From: martinharran@gmail.com   
      
   On Thu, 12 Feb 2026 21:43:33 -0800, 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.   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)