From: rokimoto557@gmail.com   
      
   On 1/18/2026 5:53 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   You are totally incapable of understanding that it is these guy's   
   literal interpretation of Genesis that is driving them to do what they   
   do.  They may not have the young earth interpretation, but they still   
   want to believe in Genesis.  It is your literal interpretation of the   
   Bible that makes you do what you do.  You know that the Bible can't be   
   taken literally, but what is the Adam and Eve nonsense about?  You and   
   these guys are just looking for justification of their Biblical beliefs   
   in nature, but that has never worked out, and will never work out   
   because nature is not Biblical.  You know that already with your   
   geocentrism denial.  Origen was a geocentric old earth creationist that   
   believed that the Biblical firmament existed, but he was wrong about   
   geocentrism and the firmament.  He had enough on the ball to understand   
   that the earth was likely much older than claimed in the Bible, and that   
   the earth was not flat, but he still wanted to agree with some Biblical   
   notions.   
      
   Creationists like you and the guys whose book you are reading understand   
   that nature is not Biblical, but you can't give up on trying to justify   
   your Biblical beliefs with what we can observe in nature.  It is just as   
   wrong as what the ID scam has been for decades.  There is no such thing   
   as the Big Tent religious science revival of the ID scam, and if the   
   authors of the book do not state that in the Book then they are just as   
   bad as the ID perps.  The IDiots quit the ID scam because none of the ID   
   science was going to support their Biblical beliefs.  If the ID perps   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)