From: admin@127.0.0.1   
      
   On Fri, 13 Feb 2026 09:00:10 -0800   
   John Harshman  wrote:   
      
   > On 2/12/26 9:43 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:   
   > > On 2/9/26 4:16 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   > >> On Sun, 8 Feb 2026 13:00:09 -0600, DB Cates    
   > >> wrote:   
   > >>   
   > >>> 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 think you are reading far too much into what I said and there is no   
   > >> idea that you need me to drop about science supporting Adam and Eve. I   
   > >> was just talking about one very specific aspect, that the Bible and   
   > >> the Catholic Church say that we all descended from one couple. Science   
   > >> agrees that if you take any defined population group, there will be an   
   > >> individual who will be an ancestor of everyone in that group; you can   
   > >> do that through DNA or through genealogical methods. That applies   
   > >> whether the defined group is all humans that lived at a particular   
   > >> point in time,  all the people that the Hebrews 3000 or so years ago   
   > >> regarded as God's chosen people, the group that the Catholic Church   
   > >> today labels as 'true' humans or any other defined population group.   
   > >> Science confirms just that principle and nothing else about the Adam   
   > >> and Eve story.   
   > >   
   > > In other news, Science also confirms that camels exist and that a major   
   > > river flows through Egypt.   
   > >   
   > Now if we could only find the place where four rivers flow out of Eden,   
   > including the Tigris, Euphrates, and Nile.   
   >   
      
   Easy enough {though clearly the Nile has to be dropped}  2 out of 3   
   ain't bad.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)