On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 06:34:20 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/7/26 5:29 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 5 Jan 2026 06:53:35 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip for focus]
I said that I saw no value in continuing this discussion, but I do
want to address this specific point as I don't like what I said being
misrepresented, intentionally or not.
And of course Y-Adam and mt-Eve were not a couple. There are only so
many round holes into which you can fit a square peg before the strain >>>> shows.
Neither I nor the authors of the book suggested that they were a
couple.
But you called them a couple. Perhaps you didn't mean to say that, but
here: "They refer to the Hebrew belief that mankind descended from a
single couple which has been confirmed by Mitochondrial Eve and
Y-chromosomal Adam." Further, the Hebrew belief, which you say was
confirmed, was that they were a couple.
I did *not* say or suggest that Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal
Adam were that single couple. It would have been an entirely stupid
thing to say and you know that so why don't you just have the good
grace to admit that you read it wrong.
Your several attempts to move the goalposts below here aren't even
worth responding to.
We are all descended from mt-Eve's parents - they are a couple. We are
also descended from her grandparents so that's another two couples.
Her great-grandparents give us another 4 couples, and so on. The same
applies to Y-Adam.
Note that neither was likely to have been an anatomically modern human,
though probably in the H. sapiens lineage as distinct from H.
neandertalensis. And, though you don't say it and isn't completely clear
that you know it, we are also descended from a great many couples who
aren't in either of those lineages. There's
little-bit-in-the-middle-of-chromosome-14-Bob and his wife,
left-us-no-genetic-material-whatsoever-Stanley and his wife, etc.
There are a multitude of couples we are descended from; that is why IWhere does that say that
specifically said that "it is only an issue if someone argues that
they were the *only* common ancestor."
And yet you did call them a couple. More importantly, how is this in any
way a biblical prediction that science has been forced to accept? The
only connection to the myth is the unfortunate choice of names. Perhaps
they should have been called Y-chromosome-Ask and mt-Embla, thus
confirming the Norse belief. Of course all that it really confirms is
that humans come in two sexes, both necessary for reproduction. This is
a ridiculous example of what you were asked for, and you should admit it.
On 1/7/26 8:39 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 06:34:20 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/7/26 5:29 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 5 Jan 2026 06:53:35 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip for focus]
I said that I saw no value in continuing this discussion, but I do
want to address this specific point as I don't like what I said being
misrepresented, intentionally or not.
And of course Y-Adam and mt-Eve were not a couple. There are only so >>>>> many round holes into which you can fit a square peg before the strain >>>>> shows.
Neither I nor the authors of the book suggested that they were a
couple.
But you called them a couple. Perhaps you didn't mean to say that, but
here: "They refer to the Hebrew belief that mankind descended from a
single couple which has been confirmed by Mitochondrial Eve and
Y-chromosomal Adam." Further, the Hebrew belief, which you say was
confirmed, was that they were a couple.
I did *not* say or suggest that Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal
Adam were that single couple. It would have been an entirely stupid
thing to say and you know that so why don't you just have the good
grace to admit that you read it wrong.
Perhaps I read it in a way you didn't intend, but you have to agree that >what you said encourages my interpretation.
Stripped of that
interpretation, all you have is that people descend from couples, i.e.
that we are a obligate sexually reproducing species. Not much of a
biblical prediction, is it? I'm assuming you didn't obfuscate on
purpose, but if you remove the obfuscation there's nothing of interest >remaining, and nothing that Y or mt coalescence confirms.
Your several attempts to move the goalposts below here aren't even
worth responding to.
You should have at least a little shame for this display. Can you now
agree that this is a really bad example of a biblical prediction that >science was forced to accept? The only biblical thing here would be the >names that scientists have unfortunately attached to a couple of >coalescents.
We are all descended from mt-Eve's parents - they are a couple. We are >>>> also descended from her grandparents so that's another two couples.
Her great-grandparents give us another 4 couples, and so on. The same
applies to Y-Adam.
Note that neither was likely to have been an anatomically modern human,
though probably in the H. sapiens lineage as distinct from H.
neandertalensis. And, though you don't say it and isn't completely clear >>> that you know it, we are also descended from a great many couples who
aren't in either of those lineages. There's
little-bit-in-the-middle-of-chromosome-14-Bob and his wife,
left-us-no-genetic-material-whatsoever-Stanley and his wife, etc.
There are a multitude of couples we are descended from; that is why IWhere does that say that
specifically said that "it is only an issue if someone argues that
they were the *only* common ancestor."
And yet you did call them a couple. More importantly, how is this in any >>> way a biblical prediction that science has been forced to accept? The
only connection to the myth is the unfortunate choice of names. Perhaps
they should have been called Y-chromosome-Ask and mt-Embla, thus
confirming the Norse belief. Of course all that it really confirms is
that humans come in two sexes, both necessary for reproduction. This is
a ridiculous example of what you were asked for, and you should admit it. >>
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:06:52 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
Perhaps I read it in a way you didn't intend, but you have to agree that >>what you said encourages my interpretation.
Only if:
a) I am really stupid about this stuff.
b) You are convinced that I am really stupid.
I'll leave it to readers to decide for themselves which it is.
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:06:52 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/7/26 8:39 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 06:34:20 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/7/26 5:29 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 5 Jan 2026 06:53:35 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip for focus]
I said that I saw no value in continuing this discussion, but I do
want to address this specific point as I don't like what I said being >>>>> misrepresented, intentionally or not.
And of course Y-Adam and mt-Eve were not a couple. There are only so >>>>>> many round holes into which you can fit a square peg before the strain >>>>>> shows.
Neither I nor the authors of the book suggested that they were a
couple.
But you called them a couple. Perhaps you didn't mean to say that, but >>>> here: "They refer to the Hebrew belief that mankind descended from a
single couple which has been confirmed by Mitochondrial Eve and
Y-chromosomal Adam." Further, the Hebrew belief, which you say was
confirmed, was that they were a couple.
I did *not* say or suggest that Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal
Adam were that single couple. It would have been an entirely stupid
thing to say and you know that so why don't you just have the good
grace to admit that you read it wrong.
Perhaps I read it in a way you didn't intend, but you have to agree that
what you said encourages my interpretation.
Only if:
a) I am really stupid about this stuff.
b) You are convinced that I am really stupid.
I'll leave it to readers to decide for themselves which it is.
Stripped of that
interpretation, all you have is that people descend from couples, i.e.
that we are a obligate sexually reproducing species. Not much of a
biblical prediction, is it? I'm assuming you didn't obfuscate on
purpose, but if you remove the obfuscation there's nothing of interest
remaining, and nothing that Y or mt coalescence confirms.
Your several attempts to move the goalposts below here aren't even
worth responding to.
You should have at least a little shame for this display. Can you now
agree that this is a really bad example of a biblical prediction that
science was forced to accept? The only biblical thing here would be the
names that scientists have unfortunately attached to a couple of
coalescents.
We are all descended from mt-Eve's parents - they are a couple. We are >>>>> also descended from her grandparents so that's another two couples.
Her great-grandparents give us another 4 couples, and so on. The same >>>>> applies to Y-Adam.
Note that neither was likely to have been an anatomically modern human, >>>> though probably in the H. sapiens lineage as distinct from H.
neandertalensis. And, though you don't say it and isn't completely clear >>>> that you know it, we are also descended from a great many couples who
aren't in either of those lineages. There's
little-bit-in-the-middle-of-chromosome-14-Bob and his wife,
left-us-no-genetic-material-whatsoever-Stanley and his wife, etc.
There are a multitude of couples we are descended from; that is why I >>>>> specifically said that "it is only an issue if someone argues thatWhere does that say that
they were the *only* common ancestor."
And yet you did call them a couple. More importantly, how is this in any >>>> way a biblical prediction that science has been forced to accept? The
only connection to the myth is the unfortunate choice of names. Perhaps >>>> they should have been called Y-chromosome-Ask and mt-Embla, thus
confirming the Norse belief. Of course all that it really confirms is
that humans come in two sexes, both necessary for reproduction. This is >>>> a ridiculous example of what you were asked for, and you should admit it. >>>
On Wed, 07 Jan 2026 18:17:07 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:06:52 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Perhaps I read it in a way you didn't intend, but you have to agree that >>> what you said encourages my interpretation.
Only if:
a) I am really stupid about this stuff.
b) You are convinced that I am really stupid.
I'll leave it to readers to decide for themselves which it is.
I hit 'Send' by mistake. I intended to include :
c) You know I'm not stupid but you want to try to make me look stupid.
I'm fast coming to the conclusion that c) is the right answer.
On Tue, 06 Jan 2026 09:44:56 -0800, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 06 Jan 2026 14:35:02 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jan 2026 15:37:42 -0800, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jan 2026 14:11:04 +0000, Martin Harran >>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
They also do quote their 100 scientists which you suspected of being >>>>>quote-mining. I don't think they are quote-mined as they are all fully >>>>>referenced; here are a few that I have checked out and seem valid - >>>>>YMMV.
Robert Millikan (1868- 1953), the physicist who calculated the charge >>>>>of the electron and the Planck constant, winner of the 1923 Nobel >>>>>Prize in Physics: "A lifetime of scientific research has convinced >>>>>[me] that there is a divinity who is shaping the destiny of man."[333] >>>>>
George Thomson (1892- 1975), British physicist, Nobel co-laureate >>>>>1937: "Probably every physicist would believe in a creation [of the >>>>>Universe] if the Bible had not unfortunately said something about it >>>>>many years ago and made it seem old-fashioned. [334]
Shoichi Yoshikawa (1935- 2010), Professor of Astrophysics at >>>>>Princeton: "I think that God originated the universe and life. Homo >>>>>sapiens was created by God using a process which does not violate any >>>>>of the physical laws of the Universe in any significant way." [366]
Max Planck (1858- 1947), one of the founders of quantum mechanics, >>>>>1918 Nobel Laureate in Physics, and discoverer of the quantum >>>>>structure of radiation: "Metaphysical reality does not stand spatially >>>>>behind what is given in experience, but lies fully within it." [373] >>>>>Again: "Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of >>>>>any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of >>>>>science are written the words: You must have faith. It is a quality >>>>>which the scientists cannot dispense with." [374] Also: "All matter >>>>>originates and exists only by virtue of a force [. . .]. We must >>>>>assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent >>>>>spirit." [375]
Stephen Hawking (1942- 2018), Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge >>>>>(who, despite the following words, was an atheist all the same): " à >>>>>The odds against a universe like ours emerging out of something like >>>>>the Big Bang are enormous... I think clearly there are religious >>>>>implications whenever you start to discuss the origins of the >>>>>universe. But I think that most scientists prefer to shy away from the >>>>>religious side of it."[393]
John Eccles (1903- 1997), neurologist, electrophysiologist, winner of >>>>>the 1963 Nobel Prize in Medicine: "I maintain that the human mystery >>>>>is incredibly demeaned by scientific reductionism, with its claim in >>>>>promissory materialism to account eventually for all of the spiritual >>>>>world in terms of patterns of neuronal activity. This belief must be >>>>>classed as a superstition."[408] Again: "I am constrained to attribute >>>>>the uniqueness of the Self or Soul to a supernatural spiritual >>>>>creation." [409]
The upshot of all these quotes seems to be that it's possible to be >>>>religious and be a scientist at the same time.
I think, however, the significant thing in the quotes in this book is >>>that many of them come from scientists who were not driven by
religious beliefs, in some cases vehemently opposed to religious
belief, but arrived at belief in "something" beyond materialism
Do you believe that spiritual entities can be detected in a manner
similar to the way physical ones are? ("Materialism" seems to have
been surpassed by physicalism, reductionism, naturalism,
verificationism, or positivism in modern philosophy.)
No, I don't think they can be detected in a manner similar to the way >physical ones are; but that does not mean they cannot be detected in
other ways.
Is there someone in your life who you are absolutely
convinced loves you? If so, how do you "detect" that love in any
scientific way?
I detect God's love for me in the same way that I
detect that my wife still loves me after nearly 54 years of putting up
with my foibles - I can't explain it in scientific ways but that does
not mean it doesn't exist.
as a result of the scientific work. Whether that "something" equates, for >>>example to the Judeo-Christian God is. of course, a separate argument.
Why be so coy about the God under consideration?
Not being coy at all. I have made no secret of my Catholicicm but I
recognize that there are many different viewpoints about what God is
or might be.
There's nothing wrong
with that, as long as the religion doesn't begin to creep into the >>>>science. For example, we don't consider a "spiritual world" to be >>>>something that's addressable by science. Or at least that's something >>>>theists can tell themselves if they want to keep up with atheists >>>>intellectually.
There are issues on both sides of the fence there. Just as there are >>>Creationists and ID'ers who reject science where it seems to conflict >>>with their religious beliefs, there are scientists who dismiss ideas
just because they think those ideas might let religion in the door;
And with good reason. Religion does not belong in science, through
any sort of door or another.
Do you think the door should be shut against things just because they
*might* let God in accidentally?
the authors of this book make a very strong case that the virulent >>>opposition to the Big Bang
Cite?
<quote>
David Bohm went so far as to claim that the partisans of the Big Bang >"effectively turn traitor to science, and distort scientific facts to
reach conclusions that are convenient to the Catholic Church." [173]
The British physicist William Bonnor did not mince words: "The
underlying motive is, of course, to bring in God as creator. It seems
like the opportunity Christian theology has been waiting for ever
since science began to depose religion from the minds of rational men
in the seventeenth century." [174]
As we have already seen, Sir Arthur Eddington, one of the greatest >astronomers of the first half of the twentieth century, was equally
insistent and seemed to come unhinged when he heard the term Big Bang: >"Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of
Nature is repugnant to me." [175]
Authors' References
=================
173. Letter 60 to Miriam Yevick (Folder C116), November 30, 1951, in
David Bohm: Causality and Chance, Letters to Three Women, ed. Chris
Talbot (Heildelburg, Germany: Springer
174. W. B. Bonnor, The Mystery of the Expanding Universe (New York: >Macmillan, 1964), 117.
175. See J. Stachel, "Eddington and Einstein," in The Prism of
Science, ed. E. Ullmann-Margalit (Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1986), 2: 189. >Eddington made this comment in 1931.
<quote>
Earlier in the book, they refer to Einstein's reaction anytime someone >mentioned Lemaεtre's primeval atom: "No, not that, it too much of
creation!"
In fairness to Einstein, after meeting Lemaitre and looking at his
ideas in more detail, Einstein apologised for his earlier response
that ""Your calculations are correct, but your physics is abominable"
and became one of Lemaεtre's earliest and most ardent supporters.
was largely driven by ideological
opposition to religious belief which is not a good way to do science.
John Polkinghorne uses the lovely analogy of kettle boiling on a stove >>>and someone asks "Why is that kettle boiling?" The scientific answer
is that the burning gas is creating heat which is conducted through
the metal to the water inside the kettle and causes it also to heat.
The non-scientific answer is that he is expecting a good friend to
arrive shortly and wants to have a nice cup of tea ready for him.
Both answers relate to the same kettle and are both equally valid >>>answers. In a similar way, I believe that religion and science are
both seeking answers about the same things and one ruling out the
other loses out.
How are "pot boiling because of heat" and "pot boiling for a friend"
the same thing?
They are both looking at the same kettle.
And how do scientists "lose out"
They lose out in learning who placed the kettle on the stove and why
they did so. That may not be of direct impact on their work but it is
part of human nature to know everything about everything which is what
drives a lot of science. Even to be just mercenary about it, they
also need the support and encouragement of the people making the tea
for funding and other resources to facilitate their work.
when they don't
include religion in their theories?
I did not say that scientists should *include* religion in their
theories. I said they should not shut doors just because of a fear
that religion might sneak in through them
[...]
[...]
Earlier in the book, they refer to Einstein's reaction anytime someone >mentioned Lemaεtre's primeval atom: "No, not that, it too much of
creation!"
In fairness to Einstein, after meeting Lemaitre and looking at his
ideas in more detail, Einstein apologised for his earlier response
that ""Your calculations are correct, but your physics is abominable"
and became one of Lemaεtre's earliest and most ardent supporters.
was largely driven by ideological
opposition to religious belief which is not a good way to do science.
John Polkinghorne uses the lovely analogy of kettle boiling on a stove >>>and someone asks "Why is that kettle boiling?" The scientific answer
is that the burning gas is creating heat which is conducted through
the metal to the water inside the kettle and causes it also to heat.
The non-scientific answer is that he is expecting a good friend to
arrive shortly and wants to have a nice cup of tea ready for him.
