Re: "timeline" (Re: Kansas Closing arguments)

This "assume" word is getting you into a lot of hot water. "Hypothesize" is a good scientific word that may take some of the heat off.

At this point, however, both geologic times and big bang have long since ceased to be hypotheses. They are results (times) or models (big bang) that best fit the data.

Don

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Alexanian, Moorad<mailto:alexanian@uncw.edu>
  To: George Murphy<mailto:gmurphy@raex.com> ; Michael Roberts<mailto:michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk> ; Keith Miller<mailto:kbmill@ksu.edu> ; asa@calvin.edu<mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
  Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 9:44 AM
  Subject: RE: "timeline" (Re: Kansas Closing arguments)

  George,

  I do not want to belabor the point. Nevertheless, forensic science is just as much and no less historical science than cosmology, evolutionary theory, etc. There is no difference whatsoever. One always supposes/assumes a given scenario and goes about to prove it or to discard it.

  Moorad

  ________________________________

  From: George Murphy [mailto:gmurphy@raex.com]
  Sent: Fri 5/20/2005 11:55 AM
  To: Alexanian, Moorad; Michael Roberts; Keith Miller; asa@calvin.edu<mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
  Subject: "timeline" (Re: Kansas Closing arguments)

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu<mailto:alexanian@uncw.edu>>
  To: "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com<mailto:gmurphy@raex.com>>; "Michael Roberts"
  <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk<mailto:michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>>; "Keith Miller" <kbmill@ksu.edu<mailto:kbmill@ksu.edu>>;
  <asa@calvin.edu<mailto:asa@calvin.edu>>
  Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 5:07 PM
  Subject: 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?

  Of course we assume things. We (or at least I) assume, e.g., that general
  relativity is true until we run into phenomena that suggest that it may not
  be. But that's a very different thing from an "assumed timeline." As I
  pointed out earlier, the timeline in relativistic cosmologies has varied by
  an order of magnitude over the last 70 years. In fact in the 20s & 30s the
  age of the universe was thought by many to be on the order of _trillions_ of
  years on the basis of Jeans' work on stellar motions.
  Cosmologists have no "assumed timeline" in the sense of an /a priori/
  timetable into which observational data is forced.

  Give it up Moorad. It just isn't there.

  Shalom
  George
  http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/<http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/>
Received on Sat May 21 03:51:10 2005