RE: Kansas Closing arguments

How should we then speak of the Big Bang? As assumed? Extrapolated from present data? Believed? Supposed? Don't we assume/propose/suppose theories in physics and deduce logically from them?

Moorad

________________________________

From: George Murphy [mailto:gmurphy@raex.com]
Sent: Thu 5/19/2005 4:54 PM
To: Alexanian, Moorad; Michael Roberts; Keith Miller; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: Kansas Closing arguments

Nobody said astronomers & geologists had no "timeline" - i.e., one that
reflects state of the science understanding of when certain events happened.
But that of course is subject to change as the state of the science
develops. As you know, 70 years ago astronomers thought that cosmic
expansion began (if indeed it did begin) around 2 x 10^9 yr ago. That has
been revised as our distance measurements have gotten better so that now we
think it's ~14 x 10^9 yr ago with a fair degree of certainty.

What is problematic about your claim is your reference to an "assumed"
timeline. I (& I think Michael) take that to mean a timeline imposed more
or less _a priori_ & not subject to change due to new data. If that isn't
what you mean then say so. If it is what you mean then it doesn't
correspond to what real geologists or astronomers do.

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 4:36 PM
Subject: 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 17:08:16 2005