From: specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net
On 1/18/26 3:53 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.
I got the impression it was you, Martin, who was arguing in favor of a
literal first couple. I have no idea why you would do that except to
support some degree of biblical literalness.
--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
