From: cates_db@hotmail.com   
      
   On 2026-02-06 10:59 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:   
   > On Thu, 5 Feb 2026 16:26:11 -0600, DB Cates    
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 2026-02-05 10:53 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:   
   >>> On Thu, 5 Feb 2026 10:12:39 -0600, RonO  wrote:   
   >>   
   >> [big snip]   
   >>   
   >>>   From the book:   
   >>>   
   >>>    
   >>> It is common knowledge that Homo sapiens (who appeared an estimated   
   >>> 300,000 years ago) descended from Homo erectus (1.9 million years   
   >>> ago), Homo habilis (2.5 million years ago), Australopithecus (4   
   >>> million years ago), and ultimately from the earliest hominids (7   
   >>> million years ago).   
   >>>   
   >>> And before that? Man is a mammal, and mammals arose after a long   
   >>> process of evolution that began with fish and successively gave rise   
   >>> to amphibians, reptiles, and birds.   
   >>>   
   >>> And further back than that? We are today in the exceptionally   
   >>> fortunate position of being able to respond satisfactorily to this   
   >>> question: science was able to unravel this mystery only a generation   
   >>> ago. According to the most commonly accepted theory, if we follow the   
   >>> chain of life back link-by-link to our true ancestor, to a common   
   >>> point uniting all living beings, we find the most remote ancestor of   
   >>> all LUCA is supposed to have appeared on Earth in a rather   
   >>> extraordinary way 3.8 billion years ago, in the form of unicellular   
   >>> organisms, the first one that knew how to self-replicate and which   
   >>> then began to evolve on their own up to the appearance of man. From   
   >>> there, so the story goes, a process of evolution eventually ended with   
   >>> man. Very well. But what did LUCA descend from? This too is something   
   >>> we know today: LUCA, the first living being, the first organism   
   >>> capable of reproducing itself, was a mere collection of proteins and   
   >>> macromolecules- in other words, of molecules, atoms, and particles.   
   >>>   
   >>> So there you have it. Our true ancestor, our ultimate origin, our   
   >>> first parent, is matter. Looking at the marvelous technology of the   
   >>> human hand or eye, it is hard to believe that it is nothing more than   
   >>> cleverly arranged matter. But that's what it is.   
   >>>   
   >>>    
   >>>   
   >>    
   >> And that's what you (and they?) consider the biblical position???   
   >   
   > No, it is not the *biblical*position, it is a *scientific* position -   
   > the Bible is not a science book. The point they are making is that   
   > there is nothing in that scientific position that undermines the Bible   
   > and there are some specific points where science has confirmed some   
   > key points that were in the Bible long before science figured them   
   > out; for example, that the original physical source of humans was   
   > inert material.   
   >   
   > Have you never heard the expression "Remember man that thou art dust   
   > and unto dust shalt return"? It will be said to me later this month as   
   > it is every Ash Wednesday.   
   >   
      
   WOW.   
   So, why all the references to coalescence theory, switching from   
   currently living to living at the time the bible was put together (makes   
   no difference), refers to 'true humans' (makes no difference), etc.   
   Now, the first reference to anything non-human in the question.   
      
   Do you truly believe that the above quote you provided is endorsed by a   
   significant number of devoted Christians, laymen and clergy, as   
   corresponding to the position stated in the bible?   
      
   >   
   >>   
   >> [more snip]   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> --   
   >   
      
      
   --   
   --   
   Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)