Both answers relate to the same kettle and are both equally valid >>>answers. In a similar way, I believe that religion and science are
both seeking answers about the same things and one ruling out the
other loses out.
How are "pot boiling because of heat" and "pot boiling for a friend"
the same thing?
They are both looking at the same kettle.
And how do scientists "lose out"
They lose out in learning who placed the kettle on the stove and why
they did so. That may not be of direct impact on their work but it is
part of human nature to know everything about everything which is what
drives a lot of science. Even to be just mercenary about it, they
also need the support and encouragement of the people making the tea
for funding and other resources to facilitate their work.
when they don't
include religion in their theories?
I did not say that scientists should *include* religion in their
theories. I said they should not shut doors just because of a fear
that religion might sneak in through them
On 1/7/26 5:29 AM, Martin Harran wrote:The above is true if and only if mt-Eve's parents had no other
On Mon, 5 Jan 2026 06:53:35 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip for focus]
I said that I saw no value in continuing this discussion, but I do
want to address this specific point as I don't like what I said being
misrepresented, intentionally or not.
And of course Y-Adam and mt-Eve were not a couple. There are only so
many round holes into which you can fit a square peg before the strain
shows.
Neither I nor the authors of the book suggested that they were a
couple.
But you called them a couple. Perhaps you didn't mean to say that, but
here: "They refer to the Hebrew belief that mankind descended from a
single couple which has been confirmed by Mitochondrial Eve and >Y-chromosomal Adam." Further, the Hebrew belief, which you say was >confirmed, was that they were a couple.
We are all descended from mt-Eve's parents -
Yes, he did, as proved by your quoted text above, despite histhey are a couple. We are
also descended from her grandparents so that's another two couples.
Her great-grandparents give us another 4 couples, and so on. The same
applies to Y-Adam.
Note that neither was likely to have been an anatomically modern human, >though probably in the H. sapiens lineage as distinct from H. >neandertalensis. And, though you don't say it and isn't completely clear >that you know it, we are also descended from a great many couples who
aren't in either of those lineages. There's >little-bit-in-the-middle-of-chromosome-14-Bob and his wife, >left-us-no-genetic-material-whatsoever-Stanley and his wife, etc.
There are a multitude of couples we are descended from; that is why I
specifically said that "it is only an issue if someone argues that
they were the *only* common ancestor."
And yet you did call them a couple.
More importantly, how is this in anyBe careful, or he might KF you too.
way a biblical prediction that science has been forced to accept? The
only connection to the myth is the unfortunate choice of names. Perhaps
they should have been called Y-chromosome-Ask and mt-Embla, thus
confirming the Norse belief. Of course all that it really confirms is
that humans come in two sexes, both necessary for reproduction. This is
a ridiculous example of what you were asked for, and you should admit it.
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 06:34:20 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/7/26 5:29 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 5 Jan 2026 06:53:35 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip for focus]
I said that I saw no value in continuing this discussion, but I do
want to address this specific point as I don't like what I said being
misrepresented, intentionally or not.
And of course Y-Adam and mt-Eve were not a couple. There are only so
many round holes into which you can fit a square peg before the strain >>>> shows.
Neither I nor the authors of the book suggested that they were a
couple.
But you called them a couple. Perhaps you didn't mean to say that, but
here: "They refer to the Hebrew belief that mankind descended from a
single couple which has been confirmed by Mitochondrial Eve and
Y-chromosomal Adam." Further, the Hebrew belief, which you say was
confirmed, was that they were a couple.
We are all descended from mt-Eve's parents -
The above is true if and only if mt-Eve's parents had no other
descendants. For Harran to say the above supports your claim that he
doesn't understand the reasoning behind mt-Eve and y-chromosome Adam.
they are a couple. We are
also descended from her grandparents so that's another two couples.
Her great-grandparents give us another 4 couples, and so on. The same
applies to Y-Adam.
Note that neither was likely to have been an anatomically modern human,
though probably in the H. sapiens lineage as distinct from H.
neandertalensis. And, though you don't say it and isn't completely clear
that you know it, we are also descended from a great many couples who
aren't in either of those lineages. There's
little-bit-in-the-middle-of-chromosome-14-Bob and his wife,
left-us-no-genetic-material-whatsoever-Stanley and his wife, etc.
There are a multitude of couples we are descended from; that is why I
specifically said that "it is only an issue if someone argues that
they were the *only* common ancestor."
And yet you did call them a couple.
Yes, he did, as proved by your quoted text above, despite his
protestations to the contrary.
More importantly, how is this in any
way a biblical prediction that science has been forced to accept? The
only connection to the myth is the unfortunate choice of names. Perhaps
they should have been called Y-chromosome-Ask and mt-Embla, thus
confirming the Norse belief. Of course all that it really confirms is
that humans come in two sexes, both necessary for reproduction. This is
a ridiculous example of what you were asked for, and you should admit it.
Be careful, or he might KF you too.
On 7/01/2026 6:08 pm, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 11:28:23 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/01/2026 3:28 am, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 2 Jan 2026 23:06:02 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
If, say, 1000 years from now, after consistent and concerted scientific >>>>> research over that time, there is a large majority scientific consensus >>>>> that all postulated naturalistic explanations for each of the following >>>>> had been excluded or shown be excessively improbable:
2. origin of the universe
3. fine tuning
4. origin of life
5. macroevolution
It seems to me the options are:
r
a. Keep looking for naturalistic explanations
b. Give up looking for naturalistic explanations
Borrowing from an old thread, back in the fifth century BCE,
Democritus proposed that matter consists of indestructible,
indivisible units called atoms. It took nearly two and a half
millennia before Dalton showed that it was a valid proposition. Why do >>>> you think that 1000 years of what you see as failure is enough to
abandon the search?
My thought experiment is intended to demonstrate your point:
"There are issues on both sides of the fence there. Just as there are
Creationists and ID'ers who reject science where it seems to conflict
with their religious beliefs, there are scientists who dismiss ideas
just because they think those ideas might let religion in the door;
the authors of this book make a very strong case that the virulent
opposition to the Big Bang was largely driven by ideological
opposition to religious belief which is not a good way to do science."
How does suggesting we give up looking for naturalistic explanations
address that problem?
Not sure if you overlooked response options c and d below?
In listing options a-d I'm not endorsing any in particular, just laying
out the range of response possible.
Is that clear?
c. Consider supernatural explanations
d. Some combination of the above
There are plenty of people doing that. Only a few of them are
scientists because science is not a particularly useful way of trying
to figure God out.
[...]
On 1/7/26 10:23 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jan 2026 18:17:07 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:06:52 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Perhaps I read it in a way you didn't intend, but you have to agree that >>>> what you said encourages my interpretation.
Only if:
a) I am really stupid about this stuff.
b) You are convinced that I am really stupid.
I'll leave it to readers to decide for themselves which it is.
I hit 'Send' by mistake. I intended to include :
c) You know I'm not stupid but you want to try to make me look stupid.
I'm fast coming to the conclusion that c) is the right answer.
If I agree that you aren't stupid would that fix everything? The
question still nags whether you are a poor writer or perhaps were >attempting, consciously or otherwise, to connect a couple of coalescents >with a bible story, when there is no actual connection. And you now
refuse to respond on the subject. Which might lead one to speculate
whether going off in a huff is tactical.
I could impugn your motives all
day, but what would it serve? And the same question applies to you.
So now, can we agree that the Adam and Eve story is not a case of
science being forced to agree with the bible?
On 7/01/2026 6:08 pm, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 11:28:23 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/01/2026 3:28 am, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 2 Jan 2026 23:06:02 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
If, say, 1000 years from now, after consistent and concerted scientific >>>>> research over that time, there is a large majority scientific consensus >>>>> that all postulated naturalistic explanations for each of the following >>>>> had been excluded or shown be excessively improbable:
2. origin of the universe
3. fine tuning
4. origin of life
5. macroevolution
It seems to me the options are:
a. Keep looking for naturalistic explanations
b. Give up looking for naturalistic explanations
Borrowing from an old thread, back in the fifth century BCE,
Democritus proposed that matter consists of indestructible,
indivisible units called atoms. It took nearly two and a half
millennia before Dalton showed that it was a valid proposition. Why do >>>> you think that 1000 years of what you see as failure is enough to
abandon the search?
My thought experiment is intended to demonstrate your point:
"There are issues on both sides of the fence there. Just as there are
Creationists and ID'ers who reject science where it seems to conflict
with their religious beliefs, there are scientists who dismiss ideas
just because they think those ideas might let religion in the door;
the authors of this book make a very strong case that the virulent
opposition to the Big Bang was largely driven by ideological
opposition to religious belief which is not a good way to do science."
How does suggesting we give up looking for naturalistic explanations
address that problem?
Not sure if you overlooked response options c and d below?
In listing options a-d I'm not endorsing any in particular, just laying
out the range of response possible.
Is that clear?
c. Consider supernatural explanations
d. Some combination of the above
There are plenty of people doing that. Only a few of them are
scientists because science is not a particularly useful way of trying
to figure God out.
[...]
On Wed, 07 Jan 2026 13:20:57 +0000, Martin Harran
Do you believe that spiritual entities can be detected in a manner >>>similar to the way physical ones are? ("Materialism" seems to have
been surpassed by physicalism, reductionism, naturalism,
verificationism, or positivism in modern philosophy.)
No, I don't think they can be detected in a manner similar to the way >>physical ones are; but that does not mean they cannot be detected in
other ways.
I deliberately phrased it as "similar to" rather than "in the same
way" to account for this possibility.
Is there someone in your life who you are absolutely
convinced loves you? If so, how do you "detect" that love in any
scientific way?
Not a significant other now, but my immediate family members appear to
love me because they seem to like to hang out with me, and some say as
much as well.
I detect God's love for me in the same way that I
detect that my wife still loves me after nearly 54 years of putting up
with my foibles - I can't explain it in scientific ways but that does
not mean it doesn't exist.
I would imagine there's no reason to doubt her if she says she loves
you, and I suppose you could go into gaze length and touches per
second if you really want to be "scientific" about it, but scientific
logic is just regular logic writ large,
and there should be no area of
life where that kind of critical thinking shouldn't be involved.
as a result of the scientific work. Whether that "something" equates, for >>>>example to the Judeo-Christian God is. of course, a separate argument.
Why be so coy about the God under consideration?
Not being coy at all. I have made no secret of my Catholicicm but I >>recognize that there are many different viewpoints about what God is
or might be.
Do you believe that the Judeo-Christian god is preferable to other
gods?
There's nothing wrong
with that, as long as the religion doesn't begin to creep into the >>>>>science. For example, we don't consider a "spiritual world" to be >>>>>something that's addressable by science. Or at least that's something >>>>>theists can tell themselves if they want to keep up with atheists >>>>>intellectually.
There are issues on both sides of the fence there. Just as there are >>>>Creationists and ID'ers who reject science where it seems to conflict >>>>with their religious beliefs, there are scientists who dismiss ideas >>>>just because they think those ideas might let religion in the door;
And with good reason. Religion does not belong in science, through
any sort of door or another.
Do you think the door should be shut against things just because they >>*might* let God in accidentally?
Provide an example of one of these ideas.
the authors of this book make a very strong case that the virulent >>>>opposition to the Big Bang
Cite?
<quote>
David Bohm went so far as to claim that the partisans of the Big Bang >>"effectively turn traitor to science, and distort scientific facts to
reach conclusions that are convenient to the Catholic Church." [173]
As I understand it, his "implicate order" is rather theist-friendly.
The British physicist William Bonnor did not mince words: "The
underlying motive is, of course, to bring in God as creator. It seems
like the opportunity Christian theology has been waiting for ever
since science began to depose religion from the minds of rational men
in the seventeenth century." [174]
We don't know that much about William Bonnor, but that seems to
represent his beliefs, yes.
As we have already seen, Sir Arthur Eddington, one of the greatest >>astronomers of the first half of the twentieth century, was equally >>insistent and seemed to come unhinged when he heard the term Big Bang: >>"Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of
Nature is repugnant to me." [175]
These quotes seem to contradict your other quotes about scientists
believing in God.
Along those lines, from
https://journal.iscast.org/articles/a-brief-critique-of-arthur-eddingtons-approach-to-science-and-religion-in-light-of-evidentialism
"Eddington didn't believe that science tells us much about God, or
that science provides evidence to bolster the claims of Christianity,
despite the revolutionary period during which he worked.[15] God's
existence was clear on the basis of experience[16] and what it meant
to be human as a spiritual being[17]-a conscious, free, truth-seeking
person. Eddington's reasons to believe are not original. They are
typically Victorian, Quaker, and influenced by the liberal theology of
the early twentieth century. However, he took the path of defending
and upholding only a minimal, mystical form of religion, determined to
leave the more nuanced details to qualified theologians."
Also, from:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Big_Bang_theory
"From around 1950 to 1965, the support for these theories was evenly
divided, with a slight imbalance arising from the fact that the Big
Bang theory could explain both the formation and the observed
abundances of hydrogen and helium, whereas the steady-state model
could explain how they were formed, but not why they should have the
observed abundances."
I would also question why you believe people were trying to keep
religion out of science. What's your explanation for the animosity
between science and religion?
On Wed, 07 Jan 2026 13:20:57 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
Forgot to include this in my last reply:
Earlier in the book, they refer to Einstein's reaction anytime someone >>mentioned Lemaître's primeval atom: "No, not that, it too much of >>creation!"
In fairness to Einstein, after meeting Lemaitre and looking at his
ideas in more detail, Einstein apologised for his earlier response
that ""Your calculations are correct, but your physics is abominable"
and became one of Lemaître's earliest and most ardent supporters.
Cites for this?
was largely driven by ideological
opposition to religious belief which is not a good way to do science.
John Polkinghorne uses the lovely analogy of kettle boiling on a stove >>>>and someone asks "Why is that kettle boiling?" The scientific answer
is that the burning gas is creating heat which is conducted through
the metal to the water inside the kettle and causes it also to heat. >>>>The non-scientific answer is that he is expecting a good friend to >>>>arrive shortly and wants to have a nice cup of tea ready for him.
Both answers relate to the same kettle and are both equally valid >>>>answers. In a similar way, I believe that religion and science are
both seeking answers about the same things and one ruling out the
other loses out.
How are "pot boiling because of heat" and "pot boiling for a friend"
the same thing?
They are both looking at the same kettle.
And how do scientists "lose out"
They lose out in learning who placed the kettle on the stove and why
they did so. That may not be of direct impact on their work but it is
part of human nature to know everything about everything which is what >>drives a lot of science. Even to be just mercenary about it, they
also need the support and encouragement of the people making the tea
for funding and other resources to facilitate their work.
And how is religion a valid method of knowing? And why can't science
tell us about what you claim only religion can tell us?
when they don't
include religion in their theories?
I did not say that scientists should *include* religion in their
theories. I said they should not shut doors just because of a fear
that religion might sneak in through them
How does "not shutting doors" not equivalent to "not including them"?
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 21:55:51 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/01/2026 6:08 pm, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 11:28:23 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/01/2026 3:28 am, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 2 Jan 2026 23:06:02 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
[...]
If, say, 1000 years from now, after consistent and concerted scientific >>>>>> research over that time, there is a large majority scientific consensus >>>>>> that all postulated naturalistic explanations for each of the following >>>>>> had been excluded or shown be excessively improbable:
2. origin of the universe
3. fine tuning
4. origin of life
5. macroevolution
It seems to me the options are:
a. Keep looking for naturalistic explanations
b. Give up looking for naturalistic explanations
Borrowing from an old thread, back in the fifth century BCE,
Democritus proposed that matter consists of indestructible,
indivisible units called atoms. It took nearly two and a half
millennia before Dalton showed that it was a valid proposition. Why do >>>>> you think that 1000 years of what you see as failure is enough to
abandon the search?
My thought experiment is intended to demonstrate your point:
"There are issues on both sides of the fence there. Just as there are
Creationists and ID'ers who reject science where it seems to conflict
with their religious beliefs, there are scientists who dismiss ideas
just because they think those ideas might let religion in the door;
the authors of this book make a very strong case that the virulent
opposition to the Big Bang was largely driven by ideological
opposition to religious belief which is not a good way to do science."
How does suggesting we give up looking for naturalistic explanations
address that problem?
Not sure if you overlooked response options c and d below?
In listing options a-d I'm not endorsing any in particular, just laying
out the range of response possible.
