From: martinharran@gmail.com   
      
   On Thu, 5 Feb 2026 10:12:39 -0600, RonO  wrote:   
      
   >On 2/5/2026 3:41 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >> On Wed, 4 Feb 2026 15:57:02 -0600, RonO  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> On 1/18/2026 9:13 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >>>> On Sun, 18 Jan 2026 08:46:41 -0600, RonO    
   >>>> wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> On 1/18/2026 5:53 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >>>>>> On Fri, 16 Jan 2026 13:39:19 -0600, RonO    
   >>>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> On 1/15/2026 9:27 PM, John Harshman wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On 1/15/26 1:25 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> On Tue, 13 Jan 2026 08:32:10 -0800, John Harshman   
   >>>>>>>>>  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> On 1/13/26 6:30 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> […]   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> The question remains why you brought up Y-Adam and mt-Eve in the   
   first   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> place. Are you unwilling to say?   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> Err ... it was because you asked me for examples from the book and   
   >>>>>>>>>>> that was just one of them.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> Senior moment?   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> I didn't ask for examples from the book. I asked for examples. But   
   I see   
   >>>>>>>>>> how you could have construed it that way.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> And *you* criticise *me* for lack of clarity in what I write, LOL.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> Can we agree that that example   
   >>>>>>>>>> from the book is bogus?   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> No   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> That's unfortunate.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> Are there in fact any true examples, from the   
   >>>>>>>>>> book or otherwise, of scientists first resisting and then coming to   
   >>>>>>>>>> accept a biblical or religious claim? Arguably the big bang is one,   
   but   
   >>>>>>>>>> are there any others. I suppose that if archaeologists are   
   scientists,   
   >>>>>>>>>> the existence of the Hittite Empire might be another. But are there   
   >>>>>>>>>> more?   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> And does the book have any more invalid claims of such cases, other   
   than   
   >>>>>>>>>> Adam and Eve?   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> Your a priori dismissal of claims as invalid, before they are even   
   >>>>>>>>> expressed, shows the futility of trying to have a rational discussion   
   >>>>>>>>> with you.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> You sure stomp off in a huff frequently, and that does get in the way.   
   >>>>>>>> Is it truly Christian to be so prickly?   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> OK, so does the book have any more claims of such cases, valid or   
   >>>>>>>> otherwise?   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> To remind you, this was my original request: "I would be interested to   
   >>>>>>>> know what these many other biblical and religious explanations are   
   that   
   >>>>>>>> science ended up having to agree with. Nothing immediately comes to   
   mind."   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Adam and Eve, or "descent from a single couple" is not such an   
   >>>>>>>> explanation, both because "a single couple" is not consistent with   
   >>>>>>>> science unless you destroy the meaning of the phrase and because   
   descent   
   >>>>>>>> of the current population from couples living at much earlier times   
   has   
   >>>>>>>> never been in doubt, and even coalescence has been uncontroversial   
   ever   
   >>>>>>>> since anyone thought of it.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> So what else is there, whether it's in the book or not?   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> The examples do not exist.  The claim is as empty as Bill's claim that   
   >>>>>>> he knew some real ID scientists that had the real ID science, but he   
   >>>>>>> could never name any of them.  For some reason Harran can't accept the   
   >>>>>>> 100% failure rate for god did it explanations.  The only examples left   
   >>>>>>> standing are the ones that we can't tell if some god did anything or   
   >>>>>>> not.  If this were not true the ID perps and scientific creationists   
   >>>>>>> that came before them would have been trumpeting the successes instead   
   >>>>>>> of wallowing in the gap denial.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> The garden of eden mythology (second chapter of Genesis) had likely   
   >>>>>>> already failed before Christianity existed.  The two creation accounts   
   >>>>>>> are inconsistent and cannot both be taken literally.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> You seem totally incapable of grasping that your fixation on the   
   >>>>>> literal account of Genesis is the mirror image of the YEC's whom you   
   >>>>>> regard so lowly.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> You are totally incapable of understanding that it is these guy's   
   >>>>> literal interpretation of Genesis that is driving them to do what they   
   >>>>> do.   
   >>>>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)