The Bizarre Theory To Unite All Creation Myths

“Write it. Shoot it. Publish it. Crochet it, sauté it, whatever. MAKE.” —Joss Whedon, on creating

In A Nutshell

Immanuel Velikovsky was a Russian author and psychiatrist whose major works involve reconciling most of the world’s creation myths into one single explanation. That explanation largely involves the idea that Venus was not originally a planet, but a comet that was broken off of Jupiter. It then reflected off Earth a couple times during the ancient and Biblical era, causing many of the events we think of today as largely mythology. Eventually, Venus settled into the orbit we know today.

The Whole Bushel

There isn’t much that will get the established scientific community in an uproar quite like an author who successfully blurs the lines between mythology and science fiction with fact, and then has the audacity to have his claims published not just by a well-known publishing company, but one that specializes in scientific textbooks. And that’s just what Russian writer Immanuel Velikovsky did. First, his theories.

They’re generally thought of by the regular scientific community not so much as an interpretation of the facts, but as a re-imagining of them. He starts not with accepted scientific fact but with the world’s creation myths, and develops his own theories on how these myths entwine to make up what really happened in Earth’s history.

Key to these theories is the idea that Venus was not originally a planet, but a comet that broke off from Jupiter. (This is equated to the Greek myths of Zeus’s daughter springing fully formed from his head. In the myths, that wasn’t Venus’s counterpart Aphrodite, but Athena. It’s a discrepancy that’s never addressed: He just writes as though it was Athena.)

From there, the comet Venus ricocheted across the solar system, causing all sorts of havoc that’s reflected in many of the myths that have been handed down throughout the centuries. A close call with Earth caused the events in the Bible, described as Exodus. Another close call with Earth brought the plagues described in many mythologies; insects and other small organisms can survive in the most inhospitable of environments, and it’s that survival ability that allowed them to leave Jupiter on the back of Venus and survive the journey through space, to be introduced to Earth as plague and infestation.

He wrote that Venus eventually traveled too close to Mars, where the comet lost its tail and was redirected into the regular orbit we see it in now.

The amount of detail and the number of both myths and historical events that he reevaluates to fit into his theory is astounding. The Olympic games, founded by Ares (Mars) and in honor of Athena (his Venus), was clearly a reference to Mars’s redirection of the comet Venus. The celestial events depicted in The Iliad, lighting up the sky as the gods fought over Troy, were actually seen by humans as the solar system was still in a state of sorting itself out. The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah came when a supercharged Jupiter got too close to the Earth.

Even changes in the Earth’s surface, Velikovsky explains away with this theories. The Biblical Deluge, the increase in not only the amount of water on the planet but also an increase in the salinity – it came from Saturn, of course, when the Earth was bombarded with extraterrestrial material. The instability of gravity and the state of our largest planets caused Saturn to lose a good amount of materials, introducing chlorine, salt, and hydrogen in massive amounts to the Earth’s surface.

These events had, he said, not been properly documented before him because of a collective amnesia that the world had always suffered from.

Over the course of his books, Velikovsky touches on creation myths from around the world, from Mexico to Greece to the Bible. His work resulted in a somewhat weird reaction. The literary world largely praised him for his genius, elevating him to a position alongside many of the day’s great writers and thinkers. The scientific community largely ignored his work, and those that did read it—like Stephen Jay Gould—referred to him as no less than a scientific heretic who at least had the decency to be massively successful in just how wrong he was.

Interestingly, his work was originally published by the textbook giant Macmillan, but because of an uproar in the scientific community saying that his work shouldn’t be published alongside “real” science, the publisher dropped him.

Show Me The Proof

Encyclopaedia Britannica: Immanuel Velikovsky
The Skeptic’s Dictionary: Immanuel Velikovsky’s Worlds in Collision The Immanuel Velikovsky Archive
Stephen Jay Gould, Velikovsky in Collision

  • Rijul Ballal

    In Soviet Russian planet invades you!

    • Exiled Phoenix

      Never trust russians.. just soviets in disguise.

  • new

    A rather bizarre theory indded

  • Nathaniel A.