Is that clear?
c. Consider supernatural explanations
d. Some combination of the above
There are plenty of people doing that. Only a few of them are
scientists because science is not a particularly useful way of trying >>>>> to figure God out.
[...]
Having finished "God, the Science, the Evidence", I've gone back to re-reading "Theology and Sanity" by Frank Sheed [1]. I've always liked
what he had to say about Mystery:
"Thus a Mystery is not to be thought of as simply darkness: it is a
tiny circle of light surrounded by darkness. It is for us so to use
our own powers and God's grace that the light will grow. It means
using the mind upon what reality may be made to tell us about God, and
upon what God, through His Church, has told us about Himself; it means praying for more knowledge, and using the knowledge one gains to
enrich one's prayer. Thus the circle of light grows; but it is always
ringed round with darkness: for however our capacity may increase, it
remains finite, and God remains Infinite. Indeed the more the light
grows, the more we see what His Infinity means, what His Immensity
is."
I think that whilst the surrounding darkness will always remain due to
the constraints we have as humans, science and philosophy and theology
all have a role to play in growing that circle of light. Discarding
any of them sells us short.
==============
[1] Sheed, F. J. Theology and Sanity. London: Sheed & Ward, 1947.
Possibly not to your taste as Sheed was raised as a Protestant but
became an unashamed Catholic apologist though most of what he covers
in this book applies to all mainstream Christian denominations.
On Wed, 07 Jan 2026 12:28:07 -0800, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jan 2026 13:20:57 +0000, Martin Harran
[mercy snip]
Do you believe that spiritual entities can be detected in a manner >>>>similar to the way physical ones are? ("Materialism" seems to have
been surpassed by physicalism, reductionism, naturalism, >>>>verificationism, or positivism in modern philosophy.)
No, I don't think they can be detected in a manner similar to the way >>>physical ones are; but that does not mean they cannot be detected in >>>other ways.
I deliberately phrased it as "similar to" rather than "in the same
way" to account for this possibility.
Sorry, I don't grasp what point you are making there.
Is there someone in your life who you are absolutely
convinced loves you? If so, how do you "detect" that love in any >>>scientific way?
Not a significant other now, but my immediate family members appear to
love me because they seem to like to hang out with me, and some say as
much as well.
I detect God's love for me in the same way that I
detect that my wife still loves me after nearly 54 years of putting up >>>with my foibles - I can't explain it in scientific ways but that does
not mean it doesn't exist.
I would imagine there's no reason to doubt her if she says she loves
you, and I suppose you could go into gaze length and touches per
second if you really want to be "scientific" about it, but scientific
logic is just regular logic writ large,
Now you're stretching!
and there should be no area of
life where that kind of critical thinking shouldn't be involved.
as a result of the scientific work. Whether that "something" equates, for >>>>>example to the Judeo-Christian God is. of course, a separate argument. >>>>Why be so coy about the God under consideration?
Not being coy at all. I have made no secret of my Catholicicm but I >>>recognize that there are many different viewpoints about what God is
or might be.
Do you believe that the Judeo-Christian god is preferable to other
gods?
I honestly can't say as I haven't made an exhaustive study of other >religions; all I can say is that I am happy with the Judeo-Christian
god, it gives me all I need.
I do think that the Catholic Church has
some things going for it; one of the biggest in relation to this
discussion group is that all its conclusions and teachings have been >thoroughly documented over the last 2000 years so when someone makes a
claim about its teachings vs science, it is always possible to get its
exact teaching, not some mishmashed perception.
There's nothing wrong
with that, as long as the religion doesn't begin to creep into the >>>>>>science. For example, we don't consider a "spiritual world" to be >>>>>>something that's addressable by science. Or at least that's something >>>>>>theists can tell themselves if they want to keep up with atheists >>>>>>intellectually.
There are issues on both sides of the fence there. Just as there are >>>>>Creationists and ID'ers who reject science where it seems to conflict >>>>>with their religious beliefs, there are scientists who dismiss ideas >>>>>just because they think those ideas might let religion in the door;
And with good reason. Religion does not belong in science, through
any sort of door or another.
Do you think the door should be shut against things just because they >>>*might* let God in accidentally?
Provide an example of one of these ideas.
Err à the Big Bang that we have been discussing.
the authors of this book make a very strong case that the virulent >>>>>opposition to the Big Bang
Cite?
<quote>
David Bohm went so far as to claim that the partisans of the Big Bang >>>"effectively turn traitor to science, and distort scientific facts to >>>reach conclusions that are convenient to the Catholic Church." [173]
As I understand it, his "implicate order" is rather theist-friendly.
I wouldn't regard it as particularly friendly to call people
"traitors" who "distort scientific facts".
The British physicist William Bonnor did not mince words: "The
underlying motive is, of course, to bring in God as creator. It seems >>>like the opportunity Christian theology has been waiting for ever
since science began to depose religion from the minds of rational men
in the seventeenth century." [174]
We don't know that much about William Bonnor, but that seems to
represent his beliefs, yes.
As we have already seen, Sir Arthur Eddington, one of the greatest >>>astronomers of the first half of the twentieth century, was equally >>>insistent and seemed to come unhinged when he heard the term Big Bang: >>>"Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of >>>Nature is repugnant to me." [175]
These quotes seem to contradict your other quotes about scientists >>believing in God.
I said at the start of this discussion that I wasn't saying *all*
scientists are anti-religion.
Also, the scientists who opposed the Big
Bang on ideological ground had to accept the evidence when it became >overwhelming. Evidence will always win out in the end whether it is
ID'ers or scientists who refuse to accept it.
Along those lines, from
https://journal.iscast.org/articles/a-brief-critique-of-arthur-eddingtons-approach-to-science-and-religion-in-light-of-evidentialism
"Eddington didn't believe that science tells us much about God, or
that science provides evidence to bolster the claims of Christianity, >>despite the revolutionary period during which he worked.[15] God's >>existence was clear on the basis of experience[16] and what it meant
to be human as a spiritual being[17]-a conscious, free, truth-seeking >>person. Eddington's reasons to believe are not original. They are
typically Victorian, Quaker, and influenced by the liberal theology of
the early twentieth century. However, he took the path of defending
and upholding only a minimal, mystical form of religion, determined to >>leave the more nuanced details to qualified theologians."
Also, from:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Big_Bang_theory
"From around 1950 to 1965, the support for these theories was evenly >>divided, with a slight imbalance arising from the fact that the Big
Bang theory could explain both the formation and the observed
abundances of hydrogen and helium, whereas the steady-state model
could explain how they were formed, but not why they should have the >>observed abundances."
I would also question why you believe people were trying to keep
religion out of science. What's your explanation for the animosity >>between science and religion?
I don't think its down to any one thing but the Conflict Thesis is
probably a major contributor.
"The conflict thesis is a historiographical approach in the history of >science that originated in the 19th century with John William Draper
and Andrew Dickson White. It maintains that there is an intrinsic >intellectual conflict between religion and science, and that it
inevitably leads to hostility. The consensus among historians of
science is that the thesis has long been discredited, which explains
the rejection of the thesis by contemporary scholars.
[à]
Historians of science today have moved away from a conflict model,
which is based mainly on two historical episodes (those involving
Galileo and Darwin) in favor of a "complexity" model, because
religious figures took positions on both sides of each dispute and
there was no overall aim by any party involved in discrediting
religion"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis
Although Draper and White have been thoroughly discredited, the impact
of their ideas lives on. I did a review a while back of "Faith vs
Fact" by Jerry Coyne in which he draws heavily on Draper and White.
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/sHb33H-Yucw/m/gSZR-KO7CAAJ
[more mercy snip]
Let me ask you something. Modern science really started about the
middle of the 16th century; how did people get their knowledge is the >thousands of years before that?
To take one example; selective breeding goes back thousands of years
before Darwin identified Natural Selection, it was indeed one of the
things that inspired Darwin. So how did ancient man come to figure out >selective breeding?
On Wed, 07 Jan 2026 12:40:10 -0800, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jan 2026 13:20:57 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
Forgot to include this in my last reply:
Earlier in the book, they refer to Einstein's reaction anytime someone >>>mentioned Lemaεtre's primeval atom: "No, not that, it too much of >>>creation!"
In fairness to Einstein, after meeting Lemaitre and looking at his
ideas in more detail, Einstein apologised for his earlier response
that ""Your calculations are correct, but your physics is abominable"
and became one of Lemaεtre's earliest and most ardent supporters.
Cites for this?
I'm a bit surprised that you even ask this as it is covered in almost
every article about Lemaεtre and Einstein. Here's just one example:
https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/scientists_lemaitre.html
Also covered in the more detailed Wiki article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
Einstein went from describing Lemaεtre's physics as "abominable" in
1927 to co-sponsoring him for the highest Belgian scientific
distinction, the Francqui Prize, in 1934. Einstein and Lemaεtre
remained close friends for the rest of their lives.
If you have doubts about such articles, you could look for AndrΘ
Deprit's epitomal work "Monsignor Georges Lemaεtre" but you might find
that or its English translation hard to track down.
[à]
was largely driven by ideological
opposition to religious belief which is not a good way to do science.
John Polkinghorne uses the lovely analogy of kettle boiling on a stove >>>>>and someone asks "Why is that kettle boiling?" The scientific answer >>>>>is that the burning gas is creating heat which is conducted through >>>>>the metal to the water inside the kettle and causes it also to heat. >>>>>The non-scientific answer is that he is expecting a good friend to >>>>>arrive shortly and wants to have a nice cup of tea ready for him.
Both answers relate to the same kettle and are both equally valid >>>>>answers. In a similar way, I believe that religion and science are >>>>>both seeking answers about the same things and one ruling out the >>>>>other loses out.
How are "pot boiling because of heat" and "pot boiling for a friend" >>>>the same thing?
They are both looking at the same kettle.
And how do scientists "lose out"
They lose out in learning who placed the kettle on the stove and why
they did so. That may not be of direct impact on their work but it is >>>part of human nature to know everything about everything which is what >>>drives a lot of science. Even to be just mercenary about it, they
also need the support and encouragement of the people making the tea
for funding and other resources to facilitate their work.
And how is religion a valid method of knowing? And why can't science
tell us about what you claim only religion can tell us?
Are you disagreeing that what can loosely be labelled as the
'supernatural' is beyond the capability of science? Better tell that
to the supporters of science here who insist that it is beyond
science.
when they don't
include religion in their theories?
I did not say that scientists should *include* religion in their >>>theories. I said they should not shut doors just because of a fear
that religion might sneak in through them
How does "not shutting doors" not equivalent to "not including them"?
Because shutting doors can close down or at least delay scientific
progress. Do you disagree that initially trying to shut the door on
the 'Big Bang' discouraged further work for some time?
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:45:40 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/7/26 10:23 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jan 2026 18:17:07 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:06:52 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Perhaps I read it in a way you didn't intend, but you have to agree that >>>>> what you said encourages my interpretation.
Only if:
a) I am really stupid about this stuff.
b) You are convinced that I am really stupid.
I'll leave it to readers to decide for themselves which it is.
I hit 'Send' by mistake. I intended to include :
c) You know I'm not stupid but you want to try to make me look stupid.
I'm fast coming to the conclusion that c) is the right answer.
If I agree that you aren't stupid would that fix everything? The
question still nags whether you are a poor writer or perhaps were
attempting, consciously or otherwise, to connect a couple of coalescents
with a bible story, when there is no actual connection. And you now
refuse to respond on the subject. Which might lead one to speculate
whether going off in a huff is tactical.
No huffing here. I've simply learned from past experience that it's a
total waste of time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone
who prefers to try to divert discussion by misrepresenting what I said
and getting into a semantic argument about my choice of words.
I could impugn your motives all
day, but what would it serve? And the same question applies to you.
So now, can we agree that the Adam and Eve story is not a case of
science being forced to agree with the bible?
On 1/9/26 12:10 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:45:40 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/7/26 10:23 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jan 2026 18:17:07 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:06:52 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Perhaps I read it in a way you didn't intend, but you have to agree that >>>>>> what you said encourages my interpretation.
Only if:
a) I am really stupid about this stuff.
b) You are convinced that I am really stupid.
I'll leave it to readers to decide for themselves which it is.
I hit 'Send' by mistake. I intended to include :
c) You know I'm not stupid but you want to try to make me look stupid. >>>>
I'm fast coming to the conclusion that c) is the right answer.
If I agree that you aren't stupid would that fix everything? The
question still nags whether you are a poor writer or perhaps were
attempting, consciously or otherwise, to connect a couple of coalescents >>> with a bible story, when there is no actual connection. And you now
refuse to respond on the subject. Which might lead one to speculate
whether going off in a huff is tactical.
No huffing here. I've simply learned from past experience that it's a
total waste of time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone
who prefers to try to divert discussion by misrepresenting what I said
and getting into a semantic argument about my choice of words.
If I agree that you aren't stupid, would you be able to find it in your >heart to agree that I'm not trying to misrepresent you? What you said
was wrong. What you meant to say may not have been wrong, but there is
no way for me to know because I don't know what you meant to say. Still, >your attempts to clarify introduced irrelevancies; true ones, but not >helpful. And of course my more important remains, below.
I could impugn your motives all
day, but what would it serve? And the same question applies to you.
So now, can we agree that the Adam and Eve story is not a case of
science being forced to agree with the bible?
True, isn't it?
On Fri, 9 Jan 2026 14:12:49 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/9/26 12:10 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:45:40 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/7/26 10:23 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jan 2026 18:17:07 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:06:52 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Perhaps I read it in a way you didn't intend, but you have to agree that
what you said encourages my interpretation.
Only if:
a) I am really stupid about this stuff.
b) You are convinced that I am really stupid.
I'll leave it to readers to decide for themselves which it is.
I hit 'Send' by mistake. I intended to include :
c) You know I'm not stupid but you want to try to make me look stupid. >>>>>
I'm fast coming to the conclusion that c) is the right answer.
If I agree that you aren't stupid would that fix everything? The
question still nags whether you are a poor writer or perhaps were
attempting, consciously or otherwise, to connect a couple of coalescents >>>> with a bible story, when there is no actual connection. And you now
refuse to respond on the subject. Which might lead one to speculate
whether going off in a huff is tactical.
No huffing here. I've simply learned from past experience that it's a
total waste of time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone
who prefers to try to divert discussion by misrepresenting what I said
and getting into a semantic argument about my choice of words.
If I agree that you aren't stupid, would you be able to find it in your
heart to agree that I'm not trying to misrepresent you? What you said
was wrong. What you meant to say may not have been wrong, but there is
no way for me to know because I don't know what you meant to say. Still,
your attempts to clarify introduced irrelevancies; true ones, but not
helpful. And of course my more important remains, below.
QED
I could impugn your motives all
day, but what would it serve? And the same question applies to you.
So now, can we agree that the Adam and Eve story is not a case of
science being forced to agree with the bible?
True, isn't it?
On 1/9/26 2:47 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jan 2026 14:12:49 -0800, John HarshmanNow you're just trying to be annoying. Well played, if so.
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/9/26 12:10 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:45:40 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/7/26 10:23 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jan 2026 18:17:07 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:06:52 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Perhaps I read it in a way you didn't intend, but you have to agree that
what you said encourages my interpretation.
Only if:
a) I am really stupid about this stuff.
b) You are convinced that I am really stupid.
I'll leave it to readers to decide for themselves which it is.
I hit 'Send' by mistake. I intended to include :
c) You know I'm not stupid but you want to try to make me look stupid. >>>>>>
I'm fast coming to the conclusion that c) is the right answer.
If I agree that you aren't stupid would that fix everything? The
question still nags whether you are a poor writer or perhaps were
attempting, consciously or otherwise, to connect a couple of coalescents >>>>> with a bible story, when there is no actual connection. And you now
refuse to respond on the subject. Which might lead one to speculate
whether going off in a huff is tactical.
No huffing here. I've simply learned from past experience that it's a
total waste of time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone
who prefers to try to divert discussion by misrepresenting what I said >>>> and getting into a semantic argument about my choice of words.
If I agree that you aren't stupid, would you be able to find it in your
heart to agree that I'm not trying to misrepresent you? What you said
was wrong. What you meant to say may not have been wrong, but there is
no way for me to know because I don't know what you meant to say. Still, >>> your attempts to clarify introduced irrelevancies; true ones, but not
helpful. And of course my more important remains, below.
QED
I could impugn your motives all
day, but what would it serve? And the same question applies to you.
So now, can we agree that the Adam and Eve story is not a case of
science being forced to agree with the bible?
True, isn't it?
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 21:55:51 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/01/2026 6:08 pm, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 11:28:23 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/01/2026 3:28 am, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 2 Jan 2026 23:06:02 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
[...]
If, say, 1000 years from now, after consistent and concerted scientific >>>>>> research over that time, there is a large majority scientific consensus >>>>>> that all postulated naturalistic explanations for each of the following >>>>>> had been excluded or shown be excessively improbable:
2. origin of the universe
3. fine tuning
4. origin of life
5. macroevolution
It seems to me the options are:
a. Keep looking for naturalistic explanations
b. Give up looking for naturalistic explanations
Borrowing from an old thread, back in the fifth century BCE,
Democritus proposed that matter consists of indestructible,
indivisible units called atoms. It took nearly two and a half
millennia before Dalton showed that it was a valid proposition. Why do >>>>> you think that 1000 years of what you see as failure is enough to
abandon the search?
My thought experiment is intended to demonstrate your point:
"There are issues on both sides of the fence there. Just as there are
Creationists and ID'ers who reject science where it seems to conflict
with their religious beliefs, there are scientists who dismiss ideas
just because they think those ideas might let religion in the door;
the authors of this book make a very strong case that the virulent
opposition to the Big Bang was largely driven by ideological
opposition to religious belief which is not a good way to do science."
How does suggesting we give up looking for naturalistic explanations
address that problem?
Not sure if you overlooked response options c and d below?
In listing options a-d I'm not endorsing any in particular, just laying
out the range of response possible.
Is that clear?
c. Consider supernatural explanations
d. Some combination of the above
There are plenty of people doing that. Only a few of them are
scientists because science is not a particularly useful way of trying >>>>> to figure God out.
[...]
Having finished "God, the Science, the Evidence", I've gone back to re-reading "Theology and Sanity" by Frank Sheed [1]. I've always liked
what he had to say about Mystery:
"Thus a Mystery is not to be thought of as simply darkness: it is a
tiny circle of light surrounded by darkness. It is for us so to use
our own powers and God's grace that the light will grow. It means
using the mind upon what reality may be made to tell us about God, and
upon what God, through His Church, has told us about Himself; it means praying for more knowledge, and using the knowledge one gains to
enrich one's prayer. Thus the circle of light grows; but it is always
ringed round with darkness: for however our capacity may increase, it
remains finite, and God remains Infinite. Indeed the more the light
grows, the more we see what His Infinity means, what His Immensity
is."
I think that whilst the surrounding darkness will always remain due to
the constraints we have as humans, science and philosophy and theology
all have a role to play in growing that circle of light. Discarding
any of them sells us short.
==============
[1] Sheed, F. J. Theology and Sanity. London: Sheed & Ward, 1947.
Possibly not to your taste as Sheed was raised as a Protestant but
became an unashamed Catholic apologist though most of what he covers
in this book applies to all mainstream Christian denominations.
On Fri, 9 Jan 2026 14:53:22 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/9/26 2:47 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jan 2026 14:12:49 -0800, John HarshmanNow you're just trying to be annoying. Well played, if so.
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/9/26 12:10 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:45:40 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/7/26 10:23 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jan 2026 18:17:07 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:06:52 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Perhaps I read it in a way you didn't intend, but you have to agree that
what you said encourages my interpretation.
Only if:
a) I am really stupid about this stuff.
b) You are convinced that I am really stupid.
I'll leave it to readers to decide for themselves which it is.
I hit 'Send' by mistake. I intended to include :
c) You know I'm not stupid but you want to try to make me look stupid. >>>>>>>
I'm fast coming to the conclusion that c) is the right answer.
If I agree that you aren't stupid would that fix everything? The
question still nags whether you are a poor writer or perhaps were
attempting, consciously or otherwise, to connect a couple of coalescents >>>>>> with a bible story, when there is no actual connection. And you now >>>>>> refuse to respond on the subject. Which might lead one to speculate >>>>>> whether going off in a huff is tactical.
No huffing here. I've simply learned from past experience that it's a >>>>> total waste of time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone >>>>> who prefers to try to divert discussion by misrepresenting what I said >>>>> and getting into a semantic argument about my choice of words.
If I agree that you aren't stupid, would you be able to find it in your >>>> heart to agree that I'm not trying to misrepresent you? What you said
was wrong. What you meant to say may not have been wrong, but there is >>>> no way for me to know because I don't know what you meant to say. Still, >>>> your attempts to clarify introduced irrelevancies; true ones, but not
helpful. And of course my more important remains, below.
QED
I could impugn your motives all
day, but what would it serve? And the same question applies to you. >>>>>>
So now, can we agree that the Adam and Eve story is not a case of
science being forced to agree with the bible?
True, isn't it?
Anyone can make a mistake although it is a bit less understandable
when the mistake has been corrected previously. I have explained my
point about Y-Adam and mt-Eve to you numerous times in various
discussions over the years. Here is just one example from 2023 in a
response to you and Lawyer Daggett:
"There are many candidates for Adam and Eve as a couple from whom we
are all descended. Mitochondrial Eve's parents are one such couple.
Her grandparents are another two such couples, her great-grandparents
4 such couples and so on. The same logic applies to Y-Chromosomal
Adam."
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/bN8VJCrupcg/m/5GwJXSwZAAAJ
Problems arise when the mistake is clearly pointed out but the person
making it refuses to admit it as you have tried to do here as shown
even in your weasel words to Jillery, where you make out that
"apparently" it was not what I meant.
*That* is what is annoying - your refusal to accept your mistake and
move on. Rather badly played.
On Fri, 9 Jan 2026 14:53:22 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/9/26 2:47 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jan 2026 14:12:49 -0800, John HarshmanNow you're just trying to be annoying. Well played, if so.
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/9/26 12:10 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:45:40 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/7/26 10:23 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jan 2026 18:17:07 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:06:52 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Perhaps I read it in a way you didn't intend, but you have to agree that
what you said encourages my interpretation.
Only if:
a) I am really stupid about this stuff.
b) You are convinced that I am really stupid.
I'll leave it to readers to decide for themselves which it is.
I hit 'Send' by mistake. I intended to include :
c) You know I'm not stupid but you want to try to make me look stupid. >>>>>>>
I'm fast coming to the conclusion that c) is the right answer.
If I agree that you aren't stupid would that fix everything? The
question still nags whether you are a poor writer or perhaps were
attempting, consciously or otherwise, to connect a couple of coalescents >>>>>> with a bible story, when there is no actual connection. And you now >>>>>> refuse to respond on the subject. Which might lead one to speculate >>>>>> whether going off in a huff is tactical.
No huffing here. I've simply learned from past experience that it's a >>>>> total waste of time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone >>>>> who prefers to try to divert discussion by misrepresenting what I said >>>>> and getting into a semantic argument about my choice of words.
If I agree that you aren't stupid, would you be able to find it in your >>>> heart to agree that I'm not trying to misrepresent you? What you said
was wrong. What you meant to say may not have been wrong, but there is >>>> no way for me to know because I don't know what you meant to say. Still, >>>> your attempts to clarify introduced irrelevancies; true ones, but not
helpful. And of course my more important remains, below.
QED
I could impugn your motives all
day, but what would it serve? And the same question applies to you. >>>>>>
So now, can we agree that the Adam and Eve story is not a case of
science being forced to agree with the bible?
True, isn't it?
Anyone can make a mistake although it is a bit less understandable
when the mistake has been corrected previously. I have explained my
point about Y-Adam and mt-Eve to you numerous times in various
discussions over the years. Here is just one example from 2023 in a
response to you and Lawyer Daggett:
"There are many candidates for Adam and Eve as a couple from whom we
are all descended. Mitochondrial Eve's parents are one such couple.
Her grandparents are another two such couples, her great-grandparents
4 such couples and so on. The same logic applies to Y-Chromosomal
Adam."
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/bN8VJCrupcg/m/5GwJXSwZAAAJ
Problems arise when the mistake is clearly pointed out but the person
making it refuses to admit it as you have tried to do here as shown
even in your weasel words to Jillery, where you make out that
"apparently" it was not what I meant.
*That* is what is annoying - your refusal to accept your mistake and
move on. Rather badly played.
On 2026-01-10 3:51 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jan 2026 14:53:22 -0800, John HarshmanYou do realize that the couples you are referring to are candidates for
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/9/26 2:47 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jan 2026 14:12:49 -0800, John HarshmanNow you're just trying to be annoying. Well played, if so.
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/9/26 12:10 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:45:40 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/7/26 10:23 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jan 2026 18:17:07 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:06:52 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
I hit 'Send' by mistake. I intended to include :Perhaps I read it in a way you didn't intend, but you have to >>>>>>>>>> agree that
what you said encourages my interpretation.
Only if:
a) I am really stupid about this stuff.
b) You are convinced that I am really stupid.
I'll leave it to readers to decide for themselves which it is. >>>>>>>>
c) You know I'm not stupid but you want to try to make me look >>>>>>>> stupid.
I'm fast coming to the conclusion that c) is the right answer.
If I agree that you aren't stupid would that fix everything? The >>>>>>> question still nags whether you are a poor writer or perhaps were >>>>>>> attempting, consciously or otherwise, to connect a couple of
coalescents
with a bible story, when there is no actual connection. And you now >>>>>>> refuse to respond on the subject. Which might lead one to speculate >>>>>>> whether going off in a huff is tactical.
No huffing here. I've simply learned from past experience that it's a >>>>>> total waste of time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone >>>>>> who prefers to try to divert discussion by misrepresenting what I >>>>>> said
and getting into a semantic argument about my choice of words.
If I agree that you aren't stupid, would you be able to find it in
your
heart to agree that I'm not trying to misrepresent you? What you said >>>>> was wrong. What you meant to say may not have been wrong, but there is >>>>> no way for me to know because I don't know what you meant to say.
Still,
your attempts to clarify introduced irrelevancies; true ones, but not >>>>> helpful. And of course my more important remains, below.
QED
I could impugn your motives all
day, but what would it serve? And the same question applies to you. >>>>>>>
So now, can we agree that the Adam and Eve story is not a case of >>>>>>> science being forced to agree with the bible?
True, isn't it?
Anyone can make a mistake although it is a bit less understandable
when the mistake has been corrected previously. I have explained my
point about Y-Adam and mt-Eve to you numerous times in various
discussions over the years. Here is just one example from 2023 in a
response to you and Lawyer Daggett:
"There are many candidates for Adam and Eve as a couple from whom we
are all descended. Mitochondrial Eve's parents are one such couple.
Her grandparents are another two such couples, her great-grandparents
4 such couples and so on. The same logic applies to Y-Chromosomal
Adam."
the common ancestor of all extant humans , not for all humans throughout time. There likely is no *human* couple who are a common ancestor for
*all* humans. So no biblical 'Adam and Eve'.
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/bN8VJCrupcg/m/5GwJXSwZAAAJ
Problems arise when the mistake is clearly pointed out but the person
making it refuses to admit it as you have tried to do here as shown
even in your weasel words to Jillery, where you make out that
"apparently" it was not what I meant.
*That* is what is annoying - your refusal to accept your mistake and
move on. Rather badly played.
On 1/10/26 9:07 AM, DB Cates wrote:
On 2026-01-10 3:51 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jan 2026 14:53:22 -0800, John HarshmanYou do realize that the couples you are referring to are candidates
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/9/26 2:47 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jan 2026 14:12:49 -0800, John HarshmanNow you're just trying to be annoying. Well played, if so.
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/9/26 12:10 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:45:40 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/7/26 10:23 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jan 2026 18:17:07 +0000, Martin HarranIf I agree that you aren't stupid would that fix everything? The >>>>>>>> question still nags whether you are a poor writer or perhaps were >>>>>>>> attempting, consciously or otherwise, to connect a couple of
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:06:52 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
I hit 'Send' by mistake. I intended to include :Perhaps I read it in a way you didn't intend, but you have to >>>>>>>>>>> agree that
what you said encourages my interpretation.
Only if:
a) I am really stupid about this stuff.
b) You are convinced that I am really stupid.
I'll leave it to readers to decide for themselves which it is. >>>>>>>>>
c) You know I'm not stupid but you want to try to make me look >>>>>>>>> stupid.
I'm fast coming to the conclusion that c) is the right answer. >>>>>>>>
coalescents
with a bible story, when there is no actual connection. And you now >>>>>>>> refuse to respond on the subject. Which might lead one to speculate >>>>>>>> whether going off in a huff is tactical.
No huffing here. I've simply learned from past experience that
it's a
total waste of time trying to have a sensible discussion with
someone
who prefers to try to divert discussion by misrepresenting what I >>>>>>> said
and getting into a semantic argument about my choice of words.
If I agree that you aren't stupid, would you be able to find it in >>>>>> your
heart to agree that I'm not trying to misrepresent you? What you said >>>>>> was wrong. What you meant to say may not have been wrong, but
there is
no way for me to know because I don't know what you meant to say. >>>>>> Still,
your attempts to clarify introduced irrelevancies; true ones, but not >>>>>> helpful. And of course my more important remains, below.
QED
I could impugn your motives all
day, but what would it serve? And the same question applies to you. >>>>>>>>
So now, can we agree that the Adam and Eve story is not a case of >>>>>>>> science being forced to agree with the bible?
True, isn't it?
Anyone can make a mistake although it is a bit less understandable
when the mistake has been corrected previously. I have explained my
point about Y-Adam and mt-Eve to you numerous times in various
discussions over the years. Here is just one example from 2023 in a
response to you and Lawyer Daggett:
"There are many candidates for Adam and Eve as a couple from whom we
are all descended. Mitochondrial Eve's parents are one such couple.
Her grandparents are another two such couples, her great-grandparents
4 such couples and so on. The same logic applies to Y-Chromosomal
Adam."
for the common ancestor of all extant humans , not for all humans
throughout time. There likely is no *human* couple who are a common
ancestor for *all* humans. So no biblical 'Adam and Eve'.
I would suggest that there are thousands of human couples who are a
common ancestor for all living humans. But I guess you mean all humans
ever, i.e. a created, founding pair.
point Martin is trying to make. What, if anything, would a putative Adam
and Eve, whether or not they were the only humans at the time, have to
do with Y-Adam or mt-Eve?
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/bN8VJCrupcg/m/5GwJXSwZAAAJ
Problems arise when the mistake is clearly pointed out but the person
making it refuses to admit it as you have tried to do here as shown
even in your weasel words to Jillery, where you make out that
"apparently" it was not what I meant.
*That* is what is annoying - your refusal to accept your mistake and
move on. Rather badly played.
On 1/10/26 1:51 AM, Martin Harran wrote:Instead of acknowledging his error and accepting your kid-gloves
On Fri, 9 Jan 2026 14:53:22 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/9/26 2:47 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jan 2026 14:12:49 -0800, John HarshmanNow you're just trying to be annoying. Well played, if so.
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/9/26 12:10 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:45:40 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/7/26 10:23 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jan 2026 18:17:07 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:06:52 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
I hit 'Send' by mistake. I intended to include :Perhaps I read it in a way you didn't intend, but you have to agree that
what you said encourages my interpretation.
Only if:
a) I am really stupid about this stuff.
b) You are convinced that I am really stupid.
I'll leave it to readers to decide for themselves which it is. >>>>>>>>
c) You know I'm not stupid but you want to try to make me look stupid. >>>>>>>>
I'm fast coming to the conclusion that c) is the right answer.
If I agree that you aren't stupid would that fix everything? The >>>>>>> question still nags whether you are a poor writer or perhaps were >>>>>>> attempting, consciously or otherwise, to connect a couple of coalescents
with a bible story, when there is no actual connection. And you now >>>>>>> refuse to respond on the subject. Which might lead one to speculate >>>>>>> whether going off in a huff is tactical.
No huffing here. I've simply learned from past experience that it's a >>>>>> total waste of time trying to have a sensible discussion with someone >>>>>> who prefers to try to divert discussion by misrepresenting what I said >>>>>> and getting into a semantic argument about my choice of words.
If I agree that you aren't stupid, would you be able to find it in your >>>>> heart to agree that I'm not trying to misrepresent you? What you said >>>>> was wrong. What you meant to say may not have been wrong, but there is >>>>> no way for me to know because I don't know what you meant to say. Still, >>>>> your attempts to clarify introduced irrelevancies; true ones, but not >>>>> helpful. And of course my more important remains, below.
QED
I could impugn your motives all
day, but what would it serve? And the same question applies to you. >>>>>>>
So now, can we agree that the Adam and Eve story is not a case of >>>>>>> science being forced to agree with the bible?
