuine evidence of biological life as we }understand it anywhere else in the universe. There are a LOT of complex chemicals of extraterrestrial origins composed of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and I think even a bit of sulfur. And the Viking has found some odd reactions. And if you don't mind taking environmental conditions more alien than mars as "elsewhere", I have seen some dandy pictures of things that sure look like life in eternal blackness, no oxygen, hotter than a pot of boiling water,... }vestigal organs are probably the results of mutational changes which, as }we have seen, are usually deteriorations. Also know as "adaptions", right? Thanks. Whale legs are definitely an adaption to their current environment. Thank-you. }Embryology, instead of supporting evolution, actually }offers abundant testimony to a great Designer and does not in any way }give countenance to theories of materialistic origin and development. How odd... Same data, different conclusion. }Similiarities (embryology & comparative anatomy) are more reasonably }explained in terms of origin at the hand of a common Designer. An odd definition of "reasonable"... }what is known to be true about evolution? I am not sure what you mean by "KNOW". None of this is divine revelation. But I am as sure about the statement "There is plentiful genetic variation in natural populations", having worked first-hand with the data supporting it, as I am of just about anything else in the world. And I am as sure of the statement "Selection can change the frequencies of variants", since I've done computer simulation to test it. That's most of evolutionary theory right there. }Why are men alone so murderous of their own species? We are not alone. Most social animals seem to have some similiar sorts of behaviors. When a male baboon displaces the old dominant male, young baboons must watch their ass, as the new dominant male will often attempt to kill them. The same thing happens with lions, I believe. }we have never seen any natural processes which result in a complexity increase. This is easy. Are you familiar with a small creature called a "Volvox"? This is a small spherical animal that lives in the water and is made up of individual cells of algae. Separate algae cells have been observed organizing into a Volvox, with the advantage of being able to propel itself in a way similar to an octopus, and capture food inside the sphere. The algae cells operate in a unified manner, just as the cells in a larger organism do. Here is a clear example of increased complexity for the sake of survival. Since mutation is factual (i.e. we have observed mutation, so it is not conjecture), why do you find it so hard to believe that increasingly complex organizations of cells, combined with favorable mutations, can result in a higher form of life? I have a biological example. The cat in my house has a pair of extra toes growing inward on both of its forepaws. This is not unknown, and I have seen it before. Even more interesting, I have seen the cat use those extra toes as a human would use a thumb to grip small objects, such as a penny, in a manner that a cat with ordinary forepaws could not. A new part, adapted from an old part that all others of the species has. A new ability that others of the species doesn't have. An increase in complexity in a biological context. jap2_ss@uhura.cc.rochester.edu --- Squish v1.01 * Origin: Universal Electronics Inc [714 939-6401] HST/DS (1:103/208) From: Usenet To: All Msg #307, Jun-23-93 08:13AM Subject: The Flood and creation Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway From: jmeritt@mental.mitre.org Message-ID: <9306231608.AA03180@asia.mitre.org> Newsgroups: talk.origins Topics: }Religion's views }Science's views }Parallel myths }Subject: Noah's Ark - the construction problems }What to leave behind }Subject: the issue of marine animals being left behind }The Noah's Ark Myths }misc concerning the flood } hydraulic sorting } timing problems } folded rocks show that it was done when they were soft ------------------------------------------------------------------------ By Davis A. Young, a conservative evangelical writer who is also a geologist. Autor of two books devoted to separating evangelical theology from young-earth and creation-science theories. "What is much more likely to undermine Christian fath is the dogmatic and persistent effort of creationists to present their theory before the public, Christian and non-Christian, as in accord with Scripture and nature, especially when the evidence to the contrarty has been presented again and again by competent Christian Scientists (e.g. Davis A. Young, Creation and the Flood, D. E. Wonderly's God's Time-Records in Ancient Sediments, and numerous articles published over the years in Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation) It is sad that so much Christian energy has to be wasted in proposing and refuting the false theory of catastrophic Flood geology. But Christians need to know the truth and to be warned of error." "The faith of many Christian people could be hindered when they ultimately realize that the teachings of the creationists are simply not in accord with the facts." "Furthermore, creationism and Flood geology have put a serious roadblock in the way of unbelieving scientists. Although Christ has the power to save unbelievers in spite of our foolishness and poor presentation of the gospels, Christians should do all they can to avoid creating unnecessary stumbling blocks to the reception of the gospel." In closing: "We are all dealing with God's world and with God-created facts...We must handle the data reverently and worshipfully, yet we should not be afraid of where the facts may lead. God made those facts, and they fit into His comprehensive plan for the world." "Another possible danger is that in presenting the gospel to the lost and in defending God's truth we ourselves will seem to be false. It is time for Christian people to recognize that the defense of this modern, young-Earth, Flood-geology creationism is simply not truthful. It is simply not in accord with the facts that God has given. Creationism must be abandoned by Christians before harm is done. The persistent attempt of the creationist movement to get their points of view established in educational institutions can only bring harm to the Christian cause. Can we seriously expect non-Christian educational leaders to develop a respect for Christianity if we insist on teaching the brand of science that creationism brings with it? Will not the forcing of modern creationism on the public simply lend credence to the idea already entertained by so many intellectual leaders that Christianity, at least in its modern form, is sheer anti-intellectual obscurantism? I fear that it will." [_Christianitiy and the Age of the Earth_, by Davis Young, Zondervan 1982. p. 163.] This is from G.T. Bettany, _Encyclopedia of World Religions_, a reproduction of an 1890 manuscript. My copy is (partially) copyright 1988, Dorset Press, New York. This is all direct quotes, with my comments in square brackets. Keep in mind that this predates many important discoveries, including, I think, the Dead Sea Scrolls. Book V., Egyptian and Semitic Religions Ch. 2, The Babylonian, Assyrian, and Phoenician Religions p. 493 [discussing the find, in 1872, of a set of Chaldean cosmology tablets by one George Smith. No dates attached, other than they represent comparatively late versions of a very early set of legends] But while there is great interest in finding a Chaldean legend agreeing in some features with that of Genesis, there is no warrant for saying that either of the accounts has given rise to the other; but that they have some connection is very possible. They are of special importance, however, in anthropology as examples of the ways in which the human mind has explained creation... . . . Among other early Chaldean fragments is one which appears to describe a parallel incident to the confusion of tongues at Babel... . . . p. 494 In the great Epic of Izdubar or Gishubar, also discovered by Mr. Smith in 1872, we have a Semitic translation of the exploits of an early Accadian king or primitive Hercules, arranged on a solar plan [reference to the format of the tablets? not sure], which accords with the representation of the hero as sun-god. In many ways the events recorded in the epic corespond to the twelve labours of Hercules; and it may be that the Izdubar legend is one of the early forms from which Phoenicia and then Greece derived the famous myth. The most perfect tablet is that which describes a deluge, which has been very generally identified with that of Noah. The character of Izdubar corresponds exactly to that of Nimrod in Genesis; and it is not certain that the names may not be identical, for Izdubar is but a provisional rendering. The deluge, according to the Chaldean epic, was due to the judgment of the gods Anu, Bel, and Ninip, and Ea told the "man of Surripak", Samas-Napiati (the living sun), to build a ship to preserve plants and living beings; it was to be 600 cubits long, and 60 broad and high. Numerous details of the building and construction are given; and Xisuthrus with his people, and animals, and plants, and food had entered the ship, "the waters of dawn arose at daybreak, a black cloud from the horizon of heaven. Rimmon in the midst of it thundered, and Nebo and the wind-god went in front." The earth was covered, and all living things destroyed. Even the gods were afraid at the whirlwind,and took refuge in the heaven of Anu. After six days and nights the storm abated, and the rain ceased, and the wind and deluge ended. "I watched the sea making a noise, and the whole of mankind were turned to clay, like reeds the corpses floated...In the country of Nizir (east of Assyria) rested the ship; the mountain of Nizir stopped the ship,and to pass over it it was not able...On the seventh day I sent forth a dove, and it left. The dove went, it returned, and a resting-place it did not find, and it came back." Later a raven was sent forth, and it did not return. Then the ship was opened, the animals came forth, sacrifice was offered to the gods, and Xisuthrus became the father of Izdubar, himself being later translated to live as a god. We cannot attempt a detailed comparison of the Chaldean and Noachian floods, for which reference must be made to Professor Sayce's edition of Mr. Smith's "Chaldean Account of Genesis"; but we may remark that this deluge narrative, perhaps more than anything else, shows how closely the narratives in Genesis are related to Chaldean traditions or sources of information. Book VI, The Jewish Religion Ch. 1, Early History - Moses p. 586 ...There are many indications in the Pentateuch that it was at least extensively revised long after the date of Moses; and indeed, there is nowhere in the Pentateuch any assertion that Moses wrote the books which have generally been attributed to him, and which speak of him in the third person... A most conspicuous result of modern criticism of the Pentateuch, is the discernment of at least two authors or documents, one describing the supreme God as Elohim, "the Mighty", a plural title which well understoof by the peoples surrounding the early Israelites, and among whom the briefer El was a common designation for their own chief deity; the other using the term Jehovah, or Jahveh, translated "the Lord". A third variation is found when the names are coupled together. The passage in Exodus vi.3...appears to fix all narratives in which the name Jehovah is used as later than that revelation to Moses; but this is by no means agreed upon by critics. We may, however, study the religious development of the Jews in two periods -- that in which the name of the Deity was some form of El or Elohim, and that in which it was Jehovah. . . [stuff of some interest on the Creation descriptions in Genesis, I hope to get back to this later] . . [The preface to the Pentateuch in my New Scofield Reference Edition, 1967, say in part: Certain critics have denied that Moses wrote Genesis to Deuteronomy despite the fact that they were attributed to Moses by the Lord Jesus Christ (where did he say that? I'm curious and haven't been able to find it). The arguments against Moses' authorship are chiefly based on the variation of the names of God (Elohim and Jehovah), the differences in style and vocabulray, and the presence of more than one account of the same event, e.g. the creation of man Gen. 1:26 and 2:7. These contentions have been adequately answered in that the variation in divine names is for the purpose of revealing certain aspects of God's character; the style is dependent on the subject matter; and the so-called parallel accounts, well known in ancient Near Eastern literature, are intended to add details to the first account. ] [Pretty weak arguments, to me, remembering that authorship was considered relatively unimportant until recent times. We now return you to your regularly scheduled Bettany.] p. 590 In the history of Noah we come into closer contact with the traditions of other nations, and especially with the Chaldean deluge story, already referred to (p.494). Moral evil had risen to a great height, owing, as the early Hebrews believed, to an intermixture of the daughters of Adam with a powerful race, the sons of Elohim, or the mighty ones, giving rise to "giants". [why haven't we seen fossils of these giants?]