    This truly brings planetary personification by Greek gods to life, even if it is hogwash.

  • Hillyard

    Sounds like a bunch of wonderful malarkey, it might even be a fun read if I can find it somewhere.

  • Shaitanwampir

    This makes way more sense than what most religions tell us how the universe was created.

  • Adeola Oluwapelumi Orekoya

    as bizarre as bizarre sounds, this rates high

  • Blue

    This is nowhere near a theory. Theories are all based in fact such as physical laws of the universe, without these facts supporting them they cannot be called theories.

    Scientific theories are generally more complex than the physical laws they describe; they have many component parts, and are more likely to be changed as the body of available experimental data and analysis develops. NOTE this part right here, they change, that does not mean they are discarded that means they are added too as more data is brought forth.

    This is because a physical law is a summary observation of strictly empirical matters, whereas a theory is a model that accounts for the observation, explains it, relates it to other observations and makes testable predictions based upon it. Note the points here about evidence (empirical study) and observation and how they cross with other studies and how a theory is developed and enhanced over time using only EVIDENCE.

    Simply stated, while a law or a fact notes that something happens, a theory explains why and how something happens.

    That is why this item cannot be even called conjecture, let alone hypothesis and nowhere near a theory, simply because it is the ravings of a madman with no evidence to support his nonsense.

    • inconspicuous detective


      …take the definition and shelf it man. people don’t care to be scientifically accurate in day to day life and the last thing people care about is being wrong when the people claiming they’re wrong aren’t using something relevant to them to figure they are. 😉

      • Blue

        I did not understand that last sentence at all.

        It matters immensely that people need to understand the language and accuracy of all day to day activities. It is a cop-out of immense proportions to think anything different.

        Knowledge and its acquisition are the key tenets of learning, if you do not understand this then what happens is you get a diluted version of what the word theory means and hear it everywhere in things like creation theory, conspiracy theory etc etc. That is why there is a difference between soft and hard sciences as an example, a soft science relies on statistical analysis and inference to provide its theories, but these are still based on facts, however the outcome is more of a best guess (but still backed up by evidence even if that evidence is statistical in nature), whereas in a hard science discipline like physics the laws are tested, the theory is tested to almost infinity and you get the same results, it is these results that constitute the theory.

        It is this dilution of the word that has been at the forefront of many recent campaigns by interested parties (not just religious nutbars but even to discredit climate change and actual scientific evidence such as the anti-vaxxer nonsense) and this is why people need reminding of what the word theory actually means.

        Nathaniel below this reply actually posted the description from the dictionary and failed completely to understand that the number one item in any theory is its basis in factual evidence be it either a physical law of the universe or an event corresponding to that fact.

        • Nathaniel A.

          “..the number one item in any theory is its basis in factual evidence be it either a physical law of the universe or an event corresponding to that fact.”
          Think about that for a second. If a theory was based on fact it would not be a theory, but a fact.

          • Blue

            I will, I see you are reading up on it so you will get there with this. Just remember that all theories are based on evidence and knowledge acquisition and it will start to make sense.

          • Nathaniel A.

            Nope, I just realized the ridiculousness of that particular comment and deleted it.

          • Blue

            Yes of course it was out there as you rightly observed, but it is an interesting field this one, especially on a philosophical level and that may be something you want to read up on. My last comment touched on this with how philosophical theories can sometimes have limited facts supporting them, a way of demonstrating how far out there these are would be to go and look up the philosophy of science, which is distinct away from actual scientific theories.

            I personally find the philosophy of science to be a little left field to say the least and it is really worth trying to wrap your head around it as it overlaps in to vastly different areas.

        • inconspicuous detective

          “to figure they are” is probably the part that ruined the whole thing. by that i mean to come to the conclusion that the common folk are wrong about how they perceive things people such as yourself use things defined in ways irrelevant to day to day life. scientific theory =/= theory to the detective, to the man/woman on the street, etc.

          ya know, the more you talk about science, the more i think science is a big cult of ego in and of itself…religion of scientists: narcissism.

          leader: polytheistic. (shoulders of these proverbial giants. no such “giants” exist).

          system of belief: “omnipotence using the latest soon to be out of date theoretical analysis, tools, and agreed upon (by themselves) ‘theories’ (another term defined in a way relevant solely to the cult of science)”.

          last year i think you remember i made a point that scientists are the new priests of this age; they possess interpret and send out data in the form of information that is further condensed and simplified for use by the public. i don’t think i was wrong and the more you speak of science, the more i’m convinced of its cult status.

