RE: Kansas Closing arguments

Here is a website http://www.historyoftheuniverse.com/tl1.html with a time line of all the main events in the history of the Universe.
 
Moorad

________________________________

From: George Murphy [mailto:gmurphy@raex.com]
Sent: Thu 5/19/2005 1:09 PM
To: Alexanian, Moorad; Michael Roberts; Keith Miller; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: Kansas Closing arguments

No, my 1st 2 paragraphs don't agree entirely with your post because I said
nothing about an "assumed timeline." There is, in particular, no "assumed
timeline" in astronomy.

I'm sorry that my closing paragraph saddened you but the fact that it does
doesn't make it a non sequitur.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu>
To: "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>; "Michael Roberts"
<michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>; "Keith Miller" <kbmill@ksu.edu>;
<asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 10:31 AM
Subject: RE: Kansas Closing arguments

> Your first two paragraphs agree entirely with my post to which you
> replied. Therefore, the last paragraph is a non sequitur and I am sad that
> you wrote it.
>
> Moorad
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: George Murphy [mailto:gmurphy@raex.com]
> Sent: Wed 5/18/2005 2:47 PM
> To: Alexanian, Moorad; Michael Roberts; Keith Miller; asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: Kansas Closing arguments
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu>
> To: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>; "Keith Miller"
> <kbmill@ksu.edu>; <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 1:59 PM
> Subject: RE: Kansas Closing arguments
>
>
>> We all know what historical science is. Historical science = assumed
>> timeline + results from experimental sciences. The former is the history
>> part and the latter is the science part. Detective work, forensic science
>> that is what historical science is.
>
> & your point is?
>
> Astronomy & astrophysics are "historical sciences" every bit as much as is
> geology or evolutionary biology. In astronomy we are always dealing with
> the past, & often the very distant past. We can do "controlled
> experiments"
> on full-scale astronomical phenomena even less than we can in geology or
> biological evolution. But no one suggests that astronomy is less of a
> science than is physics or chemistry.
>
> In part the difference (between the way astronomy & geology are viewed)
> stems from the fact that we tend to consider the astronomical signals that
> we get via EM radiation as more direct than the geological or
> paleontological signals that we get via fossils &c. But in reality they
> are
> both signals that come from the past & which require theories for their
> interpretation. In neither case do we have theory-free raw data. The
> fact
> that the geological & paleontological data is more difficult to interpret
> because the phenomena are messier doesn't change this in principle.
>
> Moorad, the sort of arguments you present are expected from scientific
> diletantes like P. Johnson but a competent physicist like yourself
> shouldn't
> be doing this.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Thu May 19 16:41:50 2005