From: martinharran@gmail.com   
      
   On Tue, 3 Feb 2026 20:26:36 -0800, John Harshman   
    wrote:   
      
   >On 2/3/26 12:38 AM, 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.   
   >   
   >Are you acquainted with the term "Minnesota nice" or, alternatively,   
   >"passive-aggressive"?   
      
   OK, I'll not try to play nice any more.   
      
   >   
   >>> 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.   
   >   
   >Should you not welcome a challenge? I find this refusal to engage   
   >extremely annoying. Rude, too. Is that what you're going for?   
   >   
   >>> 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)