Joined: May 2006
|Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 03 2009,16:48)|
|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:
|...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|
|...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:
|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.
Science doesn't work by ignoring fallacious preconceptions and illogic ...and leaping to preassumed conclusions.
Even the points you try to raise "how earth is precisely positioned...for life, but also to allow us to find answers to the greatest mysteries of the universe" relies on argumentam ad ignorantiam to make a claim that is preassumed and subjective.
Or how "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." is simply a God-of-the-gaps claim ( a version of ad ignorantiam pointing to a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world, and assuming the cause must be supernatural or due to aliens.) since we have no idea, for instance, whether or not subsurface life on Mars exists in conjunction with water, too. Nor do we have direct knowledge now of how many planets might be suitable for "life" , or what "life" means *precisely* or how many planets without water might harbor it -- other chemicals can conceivably be used for energy exchange and metabolic function, Flody
So far as we know, water seems neccessary for life as we know it, sure. But water is ubiquitous in this universe, so far as we know, Floaty -- it's found on planets and moons and in interstellar space. Having it on this planet doesn't seem to be unusual at all -- it doesn't make Earth a Very Special Place. It takes a leap to a preassumed conclusion to claim it IS unusual on planets.
The rest of their list is post-hoc rationalization to arrive at a preassumed conclusion, too.
Avoiding fallacies, having actual testable hypotheses and means of falsification as well as eliminating well-known illogical flaws like assuming the conclusion...well, THAT is part of what science is about.
What Gonzalez is doing is merely pandering to his fan base -- and he's NOT doing science.
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism