From: admin@127.0.0.1   
      
   On Sun, 15 Feb 2026 14:28:29 +0000   
   Martin Harran  wrote:   
      
   > On Sat, 14 Feb 2026 20:21:28 +0000, "Kerr-Mudd, John"   
   >  wrote:   
   >   
   > >On Sat, 14 Feb 2026 14:10:26 +0000   
   > >Martin Harran  wrote:   
   > >   
   > >> On Fri, 13 Feb 2026 12:33:04 +0000, "Kerr-Mudd, John"   
   > >>  wrote:   
   > >>   
   > >> >On Fri, 06 Feb 2026 16:59:54 +0000   
   > >> >Martin Harran  wrote:   
   > >> >   
   > >> >> On Thu, 5 Feb 2026 16:26:11 -0600, DB Cates    
   > >> >> wrote:   
   > >> >>   
   > >> >> >On 2026-02-05 10:53 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:   
   > >> >> >> On Thu, 5 Feb 2026 10:12:39 -0600, RonO    
   wrote:   
   > >> >> >   
   > >> >> >[big snip]   
   > >> >> >   
   > >> >> >>  From the book:   
   > >> >> >>   
   > >> >> >>    
   > >> >[more snipping]   
   > >> >> >>   
   > >> >> >> So there you have it. Our true ancestor, our ultimate origin, our   
   > >> >> >> first parent, is matter. Looking at the marvelous technology of the   
   > >> >> >> human hand or eye, it is hard to believe that it is nothing more   
   than   
   > >> >> >> cleverly arranged matter. But that's what it is.   
   > >> >> >>   
   > >> >> >>    
   > >> >> >>   
   > >> >> >   
   > >> >> >And that's what you (and they?) consider the biblical position???   
   > >> >>   
   > >> >> 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.   
   > >> >>   
   > >> >> Have you never heard the expression "Remember man that thou art dust   
   > >> >> and unto dust shalt return"? It will be said to me later this month as   
   > >> >> it is every Ash Wednesday.   
   > >> >>   
   > >> >It's a long haul (but I'm sure it's comforting).   
   > >> >All life must've come from somewhere, and it's made of matter. Wow.   
   > >> >Hardly the same thing as a god modeling some clay and breathing life   
   > >> >into it. As for then taking a rib out to make a woman...   
   > >>   
   > >> Another person resorting to a literal story accepted by neither me nor   
   > >> the authors of the book under discussion. When you and others have to   
   > >> do that, I regard it as an indication of how little *real* argument   
   > >> you have to offer.   
   > >>   
   > >Well I don't know what you accept or not, but ISTM you thought that humans   
   > >came from dust, and that this (and a few other "examples") therefore showed   
   > >that science was forced to accept it had been pre-empted by the Bible.   
   >   
   > OK, you have a problem accepting that figurative language can be   
   > useful in explaining things to an uneducated audience. You really   
   > should be aware, however, that your inability to do so puts you on a   
   > par with the Fundamentalists of whom you are so disdainful.   
   >   
   > >   
   > >The Bible is pretty shaky on science, is my stance,   
   >   
   > Not surprising when it isn't a science book and was written over 3000   
   > years ago.   
   >   
   >   
   > >yet you wanted to   
   > >claim here the opposite.   
   >   
   > Really?   
   >   
   > >   
   > >Here it is - from a paragraph or 2 up:   
   > >   
   > >   
   > >>> 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.   
   >   
   > So you reckon that pointing out some areas where science confirms   
   > points in the Bible equates to making the Bible into a science book?   
   >   
      
   No.   
   a) it's not what I said, b) you've failed to make a clear clase that that   
   science has vindicated some (or even any) biblical passages.   
      
   >   
   > >>   
   > >So which Biblical quote about dust^w inert material would you care to stand   
   > >by?   
   >   
   >   
   > >   
   > >> >   
   > >> >Grasping at straws methinks.   
   > >> >> >   
   > >> >> >[more snip]   
   >   
      
   I'm going to give up at this (lack of any) point.   
      
      
   --   
   Bah, and indeed Humbug.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)