From: cates_db@hotmail.com
On 2026-02-04 10:55 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
> 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]
>>>>>>>>> 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 :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ????
>>>>>
>>>>>
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
