From: cates_db@hotmail.com   
      
   On 2026-02-07 8:36 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:   
   > 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?   
      
   Here's a little personal info so yuou might take your head out of your ass.   
   I grew up in a protestant household (call it Christianity lite) and   
   married into a large French-Canadian family (very Catholic). Lots of   
   Catholic weddings and funerals; quite a few Midnight Masses (loved the   
   music). So I am not ignorant of Catholic ritual.   
   >   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   Absent a heritability mechanism tied to descent, it does no such thing.   
   With such a mechanism, you are excluding some dead people from   
   generations between whichever CA you choose and the present from being   
   human.   
   You may posit a different type of spread (contagion?) but then it is not   
   supported by science.   
   >>   
      
   And all your arguments up to this point only concerned humans. Now , all   
   of a sudden, OOL pokes up its head.   
      
   >> 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   
   > contest must not be abandoned; truth cannot contradict truth, and we   
   > may be sure that some mistake has been made either in the   
   > interpretation of the sacred words, or in the polemical discussion   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)