Re: >Re: >:RE What does ID mean?

Glenn R. Morton (
Tue, 28 Apr 1998 21:13:48 -0500

At 02:34 PM 4/28/98 EDT, David Bowman wrote:
>I hesitated in submitting this post because of its high level of physics
>content and low (ok, nonexistent) level of theological content. But I
>thought 'what the heck' and submitted it anyway. Anyone who is lost in,
>or board with, it can always delete it.
>Regarding Glenn's questions (in response to Moorad) of 04/25/98:
>> Let me ask what the deficit is in a GR description of the solar system?
>Experimentally, none whatsoever. Practically, though, it is theoretical
>and mathematical overkill for describing the nature of gravitational
>phenomena within the solar system.

My point with Moorad was not that GR was an efficient computational tool
for the solar system which is surely isn't. I was contesting his apparent
claim that there is way to be sure our mathematical systems really
represent reality. I think they do at the very least approximate it to a
high degree.
>George Murphy has already commented on this concerning the fact that,
>although GR is confirmed to experimental accuracy for all observations so
>far, the precision of that confirmation is not nearly so spectacular as for
>quantum electrodynamics (QED).

Having just gotten a new computer, my files are spread all over the place
right now. I thought I had gotten the idea that GR was the most highly
verified from Hugh Ross. I couldn't find it. Does anyone else know of Ross
saying this?


Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information