...We need not follow the details of the Flood...The conception of a plain only broken by comparatively low hills, covered by water as far as the eye could see, suffices to adequately fulfill the conditions really demanded. The "mountains of Ararat" are rendered the "mountains of Armenia" by many, and it is nowhere said that the highest mountains were meant... [Weren't the other races supposed to have been descended from Adam's other children? How did they survive the Flood?] ...The rainbow was to Noah the sign of this covenant, a fact by no means implying, what so many have imagined, that the rainbow then first appeared... The next great cosmological conception in the Book of Genesis is in the story by which the variety of languages was accounted for. It is closely paralleled by some fragments of Babylonian tablets in which are described the anger of Bel at the sin of the builders of the walls of Babylon and the mound of the towerr or palace. The builders, whose attempts were directed against the gods, were confounded on the mound, as well as their speech... [Bettany goes on to say that accurate historical accounts, in his opinion, begin with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.] Book III, Brahmanism Ch. I, The Early Vedic Religion p. 189 In the Satapatha-Brahmana, perhaps the most interesting of all these books, there is found an early tradition of a flood. Manu, a holy man, was warned by a fish that a flood would sweep away all creatures, but he would resce him. He was directed to build a ship and enter it when the flood rose; he did so, and fastened the fish to the ship, and was drawn by it beyond the northern mountains. When the flood subsided Manu was the only man left; a daughter was mysteriously born to him by virtue of religious rites, and ultimately the world was peopled with the sons of Manu. In later times it was said that the fish was an incarnation of Brahma, who assumed that form in order to preserve Manu. [I seem to also recall, from my days as a Boy Scout learning Indian history, that some American Indians (who are underrepresented in Bettany's book, IMHO, getting only about eight pages total) (Iroquois, perhaps? certainly eastern) had a legend of an Indian who survived a great flood on a simple raft. ..................................................................... } - There is evidence of a catastrophic flood. um, i think what you're describing here is not a global flood, but a global wash, and i suspect that the forces necessary to push water 5+ miles up and thousands of miles horizontally would certainly be enough to kill everything, animal and vegetable. it would certainly smash a little boat to toothpicks. btw, under either model, global flood or global wash, how was all the vegetable matter retained, i.e. how come we still have trees? } - seashells on mountains Underwater land was raised by plate tectonics. In many places you can see this process in action (though you need good measuring equipment). Subject: Noah's Ark - the construction problems Returning once again to the procedural difficulties involving Noah's Ark, based on the work of Robert Moore in "Creation/Evolution", issue XI, we have the assurance of Tim LaHaye and Henry Morris that Noah and his three sons could have easily constructed the ark in only 81 years (it being a good thing that the average lifespan at the time was several hundred years). According to Moore, the construction "... includes not merely the framing up a hull but: building docks, scaffolds, workshops; fitting together the incredible maze of cages and crates; gathering provisions for the coming voyage; harvesting the timber and producing all the various types of lumber from bird cage bars to the huge keelson beams -- not to mention wrestling the very heavy, clumsy planks for the ship into their exact location and fastening them. What's worse, by the time the job was finished, the earlier phases would be rotting away -- a difficulty often faced by builders of wooden ships, whose work took only four or five years." For waterproofing, we are told that God instructed Noah to coat the ark with pitch inside and out with the naturally-occurring hydrocarbon pitch, which causes a bit of a problem since, according to Whitcomb and Morris, all oil, tar and coal deposits were formed when organic matter was buried DURING the flood. In addition, the structural soundness of the ark was extremely questionable since, according to ship-building authorities, there was an upper limit of about 300 feet on the length of wooden ships, beyond which they were subject to 'hogging' or 'sagging'. Moore again, "The largest wooden ships ever built were the six-masted schooners, nine of which were launched between 1900 and 1909. These ships were so long that they required diagonal iron strapping for support; they "snaked" or visibly undulated, as they passed through the waves, they leaked so badly they had to be pumped constantly, and they were only used on short coastal hauls because they were unsafe in deep water." The longest six master, the U.S.S. Wyoming, was only 329 feet long, yet we are presented with the image of an ark well over 100 feet longer having to cope with the most severe conditions imaginable. What to leave behind ---- -- ----- ------ Given the limited room on the ark and the vast number of species of organisms, several creationists attempt to salvage the situation somewhat by leaving various families of animals to fend for themselves -- the birds who are left to fly until dry land reappears and the marine animals who must must survive the silt-choked, turbulent waters of the great Deluge until the Flood waters recede. Unfortunately, any attempt to save space on the ark this way flies rather drastically in the face of Scripture, since Genesis 7:4 states rather clearly, "For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights, and *every living substance that I have made* will I destroy from off the face of the earth." To ensure that there is no misunderstanding, Genesis 7:23 repeats the same information, "And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark." One would think that the exact wording of these passages leaves very little latitude for interpretation. The exact number of kinds ("baramin") that were taken aboard the ark depends upon which creationist is performing the calculations and when these calculations were done -- LaHaye and Morris in 1976 arrive at the figure of 50,000 "kinds", an upward revision from Whitcomb and Morris's 1961 figure of 35,000 but a far cry from the figure of 1,544 due to Dr. Arthur Jones. In spite of Scriptural contradiction, there remains a valiant attempt to determine just who can be left to fend for themselves in the Flood waters and still have a fair-to-middling chance of surviving. The first obvious candidates are the marine animals but, as Robert Moore points out, there are some immediate problems: "Although creationists seem to think that once you're wet, it's all the same, there are actually many aquatic regimes and many specialized inhabitants in each. Some fish live only in cold, clear mountain lakes; others in brackish swamps. Some depend on splashing, rocky, oxygen-rich creeks, while others, such as a freshwater dolphin, a manatee and a thirteen-foot catfish, live only in the sluggish Amazon ... "The salinity of the oceans would have been substantially affected by the flood; Whitcomb and Morris lamely address this concern by noting that some saltwater fish can survive in freshwater and vice versa and that "some individuals of each kind would be able to survive the gradual mixing of the waters and gradual change in salinities during and after the flood." It is left to the reader's imagination to ponder how "gradual" a worldwide, mountain-covering deluge would be. Subject: the issue of marine animals being left behind Three issues back, we discussed the rather drastic changes in salinity levels that would result as a consequence of a world-wide flood, but Robert Moore goes on to point out that, given the rest of the environmental hazards that would accompany the Noachian Deluge, the problem of the salinity level would be "a fish's least concern." In addition to making the water intolerably muddy (Moore calculates a ratio of 2.06:1 water-to-rock), the accompanying volcanic and seismic activity would be truly unimaginable, since, "... most of the world's volcanic activity, sea-floor spreading, mountain-building and continent-splitting was supposed to have occurred at this time as well, filling the seas with additional huge volumes of rock, ash, and noxious gases. Undersea volcanoes usually decimate all life in the surrounding area, and their extent had to be global during this terrible year. The earth's pre-diluvian surface would thus have been scoured clean, and forests, multi-ton boulders and the debris of civilization hurtled about like missiles. Finally, this tremendous explosion of energy would have transformed the seas into a boiling cauldron in which no life could possibly survive." Moore calculates that the temperature of the oceans would have been increased by at least 2700 C, "Yet amidst all of this, creationist icthyologists aver that life went on as usual, with a few minor adjustments to the "gradual" changes. The salmon swam to their (long-vanished) riparian breeding grounds that fall as they always had; sea anemones clung to their rocky perches, which were on the beach one month and the abyssal plain the next; blue whales continued to strain for krill even though their baleen plates were choked with mud; corals, which grow in clear, shallow water, continued to grow anyway; hapless bottom dwellers, their lives carefully adjusted to certain conditions of pressure and temperature, suddenly saw the former increase by more than 5000 pounds per square inch and the latter fluctuate in who knows what directions." Given the above, it seems fairly clear that there is no question of leaving any species to fend for themselves, which brings us to yet another creationist technique for conserving on valuable space -- bringing along only young specimens or, in extreme cases, eggs. However, Moore quotes Wildred T. Neill ("The Geography of Life"), as stating that "the mortality rate is usually very high among seedling plants and young animals; but once the critical juvenile stage is passed, the organism has a good chance of reaching old age." Moore follows this up with, "Furthermore, the young of many species cannot survive without parental care and feeding ... and even if they can, the lack of a normal social environment often results in severe behavioral disturbances... As for the dinosaur eggs, how did Noah know whether one would yield a female, the other a male -- or even that both were fertile? And since no eggs require a year's gestation, he soon would have had a hoard of fragile hatchlings on his hands." The Noah's Ark Myths "Do you seriously suppose that we are unable to prove our point, when even to this day the remains of Noah's Ark are shown in the country of the Kurds?" [Bishop Epiphanius of Salamis (315 to 403 CE)] Scholars have known that there are two interwoven creation myths in Genesis for over 200 years [1]. Current scholarship places the number of authors for Genesis at no less than four (i.e. Moses is entirely legendary). The older creation myth is generally referred to as the "J" (for Jehovah or Yahveh) document while the younger myth is known as the "P" (for Priestly) document. The "P" document is characterized by its impersonality, heavy usage of statistics (numbers) and genealogies, and reference to their chief diety as "Yahveh Elohim". The more primative "J" document refers to their chief diety as simply "Yahveh". Note that Elohim is really the plural form (gods). This is entirely logical since the entire creation myth was actually "borrowed" (a euphemism for stolen) from the Babylonians who in turn "borrowed" their version from the Sumerians. Virtually all monotheistic religions evolved from earlier polytheistic religions. [2,3,4] In the "J" document, god shapes man out of clay, while in the "P" document god creates man with just his spoken word. In the earlier references to man, the Hebrew word "adam" is used. This is translated as "mankind" (i.e. generic man); the Hebrew name for "a man" is "ish". Adam as a proper name does not appear until Genesis 5:1 (the Jerusalem Bible). The dozens of contradictions that appear in Genesis are due to the different authors and the haphazard way that the various versions were combined into one book (c.f. animals by "twos" in one place and by "sevens" in another). The Babylonian flood story has been known to Western scholars for several centuries through Greek fragments of the records of the Babylonian historian Berosus (nineteenth century discoveries have allowed a complete recovery). Between 1848 and 1876 Austen Henry Layard (British Museum archaeologist) discovered several thousand tablets in excavations at Nineveh of the library of the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal (668 to 626 BCE). Although many of the cuneiform tablets were destroyed by flames, water, and ransacking hoodlums, laboriously painstaking effort resulted in the reconstruction of the famous Gilgamesh epic in twelve cantos. The eleventh tablet contains the Babylonian version of the universal deluge. The twelve cantos seem to represent the twelve signs of the zodiac. [5,6] On December 3, 1872 George Smith (British Museum archaeologist) presented this quite important discovery to the Society of Biblical Archaeology. In 1876, he published "The Chaldean Account of Genesis" which showed the close relationship with the opening chapter of Genesis. The Mesopotamian creation myth was in use in the New Year ritual at the shrine of Marduk in Babylon as early as the time of Hammurabi (1723 to 1686 BCE). [ Another comprehensive explanation of the origin of much of the Old Testament is "Bible Myths", by T. W. Doane, in which the author demonstrates the similarities between the OT and myths from older, surrounding cultures, particularly Chaldean, Babylonian, Etruscan and Mesopotamian. - Robert P. J. Day ] The Turkish Government excavated a tablet at Abu-Habbah (ancient city of Sippar) which contains a version of the flood story complete with the great deluge and a large ship (built by Atrakhasis) by which people are to be saved. The tablet was dated the twenty-eighth day of the eleventh Babylonian month in the eleventh year of the king Ammizaduga (about 1966 BCE). Professor H.V. Hilprecht (University of Pennsylvania) discovered a tablet fragment in the excavations at Nippur that is no more recent than 2100 BCE. In this tablet, Ea (a god) tells Atrakhasis (alias Ut-napishtim) to build a great ship to save his family and the beasts of the field and the birds of heaven since he will cause a deluge which will kill all life on earth. The Babylonian creation myth is about 1,200 years older than the Hebrew version and the Sumerian (pre 3,000 BCE) creation myth predates the Babylonian version by over one thousand years. The obvious civilization sequence, according to Biblical scholars, is from the Sumerians down to the Babylonians and then down to the Hebrews. [6] Note that according to Greek mythology King Ogyges reigned during a great flood. There is absolutely no credible scientific evidence supporting the existence of a world wide flood; there is evidence for several large local floods. [7] There have been more than forty different organized expeditions to search for Noah's Ark since World War II. Since 1970 at least eleven books and three movies have been made about the search for this ever elusive object. Despite their complete lack of success, "arkeologists" [8] continue to search for that large box anyway (ark means "box" or "chest"). Mount Ararat (Agri Dagi) is the most recent of no less than nine different "final" resting places for the ark (and the least likely of all). [9,10] The arkeologists' basic idea seems to be that if Noah's Ark is found then evolution will somehow be proved totally wrong. They generally ignore a number of rather important issues (i.e. where all that water came from and where it went after the flood). In "Genesis vs. Geology", Stephen Gould examines the plausibility of the Great Flood and, in particular, the plausibility of the various proposals creationists have dreamed up to explain where the water came from and the even harder problem of where it went afterward. Gould uses this to form the basis of a general discussion of "scientific creationism" and the "scientific" creationists. [11] Some additional difficult problems include : how did Noah save all the different human diseases and parasites? How did giant earthworms and marsupials make the trip to Australia? Did Noah save any dinosaurs or plants? One of the Biblical flood myths claims that the earth was completely submerged for 365 days; long enough to kill off all of the land plant life. There are an estimated 10,000,000 to 40,000,000 plant and animal species on earth (more than 15,000 different mammals, 