From: martinharran@gmail.com   
      
   On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 19:27:26 -0800, 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?   
      
   Never in a huff, I just walk away when you start making stuff up about   
   me rather than waste time with someone who is not worth wasting time   
   with.   
      
   >   
   >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.   
      
   Which was in response to me saying " … glad to see someone putting   
   work into  showing how religious belief in general and the Bible in   
   particular had many explanation that science initially disputed but   
   ended up having to agree with". That is what your word *these* clearly   
   referred to.   
      
   When you get something wrong or mess something up, why don't you just   
   admit to it and move on? That is a sign of maturity and confidence   
   which people respect, unlike someone trying to wriggle out of it and   
   out the blame on someone else as you do; that just indicates something   
   of a shortfall in character.   
      
      
   >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?   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)