True, isn't it?
Anyone can make a mistake although it is a bit less understandable
when the mistake has been corrected previously. I have explained my
point about Y-Adam and mt-Eve to you numerous times in various
discussions over the years. Here is just one example from 2023 in a
response to you and Lawyer Daggett:
"There are many candidates for Adam and Eve as a couple from whom we
are all descended. Mitochondrial Eve's parents are one such couple.
Her grandparents are another two such couples, her great-grandparents
4 such couples and so on. The same logic applies to Y-Chromosomal
Adam."
This seems to be an exceedingly silly point, and I don't understand why
you would make it. And that's why I'm confused. What does this have to
do with Adam and Eve? We're all descended from a host of couples of
various times and places, most of whom have left us no genetic legacy at >all. So?
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/bN8VJCrupcg/m/5GwJXSwZAAAJ
Problems arise when the mistake is clearly pointed out but the person
making it refuses to admit it as you have tried to do here as shown
even in your weasel words to Jillery, where you make out that
"apparently" it was not what I meant.
I just couldn't believe you could have meant anything so trivial and >unconnected to what we were supposedly talking about, which is science >resisting but ultimately being forced to accept some biblical orIf there's any factual basis for his rants, it is whether Hebrews
religious claim.
*That* is what is annoying - your refusal to accept your mistake and
move on. Rather badly played.
OK, I accept my mistake. But what point were you trying to make? Still
don't get that.
On Wed, 31 Dec 2025 13:22:06 -0600, sticks <wolverine01@charter.net>
wrote:
[...]
I would suggest you get the book "God, the Science, the Evidence" by
Michel-Yves Bollore, Olivier Bonnassies. The first half of it he does
exactly what you would like to do with the same points. Very well done
and it is not a difficult read. For me, this book steeled the issues.
He uses research from atheists and agnostics often and then builds upon
it. I wish I could provide some quotes and more details, but I had a
full knee replacement two days ago and I'm suffering right now, sorry.
They also have a chapter with 100 quotes from some of the giants in the
fields saying the exact opposite of what Vincent Maycock does. They get
into a little bit of how materialists stop debate with tactics like
Maycock uses, and why that crap don't fly anymore.
In a funny coincidence, I am reading that book right now - I'm about
three quarters of the way through it. You say it's an easy read but I disagree; there is a lot of interesting stuff in the book but I am
actually finding parts of it quite tedious - too much repetition of
the same stuff, reminds me of a certainposter here:)
The book is divided roughly into two halves with the first half
focusing on science and what the authors see as the shortfalls there
are. They give a very detailed history of development of cosmology
over the centuries. I was not aware of how much opposition there was
from the scientific community in recent times towards the Big Bang as scientists totally opposed to any possibility of the universe having a
finite beginning. Thery similarly opposed the idea of an eventual "big crunch" as that too, in the opinion of the authors, meant a finite
universe with a beginning though I'm not entirely sure that that is a
valid argument. I was not aware how much both the Soviets under Lenin
and the Nazis went to such extreme lengths to eliminate any suggestion
of a finite universe, or that eliminating the concept played such a
major role in the Nazi oppression of scientists.
The authors draw out another good point from this; we hear much about
the rejection of science by religious believers but we rarely hear the
other side of that coin, just how much opposition there is among
scientists towards anything that might in the slightest way support
religious belief not on any scientific grounds but just in their
ideological belief that *everything* must have a materialist
explanation. Neither I nor the authors are suggesting that is the case
with *all* scientists but there is a lot more of it than I actually
realised.
The authors offer as a counterbalance to this a long list of
scientists (including a number of Nobel Laureates) who believe that
many of the things we have found in science do point towards some sort
of something beyond materialism though they are honest that most of
those scientists are reluctant to identify that 'something' as God.
They examine Einstein and Godel in detail and conclude that both of
them were inclined towards something that could be described as
religious but both rejected any form of organised religion.
The authors summarise the main arguments presented in this part of the
book as:
<quote P222>
A single valid proof is enough to disprove the hypothesis of a purely material Universe But cosmology allows us to establish two separate
proofs:
o The Universe had a beginning.
This we know, most notably from thermodynamics and the
Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem, which is based on Hawking and Penrose's
work on initial singularity.
o The laws of the Universe are very favorable to human life, and the
complex, minute fine-tuning of these physical laws is extremely
improbable, as demonstrated by the anthropic principle.
The two proofs are even stronger because they are totally independent
of one another. Firstly and fundamentally, the fact that the Universe
had a beginning and that its structure and laws are improbable are two distinct facts with no relation between them. Furthermore, their
results are not correlated because they were determined by independent methods. This double independence reinforces their value as proof,
because the falsity of one has no impact on the truth or falsity of
the other. This significantly lowers the probability that the two are simultaneously false.
</quote>
I don't have any issue with the logic regarding their first claim, it
is essentially the 'First Cause' argument that goes back to at least Aristotle and was taken up by Thomas Aquinas. I don't think
materialists have been able to put up any substantive argument against
this; all they seem to have to offer is that of infinite regression
which I do not regard as a valid argument - not least when scientists
accept an end to regression other areas. For example, keeping dividing
any piece of material into two is a form of potentially infinite
regression but scientists recognise that you get to a point where the
piece of material gets to the smallest possible size - the Planck
constant - and can be divided no further; i.e. the regression is not
infinite and has a starting point. I don't see dividing a piece of
material should be excluded from infinite regression but First Cause
should not.
Where I do have an issue is getting from that First Cause to the God I
and other Christians believe in - a personal God with whom we can
interact.
I also have serious issues with the second 'proof' which is
essentially the 'fine tuning' argument that has been hammered to death
so many times. To summarise yet again my own objections to it, firstly
the authors make the fundamental error of assuming that proving
materialism wrong proves theism right. No theory can be proved by
simply disproving an opposing theory, a theory can only be proved in
his own right, with its own supporting evidence.
The second thing I found wrong with it is that there is a big element
of the 'Texas Sharpshooter' fallacy in this - it makes the a priori assumption that life *as we know it* somehow had to come into
existence; they make no provision whatsoever for any other form of
life or any other set of physical laws coming into existence. Here
again, I also have trouble getting from a God fiddling about with
these fine constants to the personal God that I believe in. The
initial conditions that existed immediately after the Big Bang were
actually totally inhospitable to the development of life; no lifeform
we know today could have existed then. So why did God go about
creating human life in his image by starting with an environment where
there was absolutely no possibility of human life existing and leaving
those conditions continue for billions of years? Every creationist for
idea I have asked this question to has simply walked away from it; the
best they have to offer is that God works in mysterious ways and I
just don't find that an acceptable argument for the dismissal of
science.
I've just halfway through the second part of the book which is focused
on what we can learn from other sources, not just science. Perhaps it
will address the issues that I have just described but I'm not overly hopeful. Having said that, I glad to see someone putting work into
showing how religious belief in general and the Bible in particular
had many explanation that science initially disputed but ended up
having to agree with. The first of those is the universe having a
discrete beginning. Genesis may be wrong in the detail (more about
that in a moment) but nevertheless it does identify that discrete
beginning which science almost universally vehemently opposed well
into the 20th century.
The authors do a very good job of tackling those "errors" in Genesis;
they explain how claims about the errors are based on a false
representation of the Bible as a historical record. I knew that as far
back as the fifth century, Augustine was dismissing using the Bible as
an historical source but I didn't realise how much further back that actually went. To repeat one quote from the book:
"Now what man of intelligence will believe that the first and the
second and the third day, and the evening and the morning existed
without the sun and moon and stars? And that the first day, if we may
so call it, was even without a heaven? And who is so silly as to
believe that God, after the manner of a farmer, 'planted a paradise
eastward in Eden,' and set in it a visible and palpable 'tree of
life,' of such a sort that anyone who tasted its fruit with his bodily
teeth would gain life; and again that one could partake of 'good and
evil' by masticating the fruit taken from the tree of that name? And
when God is said to 'walk in the paradise in the cool of the day' and
Adam to hide himself behind a tree I do not think anyone will doubt
that these are figurative expressions which indicate certain mysteries through a semblance of history and not through actual events."
That was not written by some modern-day writer scoffing Genesis, it
was written around 230 AD by Origen, the most important theologian and biblical scholar of the early Greek church and identified as a Father
of the Christian Church. When he pointed out these things 1800 years
ago, it beats me how anyone can try to make an argument that it took
modern science to prove them wrong.
There is a lot more than that in the book but I am already at over
1500 words which is more than long enough! I'll simply sum up that I
don't think the book is convincing in all its arguments but, although
it is overly long in my opinion, it is an immense piece of work and definitely a worthwhile read.
Similar to what
Miller does in "Return of the God Hypothesis."
Similai in some ways but, despite the issues I have, it is a much
better book than Meyer's. (Correcting your typo about the name).
"God, the Science, the Evidence" I am certain you will find a worthwhile
read.
On Fri, 09 Jan 2026 09:56:37 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jan 2026 12:40:10 -0800, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jan 2026 13:20:57 +0000, Martin Harran >>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
Forgot to include this in my last reply:
Earlier in the book, they refer to Einstein's reaction anytime someone >>>>mentioned Lemaître's primeval atom: "No, not that, it too much of >>>>creation!"
In fairness to Einstein, after meeting Lemaitre and looking at his >>>>ideas in more detail, Einstein apologised for his earlier response
that ""Your calculations are correct, but your physics is abominable" >>>>and became one of Lemaître's earliest and most ardent supporters.
Cites for this?
I'm a bit surprised that you even ask this as it is covered in almost
every article about Lemaître and Einstein. Here's just one example:
https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/scientists_lemaitre.html
From the link:
"However, Lemaître's model of the universe received little notice
until it was publicized by the prominent English astronomer Arthur
Eddington, who described it as a "brilliant solution" to the
outstanding problems of cosmology, and arranged for Lemaître's theory
to be translated and reprinted in the "Monthly Notices of the Royal >Astronomical Society" in 1931."
That doesn't sound anti-God to me.
Also covered in the more detailed Wiki article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
Einstein went from describing Lemaître's physics as "abominable" in
1927 to co-sponsoring him for the highest Belgian scientific
distinction, the Francqui Prize, in 1934. Einstein and Lemaître
remained close friends for the rest of their lives.
So Einstein got rid of his fear of gods in only a few years? You
would have thought he would've dug his heels in deeper if he was that >anti-religion.
If you have doubts about such articles, you could look for André
Deprit's epitomal work "Monsignor Georges Lemaître" but you might find >>that or its English translation hard to track down.
[…]
was largely driven by ideological
opposition to religious belief which is not a good way to do science. >>>>>
John Polkinghorne uses the lovely analogy of kettle boiling on a stove >>>>>>and someone asks "Why is that kettle boiling?" The scientific answer >>>>>>is that the burning gas is creating heat which is conducted through >>>>>>the metal to the water inside the kettle and causes it also to heat. >>>>>>The non-scientific answer is that he is expecting a good friend to >>>>>>arrive shortly and wants to have a nice cup of tea ready for him.
Both answers relate to the same kettle and are both equally valid >>>>>>answers. In a similar way, I believe that religion and science are >>>>>>both seeking answers about the same things and one ruling out the >>>>>>other loses out.
How are "pot boiling because of heat" and "pot boiling for a friend" >>>>>the same thing?
They are both looking at the same kettle.
And how do scientists "lose out"
They lose out in learning who placed the kettle on the stove and why >>>>they did so. That may not be of direct impact on their work but it is >>>>part of human nature to know everything about everything which is what >>>>drives a lot of science. Even to be just mercenary about it, they
also need the support and encouragement of the people making the tea >>>>for funding and other resources to facilitate their work.
And how is religion a valid method of knowing? And why can't science >>>tell us about what you claim only religion can tell us?
Are you disagreeing that what can loosely be labelled as the
'supernatural' is beyond the capability of science? Better tell that
to the supporters of science here who insist that it is beyond
science.
I actually told you that a couple days ago. However, I also said that
this was only true if you wanted to keep up with the atheists
intellectually, not because supernaturalism is actually a part of
reality.
when they don't
include religion in their theories?
I did not say that scientists should *include* religion in their >>>>theories. I said they should not shut doors just because of a fear
that religion might sneak in through them
How does "not shutting doors" not equivalent to "not including them"?
Because shutting doors can close down or at least delay scientific >>progress. Do you disagree that initially trying to shut the door on
the 'Big Bang' discouraged further work for some time?
No, Hubble accumulated his data without fear of what theists might say
about it.
On 2026-01-10 3:51 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
"There are many candidates for Adam and Eve as a couple from whom weYou do realize that the couples you are referring to are candidates for
are all descended. Mitochondrial Eve's parents are one such couple.
Her grandparents are another two such couples, her great-grandparents
4 such couples and so on. The same logic applies to Y-Chromosomal
Adam."
the common ancestor of all extant humans , not for all humans throughout >time. There likely is no *human* couple who are a common ancestor for
*all* humans. So no biblical 'Adam and Eve'.
On 2026-01-10 11:34 a.m., John Harshman wrote:
But I really have no idea what
point Martin is trying to make. What, if anything, would a putative AdamBeats me.
and Eve, whether or not they were the only humans at the time, have to
do with Y-Adam or mt-Eve?
On Fri, 09 Jan 2026 13:18:53 -0800, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 09 Jan 2026 09:56:37 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jan 2026 12:40:10 -0800, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jan 2026 13:20:57 +0000, Martin Harran >>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
Forgot to include this in my last reply:
Earlier in the book, they refer to Einstein's reaction anytime someone >>>>>mentioned Lemaεtre's primeval atom: "No, not that, it too much of >>>>>creation!"
In fairness to Einstein, after meeting Lemaitre and looking at his >>>>>ideas in more detail, Einstein apologised for his earlier response >>>>>that ""Your calculations are correct, but your physics is abominable" >>>>>and became one of Lemaεtre's earliest and most ardent supporters.
Cites for this?
I'm a bit surprised that you even ask this as it is covered in almost >>>every article about Lemaεtre and Einstein. Here's just one example:
https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/scientists_lemaitre.html
From the link:
"However, Lemaεtre's model of the universe received little notice
until it was publicized by the prominent English astronomer Arthur >>Eddington, who described it as a "brilliant solution" to the
outstanding problems of cosmology, and arranged for Lemaεtre's theory
to be translated and reprinted in the "Monthly Notices of the Royal >>Astronomical Society" in 1931."
That doesn't sound anti-God to me.
It doesn't sound like Einstein to me :)
Leaving that aside, Eddington describing Lemaεtre's model as
brilliant and arranging it to be published related to Lemaεtre's
*first* theory, that of an expanding universe; Lemaεtre had published
that in 1927 but Eddington ignored it for 3 years until Lemaεtre wrote
and reminded him of it in 1930.
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/91/5/490/985169
Eddington's remark that "Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of
the present order of Nature is repugnant to me", is from an article in
Nature in March 1931 and is about the nature of time and the
possibility of a beginning to the universe; two months later, Lemaεtre >published his *second* theory, that of the 'primeval atom' in Nature, >referring directly to Eddington's "repugnant" comment.
What is not clear (at least to me) is whether Eddington was aware of >Lemaεtre's latest ideas when he made those remarks and was referring
directly to them or whether he just coincidentally dismissed the idea
of a beginning to the universe.
The articles are paywalled and not available to me; perhaps they are
to you:
Eddington (March 1931):
https://www.nature.com/articles/127447a0
Lemaεtre (may 1931)
https://www.nature.com/articles/127706b0
Also covered in the more detailed Wiki article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
Einstein went from describing Lemaεtre's physics as "abominable" in
1927 to co-sponsoring him for the highest Belgian scientific
distinction, the Francqui Prize, in 1934. Einstein and Lemaεtre
remained close friends for the rest of their lives.
So Einstein got rid of his fear of gods in only a few years? You
would have thought he would've dug his heels in deeper if he was that >>anti-religion.
Well he was a rather smart guy, probably smart enough to realise that
he couldn't ignore the evidence once he saw it was irrefutable. As I
sad earlier, evidence ultimately wins out; I guess some people take
less time than others.
If you have doubts about such articles, you could look for AndrΘ
Deprit's epitomal work "Monsignor Georges Lemaεtre" but you might find >>>that or its English translation hard to track down.
