You could, but you’d be wrong. There is nothing impossible about a consistent definition of God, nor about traces of the widespread physical events such a being is supposed to have instigated.
1 Like
This is the response I expected and predicted. Apparently, theology does not participate in the rigorous peer-review that other disciplines practice. I knew when reading your paper that no peer review I had ever seen would have passed this paper. It would appear that theologians’ idea of peer review is “you scratch my back and I will scratch yours. You endorse my idea and I will endorse yours.” And of course that laissez-faire approach has no place in the true review of science.
In real science disciplines, you must count on any possible scenario interfering with and threatening your premise. For instance, if your novel idea of cosmogony does not explain in every sector why the temperature of space is so uniform and why space in every sector is so very nearly flat, your idea will be rejected. You don’t have a hope at the door.
I gave you a very real and possible scenario in human migration and controlled population size of a hypothetical singled-out people group that not only threatens your premise, but, if you are unable to allow the science to fully explain, will likely overthrow your entire idea. This would concern those undergoing real scientific peer review. That it does not concern you or others here, is very concerning indeed!
Here is a challenge: ask a resident physicist here or several of them to review your paper and apply real principles of peer review to it. I think you would be surprised at the response (that is, if they are willing to suffer a little setback in their relationship with you).
I am very sorry, but as far as science goes, you have not sufficiently made your case that everyone alive today – with not a single possible exception – is a descendant of your genealogical Adam and Eve.
Oh my.
The @swamidass pdf is not a theology paper. It is a peer-reviewed work of science scholarship which addresses some theological implications.
Tell us of your experiences with peer-review. What have you published and what type of scholarly journals have published your research?
A “resident physicist”? (Is that like “occupant”?) Are we being pranked?
POSTSCRIPT: I hate to resort to this but I think this is where we must consider Poe’s Law.
3 Likes
@dga471 what is your assessment of the science in the GAE?
2 Likes
Why would anyone ask a physicist to review a biology paper? noUCA’s bizarre premise that only physics is real science should not be encouraged.
5 Likes
I’m in my anecdotage – I can’t remember to whom I’ve told what story. 
(@AllenWitmerMiller)
3 Likes
Just humoring @noUCA, showing him how out of touch he is with a positive review from a physicist.
@noUCA appears to think that only physicists and cosmologists have high standards of peer-review. To him, everybody else–in other academic disciplines–fall short.
2 Likes
I did say one or several. You will invariable have one who is not or cannot under the circumstances be forthright. I have seen this before, and though it is unfortunate, it does happen. It happens in all disciplines.
Tell us about your experiences with peer-review in your academic career.
2 Likes
No…you would find them online and perhaps use it in a manner not in keeping with this ongoing discussion. It would only distract.
@noUCA you are multiplying words without knowledge.
I am not arguing that UGAs are defintely arising recently, but that we expect them to, and the evidence cannot tell us for certain either way. If AE live farther back in time, say 12000 years ago, it becomes less and less tenable to dispute they are UGA. Even if they are at 6000, there is no definitive evidence against them being UGAs.
That is my claim, which does not require me to demonstrate a seperate set of claims that you gave read into this. We thought a traditional reading of Genesis was ruled out. We were wrong. It was not ruled out.
1 Like
@noUCA the point is that you are an anonymous poster with, apparently, no personal experience with peer review.
Discussion. Is your idea possible? Maybe. Plausible. Probably not but I cannot prove it. That is not the dangerous and salient point, however. That point would be this – if it is possible that you are incorrect, and actually that is highly possible, even probable - then you are effectively breaking ground for racism and elitism in the human race and incubating it in the Church.
You will never be able to rule out the possibility that one, two, several unreached people groups today never descended from Adam and would therefore be labeled “inferior” This cannot be tolerated. Not even the possibility of it.
You don’t have to provide details that would identify you. Tell us the type of position and your areas of training and expertise which led to your academic post.
1 Like
Why? It would take extraordinary and implausible circumstances for your hypothetical scenario to work out. We’re talking about a tribe isolated from all other human contact for thousands of years. In the middle of the Amazon that is literally impossible.
4 Likes
So we are back to the Argument from Negative Consequences fallacy. (If someone somewhere may possibly build a racist or elitist argument from this idea, we must suppress it at all cost!)
Incredible.
3 Likes
Now I know you don’t know what you are talking about.
Actually you are subcoming to the mythology of isolation, not @John_Harshman. What evidence can you present for long-term isolation?
1 Like
His Amazon example is truly absurd, but there is another less absurd that we’ve started to discuss before; you know the one. How do you deal with that?
3 Likes