          • Blue

            Science is the exact opposite of a cult ID because of one simple fact, it is based on evidence and not indoctrination (brainwashing).

            It is this sort of nonsense rhetoric that is exactly why your average person has no real clue about the structures behind scientific discovery such as theory as they are constantly bombarded with ignorant arguments such as this one.

            Theories do not go out of date, they are added too over time. Again this is a popular misconception pushed by a religious or ideological agenda to try and seed further ignorance into the average population who are susceptible to this sort of manipulation precisely because they do not understand how theories develop over time. As further evidence is revealed it refines and adds to theories.

            You have actually hit on the head why people believe theories are so simple and can change or be abandoned (they arent, they change with further evidence), and that is the manipulation via the media who suggest that a detective has a theory, when actually they have an hypothesis, they have the fact of the crime they are investigating and then they provide a conjecture to try and solve that crime, only when it is proven via evidence does it become a theory.

            It is this dumbing down that is at fault and it has been pushed as an agenda item by many groups who actually pay writers in Hollywood to put it in to TV shows, usually this comes from groups like the Koch Brothers or Fox or a Religious group and now it has become mainstream so you hear it everyday when the reality is that without evidence these are conjectures and hypothesis.

            You need to look at the law in much greater depth to understand that there is no real truth to be had there, as an example no one is found innocent, they are found not guilty, what this means is the prosecution has not proven their case, it does not mean for one second that the person is innocent as that is not how the law works, which is why there are no theories in law only evidence supporting the case for or against. The closest thing you get to a theory in the law is motive.

            Science has nothing to do with religion or with a cult following, you do not take a scientists word for anything, only the evidence via the data speaks. To think anything else is actually the main point of that first comment in that you are being manipulated to accept something that has no basis in fact at all.

            Of course there are science promoters such as Bill Nye, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Carl Sagan, David Attenborough but these are not evangelists, they are providing insight to the common man on very deep subjects. I have heard all of this nonsense before trying to equate science to religion but they are polar opposites precisely because one does not rely on brainwashing to work, it relies solely on evidence.

            Nullius in verba which translates as take no ones word for it, that is how science works, you research, you observe, you record, you test your results and then allow others to do the same which is why you can easily research all scientific theories as they provide repeatable and testable evidence and nothing more.

            Science does not claim omnipotence, it claims evidence a vastly different thing.

          • inconspicuous detective

            i almost can’t type man i’m laughing so hard.

            you know where i stand and i know where you stand. i have on more than one occasion taken the opportunity to learn from you on these sites, and consider you to some degree to be a mentor of sorts, but as a friend you’re too easy to mess with. XD

            i knew being a goofball like that i could drag out a wall of text.

          • Nathaniel A.

            “..i could drag out a wall of text.” That is exactly the reason that (to my knowledge) he has never lost a debate on here. He continues rehashing the same arguments, occasionally supplementing them with step-by-step instructions, testimonials, etc. until you have dragged on the argument for days and you finally give up because, quite frankly, you don’t care anymore.

          • Blue

            Yeah that is the cop-out right there, it has nothing to do with not caring it has everything to do with realising that your views can be taken apart by simple logic and fact.

            It is this you are railing against, if you had fact supporting your discussion you would not concede, you would try to convince the person the other end of those facts and that is exactly what a theory actually is, it is providing evidence to support your views based on factually supported knowledge.

          • Nathaniel A.

            No, what each of us do is try to convince the other using facts that support our view, I just tire of both of both our stubbornness more easily.

          • Blue

            Nope that is not it at all as clearly via demonstration you have no fact supporting your viewpoint which you even proved via your own definitions back to me. It is not stubbornness on my part, I have nothing to be jealous or stubborn about, I am only giving you facts as supported by evidence.

