From: martinharran@gmail.com   
      
   On Fri, 6 Feb 2026 08:02:13 -0800, Mark Isaak   
    wrote:   
      
   >On 2/2/26 1:12 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >> On Sun, 1 Feb 2026 12:25:18 -0600, DB Cates    
   >> wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> On 2026-02-01 11:37 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:   
   >>>> On Sun, 1 Feb 2026 08:33:15 -0800, John Harshman   
   >>>>  wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> On 2/1/26 7:02 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >>>>>> On Sat, 31 Jan 2026 13:36:52 -0600, DB Cates    
   >>>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> On 2026-01-31 11:30 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 09:43:49 -0800, Mark Isaak   
   >>>>>>>>  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> [snip]   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> I don't think that the Church's opinion that the recognition of God   
   >>>>>>>> started with one couple is of any great significance and certainly   
   >>>>>>>> doesn't harm anyone. I doubt that anybody other than theologians with   
   >>>>>>>> nothing better to do ever even gives it any thought other than   
   >>>>>>>> theologians with nothing better to do. I'm a very active participant   
   >>>>>>>> in my Church and I've never ever heard anyone mention it, the only   
   >>>>>>>> place I have ever encountered it is here in TO and in the recent book   
   >>>>>>>> I read that started this sub-thread. Even in that book it was a minor   
   >>>>>>>> item,   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Do you still think this constitutes an (even if not notable) example of   
   >>>>>>> science confirming a biblical position while discomfirming a previous   
   >>>>>>> scientific position?   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Where did I say it disconfirmed a previous scientific position?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> It was advanced as an example of something from the book. What was that   
   >>>>> something? Or are you saying you disagree with the book?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> So where did I or the book say it disconfirmed a previous scientific   
   >>>> position?   
   >>>>   
   >>> Although not directly stated,   
   >>   
   >> So I didn't say it. That's at least twice that you have challenged me   
   >> on what I didn't say rather than what I did say. I'm used to that   
   >> carry on with Harshman and a few others; I expected better from you.   
   >   
   >I also read your post as saying a literal Adam and Eve is an example of   
   >science confirming a biblical position. That makes at least three   
   >different people who, independently, read your post that way. If that's   
   >not what you meant, I don't think it was the fault of the readers for   
   >misconstruing it.   
      
   People often see what they want to see.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)