From: cates_db@hotmail.com
On 2026-02-04 6:53 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
> 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
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>> [end note]
>>
>>>>>> 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 :)
>>>>>
>>>> ????
>>>
>>>
>>> What you ask above has been discussed above ad nauseum, particularly
>>> in then bit about the Catholic Church's concept of 'true' humans. I
>>> thought you were maybe having a bit of fun with me for Groundhog Day.
>>>
>> The paragraph noted above seems to indicate you think it answers the
>> problem of some humans from generations between the one for which a
>> common ancestor is chosen and that common ancestor (no matter how far
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