            And using a viewpoint that tries to concede whilst saying our views have the same merit is perhaps the best example of resigning from a debate that beliefs systems cannot hope to win. The old “lets agree to disagree” and “we are equal” is an absolute nonsense in a fact vs belief debate.

            Facts triumph at every point simply because they are true, you may think you have an equal standing in the debate but that is the furthest thing away from truth and fact you could possibly be as you are only kidding yourself that you have equal merit simply because you have no evidence (fact) supporting your views.

            I have seen this a lot lately when people try to discuss this, especially from the religious groups who seem to have slowly and inexorably been programmed to think that their beliefs have equal merit with fact, when the reality is the exact polar opposite in that they are using a logical fallacy to resign from a debate when they realise they cannot compete with factually supported evidence.

            Its an interesting one for sure as it seems to be almost like a get out of jail free card but when it is called out you get accused of not respecting someones beliefs and mock offense is taken for not respecting those views. Which, lets face it, is an absolute nonsense of the highest order, offense is just a whine, nothing more, its a “leave me alone, I know I cant compete with logic and fact but I will firstly try to play that we are equal and if that doesn’t work I will accuse you of bigotry for not respecting my views”.

            It really is a nonsense logical fallacy that needs calling out at every opportunity and retaliating with “why do you think your beliefs are better than this others persons when you both have no fact supporting your views?” This is why it is so very easy to ask a Christian why they think their version of religion is better than a Scientologists, as an example, when both have zero evidence supporting them and both are just brainwashing cults and of course it does not stop there, you can ask such questions as why don’t you believe in myriad gods, what makes yours so special when you have no evidence at all of existence?

            And that is why fact always trumps beliefs, simply because one has truths associated with it and cannot be taken apart by beliefs whereas a belief can easily be taken apart by fact and why they are nowhere near the same and are in fact opposite and why it is a cop out to resign from a debate saying we have equal beliefs when the other person is not using belief or opinion only fact.

            It happens a lot these days as I said and it is very interesting to research the beginnings of this in history and right now in the modern digital age where it is being used incessantly to walk away and still feel relevant.

          • inconspicuous detective

            way before your time here, he and i had it out for three of those days.

            to my knowledge, nobody technically won, and the debate itself was me trying to convince him NOT to pound this one ultra – religious nutjob into dust because the guy didn’t want to accept facts as we know them.

            we’ve had minor back and forth since but my favorite one (so far) put us on a team against sarah and some other fellow on a GMO foods list. that was a seriously enjoyable set of debates.

          • Nathaniel A.

            “…the debate itself was me trying to convince him NOT to pound this one ultra – religious nutjob…”

            I can relate, I once made the mistake of stepping between the Nazgul and his prey, and what ensued was a 2-3 day argument over whether every single religious person has been indoctrinated into their particular religion. I am sure you can guess the result.

          • inconspicuous detective

            i can. the ability to later in life use free choice is not something that is considered in that discussion though, oddly.

          • Blue

            You know I thought you were trying to goad me but I still bit anyway, I shall have to introduce you to my shaking fist and tell you to get off my lawn next time……………

          • inconspicuous detective

            i goad you more often then you think. but c’mon now “scientists are a cult” haha no.

    • Nathaniel A.

      1:an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events
      2:an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true
      3:the general principles or ideas that relate to a particular subject

      All of these apply to Velikovsky’s ideas.

      • inconspicuous detective

        no no no no no no. he’s working under the assumption that science is the reality and we only jostle with it because we’re uncomfortable with the truth of all things: that existence from one individual to the next is meaningless. you’re going to be proven wrong using the technicality of the scientific definition of theory, which otherwise would have no relevance to billions of average people if it weren’t for the fact that you’ve now made a point out of contesting him on it.

        • Blue

          Science is the reality ID, there is nothing else, you look at evidence only, without that evidence it is conjecture at best and at worst something like a brainwashing cult like Christianity. 😉

          • inconspicuous detective

            i guess. nothing scientific about enjoying crushing ant colonies though…

          • Blue

            It depends if you are scientifically investigating sadism or psychopathy…………..

