From: specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net   
      
   On 1/25/26 7:22 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   > 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   
   > to recognize good and to deliberately choose between good and evil.   
      
   That is very different from how I read it. In my interpretation, you and   
   I (and everyone else) are Adam and Eve. The story is about our   
   relationship with God and about difficulties which arise from moral   
   judgment. I see the story as virtually worthless if it is about past   
   history.   
      
   > TBH, whether that started with one couple or more than one is a matter   
   > of total indifference to me. I'm happy, however, to go along with the   
   > Church's opinion that it did start with one couple as there is no   
   > particular reason to reject that.   
      
   So "question authority" does not apply to your church?   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)