From: martinharran@gmail.com   
      
   On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 09:48:32 -0600, RonO    
   wrote:   
      
   >On 2/26/2026 3:33 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >> On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 11:23:28 -0600, RonO    
   >> wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> On 2/24/2026 9:41 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >>>> On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 09:22:19 -0600, RonO    
   >>>> wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> On 2/23/2026 2:52 PM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:   
   >>>>>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 10:07:00 -0600   
   >>>>>> RonO  wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> On 2/23/2026 7:03 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> [about the RC church' postion on geocentrisism in mediavel times]   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Church was wrong or right; I don't care.   
   >>>>>> It's not really about Origins is it? - and you both keep repeating   
   >>>>>> yourselves. Let it go.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> This is the same type of Biblical denial that you repeatedly address   
   >>>>> with the Biblical creationists that are left posting.  There really   
   >>>>> isn't any difference.  Just think about it for a minute.  Harran doesn't   
   >>>>> want the Bible to have been wrong about anything.  He wants to make   
   >>>>> believe that it has always been faulty interpretation, but the   
   >>>>> interpretations have always been faulty because the Bible is just wrong   
   >>>>> about a lot of things.  MarkE is anti-evolution because he doesn't want   
   >>>>> the Bible to be wrong about nature.  Stick still wants to believe some   
   >>>>> of the young earth nonsense because he doesn't want the Bible to be   
   >>>>> wrong about those things.  Sticks has enough on the ball to understand   
   >>>>> that the earth and universe are a lot older than the Bible has been   
   >>>>> interpreted it to be, but he still wants the Bible to not be wrong about   
   >>>>> some of the young earth claims about the creation.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Harran still wants the Bible to be correct about the creation, so he has   
   >>>>> to deny that it has always been shown to be wrong about what we could   
   >>>>> figure out for ourselves.  None of them can accept that the human   
   >>>>> authors of the Bible just did not fully understand what the creation   
   >>>>> actually was, and just like all the Church fathers they wrote about what   
   >>>>> they thought that they understood, but it was obviously wrong.  None of   
   >>>>> them can deal with the fact that there isn't a single god-did-it   
   >>>>> Biblical claim that has been verified by science or what passed as   
   >>>>> science in the past.  They understand that there has been 100% failure   
   >>>>> for their efforts because if they had any successes they would be   
   >>>>> crowing about those instead of wallowing in denial like Harran and the   
   >>>>> others.  The denial is all that they have left.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Ron, disagree with me if you like but please stop TELLING LIES about   
   >>>> me.   
   >>>>   
   >>> You are the one quote mining in order to remain in denial of reality.   
   >>> You should just stop lying about the situation and deal with reality as   
   >>> it exists, and not what you want to keep believing about it.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> Yet more lies as demonstrated by the fact that despite you constantly   
   >> accuse me of quote mining, you have yet to produce a single example of   
   >> me doing so.   
   >   
   >Why lie?  Just explain what you did above.  It was obviously quote   
   >mining.  You took a bit of the condemnation to claim something that was   
   >not claimed in the document.  That is quote mining.   
   >   
   >You have tried to make believe that what was in the first draft of the   
   >document negated the reason why your source had been caught lying, when   
   >it did no such thing.  The Pope condemned heliocentrism and agreed with   
   >placing the heliocentric writings in the Index and banning them as   
   >heretical material.  Your source was wrong about heliocentrism never   
   >being condemned by except by the Inquisition.  They lied to maintain   
   >your side of the issue.  Your side of the issue is the one that keeps   
   >coming up short.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> I have persevered here because I have always had respect for your   
   >> scientific expertise and I hated to see someone of your intelligence   
   >> making such an idiot of themselves. I now have to accept, however,   
   >> that the situation is irretrievable - your rationality is long gone   
   >> out the window along with any sense of moral decency. I will now   
   >> accept that and like just about everybody else here, simply ignore   
   >> your hysterical ranting and raving.   
   >>   
   >   
   >You have been dishonest and you have needed to wallow in a denial that   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)