          • inconspicuous detective

            you’re on fire tonight!

      • Blue

        Read the first point, i.e. intended to explain facts or events.

        Facts are evidential support mechanisms such as the physical laws of the universe. Scientific theories are vastly different to what you think a theory actually is and as this chap is basing his nonsense on scientific theory then what he suggests can in no way be held up as a theory.

        • Nathaniel A.

          According to Wikipedia, a scientific theory is: “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.”
          By this definition, Velikovsky did not propose a scientific theory but, as I said a common theory. i.e. an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events.
          What you do not realize is that scientific theories and theories are two completely different things.

          • Blue

            You are digging a hole for yourself, again try to understand what Wiki is telling you. All theories are built on evidence. Now you need to understand for something to be true and a fact it has to have evidence, therefore every theory is built on facts and they relate to other facts.

            Scientific theories, of which this is supposedly a postulation, are built on scientific facts, which is why this is not a theory.

            As for your suggestion that a theory is anything other than something built on a basis of fact, I think you need to go and read a lot more about the philosophy of theory.

            Theories are built on certainties and nothing else, and this does not matter if they are scientific in nature or otherwise. They are there to explain what is observed and recorded as fact and are more complex than the facts they are based on. As stated a physical law, a proof or a fact is the starting point and a theory relates what is observed to this fact and to others. The fact is the summary observation and a theory is the model that accounts for the observation, explains it, relates it to other observations and makes testable predictions based upon it.

            So as this chappie Velikovsky is starting off with myths, supposition and beliefs, what he is stating cannot possibly be a theory or even a hypothesis as it has no basis in fact.

          • Nathaniel A.

            Wikipedia is telling me what a scientific theory is, and I understand it perfectly. You fail to differentiate between scientific theories and other theories. From reading these comments, I believe you intended to say that Velikovsky’s ideas could not possibly be “Scientific Theories,” and I agree with you, and if that is the case, then I have no bone to pick with you.

          • Blue

            Again no, the only other theory that is not purely built on fact would be philosophical theory, however they nearly all have fact associated with them.

            It is the same for all theory and you should go and look up the root base of the word theory which is theoria. This will give you the root context of why the word theory is a technical aspect and not a subjective item.

            And that then will lead you to what is objective and what is subjective. Opinion is subjective so can never be a theory, however aspects of opinion may have theories involved in them but they form the minor part, the run on from this then becomes conjecture or hypothesis, a perfect example would be political theories.

            To give you an idea of why subjective areas are not true areas of theory you only have to look at psychoanalysis; this area has one set of facts and about 22 different competing theories using those same facts. But they still start with a fact.

            Go to your Wiki and look at the headlines of what constitutes a theory in any subject, I will put it here for you so you can see the starting point:

            Theories are analytical tools for understanding, explaining, and making predictions about a given subject matter.

            Now you see how that links in to the technical aspect? The analytical is the observation of the facts, the theory then is the understanding, explanation and providing evidence via prediction. If the theory stands up to this critical analysis then it may become part of the formal theory.

            Now to get to this point in any subject these are the usual steps one must take:

            This is how a theory actually works, the starting point is always a fact, truth, proof or a physical law of the universe from there to add anything to the theory you follow these basic steps:

            1. Conjecture – this is questioning the accepted understanding of something. So let us take this article as an example as it has no basis in fact it falls at this point here

            2. Develop a base hypothesis (this is to explain your conjecture and to validate the initial phases of said conjecture). This is now looking for evidence to support your opinion (right here is where opinion interjects in any theory).

            3. Study the hypothesis and define any “truths” within the study, (this is so that you can, via repeatable and testable evidence, support the initial conjecture). At this point you are now providing evidence, but it is only your evidence at this stage, which is where we then have to proceed to peer review and this is regardless of subject.

            4. Publish results and allow others to test your study results and to replicate them ad infinitum. Basically this is peer review and this is where a conjecture and hypothesis actually get to be taken seriously if you can replicate the results. It is this evidence through repeated testing that adds to a theory.