250,000 different beetles, and 250,000 different plants). Try calculating just how big of a box is required to hold all of the species (including their food) that survived the "flood". Imagine the few people aboard the ark dealing with several tons of animal waste each day (according to the Biblical myth the ark's only opening was a window). This is only a miniscule list of the more formidable problems that creationists must overcome. Then they get to show why virtually all of modern science is completely wrong. (Several creationists are involved in completely redefining science!) Evolution forms the very foundation of physical anthropology, cosmology, and biology, to name but a few. Evolution is also a basic component of linguistics, cultural anthropology, archaeology, and several other branches of modern science as well. [12,13] Some of the more visible arkeologists include Kelly Segraves, John D. Morris, and James Irwin. (John D. Morris is the son of Henry Morris.) Morris has written two wonderfully silly books titled "Adventure on Ararat" and "The Ark on Ararat". Although the Morris expedition claimed several "sightings" of the ark they returned with exactly zero. The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) started these expeditions in 1971 and has yet to show anything in the way of scientific evidence. The ICR claims to have received "miraculous protection" (presumably from themselves) on at least one of their expeditions. A member of the ICR has rationalized the whole failure with "the Lord will reveal the Ark at a time of His own choosing". The search for the ark has become such an embarrassment that the ICR now disavows any involvement despite the evidence of several of their own books, films, and slides! [14] Former astronaut James Irwin's expedition was funded by an evangelical religious group ("High Flight") based in Colorado Springs. Like all arkeologists, Irwin is certain that the ark is up there somewhere. On one expedition he suffered a serious fall and was forced to donate three teeth to the current monument to creationist credulity (Mount Ararat). After being released from the hospital, Irwin planned to search the mountain with a helicopter to narrow down the location. Why didn't he think of that before trying to cover the entire mountain by foot? References: [2] "The Anchor Bible" untangles the different documents in Genesis. [3] Eunice Riedel, Thomas Tracy, and Barbara Moskowitz, "The Book of The Bible", Bantam Books Inc, New York, 1981, pp. 515-518. Riedel and Moskowitz are anthropologists. [4] Isaac Asimov, "Asimov's Guide to The Bible", Avenel Books, New York, 1981. This was originally published as a two volume set. [5] Alexander Heidel, "The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels", University of Chicago Press, 1946. Heidel was on the research staff of the Oriental Institute (University of Chicago) until his death in 1955. [6] James George Frazer, "Folklore in the Old Testament", Hart Publishing Company Inc, New York City, 1975. "The Great Flood", pp. 46-143. This is an extraction about the Old Testament from Sir Frazer's classic twenty volume work "The Golden Bough". Frazer is one of the greatest names in anthropological literature. [9] LLoyd R. Bailey, "Where is Noah's Ark?", Abingdon, Nashville Tennessee, 1978. Bailey is an associate professor of Old Testament Studies at Duke Divinity School. [10] "The Skeptical Inquirer" Volume 3, #4, Summer 1979. A review of LLoyd Bailey's book on Noah's Ark, pp. 61-63. [11] Stephen Jay Gould, "Genesis vs. Geology", "The Atlantic", September 1982, pp. 10-17. Professor Gould teaches biology and geology at Harvard University. Gould was awarded the 1981 American Book Award for Science with "The Panda's Thumb". He is also a frequent contributor to Natural History magazine. [12] "Creation/Evolution" Issue #9, Summer 1982, "Six `Flood' Arguments Creationists Can't Answer" by Robert J. Schadewald, pp. 12-17. [13] "Creation/Evolution" Issue #11, Winter 1983, "The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark" by Robert A. Moore, pp. 1-43. The entire issue is about the ark. Moore lists over one hundred references. [14] "Creation/Evolution" Issue #6, Fall 1981, "A Survey of Creationist Field Research" by Henry P. Zuidema (paleontologist), pp. 1-5. Also see "Arkeology : A New Science in Support of Creation?" by Robert A. Moore, pp. 6-15. [15] "Science 81", December 1981, "The Creationists", pp. 53-60. (1) "Creationism as a Social Movement" by John Skow, (2) "Creationism as Science" by Allen Hammond and Lynn Margulis, (3) "The impact on education : an update", and (4) "What do the creationists say?". [16] Isaac Asimov, "In The Beginning... Science Faces God in The Book of Genesis", Stonesong Press, Inc, 1981, pp. 151-188. Asimov presents a very even-handed comparison of the Biblical creation myths and the modern scientific view of origins. [17] Martin Gardner, "Fads & Fallacies in the Name of Science", Dover Publications, Inc, New York, 1957. "Geology verses Genesis", pp. 123-139. This was originally published under the title "In the Name of Science". [18] Barbara C. Sproul, "Primal Myths Creating The World", Harper and Row, 1979, pp. 91-135. Sproul is Director of Religion at Hunter College of the City University of New York. [19] Free Inquiry "Science, the Bible, and Darwin". Summer 1982, Volume 2, #3. "Creationism: 500 Years of Controversy" by Gerald Larue, pp. 9-14. Professor Larue is emeritus professor of archaeology and Biblical history (University of Southern California, Los Angeles). And "Geology and the Bible" by Charles Cazeau, pp. 32-34. Charles Cazeau is professor of geology (State University of New York at Buffalo). [20] Howard M. Teeple, "The Noah's Ark Nonsense", Religion and Ethics Institute, Inc, Evanston, Illinois, 1978. Teeple is a member of the association of professional Biblical scholars, "the Society of Biblical Literature" and an ex-fundamentalist with a Ph.d in Bible. [21] Also see almost any contemporary encyclopedia under "Biblical Criticism", "Exegesis", "Higher Criticism", "Lower Criticism", "Flood, The", "Creation, The Story of", "Gilgamesh", and "Ut-Napishtim". References (addendum): [22] Gerald A. Larue, "Ancient Myth and Modern Man", Prentice-Hall, Inc, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1975. Larue provides an extensive bibliography. See [19] for author information. [23] Howard M. Teeple, "The Historical Approach to the Bible", Religion and Ethics Institute, Inc, Evanston, Illinois, 1982. Teeple provides a very extensive bibliography. See [20] for author information. [24] Robert Graves, Raphael Patai, "Hebrew Myths The Book of Genesis", Greenwich House, New York, New York, 1983. Graves is world renowned as a classicist and poet. Dr. Patai is an anthropologist, folklorist and Biblical scholar. Notes: [1] The less sophisticated creationists are usually unaware that there are two creation myths in Genesis while the more sophisticated usually insist that such claims are merely an unproven hypothesis. This is an actual example of the latter : "Perhaps the `faith-like' reliance upon the Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis of the 19th-century (re: Genesis JEPD theory) reveals either a lack of knowledge of post-WWII theological progress or an imbalanced diet of Bible literature." The same individual also insisted that the ancient Hebrews knew that the earth was spherical despite massive evidence to the contrary! (i.e. the Bible is a flat-earth book from cover to cover.) [7] When I asked a local member of the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA - a creationist organization) for the evidence supporting a global flood he stated "the fact that all early civilizations had flood stories proves the universal deluge recorded in the Bible historically accurate." This typifies creationist thinking. Firstly, not all ancient people had flood stories; only those located in regions where floods naturally occur. Secondly, several thousand fables do not somehow add up to a single fact. [8] This whimsical name was invented by skeptics. }misc concerning the flood Concerning the Flood, the Biblical tale is a copy of an old Mesopotamian tale; the Tigris and Euphrates rivers sometimes flood, and a flood can seem like one of "all the world" to someone living in nearly level terrain. In the tale of Noah's Ark, we do not learn why Noah did not take advantage of this wonderful opportunity to get rid of all the "unclean" animals once and for all. In early modern times, it was commonly thought that fossils were the remains of animals and plants buried in the Flood; the Free Thinker Voltaire felt compelled to discredit this seeming evidence for Noah's Flood -- he suggested that fossils were fakes or were dropped by pilgrims. But closer examination of fossils suggested too-neat layering for an all-at-once flood, and Flood advocates retreated to some of the most recent sediments (see Stephen Jay Gould's essay "The Freezing of Noah" in _The Flamingo's Smile_). In the early nineteenth century, even that seeming evidence was shown to be the work of glaciers (floods of solid water), and only in the more northern parts of the globe. Gould even reproduces the "recantation" of one of the last reputable "Flood Geologists", concerning this subject. } hydraulic sorting Well, let's see. Let's look at the usual creationist Flood theory, i.e. that the ordering of fossils is determined by hydraulic sorting (some shapes will settle faster than others), differential mobility (some life forms could flee the Flood longer than others), and differential habitat (some animals live at higher elevations than others). Let's pick a nice case that looks at one of these mechanisms and controls for the other two. There are certain plants that often grow at sea level, near the shore. There are many mollusks that only grow in shallow water near the shore, and attach themselves to rocks. No differential mobility, no sorting since both types of organism stay put. Unfortunately, the particular class of plants involved (I'll have to check my notebook at home for the exact reference -- I think it's the angiosperms) doesn't show up in the fossil record until mammals appear and is never found in lower layers with mollusks that should have lived nearby. } timing problems let's look at the Biblical dates. I Kings 6:1 says that 480 years passed from the start of the Exodus to the start of construction on the first temple by Solomon. Gal 3:17 says that 430 years passed from the cevenant with Abraham to the delivery of the Law to Moses. The chapters of Genesis after the Flood accound give the periods in years that passed between the births of various individuals from Noah to Abraham, giving a period of 390 years from the Flood to the covenant with Abraham. Thus, according to the Bible, the Flood took place 1300 years before Solomon began construction of the first temple. a) This is a clear, direct, falsifiable claim. These are clear, unambiguous statements that a period of X years elapsed between two events. b) The event itself (a global Flood that wiped out all but 8 humans) would be pretty hard to miss or gloss over. c) Because there were any number of literate cultures in the near East, who recorded dynastic lists, raised monuments giving dates and length of reigns, and sent ambassadors to each others' courts, we can pretty reliably construct chronologies for near Easter history, particularly for Egypt, and without reference to (but supported by) dating methods such as carbon-14 with corrections from tree-ring sequences. d) The upshot of which is that the building of the first temple can be dated to 950 B.C. +- some small delta, placing the Flood around 2250 B.C. Unfortunately, the Egytians (among others) have written records dating well back before 2250 B.C. (the Great Pyramid, for example dates to the 26th century B.C., 300 years before the Biblical date for the Flood). No sign in Egyptian inscriptions of this global flood around 2250 B.C. e) Therefore, either we have to reject the historicity of the Flood account; accept the historicity of the Flood account, but explain away the clear Biblical dating of the event; or accept the Biblical account and chronology, and reject the massive amount of written and archaological evidence estab- lishing the chronology of history in the near East. } folded rocks show that it was done when they were soft }He next stated that when you hit something that's hard, it breaks or }shatters. These folds are smooth, so it must be that the rock (he }showed and mentioned sandstone) was still forming from mud, and was }still soft. This means that the layers formed very rapidly, to still }be soft (down at the bottom layer) when the whole shebang got }faulted. } }His (inevitable) conclusion: it all formed during Noah's flood. >Rebuttal: nothing "hit" that rock. Conventional geology understands >the strength and brittleness of these things: they can and have been >measured in labs. Note, I'm not saying that rocks of a given type >are identical. The point is that science has dealt with all this >quantitatively. The rocks got folded by compression, not by sudden >impact: and in fact some rocks do shatter. I've seen examples - for >instance, hard black fragments embedded in a softer gray rock. The >gray rock had flowed while the black shattered. Folding can happen in a lot less than geological time. If you go to the Roman dig at the Fort at Housesteads, in Northumbria, you can see the remains of Roman barracks which now lie in definite waves, because of the movement of the earth beneath them. The mortar between the stones is still intact. --- Squish v1.01 * Origin: Universal Electronics Inc [714 939-6401] HST/DS (1:103/208) From: Usenet To: All Msg #308, Jun-23-93 08:13AM Subject: Worlds in Collision/collusion/confusion Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway From: jmeritt@mental.mitre.org Message-ID: <9306231608.AA03159@asia.mitre.org> Newsgroups: talk.origins -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- I would like to thank the various members of the INTERNET and BITNET community of assisted me in proofing the document, providing numerous suggestions along the way. -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- Permission is given for this article to be copied and printed for non-profit use showing arguments concerning Velikovsky. Permission must be given for other uses. If you have any items which you believe should be included, please email me. ........................................................................ jwm@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu - or - meritt%aplvm.BITNET ........................................................................ Since my expertise is not in history, I shall mainly address those points made which have physical, astronomical, chemical, or general scientific basis and are addressed in "Worlds in Collision" or in Velikovsky's work which addresses his central thesis in that work. An occasional item (primarily involving mythology) will be included because I have been involved in the Latin mythology. (I lived in Italy and have been involved in various Latin clubs over the years.) Additionally, I am only going to be covering Immanuel Velikovsky's work itself - not what someone said he said. James W. Meritt &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& In Immanuel Velikovsky said: }[moon count in the solar system] }[page 5] No particular suprise that he missed the count. We find more quite often. Not something to hold against him, but it does give a readily verifiable example that what he thinks that is demonstrated not to be correct. I find the defense of "he didn't know that in the 1950's to be odd, considering that most of this book is supposidely conclusions of the same type that wasn't known in the 1950's, either, but suppose to be gospel by his followers... Personally, I find it unlikely that using incorrect data (as clearly demonstrated) for incorrect reasoning (as displayed below, and coupled with his ZERO training in physics, astronomy, biology,...) will arrive at correct conclusions. }" it is assumed that mercury permanently shows the same face to the sun" } [page 5] It doesn't The days are weird, though, because the period of its day is longer than the period of its year. (88 earth-day "year", 59 "earth-day" long days. Venus has a period of rotation of 243.09 earth-days, and a year of 224.70 earth days. Oh yes, this rotation is retrograde. Guess it (it doesn't happen to be the only retrograde "planet", either. There is also Tritan (retrograde revolution). Neptune is almost 90 degrees tilted) didn't sync with earth like Velikovsky thinks mars did - in spite of a lot (according to Velikovsky) more opportunity. It does have a tidal lock with earth so that, in its present orbit, every time it is at close approach with earth the same side is facing us. This tidal lock would take a LONG time in its present position. If it had passed nearer earth it would have acquired a radically different rotational momentum and would not, after only a few thousand years, been able to do this. As an aside, IF venus were have somehow matched rotation with earth during a close pass, it would have been with the relative motion of the planets AT THE TIME - which it clearly does not have now. Hence, this "tidal lock" is proof that this close-approach lock did NOT happen. } [birth of comets by being expelled from the sun - not his idea] } [page 14] Velikovsky is against this idea because "birth of a comet in this manner has never been observed" (page 14), but that doesn't seem to bother him that a comet has not been observed being expelled from a gas giant, either. While Velikovsky doesn't mind using "myths" in support of his wild ideas, other people must meet more stringent criteria. Interestingly enough, the S2 molecule has been identified as existing in comets. This is interesting because it is not stable. If you warm it, the moleculs ceases to exist as S2. Therefore, however comets are made, it cannot involve a lot of heat. Either from being ejected from the sun, a gas giant, or anything else. Some take partial comfort that volcanoes don't have to be molten silicate - as Io showed. But this is STILL too hot for S2. Not to mention that the core of Jupiter is itself too hot (and the core is the only place you will find other than light gases), and this mythical ejection process, unless it is 100% effecient production of kinetic energy, would be too hot. Even the frictional heating of going out of the atmosphere of a gas giant (think of it as reentry in reverse) would be too high. Thus, comets CANNOT currently be ejected. BTW: While looking through the journal Icarus, volume 86 Number 1, July 1990, I found the following article entitled "The Origin of Short-Period Comets" by Mark Bailey and Chris Stagg. The first paragraph reads as follows: It has recently been shown (Stagg and Bailey 1989 Monthy Notices of Royal Astronomical Society 241, p507) that the observed number of short-peroid is consistent with a spherically symmetrical Oort cloud source, provided that it contains a moderately centrally condensed inner core parameterized by an "inner edge" corresponding to orbits with a minimum semimajor axis a_0 \approx 4000 AU and an energy spectrum power law-index \gamma \geq -1. Although a core of this general type is predicted on the basis of the planetesimal theory of cometary origin (e.g., Opik, 1973, Shoemaker and wolfe 1984, Fernandez 1985a, Duncan et. al. 1987), evolutionary arguments based on the disruption of the Oort cloud (e.g., Bailey 1986) show that the inner core probably has to be at least this centrally condensed (see Bailey 1989 for an introductory review). The combination of these independent constraints provides a stringent test of the planetesimal theory of cometary formation. (thanks to Greg Hennessy) } "the presence of iron in the shell or the migration of heavy metals from the }core to the shell has not been sufficiently explained. For these metals to }have left the core, they must have been ejected by explosions, and in order }to spread throughout the crust, the explosions must have been followed }immediately by cooling." Why must ALL the iron have EVER been in the core? In all the planetary formation models I have read it started evenly distributed and migrated to the core due to the density difference while the planet was molten. Obviously not a 100% efficient method of separation. Especially since the metals are so common - witness the primary constituents of meteorites, for instance. And one of the methods of concentrating what will become ores is biological. Bacteria, for instance, concentrate different elements. The massive banded iron formations around the world, for another example, were formed when the oxygen-releasing stromatolite-building microorganisms released oxygen into the oceans. The oceans had iron dissolved in it. The iron oxide precipitated out. Slow and easy. No explosion. Heck, even meteoric bombardment leaves concentrations of iron on the surface (theorized origins of lunar mascons, for instance). } "... the presence of oxygen in the terrestrial atmosphere is unexplained." } [page 16] Perhaps the concept of "photosynthesis" (can you say 'plants'?) was foreign to him. Most other people have no problem explaining it at all. In fact, the time when this "pollution" occurred has been dated and is the first really big extinction as the non-oxygen bacteria got wiped out by the waste product of the plants. We are looking at around 1.4 to 1.5 billion years ago. } "The deep strate of igneous rock contain no signs of fossil life." } [page 17] igneous: formed by solidification of molten magma. Webster's dictionary. Don't you think that being in molten rock would probably do in any fossil, not to mention that very few life forms live in lava? I find it interesting here that the apologist decide that what he meant is not what he said. } [mountains formed by pushing from below. He has no idea why] } [page 18 - 19] Collision of continental plates. Simple, really. A friend at one of the laboratories made a program that models this process [using the supercontinent cycle explained in scientific american] to produce very realistic planetary "maps". And this plate relative movement has been directly measured in a number of places: europe wrt north america, and the plate junctions in california are CLOSELY monitored. For an even more interesting view, check the midatlantic ridge - the activity there (which is the "gap" from which they spread) is quite fascinating. The magnetic reversals (which have occurred) show up as "stripes" on each side of this band, demonstrating not only the spreading but the timing and the magnetic fields at the times. (none recently. Sorry, Velikovsky) This is an example of one of his wild ideas having a straightforward explanation. } "That a comet may strike our planet is not very probable, but the idea } is not absurd." } [page 40] It would have been nice if he were to work out the math. Fortunately, it has been worked out elsewhere to come to about thirty thousand to one for a millennium. Velikovsky [page 388] has 5-6 near collisions between Venus, Mars, and Earth in a "brief" period. If these events were independent, that is about a trillion quadrillion to one. As a lower limit. S. F. Kogan's letter in Sept., 1980 Physics Today or article in KRONOS VI;3. Using Sagan;s statistical approach and V's actual scenario (e.g., no grazing encounter). Korgan shows that the chance for a collision is 1 in 12 per 1000 years, not 1 in 30,000 per 1000 years that Sagan derived. Another interesting feature is that while there is a BIG object wandering around (venus/comet and sometimes mars) and a lot of tiny objects (meteorites that hit people) there does not seem to be a whole lot in between. Where are the craters from asteroid/lunar size masses? Grieve lists nine impact craters comparable to the arizona crater or larger that have formed on land within the last 2.5 million years. Where are all these hits that Velikovsky thinks are here?!?!? And what was the moon doing during all of this?!?!? Why is it still here?!?!? } [descriptions of comets and meteorites] } [page 40-41] He seems to be very confused and uses the terms as the mood hits. A comet is mostly a snowball (we've sent probes). A meteor is a rock (either iron-nickel or stoney) We have chunks. You can turn a comet into a bunch of meteorites (we believe we have seen this occurring) by evaporating away all the ice and leaving the pebbles. There have been meteor showers when the earth passed through the "tail" of extinct comets. The meteorites which make it to the ground, however, do not seem to be associated with comets. The observed air drag on the shower meteors indicates low-density material ( < 1 g/cm^3 ) compared to meteorites (typically 3 (stony) to 7 (Ni-Fe) g/cm^3). The low density of the shower meteoroids suggests fluffy aggregations of cometary dust & debris. } [discussion on changing earth's angular momentum via a close encounter } with a comet, problems heating the planet when it does ("since the world }survived, there must have been a mechanism...", and some alteration of }the direction of the rotational axis due to a strong magnetic field] } [page 43 -44] If it were fast, there have been plenty of delicate structures which would have been destroyed (in Luray Caverns, for instance). If it were slow, the temperature would have gone up an average 100 degrees K, and 240 degrees K at lower latitudes. I think that would have been noticed. "Fast" and "slow" seem almost as vague as "venus is hot", except that there are measurables associated. But, just for estimating the problem, this entire encounter could only have lasted hours because there could not have been a low-velocity encounter between planetary-sized masses - they would not have been able to separate afterwards! So the entire kinetic energy of the earth HAD to be converted to heat in hours. Which should have heated the planet (not the water - that is merely a convenient measure). No accounts that I have seen of the ground heating up even more than the boiling water. And if you wish to believe all the water was heated as it must have if this theory is correct, why are there fish? They ALL would have been killed. And plants do not survive real well when their roots are cooked, nor the seeds baked (after being shaken to the ground by the quakes. Oops, no quakes!) Interestingly enough, since Velikovsky claims that indians "hid out" in these caves, that would prove that whatever they were hiding from was NOT a large-scale momentum alteration - they didn't cook. Of this "strong magnetic field" there is no trace. I propose that the search for any mechanism will fail, because the reason for it to exist is nonexistant. BTW: How did earth get started back up? Velikovsky didn't seem to notice this little problem in his discussions on how it stopped... From a Velikovsite: He doesn't say that the whole earth stopped rotating. On page 44 he suggests that as one possibility to consider. He talks about the problems that would ensue IF the world stopped rotating. On pages 44 and 385 he suggests a tilting of the earth's axis as a way to produce the visual effect of a retrogressing or arrested sun without stopping the rotation of the earth about it's axis. .......... The problem here is that it introduces a tumbling. Nothing to stop that is mentioned, either. We are not now rotating around more than one axis... Other interesting item: The acoustic propagation time within the earth (the time it takes the earth AS A WHOLE to respond) is 85 minutes. No way a stop-start is going to take place in the Gideon account without ripping the planet apart with the dissimilar motions. Oh yes - the magnetic field around the earth has been dipolar for the past 1 million years, with the axis within 3 degrees possibly inclined to the earth's rotational axis by 3 degrees. Obviously, another pole was NOT nearby (i.e. a major magnet i.e. a highly-magnetized planet/comet). } "The tails of comets are composed mainly of carbon and hydrogen gases. } Lacking oxygen, they do not burn in flight, but the inflammable gases, } passing through an atmosphere containing oxygen, will be set on fire" } [page 53] Not to mention that they lack the density. You are talking about a VERY thin gas. It is also tough to make a carbon gas... BTW: The volatiles in the tails of comets appear to be mostly water. Water burns rather poorly... } "binding all the oxygen available at the moment" } [page 53] And would kill off all life IF that were to occur. We breath oxygen. Yet, Velikovsky seems to think that there were human witnesses to this in both hemispheres. Wonder what the observers breathed? to counter the Velikovsite dream of: "...if the fire in the air is extinguished before new supplies of oxygen arrive from other regions." Consider how well a gas could be aimed at a specific local, such that it would not cover the entire planet. From the distance we are talking about (trans-lunar) you can't even focus a beam of light that well, let alone a gas that would be diffusing as it traveled. BTW: water does a rather poor job at binding oxygen... } "All the countries whose traditions of fire-rain I have cited actually } have deposits of oil" } [pages 55-56] Since even Velikovsky notices that it is a common geological feature in the area, why must any other contortion be required? That is a perfectly straightforward terrestrial explanation - that there is oil in the ground of these regions. } [people's time estimation accuracy bad] - [page 59] } [people's clocks accuracy excellent] - [page 323] See anything odd here? } [ plagues kill "chosen", not "first borne"] } [page 63] OK. So the Old Testiment is wrong... If it doesn't agree with Velikovsky, just make it up as he goes. For those who think that this Russian psychiatrist showed some phenomenal linguistic insight in his "explanation" instead of making it up as he goes, don't you think that this would have come out/been confirmed in some of the many, many translations made of the OT? There have been many linguistic and religious scholars who have spent their lives on the work in question, and they don't seem to agree with Velikovsky's spur of the moment rationalization. As Ted Holden points out: . . .I KNOW that nobody who claims any expertise in Hebrew or biblical studies would ever claim that numerous wholesale mistakes in translation were made by the