From: martinharran@gmail.com   
      
   On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 17:04:51 -0800, John Harshman   
    wrote:   
      
   >On 2/2/26 1:19 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >> 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?   
   >   
   >Then why do you keep replying to me?   
      
   Maybe because I'm a polite guy who doesn't like ignoring people   
   without explanation. There are, of course, exceptions but it's very   
   short list, hard to get onto and you haven't quite reached the   
   criteria yet.   
      
      
   >Would it not be simpler to reply to   
   >what I ask about rather than just reply to say you won't reply?   
      
   Nah, there has never been a 'simple' conversation with you.   
      
   >   
   >And sometimes it's hard to tell just what you're saying and what you   
   >aren't.   
   >   
   >>> 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)