            5. If the ideas stand up to providing testable evidence then this becomes or adds to a theory at which point the study continues to uncover more “truths”. And this is one of the most important points to consider, even after providing the proof this is not the end of the study, you now go and look for more facts to support and further develop your theory(ies).

            Scientific theory obviously uses the scientific method, which is really what theoria (the basis of the word theory) actually means and that is that you are viewing and beholding i.e. observing and providing repeatable data and this is manifest throughout all theory, you still have to start with a fact as otherwise it is not even a conjecture.

            It is very interesting to go and discover what the word theoria means against praxis to give you an idea of what it is to contemplate, as stated theoria is the technical, praxis is the personal, which will give you a good starting point on how to determine if something is theoretical in nature or of a more personal human interaction.

          • Nathaniel A.

            “Again no, the only other theory that is not purely built on fact would be philosophical theory, however they nearly all have fact associated with them.”

            The theory did have some facts, some of which were shown in the article: For example the fact that creation myths exist and he attempted to find an explanation. This in itself is a fact as he attempts to equate the similarities in different culture’s theories, and again, it is a fact that creation myths exist. He used this fact to form his THEORY. I don’t know how it could get more cut-and-dry than that.

          • Blue

            Nope creation myths exist but are not factual, they are beliefs, which is why it fails at the conjecture level. I dont know how to be more cut and dried about that, just because someone believes this does not make it factual. Of course they exist but they are a purely human invention with no basis in fact.

            And this is before you go in to planetary mechanics, astronomy in general, relativity, gravity, Venus itself, planetary migration etc etc etc, which are all theories built on fact i.e. evidence.

            So you start with a fact, the fact is that creation myths have that word myth in the title which sort of gives it away that you are dealing in nonsense not supported by evidence or fact just by personal human indoctrination as we discussed before.

            Just because something exists this does not make it factual, the only thing that makes something factual is evidence. Of course people believe but this is not and can never be factual unless it has evidence, hence why this fails at its first logic step in that those beliefs have no fact supporting them.

          • Nathaniel A.

            Your blindness and lack of comprehension astounds me, so let me put it in the simplest terms:
            A.The fact that he based his ideas off is this and for the purposes of this conversation, only this: “Creation Myths exist.” Not “Creation Myths are fact-based,” but “Creation Myths exist.”
            B. As you have stated repeatedly, theories need facts.

            C. Using the fact; “Creation Myths exist,” he formulated a theory, not a scientific one, and this theory is what the bushel was about.

          • Blue

            Nope you are just wrong completely, there cannot be any theory as there is no basis in any fact. Creation myths are just that myths, they are not fact based, if you cannot see this then you are just going around in the dark trying to score a point which you can never win.

            There are no facts associated with this premise, the basis of his nonsense has nothing to do with creation myths by the way, he believes that Saturn, Venus et al are all interconnected and that the creation myths form a part of that, they do not start his conjecture they are part of it, read the article.

            He starts off with Venus being a comet and then linking that to the Greek myth, not the other way around and his actual conjecture is about Venus pinballing through the solar system and then fitting that to creation myths.

            Now of course as stated there are no facts associated with his nonsense, even if you include creation myths, of course they exist but they have no basis in fact, its very simple to understand this, you are now just being obstreperous as you have backed yourself in to a corner as you clearly do not understand how theory is formed but are unwilling to admit this failure.

            You are guilty here of firstly misreading the relevance of teh creation myths (they are not the starting point of this persons ideas), you are then also guilty of equating a creation myth to fact (which of course they are not), you have taken a human belief system as being a fact when it is a belief and superstition and not factual (yes they exist but only in imagination not fact) and you are now unwilling to let it go even after reading up on the subject of theory and, even by your own descriptions from various sources, you know that a theory starts with a fact or witnessed event i.e. evidence.

            I dont mind discussing this with you as clearly you do not have a lot of knowledge of this area of philosophy or what constitutes a theory, which was my first comment on this page. In fact you are a prime example of why I left that comment as there are many interest groups that have had a concerted effort over the last ten to fifteen years to dilute the meaning of the word so that they can seed the utter nonsense of “its just a theory” when the reality is that all theories are based on evidence, fact, proofs and universal truths.

          • Nathaniel A.

