From: rokimoto557@gmail.com   
      
   On 2/5/2026 10:53 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   > 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.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> What guys? There is nobody in this particualr discussion who believes   
   >>>>> in the literal story in Genesis.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> The authors of the book under discussion,   
   >>>   
   >>> No, they don't You really should read what people write before making   
   >>> stupid claims about them This stupid claim and the rest of your post   
   >>> are just another of your rambling diatribes.   
   >>   
   >> You were the one describing what was in the book.   
   >   
   > Where did I describe the authors as accepting the literal version of   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)