From: martinharran@gmail.com   
      
   On Sun, 18 Jan 2026 08:46:41 -0600, RonO    
   wrote:   
      
   >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.   
      
   What guys? There is nobody in this particualr discussion who believes   
   in the literal story in Genesis.   
      
      
   >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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)