            I have no patience for arguments that last longer than a day, and because this it is quickly losing anything it might have had going for it in the beginning, so “I am willing to admit this failure.” This debate has only invigorated and “fleshed-out” my beliefs, so I thank you.

          • Blue

            You hit the nail on the head Nathaniel, you have beliefs and I have fact which is why there is a failure of logic in the first place. It is this logic and fact that enables the truth to be observed and why objectivity (reality) always trumps subjectivity (opinion).

            Anyway good talk.

          • Nathaniel A.

            Yes, good talk. Except for a technicality: Facts cannot make up a belief system, only a persons interpretation of those facts. But let’s discuss that another time shall we?

          • Blue

            Nope again a fact is a fact, it has proven evidence supporting it, without that evidence it cannot be a fact. Beliefs have ideology or indoctrination depending on if you are talking about religion or a way of life.

            Now the interesting part of this is that some ideology (note ideology here and not religion) may have a basis in fact, this would be things like political theory, however the kicker here is that the facts are subverted to fit the ideology and this is where you then enter the realms of opinion once again and dilute and lose sight of the facts to fit your opinion.

            It is a very simple premise this one in that it is cause and effect and how they interact with correlation and what you wish that correlation to state. Cause and effect are the actual facts, correlations are then the interpretation to fit your ideology or doctrine.

            In this discussion we have just had for reference; cause is the observed fact, event, physical law or truth and effect is the theory based on those causes. And this is how you can then tell what is hypothesis and what is theory as the theory will continue to provide evidence whereas an hypothesis is at best correlation with no fact supporting it and at worst your personal interpretation of what you have witnessed and what you then seed to others who are susceptible to your version of mind control.

            Beliefs vs evidence is a very interesting field as it brings in the whole gamut of logical fallacies and it is this seeding of logical fallacy that you have been promoting through the conversation, this is not me saying you are at fault only that your beliefs make you susceptible to actual logic and then conversely the fallacies that are used to promote your point of view which are and have been seeded to the susceptible for hundreds of years since the beginnings of using the scientific method to determine reality.

            As I said this is a very interesting field and for the most part the belief (opinion) vs reality (evidence) debates are concentrated on absence of evidence arguments which are perhaps the single simplest logical fallacy out there.

  • Sweet-Sativa

    What galactic event caused Atlantis to sink? It was mentioned by Greek scholars so it had to exsist at one point in history.

  • Luke Spink

    “A close call with Earth caused the events in the Bible, described as Exodus. Another close call with Earth brought the plagues described in many mythologies; insects and other small organisms can survive in the most inhospitable of environments, and it’s that survival ability that allowed them to leave Jupiter on the back of Venus and survive the journey through space, to be introduced to Earth as plague and infestation.”

    First of all, Venus is not responsible for the Hebrew Exodus from Egypt…the Egyptians were. The Hebrews simply left Egypt because they were tired of being slaves.

    Second, plagues of the magnitude that would cover Egypt have occurred elsewhere on the planet during it’s history without planetary intervention.

    Thirdly, no insect life that we find on earth can possibly live on Venus, which is hundreds of degrees f; not to mention a severe lack of oxygen, which would never allow insects (which require a highly oxygenated environment to survive because of their small lung capacity) to thrive in the numbers required for a plague.

    Fourth, grasshoppers were around from before the Exodus, therefore they did not come from Venus.

    “These events had, he said, not been properly documented before him because of a collective amnesia that the world had always suffered from.”

    Oh, right, just like L. Ron Hubbard! I knew this garbage sounded familiar!

    • Nathaniel A.

      No need to pick it apart, many scientists have devoted a great deal of time to it.

      • Luke Spink

        Agreed. But that doesn’t make it any less fun to pick apart. ;O)

  • shadlez

    This man’s world is pretty small. I mean last I checked I’m pretty sure there were lands and cultures out side of the ones he mentioned. Could be wrong… this guy being science and all LOL

  • Patricia Garvin Fox

    That loon spoke at Rice university when I was a student. He was clearly a few fries short of and order and was.pretty much laughed off the stage when confronted with actual space scientists.