Jersey Girl wrote:Where exactly does this leave the Scots?
The Scots are aqua on the charts. You know, dragging their knuckles, etc. Just like the Welsh and Irish.
Seriously, they are much closer to Africans than Native Americans. This study was measuring the time distance from Homo Sapiens that migrated out of Africa. We Europeans also have a bit of Neanderthal DNA, as well. It shows up in my own DNA.
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.
"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.
Jersey Girl wrote:Where exactly does this leave the Scots?
The Scots are aqua on the charts. You know, dragging their knuckles, etc. Just like the Welsh and Irish.
Seriously, they are much closer to Africans than Native Americans. This study was measuring the time distance from Homo Sapiens that migrated out of Africa. We Europeans also have a bit of Neanderthal DNA, as well. It shows up in my own DNA.
That's knuckle draggers in kilts, buddy.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
One of the conundrums about disproving the Book of Mormon is that the need for disproving is of little to no interest to people with no connection to Mormonism. Thus, those who are usually doing so can be brushed off as anti-Mormon.
This is something I realized firsthand when I sat next to a historian on a flight out of Denver. He specializes in the history of transAtlantic commodities. The notion that the Book of Mormon is plausible is already ridiculous to him, as it is to most informed people. It's not in peer-reviewed paper territory, it's in the back-of-a-restaurant-napkin territory, if that. Thus, the need to disprove is dismissed along with the plausibility. This makes Mormonism one of those tantalizing little esoteric spheres that attract people who are either vulnerable for human connection or conspiracy.
Meadowchik wrote:One of the conundrums about disproving the Book of Mormon is that the need for disproving is of little to no interest to people with no connection to Mormonism. Thus, those who are usually doing so can be brushed off as anti-Mormon.
This is something I realized firsthand when I sat next to a historian on a flight out of Denver. He specializes in the history of transAtlantic commodities. The notion that the Book of Mormon is plausible is already ridiculous to him, as it is to most informed people. It's not in peer-reviewed paper territory, it's in the back-of-a-restaurant-napkin territory, if that. Thus, the need to disprove is dismissed along with the plausibility. This makes Mormonism one of those tantalizing little esoteric spheres that attract people who are either vulnerable for human connection or conspiracy.
Yep. People who are predisposed to believe will believe whatever good evidence is shown to them. I think that's the apologist's goal. To give them an "out" when they are vacillating. Plus there is always the standard answer "God did it."
I do think that the numbers of those people are dwindling pretty quickly, though.
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.
"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.
I have a question wrote:You had me at “inner ear morphology”....or Zinfandel, it’s hard to remember which...
Zinfandel will have an effect on your semicircular canals if you drink enough (always the goal). It's that wonderful feeling when the room starts to spin and the floor starts to feel tilted.
You know it makes sense...
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')