From: martinharran@gmail.com   
      
   On Fri, 16 Jan 2026 13:39:19 -0600, RonO    
   wrote:   
      
   >On 1/15/2026 9:27 PM, John Harshman wrote:   
   >> On 1/15/26 1:25 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >>> On Tue, 13 Jan 2026 08:32:10 -0800, John Harshman   
   >>>  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On 1/13/26 6:30 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>> […]   
   >>>   
   >>>>>> The question remains why you brought up Y-Adam and mt-Eve in the first   
   >>>>>> place. Are you unwilling to say?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Err ... it was because you asked me for examples from the book and   
   >>>>> that was just one of them.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Senior moment?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> I didn't ask for examples from the book. I asked for examples. But I see   
   >>>> how you could have construed it that way.   
   >>>   
   >>> And *you* criticise *me* for lack of clarity in what I write, LOL.   
   >>>   
   >>>> Can we agree that that example   
   >>>> from the book is bogus?   
   >>>   
   >>> No   
   >>   
   >> That's unfortunate.   
   >>   
   >>>> Are there in fact any true examples, from the   
   >>>> book or otherwise, of scientists first resisting and then coming to   
   >>>> accept a biblical or religious claim? Arguably the big bang is one, but   
   >>>> are there any others. I suppose that if archaeologists are scientists,   
   >>>> the existence of the Hittite Empire might be another. But are there   
   >>>> more?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> And does the book have any more invalid claims of such cases, other than   
   >>>> Adam and Eve?   
   >>>   
   >>> Your a priori dismissal of claims as invalid, before they are even   
   >>> expressed, shows the futility of trying to have a rational discussion   
   >>> with you.   
   >>   
   >> You sure stomp off in a huff frequently, and that does get in the way.   
   >> Is it truly Christian to be so prickly?   
   >>   
   >> OK, so does the book have any more claims of such cases, valid or   
   >> otherwise?   
   >>   
   >> To remind you, this was my original request: "I would be interested to   
   >> know what these many other biblical and religious explanations are that   
   >> science ended up having to agree with. Nothing immediately comes to mind."   
   >>   
   >> Adam and Eve, or "descent from a single couple" is not such an   
   >> explanation, both because "a single couple" is not consistent with   
   >> science unless you destroy the meaning of the phrase and because descent   
   >> of the current population from couples living at much earlier times has   
   >> never been in doubt, and even coalescence has been uncontroversial ever   
   >> since anyone thought of it.   
   >>   
   >> So what else is there, whether it's in the book or not?   
   >>   
   >>   
   >The examples do not exist.  The claim is as empty as Bill's claim that   
   >he knew some real ID scientists that had the real ID science, but he   
   >could never name any of them.  For some reason Harran can't accept the   
   >100% failure rate for god did it explanations.  The only examples left   
   >standing are the ones that we can't tell if some god did anything or   
   >not.  If this were not true the ID perps and scientific creationists   
   >that came before them would have been trumpeting the successes instead   
   >of wallowing in the gap denial.   
   >   
   >The garden of eden mythology (second chapter of Genesis) had likely   
   >already failed before Christianity existed.  The two creation accounts   
   >are inconsistent and cannot both be taken literally.   
      
   You seem totally incapable of grasping that your fixation on the   
   literal account of Genesis is the mirror image of the YEC's whom you   
   regard so lowly.   
      
   >The accommodation   
   >seems to have always been that the second creation story applied only to   
   >the garden of eden.  This has always meant that Adam and Eve did not   
   >have to be among the humans created on the 6th day of creation, and   
   >could have been created separately in the garden, but people like Harran   
   >still believe that they were the humans first created on the 6th day.   
   >The first creation story does not claim that the first humans were Adam   
   >and Eve, just that males and females were created like with all the   
   >other land animals.  He needs to think that Adam and Eve were the first   
   >humans.  There are no such god-did-it examples supported by real   
   >science.  The earth is not flat nor young, the universe is not   
   >geocentric, there is no firmament above the earth, the creation did not   
   >occur as described by the Bible even if you take the days as period of   
   >time, there was no global flood, all extant humans are not derived from   
   >8 people that survived on the Ark only a few thousand years ago, and we   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)