From: cates_db@hotmail.com   
      
   On 2026-02-02 11:11 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:   
   > On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 09:55:38 -0600, DB Cates    
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >> 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.   
   >>   
   >> --   
   >   
   >   
   > Ah … I forgot the significance of 2nd Feb but then again, it's not a   
   > big thing this side of the Atlantic  :)   
   >   
   ????   
      
   --   
   --   
   Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)