From: martinharran@gmail.com   
      
   On Fri, 6 Feb 2026 15:27:35 -0600, DB Cates    
   wrote:   
      
   >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.   
      
   Did you never wonder why Catholics go around on Ash Wednesday with   
   dirty marks on their forehead?   
      
   >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.   
      
   That was about one very specific point - the Judaic/Christian belief   
   that the ability to recognise God began with one couple and spread   
   throughout the entire human race. You and Harshman seen determined to   
   dismiss any possibility of that, even though science has shown that   
   there are many couples who could have been that couple.   
      
   >   
   >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?   
      
   Will you settle for a Pope in an encyclical letter?   
      
   "If, then, apparent contradiction be met with [between science and   
   scripture] , every effort should be made to remove it. Judicious   
   theologians and commentators should be consulted as to what is the   
   true or most probable meaning of the passage in discussion, and the   
   hostile arguments should be carefully weighed. Even if the difficulty   
   is after all not cleared up and the discrepancy seems to remain, the   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)