From: specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net   
      
   On 2/6/26 8:59 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   > No, it is not the *biblical*position, it is a *scientific* position -   
   > the Bible is not a science book. The point they are making is that   
   > there is nothing in that scientific position that undermines the Bible   
   > and there are some specific points where science has confirmed some   
   > key points that were in the Bible long before science figured them   
   > out; for example, that the original physical source of humans was   
   > inert material.   
      
   I have not read the book y'all are discussing and don't expect to. But I   
   have read the Bible, and there is nothing in the Bible that science has   
   confirmed that observant farmers and pastoralists had not already   
   confirmed ten or more centuries before the word "science" existed.   
      
   --   
   Mark Isaak   
   "Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That   
   doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)