17,394
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 47:
Line 47: + +
Talk:Immanuel Velikovsky (view source)
Revision as of 04:23, February 16, 2009
, 04:23, February 16, 2009zero support for V among creationists
::I agree with PJR here. A mere mention isn't substantive enough to merit applying a whole category. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]<sub><small><small>/Admin</small></small></sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 23:08, 15 February 2009 (EST)
::I agree with PJR here. A mere mention isn't substantive enough to merit applying a whole category. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]<sub><small><small>/Admin</small></small></sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 23:08, 15 February 2009 (EST)
==Creationists==
An anti-creationist systemetically looked through the creationist literature expectibg to find praise or support for V. He found zero support. (his goal was to ridicule creationists by showing they liked this crackpot Velikovsky.) William D. Stansfield "Creationism, Catastrophism, and Velikovsky: Catastrophism Is a Tenet of Biblical Fundamentalism (Creationism). Immanuel Velikovsky (Author of Worlds in Collision) Was a Neocatastrophist. What Use Did Creationism Make of His Theories?." ''Skeptical Inquirer''. Volume: 32. Issue: 1. Publication Date: January-February 2008. pp 46+ [http://www.questia.com/read/5028587178?title=Creationism%2c%20Catastrophism%2c%20and%20Velikovsky%3a%20Catastrophism%20Is%20a%20Tenet%20of%20Biblical%20Fundamentalism%20(Creationism).%20Immanuel%20Velikovsky%20(Author%20of%20Worlds%20in%20Collision)%20Was%20a%20Neocatastrophist.%20What%20Use%20Did%20Creationism%20Make%20of%20His%20Theories%3f online edition]. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 23:23, 15 February 2009 (EST)