[à]
was largely driven by ideological
opposition to religious belief which is not a good way to do science. >>>>>>
John Polkinghorne uses the lovely analogy of kettle boiling on a stove >>>>>>>and someone asks "Why is that kettle boiling?" The scientific answer >>>>>>>is that the burning gas is creating heat which is conducted through >>>>>>>the metal to the water inside the kettle and causes it also to heat. >>>>>>>The non-scientific answer is that he is expecting a good friend to >>>>>>>arrive shortly and wants to have a nice cup of tea ready for him. >>>>>>>
Both answers relate to the same kettle and are both equally valid >>>>>>>answers. In a similar way, I believe that religion and science are >>>>>>>both seeking answers about the same things and one ruling out the >>>>>>>other loses out.
How are "pot boiling because of heat" and "pot boiling for a friend" >>>>>>the same thing?
They are both looking at the same kettle.
And how do scientists "lose out"
They lose out in learning who placed the kettle on the stove and why >>>>>they did so. That may not be of direct impact on their work but it is >>>>>part of human nature to know everything about everything which is what >>>>>drives a lot of science. Even to be just mercenary about it, they >>>>>also need the support and encouragement of the people making the tea >>>>>for funding and other resources to facilitate their work.
And how is religion a valid method of knowing? And why can't science >>>>tell us about what you claim only religion can tell us?
Are you disagreeing that what can loosely be labelled as the >>>'supernatural' is beyond the capability of science? Better tell that
to the supporters of science here who insist that it is beyond
science.
I actually told you that a couple days ago. However, I also said that
this was only true if you wanted to keep up with the atheists >>intellectually, not because supernaturalism is actually a part of
reality.
I disagree. Supernaturalism is either a part of reality or it's not;
that does not hang on whether or not it is accessible to science.
when they don't
include religion in their theories?
I did not say that scientists should *include* religion in their >>>>>theories. I said they should not shut doors just because of a fear >>>>>that religion might sneak in through them
How does "not shutting doors" not equivalent to "not including them"?
Because shutting doors can close down or at least delay scientific >>>progress. Do you disagree that initially trying to shut the door on
the 'Big Bang' discouraged further work for some time?
No, Hubble accumulated his data without fear of what theists might say >>about it.
I didn't say that *all* scientists abandoned the work but there was a
lot of opposition. Do I really ned to mention Fred Hoyle and the fact
that he scornfully created the term 'Big Bang' as late as 1949?
On Sat, 10 Jan 2026 11:07:19 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-01-10 3:51 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
[...]
"There are many candidates for Adam and Eve as a couple from whom weYou do realize that the couples you are referring to are candidates for
are all descended. Mitochondrial Eve's parents are one such couple.
Her grandparents are another two such couples, her great-grandparents
4 such couples and so on. The same logic applies to Y-Chromosomal
Adam."
the common ancestor of all extant humans , not for all humans throughout
time. There likely is no *human* couple who are a common ancestor for
*all* humans. So no biblical 'Adam and Eve'.
Yes, I do realise that. Now, do *you* realise that Y-Adam and mt-Eve
are moving targets and that if you go back in time, you come up with a different, earlier Y-Adam and mt-Eve relevant to the extant population
at that time?
If we go back roughly 3500 years to when Genesis is believed to have
been written, there would have been an Y-Adam and a mt-Eve for that
extant population. Or go back 10,000 years to cover the time when the
stories in Genesis were likely handed down orally and the same thing
applies.
[...]
On Sat, 10 Jan 2026 11:45:26 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-01-10 11:34 a.m., John Harshman wrote:
[...]
But I really have no idea what
point Martin is trying to make. What, if anything, would a putative Adam >>> and Eve, whether or not they were the only humans at the time, have toBeats me.
do with Y-Adam or mt-Eve?
There are two points.
The *immediate* one is that Harshman tried to make out that I was
claiming Y-Adam or mt-Eve are a couple. Although I told him that was
not the case several times in the past, I was prepared to put it down
to a memory lapse on his part but the more he has tried to wriggle out
of it, even after I clearly stated that it was not what I was saying,
the more it looks as if he was quite deliberate in what he claimed.
The *underlying* point is that Harshman and others have tried in the
past to scornfully dismiss Christian belief in humans being descended
from one couple but we are in fact descended from many such couples.
Whether or not any of those couples would qualify as the source of the Genesis Adam and Eve, is of course, a separate argument.
On 2026-01-11 11:29 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jan 2026 11:45:26 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-01-10 11:34 a.m., John Harshman wrote:
[...]
But I really have no idea what
point Martin is trying to make. What, if anything, would a putative Adam >>>> and Eve, whether or not they were the only humans at the time, have to >>>> do with Y-Adam or mt-Eve?Beats me.
There are two points.
The *immediate* one is that Harshman tried to make out that I was
claiming Y-Adam or mt-Eve are a couple. Although I told him that was
not the case several times in the past, I was prepared to put it down
to a memory lapse on his part but the more he has tried to wriggle out
of it, even after I clearly stated that it was not what I was saying,
the more it looks as if he was quite deliberate in what he claimed.
The context of this particular sub-thread was your claim that the >statistical existence of a 'mitochondrial Eve' and 'Y-chromosome Adam'
is an example of science being forced to agree with a Biblical claim.
You used the term 'couple' in your argument and the Biblical Eve and
Adam are unquestionably a 'couple, so one might think it was you who had
a 'memory lapse'.
Science never had a problem with there being innumerable common ancestor >couples for any extant population but never thought that there was a
unique couple; that would be the biblical view.
Is there a biblical interpretation that agrees that if you go back far >enough that the 'mitochondrial Eve' and 'Y-chromosome Adam' would not be >Homo sapiens sapiens?
The *underlying* point is that Harshman and others have tried in the
past to scornfully dismiss Christian belief in humans being descended
from one couple but we are in fact descended from many such couples.
Whether or not any of those couples would qualify as the source of the
Genesis Adam and Eve, is of course, a separate argument.
--
On Sun, 11 Jan 2026 20:38:55 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-01-11 11:29 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jan 2026 11:45:26 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-01-10 11:34 a.m., John Harshman wrote:
[...]
But I really have no idea what
point Martin is trying to make. What, if anything, would a putative Adam >>>>> and Eve, whether or not they were the only humans at the time, have to >>>>> do with Y-Adam or mt-Eve?Beats me.
There are two points.
The *immediate* one is that Harshman tried to make out that I was
claiming Y-Adam or mt-Eve are a couple. Although I told him that was
not the case several times in the past, I was prepared to put it down
to a memory lapse on his part but the more he has tried to wriggle out
of it, even after I clearly stated that it was not what I was saying,
the more it looks as if he was quite deliberate in what he claimed.
The context of this particular sub-thread was your claim that the
statistical existence of a 'mitochondrial Eve' and 'Y-chromosome Adam'
is an example of science being forced to agree with a Biblical claim.
I never said science was *forced* to do anything. Here is exactly what
I said:
"They refer to the Hebrew belief that mankind descended from a single
couple which has been confirmed by Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal
Adam."
It was Harshman who introduced "forced" as part of his silly game
playing.
You used the term 'couple' in your argument and the Biblical Eve and
Adam are unquestionably a 'couple, so one might think it was you who had
a 'memory lapse'.
Science never had a problem with there being innumerable common ancestor
couples for any extant population but never thought that there was a
unique couple; that would be the biblical view.
Is there a biblical interpretation that agrees that if you go back far
The *underlying* point is that Harshman and others have tried in the
past to scornfully dismiss Christian belief in humans being descended
from one couple but we are in fact descended from many such couples.
Whether or not any of those couples would qualify as the source of the
Genesis Adam and Eve, is of course, a separate argument.
enough that the 'mitochondrial Eve' and 'Y-chromosome Adam' would not be
Homo sapiens sapiens?
--
On Sat, 10 Jan 2026 11:45:26 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-01-10 11:34 a.m., John Harshman wrote:
[...]
But I really have no idea what
point Martin is trying to make. What, if anything, would a putative Adam >>> and Eve, whether or not they were the only humans at the time, have toBeats me.
do with Y-Adam or mt-Eve?
There are two points.
The *immediate* one is that Harshman tried to make out that I was
claiming Y-Adam or mt-Eve are a couple. Although I told him that was
not the case several times in the past, I was prepared to put it down
to a memory lapse on his part but the more he has tried to wriggle out
of it, even after I clearly stated that it was not what I was saying,
the more it looks as if he was quite deliberate in what he claimed.
The *underlying* point is that Harshman and others have tried in the
past to scornfully dismiss Christian belief in humans being descended
from one couple but we are in fact descended from many such couples.
Whether or not any of those couples would qualify as the source of the Genesis Adam and Eve, is of course, a separate argument.
On Sun, 11 Jan 2026 20:38:55 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-01-11 11:29 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jan 2026 11:45:26 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-01-10 11:34 a.m., John Harshman wrote:
[...]
But I really have no idea what
point Martin is trying to make. What, if anything, would a putative Adam >>>>> and Eve, whether or not they were the only humans at the time, have to >>>>> do with Y-Adam or mt-Eve?Beats me.
There are two points.
The *immediate* one is that Harshman tried to make out that I was
claiming Y-Adam or mt-Eve are a couple. Although I told him that was
not the case several times in the past, I was prepared to put it down
to a memory lapse on his part but the more he has tried to wriggle out
of it, even after I clearly stated that it was not what I was saying,
the more it looks as if he was quite deliberate in what he claimed.
The context of this particular sub-thread was your claim that the
statistical existence of a 'mitochondrial Eve' and 'Y-chromosome Adam'
is an example of science being forced to agree with a Biblical claim.
I never said science was *forced* to do anything. Here is exactly what
I said:
"They refer to the Hebrew belief that mankind descended from a single
couple which has been confirmed by Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal
Adam."
It was Harshman who introduced "forced" as part of his silly game
playing.
You used the term 'couple' in your argument and the Biblical Eve and
Adam are unquestionably a 'couple, so one might think it was you who had
a 'memory lapse'.
Science never had a problem with there being innumerable common ancestor
couples for any extant population but never thought that there was a
unique couple; that would be the biblical view.
Is there a biblical interpretation that agrees that if you go back far
The *underlying* point is that Harshman and others have tried in the
past to scornfully dismiss Christian belief in humans being descended
from one couple but we are in fact descended from many such couples.
Whether or not any of those couples would qualify as the source of the
Genesis Adam and Eve, is of course, a separate argument.
enough that the 'mitochondrial Eve' and 'Y-chromosome Adam' would not be
Homo sapiens sapiens?
--
On Sun, 11 Jan 2026 17:05:30 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 09 Jan 2026 13:18:53 -0800, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 09 Jan 2026 09:56:37 +0000, Martin Harran >>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jan 2026 12:40:10 -0800, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jan 2026 13:20:57 +0000, Martin Harran >>>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
Forgot to include this in my last reply:
Earlier in the book, they refer to Einstein's reaction anytime someone >>>>>>mentioned Lemaître's primeval atom: "No, not that, it too much of >>>>>>creation!"
In fairness to Einstein, after meeting Lemaitre and looking at his >>>>>>ideas in more detail, Einstein apologised for his earlier response >>>>>>that ""Your calculations are correct, but your physics is abominable" >>>>>>and became one of Lemaître's earliest and most ardent supporters.
Cites for this?
I'm a bit surprised that you even ask this as it is covered in almost >>>>every article about Lemaître and Einstein. Here's just one example:
https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/scientists_lemaitre.html
From the link:
"However, Lemaître's model of the universe received little notice
until it was publicized by the prominent English astronomer Arthur >>>Eddington, who described it as a "brilliant solution" to the
outstanding problems of cosmology, and arranged for Lemaître's theory
to be translated and reprinted in the "Monthly Notices of the Royal >>>Astronomical Society" in 1931."
That doesn't sound anti-God to me.
It doesn't sound like Einstein to me :)
It shouldn't, considering that Einstein never said it.
Leaving that aside, Eddington describing Lemaître's model as
brilliant and arranging it to be published related to Lemaître's
*first* theory, that of an expanding universe; Lemaître had published
that in 1927 but Eddington ignored it for 3 years until Lemaître wrote
and reminded him of it in 1930.
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/91/5/490/985169
Are there any other disciplines that you believe irreligiosity has
held science back in? And be careful about doing pseudo-history,
where your notions about religion play a larger role than they
actually did.
Eddington's remark that "Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of
the present order of Nature is repugnant to me", is from an article in >>Nature in March 1931 and is about the nature of time and the
possibility of a beginning to the universe; two months later, Lemaître >>published his *second* theory, that of the 'primeval atom' in Nature, >>referring directly to Eddington's "repugnant" comment.
Trying to tease all that out is probably pseudo-history. Maybe
Eddington later loved Lemaître's model so much simply because the
latter had studied under the former, and Eddington took some of the
credit based on that.
What is not clear (at least to me) is whether Eddington was aware of >>Lemaître's latest ideas when he made those remarks and was referring >>directly to them or whether he just coincidentally dismissed the idea
of a beginning to the universe.
The articles are paywalled and not available to me; perhaps they are
to you:
Eddington (March 1931):
https://www.nature.com/articles/127447a0
Lemaître (may 1931)
https://www.nature.com/articles/127706b0
They're paywalled for me as well. In any case, what do you suppose
Eddington and Einstein were referring to when they described the
expansion of the universe and/or its beginning were "repugnant" or >"abominable"? What conclusions did they expect their readers were
supposed to draw from them when they used those terms?
Also covered in the more detailed Wiki article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
Einstein went from describing Lemaître's physics as "abominable" in >>>>1927 to co-sponsoring him for the highest Belgian scientific >>>>distinction, the Francqui Prize, in 1934. Einstein and Lemaître >>>>remained close friends for the rest of their lives.
So Einstein got rid of his fear of gods in only a few years? You
would have thought he would've dug his heels in deeper if he was that >>>anti-religion.
Well he was a rather smart guy, probably smart enough to realise that
he couldn't ignore the evidence once he saw it was irrefutable. As I
sad earlier, evidence ultimately wins out; I guess some people take
less time than others.
"Irrefutable" is something that happened later, perhaps as late as the >discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation. Don't you
think it's kind of odd that scientists like Einstein and Eddington
seemed kind of pleased when they accepted the idea of the expanding
universe, though? One would think they would've been upset when that
was confirmed, if they were on the run from God, as you seem to
believe they were?
If you have doubts about such articles, you could look for André >>>>Deprit's epitomal work "Monsignor Georges Lemaître" but you might find >>>>that or its English translation hard to track down.
[…]
was largely driven by ideological
opposition to religious belief which is not a good way to do science. >>>>>>>
John Polkinghorne uses the lovely analogy of kettle boiling on a stove >>>>>>>>and someone asks "Why is that kettle boiling?" The scientific answer >>>>>>>>is that the burning gas is creating heat which is conducted through >>>>>>>>the metal to the water inside the kettle and causes it also to heat. >>>>>>>>The non-scientific answer is that he is expecting a good friend to >>>>>>>>arrive shortly and wants to have a nice cup of tea ready for him. >>>>>>>>
Both answers relate to the same kettle and are both equally valid >>>>>>>>answers. In a similar way, I believe that religion and science are >>>>>>>>both seeking answers about the same things and one ruling out the >>>>>>>>other loses out.
How are "pot boiling because of heat" and "pot boiling for a friend" >>>>>>>the same thing?
They are both looking at the same kettle.
And how do scientists "lose out"
They lose out in learning who placed the kettle on the stove and why >>>>>>they did so. That may not be of direct impact on their work but it is >>>>>>part of human nature to know everything about everything which is what >>>>>>drives a lot of science. Even to be just mercenary about it, they >>>>>>also need the support and encouragement of the people making the tea >>>>>>for funding and other resources to facilitate their work.
And how is religion a valid method of knowing? And why can't science >>>>>tell us about what you claim only religion can tell us?
Are you disagreeing that what can loosely be labelled as the >>>>'supernatural' is beyond the capability of science? Better tell that
to the supporters of science here who insist that it is beyond
science.
I actually told you that a couple days ago. However, I also said that >>>this was only true if you wanted to keep up with the atheists >>>intellectually, not because supernaturalism is actually a part of >>>reality.
I disagree. Supernaturalism is either a part of reality or it's not;
that does not hang on whether or not it is accessible to science.
I would choose not. How do you defend your belief that it is?
when they don't
include religion in their theories?
I did not say that scientists should *include* religion in their >>>>>>theories. I said they should not shut doors just because of a fear >>>>>>that religion might sneak in through them
How does "not shutting doors" not equivalent to "not including them"?
Because shutting doors can close down or at least delay scientific >>>>progress. Do you disagree that initially trying to shut the door on
the 'Big Bang' discouraged further work for some time?
