drrayeye Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OCaptain Wrote:
>
> > No, he wasn't trying to solve a problem at all.
> > Just try to use sciency sounding words to
> convince
> > people without a science background that he
> could
> > be right.
>
> Velikovsky tried to connect reported celestial
> observations of ancient cultures with our more
> detailed observations of astronomy as he
> understood both, and produced unique alternative
> interpretations of both that were credible
> foundational ideas to many nonspecialists and
> specialists alike in his time. Looked at in great
> detail, these Velikovskian ideas fell apart--both
> for ancient cultures and the astronomy of his
> time.
> >
> > It doesn't explain why you accept it
> > wholeheartedly, nor does it explain why you've
> put
> > this thread in the science forum, when there's
> in
> > fact, no science in it.
>
> Laird has taken it upon himself to act as a sort
> of Velikovskian devil's advocate, showing in this
> thread that some of Velikovsky's interpretations
> of the formation of Venus may be closer to modern
> emerging knowledge than classical interpretations
> based on very simplified models of the foundation
> of our solar system of that era.
>
> I don't see anything wrong with that.
>
> Ray


Ray, can you point out what's wrong with the current model of the formation of our solar system?

Carol