From: martinharran@gmail.com   
      
   On Tue, 3 Feb 2026 13:12:30 -0600, DB Cates    
   wrote:   
      
   >On 2026-02-03 2:31 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:   
   >> On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 17:16:22 -0600, DB Cates    
   >> wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> 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.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> --   
   >>>>>>   
   >   
   >[note this following paragraph which I will refer to below]   
   >>>>>> 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)