From: rokimoto557@gmail.com   
      
   On 2/26/2026 10:42 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   > 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   
   >> just does not matter.  At this point in time science is only going to   
   >> determine how wrong the Bible is about the creation.  For those that   
   >> believe that nature is the creation, it has already been determined that   
   >> the creation that exists is not Biblical.  You acknowledge that some of   
   >> the early church fathers understood this to be true.  Their faith was   
   >> not based on what the Bible claimed about the creation.  For some stupid   
   >> reason you need to cling to the same denial that MarkE and Sticks have   
   >> to wallow in.  The denial will never change reality.  The Bible has been   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)