What make you think That Adam and Eve are real despite the evolutionary change or chance and widespread of the Neanderthals and Homosapians

[buss0042]

In all respect and with all seriousness, I’d love to see how you respond to his arguments, specifically by how you would deny the premises that support his conclusions, and on what grounds you deny his premises, obviously giving support for those defeaters. Again, in all seriousness and respect.

I would tentatively add, although of course you can tell me otherwise, that words and material accuracy research are radically different subject matters in the differing realms of journalism and scientific articles.

 

[Dovekin]

I will no longer waste my time trying to show you the error of your thinking.

Before you try to show someone the error of his thinking, you should try to understand it. Your characterizations of what I have said are marred by the injection of “fiction” and “error” as if I had said those words. You even posted definitions of folklore and parable that showed 2 meanings for each, one with fiction, one without. Yet you insist I must use the definitions that include “fiction” or “ false.” You did not even consider the possibility that I was using the other.

The earliest Christian commentary on scripture is probably Hippolytus or Origen on the Song of Songs. Both appear to start with a discussion of allegory and typology- Hippolytus survives only in an Armenian ms that has recently been translated, while Origen survives only through a latin translation made by Rufinus in the 4th century. Typology is not as developed as later, but the idea is clearly there.

 

[stephenSTOSS1]

Before you try to show someone the error of his thinking, you should try to understand it.

I understand perfectly what you are proposing. You are in error.

 

[bobperk]

If it means anything to you, I consider you, rossum, and Hugh Farey the “A team” of the opposing viewpoint.

 

[Gorgias]

bobperk:

You are welcome.

It does appear that a large enough group has assembled, consisting of at least @Glark @buffalo @Techno2000 @Aloysium @Cruciferi @YoungCatholicGuy @steve-b that a team of dedicated individuals can now be formed to respond to posts discussing Creation in order to provide a traditional viewpoint. This mission is most holy and pious.

Is this your ‘A Team’? Seriously?

Each team in the NFL has a first-string… even those that go 0-16.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

bobperk:

You are welcome.

It does appear that a large enough group has assembled, consisting of at least @Glark @buffalo @Techno2000 @Aloysium @Cruciferi @YoungCatholicGuy @steve-b that a team of dedicated individuals can now be formed to respond to posts discussing Creation in order to provide a traditional viewpoint. This mission is most holy and pious.

Is this your ‘A Team’? Seriously?

Each team in the NFL has a first-string… even those that go 0-16.

They are the Cleveland Browns of Intelligent Design.

 

[Bradskii]

If it means anything to you, I consider you, rossum, and Hugh Farey the “A team” of the opposing viewpoint.

If the standard of those you picked in the first instance is any indication of your ability to ascertain quality, then that is something of a back-handed compliment.

 

[bobperk]

It was a sincere compliment. I like reading the replies that all you guys write even though I do not agree with all of them.

 

[stephenSTOSS1]

I said this in another thread and I’ll say it again here, you ought to read this peer reviewed paper
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/986365.pdf?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Without commenting on the article you cite, I would inject that many studies have shown that the current processes that are used to peer review articles are, in large part, no less objective and accurate than are non-peer reviewed articles.

 

[buss0042]

That’s a self-deprecating claim – claiming that peer reviewed studies aren’t a good source, and using peer reviewed studies as your support.

In essence, if you’re right, and your studies are valid, then there’s no reason to think “my” study is invalid.
If you’re not right, and your studies are flawed, then your claim doesn’t stand in the first place.

But regardless, I would suggest reading it, because it is an interesting one.

 

[TheOldColonel]

There are those who believe life here began out there. Others believe life out there began here. Still others choose to boldly go where no one has gone before… To a galaxy far, far away.

 

[Cruciferi]

 

[stephenSTOSS1]

That’s a self-deprecating claim – claiming that peer reviewed studies aren’t a good source, and using peer reviewed studies as your support.

I’m not claiming that peer reviewed studies are not, in general, a good source. Many people throw out the phrase “peer reviewed” as if it were still the gold standard … that other people should accept the study as truth simply because that phrase was attached to it. Neither of those are true any longer. The point I was making is this: people should be just as discerning and even skeptical about those studies as they are about non-peer reviewed. There was a reason that you included and highlighted peer review. You were expecting or hoping people would take it as gospel. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have used the phrase.

I was not making a claim, one way or the other, about the study you cited. It may very well be a good article. It may not. That’s where discernment comes in.

 

[buss0042]

Oh I see now, my apologies – you make a very valid point, and I agree wholeheartedly. Prudential judgement should never fall by the wayside.

Regardless of the peer reviewed status of a paper or essay, the reader ought to be able to critically evaluate the ideas it contains, to either view them as true or flawed. Great point