From: 69jpil69@gmail.com   
      
   On Tue, 03 Feb 2026 08:38:08 +0000, Martin Harran   
    wrote:   
      
   >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.   
      
      
   You have shown repeatedly that you have no criteria, unless you count   
   that you enjoy posting like a self-righteous ass.   
      
      
   --    
   To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)