committee of scholars who created the King James Bible. Which demonstrates the likelihood of this "error" creeping in (a funny item - Ted is a Velikovsite himself.). } [tides from Venus close approach at least miles high] } [pages 70 and 71] Since the tidal height is proportional to the mass of the tide producing body and inversely proportional to the cube of the distance, the entire planet would have been caught up in the tide. Seems that Egypt, for instance, didn't notice as the tremendous wave went over on the eighth or fifteenth century BC. Or Aztec, or Chinese,... Not a global "flood" but a global "wash" that should have wiped it smooth quite a few times. Obviously, it didn't. } "... head of the comet. This head only shortly before had passed close } to the sun and was in a state of candescence." } [page 77] Since there is no temperature prediction given, it is hard to see how a prediction could have been matched. "candescence" and "incandescent state" don't really cut it... Makes one wonder why the manna wasn't baked... Perhaps the 6000 degrees K that the photosphere is? Guess the wanderers got baked bread. And the oil burned, the flies were killed,...... Do Velikovsites know that the sungrazing comet of 1882 developed bright iron lines in the spectroscope because it came so close to the sun that the heat could vaporize refractory metals? The temperature of that one went up to 3,000 degrees F. }[changing funny shapes in the sky - comet tail] }[pages 77, 264, 306, 310] Apparently Velikovsky was never illuminated by the work of Rorschach, which show that the same nondescript shape can be "seen" as many things by different people. There is absolutely nothing which requires that the same object change shape, or that it even BE the same object. That is a very strange thing for a psychiatrist to be unaware of... One other thing I find interesting is that both writing about the same thing AND writing about different things are BOTH evidence to Velikovsky. } "a tremendous spark flew between the earth and the globe of the comet" } [page 77] First, how is such an electrical potential suppose to be formed between the two objects? Second, if there were, would not the tail have the same charge as the comet, in fact it would be carrying the charge away as the potential would be concentrated on the protrusions and then the particles electrostatically repelled. IF the earth were immersed in the charged particles AND it had a radically different potential, the particles would be attracted to the earth and the two objects would rapidely reach an equipotential state. The earth had been in the tail a LONG time. Finally, objects from earth have travelled to comets. No large electrical potential is observed. In fact, probes have gone to Venus and not found any such indication. Heck again, EARTH has been inside of other comet tails and no such thing occurred. } " A phenomenon that has not been observed in modern times is an electrical } discharge between a planet and a comet and also between the head of a comet } and its trailing part" } [page 78] Interesting, in that earlier he uses this reason to discard someone's theory, but not to discard his own. As he said - "not been observed in modern times". Why set standards for others he himself does not match? Again, even those these approaches HAVE been seen, his "hypothesized event" did not occur. In fact, earth as passed near to/within Halley's comets tail. No electrical discharge. No manna, flies,..... either. And again, the tail should have the same electrical potential as the head, since it came from there. You need a potential difference to have a discharge. Doesn't Velikovsky understand this simple fact? I can think of a good reason it has not been observed: it doesn't happen. There have been opportunities... } "The head of the comet did not crash into the earth, but exchanged } major electrical discharges with it" } [page 85] Sort of like Halley's did in 1910? I've already gone into why this is absurd. } [The collapsed sky] } [page 89] Nothing here to show any reason why these various stories referred to the same time. I think Velikovsky uses "ancient" to mean "when I want it to". } [volcanism and lava flows in Greek, Mexican and Biblican traditions] } [page 91] Nothing here to show that the quoted events are even approximately comparable times, so no common exogenesis event should be implied. The only place in which these events are simultaneous is within Velikovsky's mind. NO separate support. You do not assume a time, then use your assumption to support your assumption. }"the celestial body.... sent close, made contact...,retreated, and } approached again... about two months" } [page 94] I cannot come up with any pair of orbits in which two solar orbitting objects come together in two months. Even Galileo which is carefully aimed, left earth in October 1989 and will not be back until December 1990 after passing (gasp!) venus. And then it'll be back two years later. And then on its way to (gasp! again) Jupiter. Kepler's rules of orbital mechanics just don't let you do this. As an obvious problem, it would take the planet going in the circle a year to do the circle. That's too long. Now, lets put an ellipse intersecting the circle at four points. Look at the different paths taken. Now, picture the circular planet and the object in the ellipse being at the SAME four points at the same time (i.e. transit the same angular distance across paths with varying distances under different gravitational accelerations). No way. Something else neat - here we have close encounter after close encounter after close...... Suddenly a circular orbit pops out, without ever coming close again. As Ric Werme wrote: The problem is that in a two body system, an orbit is invariant. That is, its period is constant, its eccentricity is constant, its foci are constant, its path is constant. Should something perturb the orbit, once the perturbing force is removed, the perturbed body will be in a new orbit and it will return to the spot where the perturbing force ended. So, as you should see, if something perturbs the orbit, the two objects should meet again - be it venus, mars, or earth. They are not. } [all volcanoes active, all continents quake] } [pages 96 and 97] Volcanic flows can be easily dated. It is trivial to show that not all volcanoes were active between 1500 and 600 BC. Not to mention the rest of the devastation he alludes to. } [a "pure" note making recognizable voices] } [page 97 - 100] Get real. People who played musical instruments would mistake a single pitch ("same pitch throughout the world" - page 99) for voices? That said different, clearly (and loudly) recognizable complicated speaches? } [thunderbolt reverses the poles of a magnet] } [page 114] Huh? That's news to me. I know you can heat one past its curie point and demagnetize it, but reverse it? } [geomagnetic reversals are caused by comet near-approaches] } [page 114-115] The reversals are recorded in the ocean bed. As the ocean floor spreads from the mid-atlantic ridge, the magnetism is recorded into the solidifying lava. Thus, a continuous record of the earth's magnetic field is readily available for the life of the atlantic ocean. You see a reversal about every million years, though not in the last few thousand. He hinted that lava could be used to verify his theory, but missed where. Unfortunately for him, it disproves it. } "We can at least maintain that the earth did not remain on the same orbit." } [page 116] I reckon he has no idea on the dimensions of the ecosphere around sol or he would be MUCH more careful. For instance, to maintain a temperature consistent with habitability, the low equatorial illumination should be between 0.65 and 1.35 times that of earth. Of course, since he has flies evolving on jupiter and then surviving after being incandescent, his concept of "same orbit" must be MUCH broader than mere liquid water! ("same" being "enough like the present one to allow it to be livable".) } [changes in the times and the seasons] } [pages 120 - 125] Cute, but coral beds faithfully record such events, as do tree rings. We have records going WAY before a couple of millenium ago, and no such changes are evident. (that is from now back to a few thousand years ago, recording everything in between) } "When the air is overcharged with vapor, dew, rain, hail, or snow falls. } Most probably the atmosphere discharged its compounds, presumably of } carbon and hydrogen, the same way. } [page 134] It will have to be REAL cold before it rains hydrogen! } "Has any testimony been preserved that during the many years of gloom } carbohydrates precipitated?" } [page 134] Wait one. Back around page 55 this stuff was hydrocarbons. Am I to take it that Velikovsky cannot tell the difference between gasoline and sugar? These must be the same "intelligent molecules" he discusses later in reference to the problems associated with detecting hydrocarbons in the atmosphere of venus. Somehow, the hydrocarbons hit the ground but the carbohydrates hit the people. Neat trick! } "... quantity which fell every day would have sufficed to nourish the } people for two thousand years." } [page 138] Hmmmmm. With hundreds of thousands of Israelites (according to exodus) at 1/3 a kilogram a day falling (timed!) from the air for forty years we get enough to cover the entire surface of the earth to about an inch. Noplace else noticed? Now, since all of it could not have hit the earth (timed and aimed release?) we would get the release about 10000000000000000000000000000 grams in the inner solar system, somewhat more massive than all of Venus. And that is just the manna - not to mention the ice and rock that we KNOW is in a comet or the rock and CO2 we KNOW is on venus. There is also the minor problem that visits to comets and venus have not found any manna... In fact, the recent visit by Kohoutek shows it contains large quantities of simple nitriles- bad things like hydrogen cyanide and methyl cyanide. Not good components for manna, but fine for gas chambers... And that the manna was baked after being heated to "candescent" temperatures, ejected from venus at over 6.4 miles per second, then surviving reentry. And this cooked manna still tasting like "wafers made from honey" and so sensitive that sunlight evaporates it. Right. For a nearby check, results from the Lunar Receiving Laboratory: "A survey of organic constituents by a pyrolysis-flame ionization detector method and by means of a very sensitive mass spectrometer, provided an estimate of the indigenous organic content of the lunar samples. The values published give the organic content as under 10 parts per million.... No evidence of biological matter" Does not look like evidence of either megatons of manna, nor of vermin, descending from interplanetary space through the earth-moon system. } "The Greeks as well as the Carians and other peoples on the shore of the } Agean Sea told of a time when the sun was driven off its course and } disappeared for an entire day, and the earth was burned and drowned." } [page 143] I just finished reading the book "End of Atlantis". It was written by an archeologist. He compiled a lot of evidence, added some interpretation, and concluded that around 1470 BC, an island in the southern Mediteranean, near Crete, erupted. It was about 4 miles across. All that is left is some tiny islands around the 'rim'. He compared it to a volcano in the south Pacific that erupted around 1890 or so. If he is right, than the entirity of the Mediteranean would have been hit by tidal waves. Also, the sun would have 'disappeared' for several days, followed by several days of heavy rain. Thanks to Ron Wigmore } [first sighting of venus from earth] } [page 158] "This is not widely agreed with. Venus was known as the morning and evening star certainly by 1900BC, and clearly discussed in connection with the rising and setting sun at 3000BC. According to sixteenth century BC records (-1580 to -1560) the observed motion of venus was almost identical with todays orbit. Cuneiform writings of the Babylonian astronomers were quite clear. There were even pre- babylonian indications from Sumerian and Mesopotamian writings. I guess "ancient" writings are only used if they support Velikovsky. For instance: The sumerian version of "Inanna's descent to the neither world" that is in copies made in the second millennium BC has "I am Inanna of the place where the sun rises." (i.e. the morning star). One that refers to King Iddindagan of Isin (ca. -1909 to -1889) identified her as both the evening star and the morning star, which is an orbit INSIDE of earths. The lowest known written documents on earth are excavated from Uruk (Mesopotamia). The tablets at level III (next to lowest) refer to Inanna associating her with the star of both the rising and setting sun. This is around 3000 BC. During the reign of Ammizxaduga, king of Babylon (between -1701 and -1581) there were a series of observations of venus appearing and disappearing with the rising and setting of the sun (it is either the morning star or the evening star, but both never appear at the same time. They apparently recognized this fact.) The text covered 21 consecutive years. It included periods of inferior and superior conjunction. From this data, we can determine that the orbital data from this period is compatible with modern orbital elements within the limits of Babylonian observational accuracy. The Venus Table in the Dresden Codex comes from twelfth-century AD Yucatan. They not only observed the orbit, but had its period and a close approximation to the complete cycle. There were five iterations of ephemeris data, bringing the orbit of venus as indicated to within two hours of the place/time modern orbital calculations would have it. And as for "unknown" The Greeks called the evening star Hesperos. The Greeks called the morning star Phosphorus. the Romans called the evening star Vesper ("evening" in Latin) The Romans called the morning star Lucifer ("light-bearer") }"I assume also that in the third millenium only four planets could have } been seen, and that in astronomical charts of this early period the } Planet Venus cannot be found." } [page 160-161] He assumes wrong. When the facts do not support him (see above), he substitutes his assumptions. } "One of the Planets Is a Comet" } [page 161] We know what a comet is. Probes have gone to one. They are basically big dirty snowballs. We know what Venus is. Probes have gone to it. It is a BIG nasty ball of rock. A comet is ice cold. Venus is molten-lead hot. They are very, very different. A few neat things have been found- like Halley's comet (the 15 km comet itself, not the corona and tail) is BLACK. Blacker than any black paint you can buy. And small. And peanut shaped. And hot crust (100 degrees celsius from the soviet on-site probe) with a cold interior (an aircraft monitored jets out of it during the recent passage, find that they are ejected from a 32 degree source). } [long discussion of comet tail of venus] } [page 163-167] Even if everything else was right, there is no way this stuff is going to get up to escape velocity for a planetary size body. And the material HAS to get off-planet to form a tail. It is easy on comets