No, Hubble accumulated his data without fear of what theists might say >>>about it.
I didn't say that *all* scientists abandoned the work but there was a
lot of opposition. Do I really ned to mention Fred Hoyle and the fact
that he scornfully created the term 'Big Bang' as late as 1949?
You were claiming that ignoring religion held science back regarding
the origin of the universe; I was saying that Hubble's work on
receding galaxies was done unfettered by a disbelief in the
theological implications, as it were, of his research.
On 1/11/26 9:29 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jan 2026 11:45:26 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-01-10 11:34 a.m., John Harshman wrote:
[...]
But I really have no idea what
point Martin is trying to make. What, if anything, would a putative Adam >>>> and Eve, whether or not they were the only humans at the time, have to >>>> do with Y-Adam or mt-Eve?Beats me.
There are two points.
The *immediate* one is that Harshman tried to make out that I was
claiming Y-Adam or mt-Eve are a couple. Although I told him that was
not the case several times in the past, I was prepared to put it down
to a memory lapse on his part but the more he has tried to wriggle out
of it, even after I clearly stated that it was not what I was saying,
the more it looks as if he was quite deliberate in what he claimed.
The *underlying* point is that Harshman and others have tried in the
past to scornfully dismiss Christian belief in humans being descended
from one couple but we are in fact descended from many such couples.
You understand that "one couple" is quite different from "many such >couples", right? I would never scornfully dismiss the latter, and I
suspect we would both scornfully dismiss the former.
The question remains why you brought up Y-Adam and mt-Eve in the first >place. Are you unwilling to say?
Whether or not any of those couples would qualify as the source of the
Genesis Adam and Eve, is of course, a separate argument.
Yes, and an argument I have never attempted with you. Incidentally, are
you familiar with the genealogical Adam and Eve hypothesis?
On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 17:34:38 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/11/26 9:29 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jan 2026 11:45:26 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-01-10 11:34 a.m., John Harshman wrote:
[...]
But I really have no idea what
point Martin is trying to make. What, if anything, would a putative Adam >>>>> and Eve, whether or not they were the only humans at the time, have to >>>>> do with Y-Adam or mt-Eve?Beats me.
There are two points.
The *immediate* one is that Harshman tried to make out that I was
claiming Y-Adam or mt-Eve are a couple. Although I told him that was
not the case several times in the past, I was prepared to put it down
to a memory lapse on his part but the more he has tried to wriggle out
of it, even after I clearly stated that it was not what I was saying,
the more it looks as if he was quite deliberate in what he claimed.
The *underlying* point is that Harshman and others have tried in the
past to scornfully dismiss Christian belief in humans being descended
from one couple but we are in fact descended from many such couples.
You understand that "one couple" is quite different from "many such
couples", right? I would never scornfully dismiss the latter, and I
suspect we would both scornfully dismiss the former.
The question remains why you brought up Y-Adam and mt-Eve in the first
place. Are you unwilling to say?
Err ... it was because you asked me for examples from the book and
that was just one of them.
Senior moment?
Whether or not any of those couples would qualify as the source of the
Genesis Adam and Eve, is of course, a separate argument.
Yes, and an argument I have never attempted with you. Incidentally, are
you familiar with the genealogical Adam and Eve hypothesis?
On 1/13/26 6:30 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 17:34:38 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/11/26 9:29 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jan 2026 11:45:26 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-01-10 11:34 a.m., John Harshman wrote:
[...]
But I really have no idea what
point Martin is trying to make. What, if anything, would aBeats me.
putative Adam
and Eve, whether or not they were the only humans at the time,
have to
do with Y-Adam or mt-Eve?
There are two points.
The *immediate* one is that Harshman tried to make out that I was
claiming Y-Adam or mt-Eve are a couple. Although I told him that was
not the case several times in the past, I was prepared to put it down
to a memory lapse on his part but the more he has tried to wriggle out >>>> of it, even after I clearly stated that it was not what I was saying,
the more it looks as if he was quite deliberate in what he claimed.
The *underlying* point is that Harshman and others have tried in the
past to scornfully dismiss Christian belief in humans being descended
from one couple but we are in fact descended from many such couples.
You understand that "one couple" is quite different from "many such
couples", right? I would never scornfully dismiss the latter, and I
suspect we would both scornfully dismiss the former.
The question remains why you brought up Y-Adam and mt-Eve in the first
place. Are you unwilling to say?
Err ... it was because you asked me for examples from the book and
that was just one of them.
Senior moment?
I didn't ask for examples from the book. I asked for examples. But I see
how you could have construed it that way. Can we agree that that example from the book is bogus? Are there in fact any true examples, from the
book or otherwise, of scientists first resisting and then coming to
accept a biblical or religious claim? Arguably the big bang is one, but
are there any others. I suppose that if archaeologists are scientists,
the existence of the Hittite Empire might be another. But are there more?
And does the book have any more invalid claims of such cases, other than Adam and Eve?
Whether or not any of those couples would qualify as the source of the >>>> Genesis Adam and Eve, is of course, a separate argument.
Yes, and an argument I have never attempted with you. Incidentally, are
you familiar with the genealogical Adam and Eve hypothesis?
On Sun, 11 Jan 2026 12:56:11 -0800, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jan 2026 17:05:30 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 09 Jan 2026 13:18:53 -0800, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 09 Jan 2026 09:56:37 +0000, Martin Harran >>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jan 2026 12:40:10 -0800, Vincent Maycock >>>>><maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jan 2026 13:20:57 +0000, Martin Harran >>>>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
Forgot to include this in my last reply:
Earlier in the book, they refer to Einstein's reaction anytime someone >>>>>>>mentioned Lemaεtre's primeval atom: "No, not that, it too much of >>>>>>>creation!"Cites for this?
In fairness to Einstein, after meeting Lemaitre and looking at his >>>>>>>ideas in more detail, Einstein apologised for his earlier response >>>>>>>that ""Your calculations are correct, but your physics is abominable" >>>>>>>and became one of Lemaεtre's earliest and most ardent supporters. >>>>>>
I'm a bit surprised that you even ask this as it is covered in almost >>>>>every article about Lemaεtre and Einstein. Here's just one example:
https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/scientists_lemaitre.html
From the link:
"However, Lemaεtre's model of the universe received little notice
until it was publicized by the prominent English astronomer Arthur >>>>Eddington, who described it as a "brilliant solution" to the >>>>outstanding problems of cosmology, and arranged for Lemaεtre's theory >>>>to be translated and reprinted in the "Monthly Notices of the Royal >>>>Astronomical Society" in 1931."
That doesn't sound anti-God to me.
It doesn't sound like Einstein to me :)
It shouldn't, considering that Einstein never said it.
Did you not notice the smilie? I was just yanking your chain a bit
because you quoted Eddington in a response about Einstein.
As for the rest below, I think we will keep going around in circles
once we start talking about "pseudo-history" and speculating about
what individual scientists might and might not have thought.
To pull out one point that I think maybe hits the heart of it, you ask me how >I defend my belief that the supernatural is a reality but the fact
that it is a *belief* means that it cannot be defended with any hard >evidence,
it is really just the result of my life experience, what I
have read, the people who I have found most persuasive in their
arguments, the conclusions I have come to.
That of course, cuts both
ways - your dismissal of the supernatural is also a *belief* based
largely on your own experience.
The same principle applies, for example, to debating how strong
anti-religion is among scientists; I can keep pulling out examples one
way, you can pull them out another way but it is never going to be
really conclusive either way.
On 2026-01-12 11:16 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jan 2026 20:38:55 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-01-11 11:29 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jan 2026 11:45:26 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-01-10 11:34 a.m., John Harshman wrote:
[...]
But I really have no idea what
point Martin is trying to make. What, if anything, would a putative Adam >>>>>> and Eve, whether or not they were the only humans at the time, have to >>>>>> do with Y-Adam or mt-Eve?Beats me.
There are two points.
The *immediate* one is that Harshman tried to make out that I was
claiming Y-Adam or mt-Eve are a couple. Although I told him that was
not the case several times in the past, I was prepared to put it down
to a memory lapse on his part but the more he has tried to wriggle out >>>> of it, even after I clearly stated that it was not what I was saying,
the more it looks as if he was quite deliberate in what he claimed.
The context of this particular sub-thread was your claim that the
statistical existence of a 'mitochondrial Eve' and 'Y-chromosome Adam'
is an example of science being forced to agree with a Biblical claim.
I never said science was *forced* to do anything. Here is exactly what
I said:
Sorry, I shouldn't have used the term 'forced'. Replace 'forced' with >'confirmed' in my comments. That doesn't change my opinion of its import.
"They refer to the Hebrew belief that mankind descended from a single
couple which has been confirmed by Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal
Adam."
Wow, I had forgotten that you used the term 'single couple' (Biblical).
That is hard to square with the 'one of a multitude of couples that
varies with the base time.' (science). Really not nearly the same thing.
Science: Any given population has multiple members in earlier
populations that are *direct* ancestors of every member of its
population and some that aren't. If you trace ancestorship (word?)
strictly though mitochondria you would find the most recent common
ancestor guaranteed to be female; similarly tracing ancestorship though
the Y-chromosome guarantees a male most recent common ancestor. They are >almost certainly NOT the most recent male and female ancestors. Those
would be somewhere among the common ancestors whose females had all male >offspring and males who had all female offspring.
I don't see how that possibly confirms the Biblical view.
On 2026-01-11 11:29 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
The *underlying* point is that Harshman and others have tried in theIs there a biblical interpretation that agrees that if you go back far >enough that the 'mitochondrial Eve' and 'Y-chromosome Adam' would not be >Homo sapiens sapiens?
past to scornfully dismiss Christian belief in humans being descended
from one couple but we are in fact descended from many such couples.
Whether or not any of those couples would qualify as the source of the
Genesis Adam and Eve, is of course, a separate argument.
On 1/13/26 6:30 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
The question remains why you brought up Y-Adam and mt-Eve in the first
place. Are you unwilling to say?
Err ... it was because you asked me for examples from the book and
that was just one of them.
Senior moment?
I didn't ask for examples from the book. I asked for examples. But I see
how you could have construed it that way.
Can we agree that that example
from the book is bogus?
Are there in fact any true examples, from the
book or otherwise, of scientists first resisting and then coming to
accept a biblical or religious claim? Arguably the big bang is one, but
are there any others. I suppose that if archaeologists are scientists,
the existence of the Hittite Empire might be another. But are there more?
And does the book have any more invalid claims of such cases, other than >Adam and Eve?
On Tue, 13 Jan 2026 14:24:10 +0000, Martin Harran
To pull out one point that I think maybe hits the heart of it, you ask me how >>I defend my belief that the supernatural is a reality but the fact
that it is a *belief* means that it cannot be defended with any hard >>evidence,
What do you mean by "hard evidence"? Are you restricting this evidence
to what the "hard sciences" rely on?
In any case, a "belief" requires
*some* evidence, don't you think"? For example, we have:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belief
"Conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some
being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence"
it is really just the result of my life experience, what I
have read, the people who I have found most persuasive in their
arguments, the conclusions I have come to.
Could you be a bit more specific?
That of course, cuts both
ways - your dismissal of the supernatural is also a *belief* based
largely on your own experience.
And on other people's experiences. It's up there with my "belief"
that the Jolly Green Giant isn't out there laughing "Ho, ho, ho!"
The same principle applies, for example, to debating how strong >>anti-religion is among scientists; I can keep pulling out examples one
way, you can pull them out another way but it is never going to be
really conclusive either way.
Or we could refer to the results of the social sciences:
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/
"Nearly half of all scientists in the 2009 Pew Research Center poll
(48%) say they have no religious affiliation (meaning they describe >themselves as atheist, agnostic or nothing in particular), compared
with only 17% of the public."
<snip>
it is really just the result of my life experience, what I
have read, the people who I have found most persuasive in their
arguments, the conclusions I have come to.
Could you be a bit more specific?
On Sun, 11 Jan 2026 20:38:55 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-01-11 11:29 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
[snip for focus]
The *underlying* point is that Harshman and others have tried in theIs there a biblical interpretation that agrees that if you go back far
past to scornfully dismiss Christian belief in humans being descended
from one couple but we are in fact descended from many such couples.
Whether or not any of those couples would qualify as the source of the
Genesis Adam and Eve, is of course, a separate argument.
enough that the 'mitochondrial Eve' and 'Y-chromosome Adam' would not be
Homo sapiens sapiens?
I meant to respond to this earlier. I don't think "agrees" is the
right word because it's not an area that Biblical exegesis really goes
into, but Catholic doctrine certainly has no problem with it.
First of all, the Bible agrees with science that humans originated
from inanimate material - "the dust of the earth" - so I can't see why
there would be an issue with some in-between species.
Catholic doctrine, however, does go a bit further than that. It's
position on evolution was first definitively spelled out in Pope Pius
XII's encyclical of 1950, "Humani generis". The first part of his
encyclical makes clear that while the Church at that time had no
opinion on the conclusiveness of the Theory of Evolution, the Church
had no theological objection to it and Catholics were free to make up
their own mind.
He then goes on to clarify the Church's position regarding Adam:
"For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that
either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not
take their origin through natural generation from him as from the
first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents." [1]
Note the qualification -*true* men. In Catholic theology, "true" man
[2] means man capable of recognising God. That goes right back to
Aquinas in the 13th century who developed the theology that all living organisms have a 'soul' of some kind but man is the only species with
a soul that has the capability of becoming fully aware of God.
The Pope using that qualification is an implicit recognition that at
the time of Adam, let alone before him, there were other humans who
did not have that capability.
[1] https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html
[2] Apologies to the purists and those of a PC inclination, I of
course mean 'human' but I'm simply sticking with the original language
for the purpose of discussion.
On 2026-01-15 3:15 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jan 2026 20:38:55 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>All this sounds more like church doctrine changing to confirm science
wrote:
On 2026-01-11 11:29 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
[snip for focus]
The *underlying* point is that Harshman and others have tried in theIs there a biblical interpretation that agrees that if you go back far
past to scornfully dismiss Christian belief in humans being descended
from one couple but we are in fact descended from many such couples.
Whether or not any of those couples would qualify as the source of the >>>> Genesis Adam and Eve, is of course, a separate argument.
enough that the 'mitochondrial Eve' and 'Y-chromosome Adam' would not be >>> Homo sapiens sapiens?
I meant to respond to this earlier. I don't think "agrees" is the
right word because it's not an area that Biblical exegesis really goes
into, but Catholic doctrine certainly has no problem with it.
First of all, the Bible agrees with science that humans originated
from inanimate material - "the dust of the earth" - so I can't see why
there would be an issue with some in-between species.
Catholic doctrine, however, does go a bit further than that. It's
position on evolution was first definitively spelled out in Pope Pius
XII's encyclical of 1950, "Humani generis". The first part of his
encyclical makes clear that while the Church at that time had no
opinion on the conclusiveness of the Theory of Evolution, the Church
had no theological objection to it and Catholics were free to make up
their own mind.
He then goes on to clarify the Church's position regarding Adam:
"For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that
either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not
take their origin through natural generation from him as from the
first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first
parents." [1]
Note the qualification -*true* men. In Catholic theology, "true" man
[2] means man capable of recognising God. That goes right back to
Aquinas in the 13th century who developed the theology that all living
organisms have a 'soul' of some kind but man is the only species with
a soul that has the capability of becoming fully aware of God.
The Pope using that qualification is an implicit recognition that at
the time of Adam, let alone before him, there were other humans who
did not have that capability.
[1]
https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html
[2] Apologies to the purists and those of a PC inclination, I of
course mean 'human' but I'm simply sticking with the original language
for the purpose of discussion.
rather than the other way around.
--
On Tue, 13 Jan 2026 12:09:51 -0800, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2026 14:24:10 +0000, Martin Harran
[à]
To pull out one point that I think maybe hits the heart of it, you ask me how
I defend my belief that the supernatural is a reality but the fact
that it is a *belief* means that it cannot be defended with any hard >>>evidence,
What do you mean by "hard evidence"? Are you restricting this evidence
to what the "hard sciences" rely on?
I mean evidence that can be tested or assessed in some physical way
like scientific evidense
In any case, a "belief" requires
*some* evidence, don't you think"? For example, we have:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belief
"Conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some
being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence"
I wrote earlier in this thread about how *circumstantial* evidence is >assessed; I don't really want to repeat it here, if you want to read
it again it is in a reply to Harshman back on 5th:
Message-ID: <1rnnlk55g7jv1jb1upo91i83veq4u9cht4@4ax.com>
it is really just the result of my life experience, what I
have read, the people who I have found most persuasive in their >>>arguments, the conclusions I have come to.
