From: martinharran@gmail.com   
      
   On Wed, 4 Feb 2026 09:38:15 -0600, DB Cates    
   wrote:   
      
   >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]   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)