From: martinharran@gmail.com   
      
   On Sun, 1 Feb 2026 12:30:51 -0800, John Harshman   
    wrote:   
      
   >On 2/1/26 9:37 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >> 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?   
   >>   
   >I'm asking for clarification. Could you try that?   
      
   How many times do I have to tell you that I have no interest in   
   engaging in discussion with someone who persists in attacking me for   
   things I didn't say, even after they have been pointed out?   
      
   >   
   >If I recall, the template was the big bang, which was presented as a   
   >religious claim at first resisted and later confirmed by science. I   
   >asked for other examples, and you mentioned Adam and Eve, apparently   
   >from the book. Was this intended, in the book, as a similar story? If   
   >so, would you agree that it is?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)