From: martinharran@gmail.com   
      
   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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)