FloydLee
Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009
|
Hey, I found that information I was looking for from OEC Hugh Ross. Will post that shortly.
But first let's do one objection from Deadman and Amadan. They're claiming that Gonzalez/Richards have "assumed their conclusions."
The problem is that, having actually read "The Privileged Planet", it's clear that there's absolutely no evidence of that at all. The authors start with observations (not assumptions) and then go from there.
What sort of observations? Well, observed items like:
| Quote | | ...how earth is precisely positioned in the Milky Way---not only for life, but also to allow us to find answers to the greatest mysteries of the universe |
| Quote | | ...striking ways in which water doesn't behave like most other liquids---and how each of its quirks makes it perfectly suited for the existence of creatures like us |
In fact, they point out:
| Quote | Most of the examples we have selected are based on well-understood phenomena, and they are founded on abundant empirical evidence. Examples include the properties of our atmosphere, solar eclipses, sedimentation processes, tectonic processes, the characteristics of the planets in the solar system, stellar spectra, stellar structure, and our place in the Milky Way galaxy.
Some of our other examples have a weaker empirical base, because of the rapid change and recent acquisition of knowledge in certain fields.This new knowledge includes extrasolar planets, additional requirements for habitability, and a host of insights in the field of cosmology. But even in these examples, our arguments have a reasonable theoretical basis.
Where our discussions are speculative, we have identified them as such. ----pg 319. |
So it's not a matter of "assuming the conclusion" on the Privileged Planet cosmological ID hypothesis, but instead a matter of working from empirical observations to a reasonable (and especially testable) conclusion.
Such is the way science works.
FloydLee
|
