From: martinharran@gmail.com   
      
   On Sun, 1 Feb 2026 08:33:15 -0800, John Harshman   
    wrote:   
      
   >On 2/1/26 7:02 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >> On Sat, 31 Jan 2026 13:36:52 -0600, DB Cates    
   >> wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> On 2026-01-31 11:30 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:   
   >>>> On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 09:43:49 -0800, Mark Isaak   
   >>>>  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>> [snip]   
   >>>   
   >>>> I don't think that the Church's opinion that the recognition of God   
   >>>> started with one couple is of any great significance and certainly   
   >>>> doesn't harm anyone. I doubt that anybody other than theologians with   
   >>>> nothing better to do ever even gives it any thought other than   
   >>>> theologians with nothing better to do. I'm a very active participant   
   >>>> in my Church and I've never ever heard anyone mention it, the only   
   >>>> place I have ever encountered it is here in TO and in the recent book   
   >>>> I read that started this sub-thread. Even in that book it was a minor   
   >>>> item,   
   >>>>   
   >>> Do you still think this constitutes an (even if not notable) example of   
   >>> science confirming a biblical position while discomfirming a previous   
   >>> scientific position?   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> Where did I say it disconfirmed a previous scientific position?   
   >   
   >It was advanced as an example of something from the book. What was that   
   >something? Or are you saying you disagree with the book?   
      
   So where did I or the book say it disconfirmed a previous scientific   
   position?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)