because the head is very small with a trivial escape velocity. Simple warming will accelerate the stuff to escape the head. Even heated to a dull red glow, Venus's atmosphere is tightly held. Not to mention the tiny detail that the atmosphere of Jupiter is mostly hydrogen and helium, the tail of a comet is mostly water, and the atmosphere of venus is mostly carbon dioxide. Yet Velikovsky thinks these are ALL the same gases (jupiter -> comet -> venus) }...page-long varying description of the appearance of venus... } [page 164] He quotes Kugler to prove that Venus had a beard (a cometary tail). But he cuts off the quotation, so the reader won't notice that "Venus has an axe" means "Venus is in the constellation `axe'" and "Venus has a beard" means "Venus is the constellation `beard' (namely the Pleiades)", just some Babylonian manner of speech. On the same page V. says that Venus must have been a comet because it is so bright, quotes Kugler, but omits Kugler's comment that Venus even nowadays can sometimes be seen in daytime. } [Pallas Athene] } [chapter page 168-172] Athena is not the goddess associated with Venus. The guy is now making up his own mythology. }Athena's counterpart in the Assyro-Babylonian patheon is Astarte... }pictured with horns..." } [pages 169 - 170] Athena and Ishtar are both pictured with horns. Hence equal. But V. doesn't tell his readers that *all* Babylonian gods are pictured with horns. } "birth of Athena (planet Venus)" } [page 173 Gummed up mythology again... } [rain of cosmic flies, ants, and other critters] } [page 183-187] Really odd. This species, which is adapted to breath a nitrogen-oxygen mixture as an adult evolved in an environment that had neither oxygen nor liquid water? And would not it be the case that after reentry any insect would greatly resemble an ash? And I find it unsubstantiated that, on earth, flies are separated biologically from every other insect. They seem to match proteins, DNA, general physical structure,... } "The ability of many small insects... and to live in an atmosphere } devoid of oxygen..." } [page 187] Not that I know of. Not to mention the minor detail that a metabolism which obviously runs in an oxydizing atmosphere just would not make it in a neutral (like Venus and Mars) or reducing (like Jupiter) atmosphere. }Pliny says that Isis is the planet Venus } [page 195] Plinius (who lived 2000 years after the high point of Egyptian civilization) is quoted for Isis=Venus. However, in the pictures that V. quotes can be seen that Venus is associated with quite another god, namely Osiris; the same source (Plutarchus) that identifies Isis with Athena, says that Isis is associated with the star Sirius. } "Venus moves Irregularly" } [page 199-202] Not for the last few thousand years it hasn't. Say, at least four thousand. See above. }The Vulgate translation.... The (Greek) translation... } [page 202] Velikovsky usually quotes `correct' but in a strange way. He quotes the Bible (Job), by using the Vulgata-translation and the Septuagint- translation both for the same passage, and ignores the Hebrew original. } "Gaseous masses reaching the atmosphere could asphyxiate all breath in } certain areas" } [page 234] Interesting. A density WAY above current comets (Halleys, for instance, is known as a dirty one. One probe even flew through a jet. A cup of tail has something like one chance in 25,000 of containing one dust particle) somehow aims at parts of the earth. I wonder if Velikovsky realizes that during the 1910 pass of Halley's comet a lot of people stayed indoors because they were afraid of the "lethal gas" in the cometary tail. Guess what? Nobody was killed. } "I could not find the publication" } [page 237] We have here a common usage of defense between most Velikovsites and Velikovsky. } [Rotation of the earth stops and starts] } [pages 236 and 385] I am aware of tidal locks "freezing" the rotation of one body relative to another, but not one body locking the revolution of a second body onto yet a third, nor of any way to restart the spin to the same value it had before. Please see above for the shock and thermal considerations. }The Babylonian name of the planet Mars is Nergal...Nergal, the perfect }Warrior } [page 241-242] Nergal would be the god of war (he isn't, he is the god of pestilence). Why? because he is called "perfect warrior". V. doesn't tell his readers that all Babylonian gods are called like that. } "The planet Mars was feared for its violence" } [page 242] The GOD Mars was feared for his violence - remember, the God of War? Mars was associated because it appeared (blood) red. Still does. In fact, from the surface the sky appears pink. } "the unpredictable planet" - page 242 } "retrograde motion of the planet" - page 243 That is why they were called "planets". They wandered. The word "planet" is from the greek "wanderer", "to wander", or "to rush around". Look it up. This is a simple result of the orbits instead of the (relatively) fixed stars. It is how we find asteroids and planets NOW. You take two pictures and look for relative movement between blinks. } "Mars did not arouse any fears in the hearts of the ancient astrologers" } [page 244] I thought he just got through (page 242+) telling us how much it was feared? Odd... } "A conflict between Venus and Mars, if it occurred, might well have } been a spectacle observable from the earth" } [page 245] Even IF such were to occur (at the orbit of mars), I would be slow to call it a "spectacle". You really have to look at the right place to FIND mars. Two tiny dots would hardly constitute a "spectacle". } [names of Gods and planets identical, Athena ejected from Jove] } [page 247] First, the planets were named after the gods. Second, Aphrodite is the greek equivalent to Venus, not Athena. } "Aphrodite, the Goddess of the Moon" } [page 247] Huh? Aphrodite is the goddes associated with Venus. Selene is the goddess associated with the moon (hence "selenology - a branch of astronomy that deals with the moon.). }"But what might it mean, that the planet Mars destroys cities, or that } the planet mars is ascending the sky in a darkened cloud, or that it } engages Athena (the planet Venus) in battle?" [ page 251] How about "The God of War chieftain of valor, was inspiring the warriors"? And again, Athena is NOT associated with Venus, except, of course, to Velikovsky. } "Lucian is unaware that Athena is the Goddess of the planet Venus" } [page 251] So is everyone else, since she isn't. Aphrodite is. } "The Greeks chose Athena, the Goddess of the Plane Venus, as their } protector, but the people of Troy looked to Ares-mars as their } protector" } [page 253] The Greeks did not associate Athena with the planet Venus. Troy had a very warlike history. They chose the God of War. }In an old textbook on Hindu astronomy, the Surya-Siddhanta } [page 256] He doesn't say that they date from about 400 AD. }"Mars... was instrumental in bring Venus from an elliptical orbit } to a nearly circular orbit." } [page 259] First, Venus has not been in a very elliptical orbit for at least four thousand years (see above). Second, this circular orbit would not be inside of the orbit of earth if it were done so. You don't circularize an orbit someplace else. }"the swordlike appearance of the atmosphere of Mars, elongated on its } approach to earth.." } [page 262] First, people can't see a thin atmosphere. Maybe the clouds or suspended dust? Second, to make the clouds "swordlike", the tidal stress would do in the solid part of the planet. But there it sits. } [mars changing shape to look like animals equated to "Egyptians worship } animals"] } [page 264] The close approach was suppose to significantly distort the spherical shape of a planetary body without destroying it? Perhaps a review of the tidal destruction of bodies would have been a nice thing for him to know. Does the name "Roche" ring a bell? } "The Babylonians called the year of the close opposition of mars }"the year of the fire god"" } [page 267] And the Chinese have "the year of the rat" and "the year of the snake". I am more inclined to believe the reverse - given that Velikovsky decided on mars to have an close approach, he looked up a place/time/name that would fit. }"But if for some reason the charge of the ionsphere, the electrified layer } of the upper atmosphere, should be sufficiently increased, a discharge }between the upper atmosphere and the ground, and a thunderbolt would } crash from a cloudless sky." } [page 268] If, for some reason, the ionization level of the ionsphere were to be increased it would become a better conductor. Period. The rest is absurd. Does Velikovsky know what "ionized" means? }The Greek term for the collision of planets is syndos, which, in the }words of a modern interpreter, requires a meeting in space and also a collision of planets. } [page 271-272] Velikovsky doesn't inderstand `conjunction' of planets. He thinks it means collision. }"These ever recurrent earthshocks in a country as rich in oil as }Mesopotamia also caused eruptions of earth deposits: ":The earth threw }oil and asphalt," observed the official astrologers, as the effect of }an earthquake. } [page 275] Earlier this stuff was suppose to be oil descending from the comet. His story changes to match what he wants it to say. Not to worry - he has it swapping back and forth and coexisting (though not delivered at the same time/place together) all thorough his works. }"Mountain building is a process the causes of which have not been } established; the migration of continents is but a hypothesis." [page 277] The mountain ranges are quite well constructed at the points of collision between continental plates. That and volcanic building work quite well, are very predictable, and easily modeled. See above. }" Pull, torsion, and displacement were responsible for mountain building, } too." [thinks mars & venus pulled mountains up} } [pages 277-278] First, that model does nothing to explain the distribution of the mountain ranges along the lines where the continental plates collide. Second, to have enough tidal pull to distort the rigid components of the surface permanently by miles (i.e. so far that will not even settle after miles of displacement) you would first strip the hydrosphere and atmosphere off the planet. Third: You cannot focus gravity from a planet onto a small point at a distance. The entire earth would become oblate, and but not just select points. In fact, this effect is observed on a number of moons, as they have become tidally deformed while they were plastic. Finally, we have a fairly simple, straightforeward, and displayable explanation. That isn't it. } "They rushed in front of and around mars (it's satellites); in the } disturbance that took place, they probably snatched some of mars's }atmosphere, dispersed as it was, and appeared with gleaming manes" } [page 280] Come on. The escape velocity for these moons is around 20 mph and they are amongst the DARKEST objects in the solar system. Direct observation of them from satellites around mars shown no atmosphere at all. These little moons would have been flung away if there were such a near encounter. That they are there at all is proof that no such event has happened in their lifetimes. } [independent books of Joel and Vedas] } [pages 281 and 288] If the books are independent, how can Mars and Marut be cogitates? } [meteorites noisy reentry] } [page 283] Nonsense. They are generally observed to be silent. I've seen quite a few, but haven't heard any. There is an electronic crackle often associated with their ionized contrail... Of course, if you managed to get wacked by one.... } [Isiah predict time of return of mars] } [page 307] Very good. Isiah could solve the full three-body problem with electric and magnetic forces added. Wish he had included the formulation in the Old Testament... } [a lot of talk on summer solstice and shadows] } [page 315] Good point. And gives one cause to wonder why the sites at Stonhenge and the Pyramids align with the sun on exactly where the sun would have been using only slow, predictable, and current progression and absolutely NOTHING about V's sillyness is evident. And so he left it out. } either these tablets do not originate from Babylon or this city } actually was situated far to the north } [page 315, and footnote 16 same page] Velikovsky never tells the reader that Kugler cleared up the problem there (the incorrect length of day in ancient Babylonia) in a later publication. }"A gnomon...shows midday to within half a second. } [page 315, footnote 15] Now the shadow that determines the time has a width of 250 times half a second. Or does V. mean that the sundial is very accurately pointed south? But that does not imply that it shows the time correctly. Also sundials can't be used to determine the length of the day, because they don't work at night . . . } [Babylon move south ] - [page 315 to 316] } [Faijum moves south ] - [ page 321] } [ Thebes moves north] - [ page 321] Notice anything odd here about nearby cities moving hundreds to thousands of miles in different directions? }Of course, a sundial or shadow clock from before -687 can no longer serve }the purpose for which it was devised, but it might well be of use in }proving out assumption. } [page 321] Instability of axis of earth deduced from just one wrong sun dial. Now sun dials were often transported from one place to another, many of them are correct, but errors are not unknown. } [mammoth stuff] } [page 326-327] The original article extracted here is cited as "Farrand, Wm. R.; _Science_,133:729-735, March 17, 1961 (Copyright, 1961 American Association for the Advancement of Science)" My comments are in []; the material in () is included in the article. "...In contrast to scientific efforts, a number of popular and quasi-scien- tific articles have appeared in recent years, in which fragnmentary knowledge, folk tales, and science fiction are combined under the guise of veracity-- much to the chagrin of scientists and the confusion of the public. The most recent of such articles is that of [Ivan] Sanderson, who comes to the conclusion that the "frozen giants" must have become deep-frozen within only a few hours time. Such a thesis, however, disregards the actual observations of scientists and explorers. Adding insult to injury, Sanderson proceeds to fashion a fantastic climatic catastrophe to explain his conclusions.... "...The cadavers are unusual only in that they have been preserved by freez- ing; the demise of the animals, however, accords with uniformatitarian concepts...The ratio of frozen specimens (around 39) to the probable total population (more than 50,000) is of the order of magnitude expected among terrestrial mammals on the basis of chance burials. Furthermore, the occurance of whole carcasses is extremely rare (only four have been found)... "...There is no direct evidence that any wooly mammoth froze to death. In fact, the healthy, robust condition of the cadavers and their full stomachs argue against death by _slow_ freezing. [their emphasis] On the other hand, the large size of their warm-blooded bodies is not compatable with _sudden_ freez- ing. In addition, all the frozen specimens were rotten...only dogs showed any appetite for [the