From: cates_db@hotmail.com
On 2026-02-08 10:51 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Feb 2026 09:21:45 -0600, DB Cates
> wrote:
>
>> On 2026-02-08 8:43 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
>>> On Sat, 7 Feb 2026 11:37:04 -0600, DB Cates
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2026-02-07 8:36 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
>>>
>>> […]
>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Apologies if I came across as trying to teach my grandma to suck eggs,
>>> that's the last thing I would try to do but what was behind the double
>>> blink and WOW when I referred to "Remember man that thou art dust …"?
>>> That is what I was responding to.
>>>
>>> […]
>>>
>> My response was not to that one bit but to the entire post. The sudden
>> jump from descent from some first human couple to matter (dust? mud?) as
>> the common ancestor.
>
> OK, my mistake.
>
> If you go back to the start of this sub-thread (Mon, 05 Jan 2026
> 14:11:04 +0000), I gave a list of about 10 things that the authors
> gave as examples of science agreeing with ancient religious beliefs.
> Mt-Eve and Y-Adam were just one of them, and not a particularly
> important one to me, but Harshman turned it into a major argument,
> initially by making up stupid crap about me thinking they were one
> couple.
I'm sorry but it seems to me that in all the earlier posts you were
aiming for a single common ancestor couple. Not Y-Adam and Mt-Eve but
some couple out of a myriad of possible choices.
When Mt-Eve Y-Adam coalescence theory came out it intrigued me and I
worked pretty hard to understand it. I would probably need some coaching
to get through the math but I think I understand the principle fairly
well. I noticed that it was widely misunderstood in the popular press
and among laymen like me.
What I think is a major misconception is because it predicts that every
generation will have common ancestors that if you back far enough there
will be a single common ancestor for everyone. This is what seemed to me
to be your initial belief. Coalescence theory does not support this
idea. I think you came to accept this and that is when you introduced
the 'true human' concept that is completely outside science and has its
own problems spread and inheritance and the claim that all extant humans
have souls.
My only concern in this thread is to get you to accept that the idea
that coalescence science vindicates a biblical viewpointnot just a poor
one but a bad one.
>
> I wasn't trying to make matter a common ancestor, it was just I don't
> think we are going to get any further with that particular topic as we
> are just going back over the same ground again and again so I thought
> it would help to broaden the discussion out a bit. Not looking to make
> excuses but I was also probably somewhat distracted by Vincent's
> argument about atheists being smarter than theists and RonO's stupid
> crap about the authors and myself being Biblical Creationists.
>
--
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
