From: martinharran@gmail.com   
      
   On Sat, 24 Jan 2026 14:46:20 -0800, Mark Isaak   
    wrote:   
      
   >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.   
      
   I wasn't arguing that human beings are *biologically* descended from a   
   unique couple - that would foolishly fly directly in the face of what   
   science has shown us; on the contrary, I was pointing out is that we   
   are *biologically* descended for may specific couples such as MT Eve's   
   parents, parents, grandparents. It is entirely possible, however, that   
   the ability to recognize good, to deliberately choose between good and   
   evil, did start from one of those couples we are descended from. That   
   is what the real message of Genesis is - humans acquiring the ability   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)