Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site mit-vax.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!think!mit-eddie!mit-vax!csdf From: csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: more on large animals and gravity Message-ID: <719@mit-vax.UUCP> Date: Tue, 27-Aug-85 07:40:12 EDT Article-I.D.: mit-vax.719 Posted: Tue Aug 27 07:40:12 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 29-Aug-85 23:39:31 EDT References: <382@imsvax.UUCP> Reply-To: csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) Organization: MIT, Cambridge, MA Lines: 145 It's time for another episode of "Ted Holden -- Argumentum Ad Hominem!": > 1. Velikovsky's explanation of the 360 day calendars of > virtually all antique nations, an enigma which most history > books choose to ignore. Except for the ones that discuss astrology. 12 x 3 x 10 = 360. This is significant. I'd be willing to post references. Maybe there will be a TV show about it. > 2. Velikovsky's explanation of the origin of petroleum > formations. Which could be no more valid than the current, reasonable explanation. > 3. The theory of catastrophic evolution, the only version of > evolution which makes sense. This argument holds a lot of weight, I must admit... but I'm still a little doubtful. > 4. Velikovsky's correct prediction in 1950 of the surface heat > of Venus and of it's hydrocarbon atmosphere as natural > fallouts of his theory of the origin of Venus. The > "super-greenhouse" theory which is currently in use to > explain Venus' heat is the single worst example of an > after-the-fact ad-hoc theory which I am aware of. The > theory's creation was an example of what I would call > dishonorable behavior on the part of astronomists. The > theory exists for no other reason than to prevent Immanuel > Velikovsky from claiming credit which is rightly his. My > own distrust of the natural sciences and their journals, > particularly astronomy, stems from such reasons. Temper, temper, Ted. What if I.V. had said Venus was a frozen ball of ice? If I predict that we won't have a nuclear war in the 20th century, and we don't, does that mean anything? If we do, you won't be around to tell me I was wrong... > 5. The very elegant explanations for so much of what we read in > ancient literature which Velikovsky's theories provide. The explanations, I must admit, are fascinating. As far as believing them, I'd rather stick with what various cultures had to say about their own literature. When the Egyptians said,"Ra is the sun god, a circle with a dot in it is his symbol," I'm a little more willing to believe them than Velikovsky. Velikovsky isn't even an Egyptian name! > Scientists studying dinosaurs around the turn of the century... Scientist studying physics at the turn of the century concluded that light was a wave and traveled in a medium known as "the ether". Experiments showed that this was wrong, so they came up with a better theory that's held up really well since then. That's what makes them scientists. Anyway.... > ...concluded that the big sauropods lived in water. Calculations > they did showed that their legs would not support them on land > and that water bouyancy would have been their only possible > hope. Two observations: > > 1. Those who made these calculations were not relying on > any immature or incomplete body of knowledge as regards > engineering or math. The Brooklyn bridge had already > been built by then and the first really large steel > warships were being built. Dinosaurs were not made of steel. Here's an interesting engineering tidbit: My dorm at MIT, which was built when these calculations were made, was one of the first steel-reinforced concrete structures ever built. They really didn't have any idea how strong steel-reinforced concrete was, so while the new dorms are as flimsy as kleenex, my dorm could legally be rated as a parking garage under Cambridge building codes. Now... you were saying about engineering... > Like I said, the basic principles of engineering have not > changed since the late 1800s. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. May I ask a personal question? Do you have any kind of degree (a high school diploma don't count!)? > at least as big as camptosaurids. The largest were probably > too slow and clumsy to kill, and fed on corpses - behaving > more like jackels than like lions. > > So the best modern science can do for the mighty tyrannosaur > is to make a jackel out of him. It's almost too funny to deal > with. As are you. What makes you think a tyranasaur was any different that the way they describe? There is no evidence that it was a hunter. There are many kinds of animals behaviors that must be seen to be realized. The fact is that if a tyranasaur moved any fast that say, 2 MPH, it would break it's legs. > I have news for Stanley Friesen, the editors at Avon, and > anyone else interested in dinosaurs. Nothing makes it in this > world by wallowing, shuffling, floundering, hobbling, gliding > without being able to flap your wings and FLY when needed, or > flying at 5 mph. That's not news to anyone, or have you not noticed the incredible LACK of dinosaurs in the world. (The ones you saw on TV last night were FICTIONAL, Ted, it was ONLY A MOVIE). > Likewise, the pteratorn had to catch prey to live. Why do you say things like this? Proof? References? > The problem with all this? It's wouldn't be able to > capture airborne prey at 5mph; There are very few flying creatures that catch airborne prey. What makes you think that this beastie did? > Pterosaurs probably wore Velikovsky tee-shirts. As well as many other creatures with brains the size of pinheads. > The notion that humans exterminated most of the world's > mega-fauna is idiotic and worthy of ridicule. Yeah, it doesn't account for the fact that the dinosaurs pre-dated humans by a million years or so. > I've got a new topic for next week. I can't wait! (Tee hee.) -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX "We pray to Fred for the Hopelessly Normal Have they not suffered enough?" from _The_Nth_Psalm_ in _The_Book_of_Fred_