From: rokimoto557@gmail.com   
      
   On 2/13/2026 11:00 AM, 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.   
   >   
      
   How could anyone know where Eden could have possibly existed?  The AIG   
   claims that the continents drifted to their current positions during the   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)