Comments by "bart thomassen thomassen" (@thomassenbart) on "JRE Clips"
channel.
-
691
-
6
-
5
-
I think not. A belief is tantamount to faith, an idea, generally unsubstantiated by facts on the ground, which may or may not be correct. When one says I don't believe X that means that you are not convinced. The evidence or ideas presented are not sufficient to change opinion. If Joe wants to move Candace from her position, he actually has to present enough evidence to do so, which he did not. He relied solely on a somewhat nebulous claim to a ambiguous group of 'scientists', which basically boiled down to a super majority, which he argued, one must bow down to. Candace balked.
Candace's counter view is simply that she does not have faith, neither in the stats presented nor in the fabled 'scientists' and their claims of knowledge. This is skepticism. One might argue her contrarian point of view is wrong or that her mistrust is ill founded or that she is stubborn but Rogan merely relies on the idea that a consensus has been reached, by the experts and therefore, you are an idiot if you don't acknowledge that consensus. I think that is an unreasonable position to take.
5
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
He is not wrong because he is supporting a consensus opinion? This is not logical. Majorities are not truth nor are they actual science. Further, he is still ignorant regardless, as he himself said. Her stance is a personal opinion based upon her own research, during which her 'deep plunge into the subject' was not convincing. Rogan's believe is based upon other opinions which he finds weighty but he regardless lacks the ability to actually judge, save using a numbers game/analysis.
Likewise, people may believe and listen to Rogan who is also largely uninformed and merely parroting a popular opinion, even if it is an informed opinion, it in truth is no more or less valid than her belief.
The problem with analysis such as Global Warming/Climate Change, is that it prognosticates possibilities based upon incomplet information. This obvious given the very visible failures over the years. I have not heard anyone claim that Climate scientists have a total understanding of weather or climate. I have listened to many say that the subject is very complex and very difficult, even chaotic. Also the idea that we know what a given change in the climate will do to humanity and the environment, is likewise sheer conjecture. Given this reality, it is not unreasonable for Ms. Candice to take a skeptical view.
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@p3tr0114 Ah, that is interesting.
Mormonism is not like science. The one is a faith/religion and the other is materially based.
However, the Church always has placed a lot of emphasis upon education. There is a scripture in the D&C, which states that, The Glory of God is Intelligence and this motto is placed over the gates to the entrance of BYU, so...
The missionaries you have been speaking with, I would guess are improvising. Certainly in the past the Church view was that all of the natives of the New World were Lamanites. Today however, the common thinking is that there were multiple populations simultaneously present in the Americas. Since no one knows the geography or place for the events in the BoM, how large or small these lands were, question marks surround the issue.
Concerning the DNA of natives and their connection with Jewish folk today, I would argue this proposition and its supposed problems are also problematic.
Given that Judaism is a religion and not an ethnicity necessarily it is difficult to say with any precision what Jewish DNA equates to, outside of just a few markers.
Historically Judaism encompassed a more robust population. So for example 2000 years ago, there were multiple competing groups in Judea/Palestine that are no longer present in the world today.
Even further back, we have the Kingdom of Judah which was destroyed by the Chaldeans, along with the Temple and Jerusalem 597 BC . And before that cataclysm, the 10 tribes and the Northern Kingdom were destroyed and taken away by the Assyrians circa 722 BCE. All of these populations, which were part of the House of Israel, do not exist and are not a part of modern Judaism.
So, argumentatively the DNA question is not particularly persuasive.
1
-
@p3tr0114 I hear you but would contest the science aspect, since I don't think actual science has demonstrated anything about the quote 'Jewish' ancestry question v. native Americans, for all of the reasons I mentioned above. However, I grant your point that the Church has moved due to perceived scientific evidence, which casts doubt on previous claims.
I personally think the new introduction is better from multiple points of view regardless.
The entire topic of when and where the Native Americans came from is really fascinating and the field has busted open in the last decade, with multiple narratives now pointing to likely repeated influences and incursions into the Americas, not only from the famed land bridge, between Alaska and Siberia, but also much earlier possibly from Europe, Africa, Polynesia and China. And if we want to throw in some refugee Hebrew/Jews, why not? :)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Good story telling by deGrasse but I think it highly probable that the populating of the Americas was not solely due to the crossing of the Bering Straights. There is fairly convincing evidence, archeological, arrow heads, habitations as the tip Chile, DNA, all of which points to Europeans, during the Pleistocene, arriving and others populating the southern tip of S. America far earlier than 15,000 BC
East Asians, not just the Chinese, have difficulties processing Alcohol.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1