flesh]...'the stench [of decay]...was unbearable.' "Histological examination of the fat and flesh of the Berezovka mammoth show- ed, "deep, penetrating chemical alteration as a result of the very slow decay," and even the frozen ground surrounding a mammoth had the same putrid odor, implying decay before freezing [actually, no--the ground could have thawed after the mammoth was frozen and permitted decay, then refrozen. ERE] Furthermore, the stories of a banquet on the flesh of the Berazovka mammoth were, "a hundred per cent invention." "...The only direct evidence of the mode of death indicates that at least some of the frozen mammoths (and frozen wooly rhinoceroses as well) died of asphyxia, either by drowning or by being buried alive by a cavein or mud- flow...Asphyxia is indicated by the erection of the penis in the case of the Berazovka mammoth and by the blood vessels of the head of a wooly rhinoceros from the River Vilyui, which were still filled with red, coagulated blood. "The specific nature of the deposits enclosing the mammoths is not known well enough to be very helpful as an indicator of the mode of death or burial. Most of the remains are associated with river valleys and with fluviatile and terrestial sediments, but whether the mammoths bogged down in marshy places or fell into 'riparian gulies' or were mired in and slowly buried by sticky mudflows is not clear...in Siberia only mammoths and wooly rhinoceroses have been found frozen and preserved... "...so far no other members of the contemporary Eurasian fauna [except mammoths and wooly rhinos]...have been found frozen and well preserved. That only the bulky and awkward 'giants' of the fauna are so preserved points to some pecularity in their physique as a contributing factor...the mammoth, with his stiff-legged mode of locomotion would have difficulty on such [Siberian] terrain and moreover would not be able to cross even small gullies. It would be nearly impossible for him to extricate himself if he had fallen into a snow filled gully or had been mired into boggy ground... "The stomach contents of the frozen mammoths indicate that death occured in the warm season...when melting and soluflication would have been at a maximum and, accordingly, locomation would have been difficult. "...Digby was impressed by 'countless riparian gullies' that would have been ideal mammoth traps...Vollosovich...theorized that an animal so trapped might fall on its side and act as a dam, being slowly buried and suffocated by mud. The Berezovka mammoth is commonly regarded as having fallen as a cliff slumped beneath it; its broken bones attest to such a fall...the Mam- ontova mammoth perished in a bog...Quackenbush [wasn't he also Groucho Marx?] believed that his specimen from Alaska perished on a floodplain and that most of the flesh rotted away... "...All of these theories are credible and can be accepted as possibilities. There seems to be no need to assume the occurance of a catastrophe." Thanks to edeck@av8or.enet.dec.com }"A year of 360 days" an entire chapter (8) } [page 330 - 359] Not to mention that this would come as a complete shock to the Mayans, whose astronomical observations go back to the time when you claim the year was only 360 days. Not only did their calendar have 365 days, it matches our current year with greater accuracy than our Julian calendar does! It would also come as a complete shock to the builders of Stonehenge, which has been dated again to the same period (by C-14, and there is NO sign of flooding at the site!). Various structures of Stonehenge allows one to predict various events in the year, such as Midsummer's Day and lunar eclipses with excellent accuracy. This would not be possible if the year were longer now than it was then. There are quite a few other ancient observatories throughout the world, all of which match quite nicely with our current year. The Egyptians actually had both types of calendar at the same time; their lunar calendar had 365 1/4 days, and their civil calendar had 12 months of 30 days with 5 holidays tacked on. These two calendars diverge by one year in each 1460, and coincide in 2773bc. That's well before 700 BC. They did *not* change from one to the other, but used each for the cases in which it was most convenient. The Babylonians used a lunar calendar with alternating months of 29 and 30 days, leading to 354 days in 12 months, not 360. Then an extra month was added each three years, leaving an error of three days. Later, they used the Metonic cycle, based on the observation that 19 solar years equals 235 lunar months. This led to a calendar which had seven years with thirteen months in each 19 year cycle. This was also the basis of the Jewish calendar. Instability of the length of the year deduced from calendar reforms. Calendar reforms were often performed. Maybe according to V. the earth rotated slower in pre-revolutionary Russia, that kept to the Julian calendar until 1917. Maybe the sun doesn't shine at all in Islamic countries, that use a purely lunar calendar. Any "everyone" used 360 days at the time? Maybe, Except for the Mayans, the builders of Stonehenge, one of the ancient American Indian tribes, etc. etc. etc. The 360 day calendar is not NEARLY as prevalent as you suppose. The ancient Hebrew calendar, for instance, consists of 13 lunar months. This makes for a year LONGER than 365 days. The year 360 days. Copied from Whiston. Argument: according to Diogenes Laertius the year was divided into 365 days by Thales. Now D.L. was a copist, who lived 1000 years after Thales. Whiston didn't know that, but V. was in the position to judge the reliability of Diogenes. The Greeks had lots of cultural heroes to whom all kinds of inventions were attributed. That the year had 365.25 days was known a long time before Thales to the Egyptians. }Repeated changes in the course of the sun across the firmament led the }astronomers of Babylon to distinguish three paths of the sun: the Anu }path, the Enlil path, and the Ea path. } [page 351] "the paths of Anu, Ea and Enlil" are according to V. different eclipticas, but long since the books appeared that V. quotes, assyriologists have discovered that they mean the three main zones in the sky (summer, winter and between). } [lunar craters from molten surface bubbles] } [ pages 360 - 362] 1. Rock does not cool from molten to solid nearly fast enough to leave rings. 2. No combination of orbit and spin could have produced the current shape from a molten body. 3. The Apollo astronauts would have noticed this trivial detail. They didn't. 4. The rocks have been solid for millions, even billions, of years. 5. You get craters with impact on solids. No "semiliquid mass" is needed. In fact, you get very nice looking, and similar appearing, craters by impacting projectiles onto solids FAST (rail-gun fast). You even get that central peak. From the Lunar Receiving Laboratory: seven rocks were dated using the K-AR method. They yielded consistent dates of 3.0+/-0.7 X 10^9 years. Radiation exposure ages varied from 10X10^6 to approximately 160X10^6 years. This surface was NOT molten recently and the rocks were NOT "bubbled up" from beneath the surface. As an aside and relating to his magnetic points, the rocks brought back solidified in the presence of a magnetic field that was only a few percent of the present terrestrial field. It was NOT molten in the presence of a megagauss field. } [spectacular catastrophies on mars since it is smaller] } [page 363-265] Mariner 9, for instance, showed the surface and it had no such thing. The planet is, if anything, less active than the earth. }"The atmosphere of mars is invisible" }[page 365] Interesting, since it looked like a sword just a little while back... (when it was "a comet approaching earth") BTW: From the surface it looks pink. National Geographic ran a rather interesting series on the Mars pictures a while ago. Pretty. }"The white precipitated masses on mars, which form the polar caps, are }probably of the nature of carbon, .... keeps this "manna" from being } permanently dissolved under the rays of the sun." } [page 366] Carbon is black. Maybe he means Carbon Dioxide? That would be true, in part (the permanent part is water), but that would disagree with his dreams. Carbohydrates have a strong 3.5 micron absorption feature. The martian polar cap doesn't. Mariners 6,7, and 9 have found abundant evidence for frozen water and carbon dioxide, though. }"The main ingredients of the atmosphere of Mars must be present in }the atmosphere of the earth" [gas exchange during encounter] } [page 366] CO2 is the main component at the atmosphere of mars. It is a very minor component of the atmosphere of earth. Nitrogen is the main component of the atmosphere of earth, with oxygen coming in second. These gases are not major components of the atmosphere of mars. }".... argon and neon...on mars... Mars should be submitted to the test. } If analysis should reveal them in rich amounts, this would also answer } the question: What contributions did mars make to the earth when the } two planets came in contact." }[ page 367] Viking landers: 96% Carbon dioxide, 2.5% nitrogen, 1.5% argon. Very small traces of oxygen, krypton, and xenon were found. So the answer is: None at all. BTW: The heavier noble gases (krypton and xenon among them) have yet to be found associated with comets... "Mars emits more heat than it receives from the sun." } [pages 367] Mars does NOT emit more heat than it receives from the sun. It has been observed from earth, orbit, mars orbit, and by landers. This simply is not so. As a result of the studies from Mariner 6, 7, and 9 mapping mars in broad infrared bands near 10-20 microns, the thermal map of mars is known almost as well as earth and the moon. All the temperatures are consistent with thermal equilibrium conditions, there is no indication of an internal heat source. }[more destruction on mars during encounter than on earth] }[page 368] Not where the landers have put down there isn't. Nor on the pictures from orbit. }"The planet (venus) is covered by clouds of dust." } [page 368] What kind of dust? This is a zero statement. It does have clouds of sulfuric acid droplets, though... (between 75% and 85% concentration) }"...I assume that Venus must be rich in petroleum gases." }[page 369] It isn't. 'Nuff said. Of the sulfuric acid, hydrofluoric acid, and hydrochloric acid we see nothing. No hydrocarbons. No carbohydrates. ESPECIALLY not from Mariner 2. Read the data, not the press release. The reporters made that "petroleum found" up. Sagan was, BTW, one of the scientists directly associated with this probe and that instrumentation in particular. What he finds funny is that it was postulated to fill the greenhouse hole (filled by CO2 and HOH) to support the temperature. Immmanuel used non-data that was used to support a theory he disclaims. Double wrong! }"If the petroleum that poured down..." }[page 369] Again, this confusion between hydrocarbons (petroleum) and carbohydrates ("manna") appears. Velikovsky appears to add the lack of knowledge of chemistry to his lack of knowledge of astrophysics. }"The fact that methane has been discovered on Jupiter- the only known }constituents of its atmosphere are the poisonous gases methane and }ammonia - makes it rather probable that it has petroleum. } [page 369] Unfortunately, the major constituents of the atmosphere of Jupiter are hydrogen and helium, neither of which appear too abundant on Venus. And the presence of methane, a VERY simple molecule, says nothing about the presence of petroleum extraterrestrially. What you do is take whatever Carbon happened to be there and chemically combine it with the hydrogen that is EVERYWHERE. Presto! Methane. }"... Venus - and therefore Jupiter - is populated by vermin; this organic }life can be the source of petroleum." } [page 369] HEHEHEHEHEHehehehehehe. First, Venus has been directly visited on the surface by landers, in the air by balloons, and from low orbit. NO indication of such "vermin" exist. Just for fun, let's say "vermin" existed on Jupiter. Now, given that Venus is ejected at over 60 km/sec (Jupiter's escape velocity) and less than 67 km/sec (vector addition of 60 kps jupiter escape and 20 kps solar escape), which is WAY above the speed at which meteorites land on earth, and the atmosphere of Jupiter is THICK, what's keeping these things from being baked off as it exits by "reentry" (going up instead of down) heat? BTW: What mystical mechanism ejects a planetary at 60-67 kilometers per second from a very select site (in the plane of the elliptic, on the "back side" of the orbit so it will spiral inward)? We are talking 10^41 ergs here. That is about 9 1/2 months worth of the sun's _entire_ energy output, which suddenly is released in one moment! }"The night side of venus radiates heat because Venus is hot" } [page 371] No kidding! Enough to melt lead on most of the surface. How much do you think an entire world would cool overnight, if it started at molten lead temperatures, the atmosphere formed a blanket that retained the IR, and there are STRONG winds that redistribute the heat? }"The reflecting, absorbing, insulating, and conducting properties }of the cloud layer of venus modify the heating effect of the sun }upon the body of the planet..." }[page 371] True, and apparently even more than he thought. The common label fastened to this observation is "greenhouse effect" The same should happen to any terrestrial world that receives that much sunlight. The calculated trigger for a runaway greenhouse is about 1.4 times the solar flux on earth. }"Venus gives off heat." }[page 371] Correct, but misleading. It gives off just as much energy as it receives. The thermal flux ("gives off heat") matches the incoming sunlight. This is why, for instance, microwave brilliance readings have stayed constant for decades. Besides which, you can measure the flux directly. It matches. Just for fun: If venus was travelling 500 kilometers per second (not odd for outter sol system origin), and the sun's radius is 7x10^10 cm, the transit time is appox 3000 seconds, less than an hour. How hot could it get? The solar source in the photosphere is 6000 degrees K. Now, using the Stefan-Boltzman law of thermodynamics, if there were NO other heating, by now it would be 79 degrees kelvin. Cold. Real, real cold. Now, just what happens to rock when you heat it to 6000 degrees? And the vermin, manna, oil,..... }"The core of the planet venus must be hot." } [page 371] Big deal. The core of EVERY planet is hot compared to its crust. Even the moons of of the outter planets. Remember that volcano of sulfur (dioxide?) on Io? }"Astronomers will see the planets stop or slow down in their rotation, }cushioned in the magnetic fields around them..." [pluto and neptune] } [page 372] The magnetic fields of neptune and pluto are nowhere NEAR strong enough to do this. We have sent probes, and these little metallic items were not influenced in the least. We have sent a couple of Voyagers through the entire solar system, with a few close approaches (Neptune included). In spite of coming REAL close, and in spite of having a lot of iron in their construction, the force in their precision navigation was gravity. A force that did not measurably