From: cates_db@hotmail.com
On 2026-02-02 3:12 a.m., 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'm sorry for that, I was also relying on a, perhaps flawed, impression
that that was the position of the author of the book from which this
example was taken.
Can you answer my question with the "while disconfirming ..." bit left off?
>
>> I think it was implied when you stated
>> that in your experience on-line that the scientists you interacted with
>> were dismissive of the idea of a common ancestor for all of humanity.
>
> Do you seriously think whilst I have the highest regard for the
> *scientific* qualifications and knowledge of Harshman and the others
> who engaged in that discussion, that I would regard their opinions on
> something like Adam and Eve as an established position of science
> generally?
>
> Not to nitpick but in fairness to them, they didn't dismiss the idea
> of a common ancestor, they tried to dismiss the idea of humans all
> being descended from a single couple. I pointed out the contradiction
> in that argument.
>
What contradiction? Common ancestor for extant humans? Yes. Common
ancestor for all humans? No.
>>
>> Note that coalescence theory looks at common ancestors of extant humans.
>> no matter which common ancestor you pick for extant humans there will be
>> dead humans who were *not* descended from them.
>>
>> --
>
> That was raised earlier (not sure, possibly by yourself) and I pointed
> out that the extant population at the time the Bible was written would
> have had an MT-Eve and a Y-Adam from whom that population was all
> descended. I wrongly suggested that the MT-Eve and Y-Adam would have
> been much closer in time to that population that doesn't change the
> fact that they were numerous specific couples from whom that entire
> population were all descended.
>
That does not change the conclusion that no matter which common ancestor
(of extant humans at the time) you chose, there are humans from previous
generations who were not descended from them.
--
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