Could you be a bit more specific?
That of course, cuts both
ways - your dismissal of the supernatural is also a *belief* based >>>largely on your own experience.
And on other people's experiences. It's up there with my "belief"
that the Jolly Green Giant isn't out there laughing "Ho, ho, ho!"
You ask me to be specific.
Before making my mind up about the validity or otherwise of any
subject, I like to research it and understand what claims are actually
being made. To take one aspect - the acceptance of the validity of the
Theory of Evolution - I got interested in this about 20 years ago
came to with no prior knowledge. I have read extensively about it and,
to pick out just two examples of people who have had a major influence
on my conclusions, Dawkins with his original 'Selfish Gene', Coyne
with his 'Why Evolution is True '.
On the other side of the coin (no pun intended), as part of my own
study of science versus religion, I have read both Dawkins and Coyne's
books on why religious beliefs is a load of bunkum, and I thought both
books were totally unconvincing.
Or take Intelligent Design which I have regularly dismissed here,
again I did my homework reading people like Denyse O'Leary and Stephen
Meyer and again found their arguments totally unconvincing.
So let me kick that back to you. What books or other writings arguing
for religious belief have you studied to reach the conclusion that
religious belief is a load of bunkum?
The same principle applies, for example, to debating how strong >>>anti-religion is among scientists; I can keep pulling out examples one >>>way, you can pull them out another way but it is never going to be
really conclusive either way.
Or we could refer to the results of the social sciences:
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/
"Nearly half of all scientists in the 2009 Pew Research Center poll
(48%) say they have no religious affiliation (meaning they describe >>themselves as atheist, agnostic or nothing in particular), compared
with only 17% of the public."
Again, that and related subjects is covered in some detail in the book
we have been discussing. I don't feel the urge to post yet more
lengthy extracts from it but regarding that particular study, they
make the important point that we have to be careful about confusing >correlation with causation. They suggest that, for example, increasing >affluence could be a factor just as much if not more than scientific >knowledge. Funny enough, I have used that same argument previously in
this newsgroup; as the authors point out, there doesn't seem to be any >research into the effect of affluence on religious belief but I have
long felt that it is probably a major contributor, not just in science
but in society generally nowadays. There was a guy 2000 years ago who
talked about the difficulty for rich people getting into heaven :)
On Tue, 13 Jan 2026 12:09:51 -0800, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
[,,,]
it is really just the result of my life experience, what I
have read, the people who I have found most persuasive in their >>>arguments, the conclusions I have come to.
Could you be a bit more specific?
In a moment of pure serendipty, I've just received a religious
'Thoughy for the Day' newsletter titled "Faith comes from encounter,
not hearsay"
On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 10:21:16 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-01-15 3:15 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jan 2026 20:38:55 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>All this sounds more like church doctrine changing to confirm science
wrote:
On 2026-01-11 11:29 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
[snip for focus]
The *underlying* point is that Harshman and others have tried in the >>>>> past to scornfully dismiss Christian belief in humans being descended >>>>> from one couple but we are in fact descended from many such couples. >>>>>Is there a biblical interpretation that agrees that if you go back far >>>> enough that the 'mitochondrial Eve' and 'Y-chromosome Adam' would not be >>>> Homo sapiens sapiens?
Whether or not any of those couples would qualify as the source of the >>>>> Genesis Adam and Eve, is of course, a separate argument.
I meant to respond to this earlier. I don't think "agrees" is the
right word because it's not an area that Biblical exegesis really goes
into, but Catholic doctrine certainly has no problem with it.
First of all, the Bible agrees with science that humans originated
from inanimate material - "the dust of the earth" - so I can't see why
there would be an issue with some in-between species.
Catholic doctrine, however, does go a bit further than that. It's
position on evolution was first definitively spelled out in Pope Pius
XII's encyclical of 1950, "Humani generis". The first part of his
encyclical makes clear that while the Church at that time had no
opinion on the conclusiveness of the Theory of Evolution, the Church
had no theological objection to it and Catholics were free to make up
their own mind.
He then goes on to clarify the Church's position regarding Adam:
"For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that
either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not
take their origin through natural generation from him as from the
first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first
parents." [1]
Note the qualification -*true* men. In Catholic theology, "true" man
[2] means man capable of recognising God. That goes right back to
Aquinas in the 13th century who developed the theology that all living
organisms have a 'soul' of some kind but man is the only species with
a soul that has the capability of becoming fully aware of God.
The Pope using that qualification is an implicit recognition that at
the time of Adam, let alone before him, there were other humans who
did not have that capability.
[1]
https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html
[2] Apologies to the purists and those of a PC inclination, I of
course mean 'human' but I'm simply sticking with the original language
for the purpose of discussion.
rather than the other way around.
What part of "goes right back to Aquinas in the 13th century" were you
not able to understand?
On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 20:45:49 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-01-12 11:16 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jan 2026 20:38:55 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-01-11 11:29 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jan 2026 11:45:26 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-01-10 11:34 a.m., John Harshman wrote:
[...]
But I really have no idea what
point Martin is trying to make. What, if anything, would a putative AdamBeats me.
and Eve, whether or not they were the only humans at the time, have to >>>>>>> do with Y-Adam or mt-Eve?
There are two points.
The *immediate* one is that Harshman tried to make out that I was
claiming Y-Adam or mt-Eve are a couple. Although I told him that was >>>>> not the case several times in the past, I was prepared to put it down >>>>> to a memory lapse on his part but the more he has tried to wriggle out >>>>> of it, even after I clearly stated that it was not what I was saying, >>>>> the more it looks as if he was quite deliberate in what he claimed.
The context of this particular sub-thread was your claim that the
statistical existence of a 'mitochondrial Eve' and 'Y-chromosome Adam' >>>> is an example of science being forced to agree with a Biblical claim.
I never said science was *forced* to do anything. Here is exactly what
I said:
Sorry, I shouldn't have used the term 'forced'. Replace 'forced' with
'confirmed' in my comments. That doesn't change my opinion of its import. >>>
"They refer to the Hebrew belief that mankind descended from a single
couple which has been confirmed by Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal
Adam."
Wow, I had forgotten that you used the term 'single couple' (Biblical).
That is hard to square with the 'one of a multitude of couples that
varies with the base time.' (science). Really not nearly the same thing.
Science: Any given population has multiple members in earlier
populations that are *direct* ancestors of every member of its
population and some that aren't. If you trace ancestorship (word?)
strictly though mitochondria you would find the most recent common
ancestor guaranteed to be female; similarly tracing ancestorship though
the Y-chromosome guarantees a male most recent common ancestor. They are
almost certainly NOT the most recent male and female ancestors. Those
would be somewhere among the common ancestors whose females had all male
offspring and males who had all female offspring.
I don't see how that possibly confirms the Biblical view.
[...]
The ancient Hebrews said that all humans were descended from a single
couple. Science now shows that they were indeed descended from a
single couple - the parents of mitochondrial Eve for the human
population at that time. That is not to suggest that those parents
were the specific couple that Genesis figuratively refers to or that
science in any way supports the message behind the Genesis story; it
does however confirm that the ancient Hebrews, at least 3500 years
before we knew anything about evolution, were correct in what they
said in purely *biological* terms.
On Tue, 13 Jan 2026 08:32:10 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/13/26 6:30 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[…]
The question remains why you brought up Y-Adam and mt-Eve in the first >>>> place. Are you unwilling to say?
Err ... it was because you asked me for examples from the book and
that was just one of them.
Senior moment?
I didn't ask for examples from the book. I asked for examples. But I see
how you could have construed it that way.
And *you* criticise *me* for lack of clarity in what I write, LOL.
Can we agree that that example
from the book is bogus?
No
Are there in fact any true examples, from the
book or otherwise, of scientists first resisting and then coming to
accept a biblical or religious claim? Arguably the big bang is one, but
are there any others. I suppose that if archaeologists are scientists,
the existence of the Hittite Empire might be another. But are there more?
And does the book have any more invalid claims of such cases, other than
Adam and Eve?
Your a priori dismissal of claims as invalid, before they are even
expressed, shows the futility of trying to have a rational discussion
with you.
On 2026-01-15 11:33 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 10:21:16 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>"True man"? Really? So Church (well, Catholic) doctrine claims that
wrote:
On 2026-01-15 3:15 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jan 2026 20:38:55 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>All this sounds more like church doctrine changing to confirm science
wrote:
On 2026-01-11 11:29 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
[snip for focus]
The *underlying* point is that Harshman and others have tried in the >>>>>> past to scornfully dismiss Christian belief in humans being descended >>>>>> from one couple but we are in fact descended from many such couples. >>>>>>Is there a biblical interpretation that agrees that if you go back far >>>>> enough that the 'mitochondrial Eve' and 'Y-chromosome Adam' would
Whether or not any of those couples would qualify as the source of >>>>>> the
Genesis Adam and Eve, is of course, a separate argument.
not be
Homo sapiens sapiens?
I meant to respond to this earlier. I don't think "agrees" is the
right word because it's not an area that Biblical exegesis really goes >>>> into, but Catholic doctrine certainly has no problem with it.
First of all, the Bible agrees with science that humans originated
from inanimate material - "the dust of the earth" - so I can't see why >>>> there would be an issue with some in-between species.
Catholic doctrine, however, does go a bit further than that. It's
position on evolution was first definitively spelled out in Pope Pius
XII's encyclical of 1950, "Humani generis". The first part of his
encyclical makes clear that while the Church at that time had no
opinion on the conclusiveness of the Theory of Evolution, the Church
had no theological objection to it and Catholics were free to make up
their own mind.
He then goes on to clarify the Church's position regarding Adam:
"For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that
either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not
take their origin through natural generation from him as from the
first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first >>>> parents." [1]
Note the qualification -*true* men. In Catholic theology, "true" man
[2] means man capable of recognising God. That goes right back to
Aquinas in the 13th century who developed the theology that all living >>>> organisms have a 'soul' of some kind but man is the only species with
a soul that has the capability of becoming fully aware of God.
The Pope using that qualification is an implicit recognition that at
the time of Adam, let alone before him, there were other humans who
did not have that capability.
[1]
https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/
hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html
[2] Apologies to the purists and those of a PC inclination, I of
course mean 'human' but I'm simply sticking with the original language >>>> for the purpose of discussion.
rather than the other way around.
What part of "goes right back to Aquinas in the 13th century" were you
not able to understand?
there existed a unique human that is the common ancestor of all 'true' humans. Are all extant humans 'true' humans'? How would we know? Science says Y-chromosome 'Adam' lived 200,000 to 300,000 years ago (probably
closer to the 300,000 mark). Was he a 'true' human? Are you a 'true'
human? Are you capable of being *fully* aware of God? How do you know?
Science can neither confirm or deny such a position.
So, *if* such a thing as a soul exists and *if* it is somehow inherited biologically, *then* all extant 'true' humans have a common ancestor
(Adam?)
Outside personal faith is there any reason to believe that 'true' humans exist. In particular, are all extant humans 'true'?
Does science offer any significant confirmation of this view?
Do you think that this viewpoint could be used (has been used?) to
exclude some populations from being human (true ones anyway)?
On 15/01/2026 22:41, DB Cates wrote:
On 2026-01-15 11:33 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 10:21:16 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>"True man"? Really? So Church (well, Catholic) doctrine claims that
wrote:
On 2026-01-15 3:15 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jan 2026 20:38:55 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>All this sounds more like church doctrine changing to confirm science
wrote:
On 2026-01-11 11:29 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
[snip for focus]
The *underlying* point is that Harshman and others have tried in the >>>>>>> past to scornfully dismiss Christian belief in humans beingIs there a biblical interpretation that agrees that if you go back >>>>>> far
descended
from one couple but we are in fact descended from many such couples. >>>>>>>
Whether or not any of those couples would qualify as the source >>>>>>> of the
Genesis Adam and Eve, is of course, a separate argument.
enough that the 'mitochondrial Eve' and 'Y-chromosome Adam' would >>>>>> not be
Homo sapiens sapiens?
I meant to respond to this earlier. I don't think "agrees" is the
right word because it's not an area that Biblical exegesis really goes >>>>> into, but Catholic doctrine certainly has no problem with it.
First of all, the Bible agrees with science that humans originated
from inanimate material - "the dust of the earth" - so I can't see why >>>>> there would be an issue with some in-between species.
Catholic doctrine, however, does go a bit further than that. It's
position on evolution was first definitively spelled out in Pope Pius >>>>> XII's encyclical of 1950, "Humani generis". The first part of his
encyclical makes clear that while the Church at that time had no
opinion on the conclusiveness of the Theory of Evolution, the Church >>>>> had no theological objection to it and Catholics were free to make up >>>>> their own mind.
He then goes on to clarify the Church's position regarding Adam:
"For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that
either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not
take their origin through natural generation from him as from the
first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first >>>>> parents." [1]
Note the qualification -*true* men. In Catholic theology, "true" man >>>>> [2] means man capable of recognising God. That goes right back to
Aquinas in the 13th century who developed the theology that all living >>>>> organisms have a 'soul' of some kind but man is the only species with >>>>> a soul that has the capability of becoming fully aware of God.
The Pope using that qualification is an implicit recognition that at >>>>> the time of Adam, let alone before him, there were other humans who
did not have that capability.
[1]
https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/
hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html
[2] Apologies to the purists and those of a PC inclination, I of
course mean 'human' but I'm simply sticking with the original language >>>>> for the purpose of discussion.
rather than the other way around.
What part of "goes right back to Aquinas in the 13th century" were you
not able to understand?
there existed a unique human that is the common ancestor of all 'true'
humans. Are all extant humans 'true' humans'? How would we know?
Science says Y-chromosome 'Adam' lived 200,000 to 300,000 years ago
(probably closer to the 300,000 mark). Was he a 'true' human? Are you
a 'true' human? Are you capable of being *fully* aware of God? How do
you know?
Science can neither confirm or deny such a position.
So, *if* such a thing as a soul exists and *if* it is somehow
inherited biologically, *then* all extant 'true' humans have a common
ancestor (Adam?)
The Catholic catechism states "The Church teaches that every spiritual
soul is created immediately by God - it is not "produced" by the
parents" (creationism, as opposed to traducianism).
Outside personal faith is there any reason to believe that 'true'
humans exist. In particular, are all extant humans 'true'?
Does science offer any significant confirmation of this view?
Do you think that this viewpoint could be used (has been used?) to
exclude some populations from being human (true ones anyway)?
On 1/15/26 1:25 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2026 08:32:10 -0800, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/13/26 6:30 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[…]
The question remains why you brought up Y-Adam and mt-Eve in the first >>>>> place. Are you unwilling to say?
Err ... it was because you asked me for examples from the book and
that was just one of them.
Senior moment?
I didn't ask for examples from the book. I asked for examples. But I see >>> how you could have construed it that way.
And *you* criticise *me* for lack of clarity in what I write, LOL.
Can we agree that that example
from the book is bogus?
No
That's unfortunate.
Are there in fact any true examples, from the
book or otherwise, of scientists first resisting and then coming to
accept a biblical or religious claim? Arguably the big bang is one, but
are there any others. I suppose that if archaeologists are scientists,
the existence of the Hittite Empire might be another. But are there
more?
And does the book have any more invalid claims of such cases, other than >>> Adam and Eve?
Your a priori dismissal of claims as invalid, before they are even
expressed, shows the futility of trying to have a rational discussion
with you.
You sure stomp off in a huff frequently, and that does get in the way.
Is it truly Christian to be so prickly?
OK, so does the book have any more claims of such cases, valid or
otherwise?
To remind you, this was my original request: "I would be interested to
know what these many other biblical and religious explanations are that science ended up having to agree with. Nothing immediately comes to mind."
Adam and Eve, or "descent from a single couple" is not such an
explanation, both because "a single couple" is not consistent with
science unless you destroy the meaning of the phrase and because descent
of the current population from couples living at much earlier times has never been in doubt, and even coalescence has been uncontroversial ever since anyone thought of it.
So what else is there, whether it's in the book or not?
| Sysop: | datGSguy |
|---|---|
| Location: | Eugene, OR |
| Users: | 7 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 219:25:06 |
| Calls: | 361 |
| Calls today: | 34 |
| Files: | 14 |
| D/L today: |
77 files (1,274K bytes) |
| Messages: | 5,781 |
| Posted today: | 1 |