RE: Moorad's assumed timeline

From: Alexanian, Moorad <>
Date: Thu May 20 2004 - 13:57:40 EDT

An attorney sets up a scenario in time and fits the known data into that scenario. Doesn’t the geologist fit data in a scenario in time? How else can you talk about past events in a time orderly fashion and not fit them in a time sequence?



        -----Original Message-----
        From: Michael Roberts []
        Sent: Thu 5/20/2004 1:09 PM
        To: Alexanian, Moorad;
        Subject: Re: Moorad's assumed timeline

> The best example to illustrate what I am saying is forensic science. Here
        one collects data that are studied by means of experimental sciences and
        used as evidence provided to the district attorney for possible prosecution.
        The district attorney forms a historical timeline wherein he fits in the
        evidence he has. It is on the basis of that timeline that the prosecutor
        seeks to indict a person by presenting the case in court.
        How does the Attorney work out his time line?
         "In historical geology, evolutionary theory, etc. there are no mathematical
        models and so the workers in those fields fit the data also in an assumed
        Frankly this is nonsense as it does not address how geologists have carried
        out historical geology for the last 300 years.
        Also you should realise that no maths is needed to work out the relative
        order of the strata. It is a case of observation.
        Just what is this assumed timeline?I have never read about in any
        geological writings I have read, whether recent or from the 18 and 19
        Thus I ask you to correct what you say or give good reason for your
Received on Thu May 20 13:58:00 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu May 20 2004 - 13:58:01 EDT