From: 69jpil69@gmail.com   
      
   On Sat, 10 Jan 2026 09:27:43 -0800, John Harshman   
    wrote:   
      
   >On 1/10/26 1:51 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >> On Fri, 9 Jan 2026 14:53:22 -0800, John Harshman   
   >>  wrote:   
   >>    
   >>> On 1/9/26 2:47 PM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >>>> On Fri, 9 Jan 2026 14:12:49 -0800, John Harshman   
   >>>>  wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> On 1/9/26 12:10 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >>>>>> On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:45:40 -0800, John Harshman   
   >>>>>>  wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> On 1/7/26 10:23 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On Wed, 07 Jan 2026 18:17:07 +0000, Martin Harran   
   >>>>>>>>  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:06:52 -0800, John Harshman   
   >>>>>>>>>  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> [...]   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> Perhaps I read it in a way you didn't intend, but you have to agree   
   that   
   >>>>>>>>>> what you said encourages my interpretation.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> Only if:   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> a) I am really stupid about this stuff.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> b) You are convinced that I am  really stupid.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> I'll leave it to readers to decide for themselves which it is.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> I hit 'Send' by mistake. I intended to include :   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> c) You know I'm not stupid but you want to try to make me look stupid.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> I'm fast coming to the conclusion that c) is the right answer.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> If I agree that you aren't stupid would that fix everything? The   
   >>>>>>> question still nags whether you are a poor writer or perhaps were   
   >>>>>>> attempting, consciously or otherwise, to connect a couple of   
   coalescents   
   >>>>>>> with a bible story, when there is no actual connection. And you now   
   >>>>>>> refuse to respond on the subject. Which might lead one to speculate   
   >>>>>>> whether going off in a huff is tactical.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> No huffing here. I've simply learned from past experience that it's a   
   >>>>>> total waste of time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone   
   >>>>>> who prefers to try to divert discussion by misrepresenting what I said   
   >>>>>> and getting into a semantic argument about my choice of words.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> If I agree that you aren't stupid, would you be able to find it in your   
   >>>>> heart to agree that I'm not trying to misrepresent you? What you said   
   >>>>> was wrong. What you meant to say may not have been wrong, but there is   
   >>>>> no way for me to know because I don't know what you meant to say. Still,   
   >>>>> your attempts to clarify introduced irrelevancies; true ones, but not   
   >>>>> helpful. And of course my more important remains, below.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> QED   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>> I could impugn your motives all   
   >>>>>>> day, but what would it serve? And the same question applies to you.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> So now, can we agree that the Adam and Eve story is not a case of   
   >>>>>>> science being forced to agree with the bible?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> True, isn't it?   
   >>>>   
   >>> Now you're just trying to be annoying. Well played, if so.   
   >>    
   >> Anyone can make a mistake although it is a bit less understandable   
   >> when the mistake has been corrected previously. I have explained my   
   >> point about Y-Adam and mt-Eve to you numerous times in various   
   >> discussions over the years. Here is just one example from 2023 in a   
   >> response to you and Lawyer Daggett:   
   >>    
   >> "There are many candidates for Adam and Eve as a couple from whom we   
   >> are all descended. Mitochondrial Eve's parents are one such couple.   
   >> Her grandparents are another two such couples, her great-grandparents   
   >> 4 such couples and so on. The same logic applies to Y-Chromosomal   
   >> Adam."   
   >   
   >This seems to be an exceedingly silly point, and I don't understand why    
   >you would make it. And that's why I'm confused. What does this have to    
   >do with Adam and Eve? We're all descended from a host of couples of    
   >various times and places, most of whom have left us no genetic legacy at    
   >all. So?   
   >   
   >> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/bN8VJCrupcg/m/5GwJXSwZAAAJ   
   >>    
   >> Problems arise when the mistake is clearly pointed out but the person   
   >> making it refuses to admit it as you have tried to do here as shown   
   >> even in your weasel words to Jillery, where you make out that   
   >> "apparently" it was not what I meant.   
      
      
   Instead of acknowledging his error and accepting your kid-gloves   
   apologies, Harran here adds fuel to his "ire" by characterizing your   
   comments as "weasel words".  That he expects you to recall all that   
   he's written about this from posts ages ago, while at the same failing   
   to even acknowledge your current larger points, is overwrought even   
   for him.   
      
      
   >I just couldn't believe you could have meant anything so trivial and    
   >unconnected to what we were supposedly talking about, which is science    
   >resisting but ultimately being forced to accept some biblical or    
   >religious claim.   
   >   
   >> *That* is what is annoying - your refusal to accept your mistake and   
   >> move on. Rather badly played.   
   >   
   >OK, I accept my mistake. But what point were you trying to make? Still    
   >don't get that.   
      
      
   If there's any factual basis for his rants, it is whether Hebrews   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)