From: rokimoto557@gmail.com   
      
   On 2/6/2026 10:44 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   > On Thu, 5 Feb 2026 20:23:50 -0600, RonO  wrote:   
   >   
   >> 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,   
   >>>>>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)