influence a chunk of steel smaller than a car does not seem likely to be able to bounce planets. Sagan did the calculations as to what field strength would be required - about 10 megagauss. This is a BIG magnetic field! Since earth is .5 gauss, Mars and Venus are about .01, and Jupiter is less than 10, and the interplanetary flux is about 10^-5, and NO rock shows sign of solidifying in a 10 megagauss field, I would say this is totally unsubstantiated. }"Comets may strike the earth, as Venus did when it was a comet" } [page 373] Astounding, isn't it. Direct physical contact that didn't destroy both. Look at the hole in arizona a LITTLE object made. Look at the iridium layer that may have come from a meteorite a bit larger that exterminated (possibly) most life on earth. Think what a planetary mass would do. I doubt if the crust would survive anywhere on either. And they would STAY in one piece, not split off again. For some more fun: Total kinetic energy in the collision: KE = 0.5 (M_e + M_v) v_rel^2 where v_rel is the relative velocity. v_rel has to be _at_least_ 11.2 km/s (Earth's escape velocity), and should be larger (gravitational focussing; difference in orbital velocities). This gives KE = 7 x 10^39 ergs. Considering the binding energy estimate obtained previously, the collision bids fair to disrupt both planets. It would be astounding if Earth_after were anything at all like Earth_before! (thanks for this from Mr. Gaetz!) }"Facing many problems" } [epilogue] No kidding. Nothing but, the way I see it. To pick a couple from Yaron P. Sheffer: Point A. After very close encounterS with Earth, which have involved such drastic effects as tidal disruptions, a complete halt of our planet's rotation, then a restart at exactly the previous rate, etc., one would expect lots of space debris to float around both planets, maybe even around Mars. A formation of ring systems seems to be very plausible under the circumstances, YET NONE IS OBSERVED AROUND THESE THREE TERRESTRIAL PLANETS. In fact, Venus has no natural sats whatsoever, which are expected after a launch from Jupiter plus the following planetary encounters. (Not to mention that Venus has been refered to as a COMET, just about 1,000,000,000 times heavier than any normal comet we usually see.) NOTE: 4000 YEARS OR SO IS AN INSUFFICIENT TIME SPAN TO HAVE PLANETARY RINGS COMPLETELY DECAYING. Point B. Major effects should have involved our moon, YET ALL WE SEE ARE QUITE LUNAR MARIA AND UPLANDS WHICH HAVE BEEN DATED TO HAVE BEEN METEORITICALLY ACTIVE NO LATER THAT 3 BILLION YEARS AGO. Point C. Has anyone noticed any other events in which one planet launches another towards other regions of the solar system...?? UH-UH!! Even given "plausible" trajectories which stabilize within 4000 years into almost circular (and at the exact available slot) orbits, people IGNORE the machanism by which Venus has been Jovianly launched. Point D. There are careful Sumerian records of their skies from ca. 5000 years ago... which give accounts of observing Venus in its ever-normal orbit, AS IF NOTHING HAS EVER HAPPENED VELIKOVSKY-WISE! Just a reminder: Earth has stopped its rotation (legend-wise of course) about 2000 years after the Sumerian observations of Venus... Point E. As has been mentioned already: The chemical composition of Venus is very different from that of Jupiter. Instead of dealing with this simple (yet anti-Velikovsky) hard fact from Reality, people went on to "reconsider" plausibilities of orbital mechanics. But if there is no way to launch Venus in the first place.... Point F. The solar system (INCLUDING VENUS) is 4,600,000,000 years old. Why do people still consider "scenarios" for "events" which supposedly occured in the last 0.000001 part of the solar system's age as "favorable"? Or are these only people who are not updated with the latest knowledge about our solar system? Hmmmm... }[venus changed into a comet] }[page 379] We know what venus is. Landers have been there. We know what comets are. Probes have been there. Venus is not a comet. BTW: If Venus was/is a comet, where is the tail? It is closer to the sun now than it "was" during this supposidely dashing around. So where is the tail now? And, given that the escape velocity is 6.4 miles per second, how did it EVER have a tail? And for the "it is its atmosphere" crowd, why is it bound now and wasn't earlier? The mass of venus was HIGHER back "when it was a comet", and so its gravity was higher, so the atmosphere would have been bound even tighter. Velikovsky tries to convince us (later works) that the tail got wrapped around the planet and is now the atmosphere. Nice to know how this happened... }"Magnetic poles of earth became reversed only a few thousand years ago." }[page 380] Nope. There are reversals, but none that recently. There is NO evidence of such a proposition. }[changing months/days/years] }[page 380] One would think that there would be some indicator, say in corals or tree rings, of such. Velikovsky presents none. His only dream is that of people using simpler math using a different base recorded what he wants and not what was.. As a minor note, "december", means "tenth month". Are we really only using ten now? The earlier civilizations often didn't even NAME the latter months. The were more interested in the growing season. That did not mean it was never winter. }[venus night side heat] } [page 380] Absurd. See above. }"solved the problem of mountain building..." }[page 380] Absurd. See above. }"This could be caused by the earth's passing through a strong magnetic } field at an angle to the earth's magnetic axis." } [page 385] One would think that some indication of this magnetism would be found in the rocks. It has not. And the spacecraft that measure the field-strength near Venus found it to be significantly less than even the earth's. }[slowing of the earths rotation] [page 385-386] Lets say that it was NOT done suddenly, since we can see features in Luray Cavern that are older than this that could not take the stress. BUT, with the earth's specific heat taken into account, and the rotational energy, the earth would warm an average of 100 degrees celsius, more than enough to boil the oceans. At low altitudes near the surface (where the people usually are) the temperature would go up by 240 degrees. Yet, the inhabitants didn't notice. } [more on the magnetic slowing] } [page 386] Absurd. See above. No evidence at all. }[decides an atom is a good model of the solar system] } [page 387-388] This flies in the face of observed QM effects. }[A nova the result of the collision of two stars] }[ page 388] A nit here. Bear in mind the distinction between novae and supernovae. Novae are thought to result from thermonuclear flashes on accreting white dwarfs. Type II supernovae (like SN 1987A) are thought to result from core collapse of massive stars upon exhaustion of nuclear fuel. (The detection of neutrinos from SN 1987A was a welcome confirmation of the core-collapse hypotheses. Modelling core collapse is extremely tricky because the explosion itself is a minor perturbation on the dynamics. I don't recall the exact figures, but I seem to remember that about 10^54 ergs is released in neutrinos, compared to only 10^51 ergs in the explosion itself. It doesn't take much of an error in the numerics to convert an explosion to a fizzle.) (another from Mr. Gaetz.) odd thought, indeed! Maybe "some" or "one" or "maybe oughta"? &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& references for direct quotes from Immanuel Velikovsky" Worlds in Collision Immanuel Velikovsky Earth in Upheaval Immanuel Velikovsky Velikovsky Reconsidered The Editors of Pensee (has a lot of his papers in it, along with other papers pro-V.) ........................................................................... counter-velikovsky references I found during this search: Scientists Confront Velikovsky Donald Goldsmith Beyond Velikovsky: The History of a Public Controversy Henry H. Bauer ........................................................................... references that I have sitting here and referred to: Computer Simulation of the Formation of Planetary Systems by S. Dole in Icarus 13, 494-508 (1970) Calculations on the Composition of the terrestrial Planets Reynolds & Summers, Journal of Geophysical Research vol 74, no 10 May 15, 1969 p 2494 The formation of the Earth from Planetesimals Wetherill, Scientific American June 1981 Fractionation of Iron in the Solar System Harris & Tozer, Nature vol 215, Sept 30, 1967 Formation of the Sun and Planets A. G. W. Cameron, Icarus 1, 13-69 (1962) The Supercontinent Cycle Nance, Worsley, & Moody, Scientific American, July 1988 Alfred Wegener and the Hypothesis of Continental Drift A. Hallam, Scientific American Feb 1975 Goldreich, Peter, and Stanton Peale, "Spin - Orbit Coupling in the Solar System", Astron. J. 71, 6 (August 1966), pp 425- 438 Cloud, Preston E., Jr., "Atmospheric and Hydrospheric Evolution on the Primitive Earth", Science 160, (17 May 1968), pp 729 - 736 Hart, Michael H, "Habitable Zones About Main-Sequence Stars", Icarus 37 (1979), pp 351 - 357 Mart, Michael H, "The Effect of a Planet's Size on the Evolution of its Atmosphere", published in some conference or another; I got a copy from the author. (Dave Allen ) Planets for Man Dole Our Evolving Atmosphere Is Anyone There? by Isacc Asimov Second Planet, Second Earth S. L. Gillett, Analog Dec 84 The Steady State of the Earth's crust, atmosphere and oceans Siever, Scientific American, May 1974 The Evolution of the Atmosphere of the Earth Hart, Icarus, 33, 23-39, 1978 Evolution of the Atmosphere and Oceans Holland, Lazar & McCaffery, Nature vol 320, 6 mar 1986 The Atmosphere of Venus Schubert & Covey, Scientific American, July 1981, p66 The Runaway Greenhouse and the Accumulation of CO2 in the Venus Atmosphere Rasool & Bergh, Nature, vol 226, June 13 1970 The Volcanoes and Clouds of Venus Prinn, Scientific American, Mar 1985 Venus, Near Neighbor of the Sun Isacc Asimov Structure of the Lower Atmosphere of Venus C. Sagan, Icarus 1, 151-169 (1962) Astronomy of the Ancients K. Brecher and M. Feirtag The Mystery of Comets Fred L. Whipple Geochemical exploration of the Moon and Planets I. Adler and J. I. Trombka The Planet Uranus: a history of observation, theory, and discovery A. F. O'D. Alexander The Planetary System Morrison & Owen Werelden in Botsing (Dutch) 1963 H. Freudenthal ........................................................................... references from Matt Briggs on venus's atmosphere: Dickinson, R. E. (1986). "Venus mesosphere and thermosphere, pt. 1, heat budget and thermal structure," Jounral of Geophysical Reasearch: 91 (70-80). Kasprzak, W. T. (1986). "Wavelike perturbations observed in the neutral thermosphere of Venus," Jornal of Geophysical Research: 93 (11237- 11245). Hou, A. Y. (1989). "Further studies of the circulation of the Venus atmosphere," Journal of Atmospheric Science: 46 (991-1001). Lacis, A. A. (1975). "Cloud structure and heating rates in the atmosphere of Venus," Journal of Atmospheric Science: 32 (1107-1124). Walker, J. C. G. (1975). "Evolution of the atmosphere of Venus," Journal of Atmospheric Science: 32 (1248-1255). ........................................................................... reference from Perry G. Ramsey: There is an article in the Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, June 1975 (in fact, the entire issue is about the atmosphere of Venus) by James Pollack and Richard Young describing a radiative-convective model of the Venusian atmosphere. ........................................................................... Articles relating to geomagnetism: Evolution of Overlapping Spreading Centers: A Sea MARC II Investigation MacDonald, K. C. ; Fox, P. J Stratigraphic Aspect of Paleomagnetic Studies of Bottom Sediments in Seas and Oceans Tretyak, A. N. ; Vigilyanskaya, L. I. ; Dudkin, V. P. Magnetic Anomalies and Sea-Floor Spreading in the Western North Atlantic, and a Revised Calibration of the Keathley (M) Geomagnetic Reversal Chronology Tucholke, p857-876 1979 Vogt, P. R. ; Einwich, A. M An Analysis of Near-Bottom Magnetic Anomalies: Sea-Floor Spreading and the Magnetized Layer Geophysical Jnl. of The Royal Astronomical Society v43 p387-424 1975 Klitgord, K. D. ; Huestis, S. P. ; Mudie, J. D. ; Parker, R. L. Magnetic Study of Basalts from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, Latitude 37 N Geological Society of America Bull. v88 n70503 p637-647 May 77. Johnson, H. Paul ; Atwater, Tanya Geochronology of the Neogene Paleomagnetic Polarity Epochs Proceedings of the Congress (6th), International Union of Geological Sciences, Bratislava (Czechoslovakia), 4-7 Sep 75, v1 p303-305 Theyer, F. ; Hammond, S. R. A Revised Time Scale of Magnetic Reversals for the Early Cretaceous and Late Jurassic Jnl. of Geophysical Research, v80 n17 p2586-2594, 10 Jun 75. Larson, Roger L. ; Hilde, Thomas W. C. Magnetic Lineations Observed near the Ocean Floor and Possible Implications on the Geomagnetic Chronology of the Gilbert Epoch Geophysical Jnl. of the Royal Astronomical Society, v28 p35-48 1972 Klitgord, K. D. ; Mudie, J. D. ; Normark, W. R. Evidence for the Opening of the South Atlantic in the Early Cretaceous Nature, v246 n5430 p209-212 23 Nov 73. Larson, Roger L. ; Ladd, John W. Faunal Extinctions and Reversals of the Earth's Magnetic Field Geological Society of America Bulletin, v82 p2433-2447 Sep 71. Hays, James D. Age of the North Atlantic Ocean from Magnetic Anomalies Earth and Planetary Science Letters 11 p195-200 1971. Pitman, III, W. C. ; Talwani, M. ; Heirtzler, J. R. Magnetic Reversals and Sedimentation Rates in the Arctic Ocean Geological Society of America Bulletin, v81 p3129-3134 Oct 70. Clark, David L. Palaeomagnetism of Deep-Sea Sediments International Dictionary of Geophysics, v2 p1134-1141 1967 Harrison, C. G. A. Magnetic Anomalies over the Mid-Atlantic Ridge Near 27 Degrees N Science v157 n3791 p920-3 Aug 1967 Phillips, J. D. Reference for volcanic activity: The End of Atlantis ........................................................................... References for the tree-ring data: Scientists Hope Tree Rings Will Answer Questions About Past THE ASSOCIATED PRESS DATE: June 16, 1988 12:44EDT (Chris Stassen provided these) Scientists Confront Creationism_, L. Godfrey, Ed.; New York: Norton, 1983. p. 35 Timescale N. Calder; New York: Viking, 1983. pp. 28-29, 224, 271-273 Principles of Isotope Geology G. Faure; New York: Wiley, 1986. pp. 390-39 Science and Earth History A. N. Strahler; New York: Prometheus, 1987. pp. 155-158 Radiometric Dating, Geologic Time, And The Age Of The Earth: A Reply To "Scientific" Creationism Dalrymple, G. B.; USGS Open-File Report 86-110, 1986. pp. 39-41 The Unexplained: A Sourcebook of Strange Phenomina Wm. Corliss Science,133:729-735, March 17, 1961 Farrand, Wm. R. =================================================================== "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." - Albert Einstein ............................................................................. jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu - or - jwm@aplvax.uucp - or - meritt%aplvm.BITNET

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank