From: martinharran@gmail.com   
      
   On Sun, 18 Jan 2026 18:09:23 -0800, John Harshman   
    wrote:   
      
   >On 1/18/26 2:23 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   >Excellent. What are these explanations? Which of them were originally   
   >disputed? I suppose it's possible that you disagree with all of the   
   >proposed explanations, but why would you be glad to see them in such a   
   >case? Puzzling.   
   >   
   >Anyway, I would like to know just what you were talking about. The Big   
   >Bang is an example that isn't entirely absurd. Mt-Eve and Y-Adam,   
   >however, are. What else is there, and which ones, if any, do you think   
   >aren't poor examples?   
   >   
   >> When you get something wrong or mess something up, why don't you just   
   >> admit to it and move on?   
   >   
   >I try to. I just don't think I'm wrong in this case. You brought up the   
   >book, I asked for more information, not necessarily limiting myself to   
   >what was in the book.   
      
   You used the word "these". Yet another example of you trying to   
   wriggle your way out of something.   
      
   >But if you would like to mention only what's in   
   >the book I won't complain. I'm tentatively dismissing the claims sight   
   >unseen because I don't know of any that are valid (possible exception of   
   >the Big Bang), but I'm willing to be shown wrong. Y-Adam and mt-Eve are   
   >not such a case.   
   >   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   >Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Now can you just tell me what   
   >these examples are?   
   >   
   >>> 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)