It's May 25, 2024, 06:55:20 AM
Genetic researches on Ashkenazi Jews don't show any Khazar bloodline
A researcher deals with science and facts and wouldn't say all Jews didn't have Khazar bloodline because that would be a generalization. Generalization is something you're used to
my throat hurts, its hard to swallow, and my body feels like i got a serious ass beating.
Quote from: I TO DA GEEZY on December 21, 2005, 10:04:07 PMGenetic researches on Ashkenazi Jews don't show any Khazar bloodline Quote from: I TO DA GEEZY on December 21, 2005, 10:04:07 PMA researcher deals with science and facts and wouldn't say all Jews didn't have Khazar bloodline because that would be a generalization. Generalization is something you're used toNow can we logically conclude that you're an idiot?
No, you can't logically conclude that there's no coins in the box. You can't conclude anything, because there isn't a large enough sample? (wording may be wrong) set. If there were 10,000 boxes, and you opened 4,000 of them, and didn't find any of the 5,000 coins, then maybe you could conclude, logically, that stastistically speaking, there cannot be 5,000 coins in the remaining 6,000 boxes. 4 out of 10 you can't conclude anything.
Quote from: Trauma on January 03, 2006, 09:35:41 PMNo, you can't logically conclude that there's no coins in the box. You can't conclude anything, because there isn't a large enough sample? (wording may be wrong) set. If there were 10,000 boxes, and you opened 4,000 of them, and didn't find any of the 5,000 coins, then maybe you could conclude, logically, that stastistically speaking, there cannot be 5,000 coins in the remaining 6,000 boxes. 4 out of 10 you can't conclude anything. the boxes are locked. you can conclued that no coins are in boxes.
if we're going by how the stupid riddle was written, then the coins were scattered, so the question is flawed.
Jamal, This is an analogy Boxes=JewsCoins=Khazzar Bloodline
Even if you didn't find any you can't generalize especially when you have additional info. Not all Jews were tested and it's known for a fact that the Khazar tribe converted(Just like it's known for a fact 5 coins have been scattered), so when a scientist doesn't find Khazar traces he can't say "No Jews have Khazar genes" because 1.Not all Jews were tested 2.It is known for a fact the Khazar tribe converted and that some Jews have non-semite genes in addition to their semite genes[Although there is no certain Khazar prototype to compare with as well]. Fact remains that scientists didn't find any Khazar traces: non-semite eastern European genes do not necessarily mean Khazar.
Quote from: Chief on January 04, 2006, 07:10:03 AMif we're going by how the stupid riddle was written, then the coins were scattered, so the question is flawed.Exactly my point, lol@people playing themselves.
up until they had done this research, it was believed that Ashkenazi Jews were PRIMARILY descendants of this ONE TRIBE (Khazar).
The only thing that's debated is if Ashkenazi Jews are PRIMARILY descendant of the Khazars
1. Ashkenazi Jews being primarily descendants of Khazars is a recent- highly disputed and subsequently disproved- theory. Are you really this dumb? Go back and read the posts to see how often I emphasized the word primarily... the fact that a certain proportion of Ashkenazi Jews must be descendants of Khazars is NOT disputed... the fact that they're primarily descendants is disputed... which is exactly what I said from the beginning. If you agree to this, then you're an idiot for arguing it in the first place, and you finally admit that you're wrong.2.No it doesn't imply that descendants of those who converted don't exist anymore. It simply means a percentage of those Khazars who converted intermixed with semite Jews and that those who didn't intermix wouldn't have any semite trace in themThank You. Explanation in point #1. I'm right, you're wrong.3.How in hell would it mean descendants of exiled Jews have become extinct when we're talking about semite-"exiled Jews"-genes among Ashkenazi Jews?- Man you seem to have lost your last remainders of rationality.Maybe this one went way over your head... as everything else usually does... but I wasn't even implying it... I was just pointing out that your statements made the implication, and I could've have used your train of thought (rather... lack of one) to state how this would also justify somebody saying that the exiled Jews are extinct. Both statements are stupendous... and you're the idiot who made one such implication.Read my sig.