GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2004-04 > 1080970925


From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <>
Subject: Re: POSSIBLE GATEWAY: FROM AFRICA TO EUROPE
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 22:42:05 -0700
References: <c57e4f24.0403141731.5b931209@posting.google.com> <4069B76B.5000405@interfold.com> <7004aa4b.0403301743.216e9787@posting.google.com> <Yfqac.16754$Ku3.7324@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com> <7004aa4b.0403311402.37df8950@posting.google.com> <BAIac.30928$0d.25045@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com> <7004aa4b.0404010237.6708eb70@posting.google.com> <406BE67B.1020104@interfold.com> <7004aa4b.0404011411.797b638@posting.google.com> <406C9A90.B64BDFE0@scs.uiuc.edu> <7004aa4b.0404021653.cd38565@posting.google.com>


Shawn Potter wrote:
> Doug McDonald <> wrote in message news:<>...
>
>>Obviously, as I mentioned, if somebody discovered the
>>"Dead Sea Genealogical Scrolls" and they were dated
>>as contemporaneous, then that could be proof. What he
>>should have said is "unsupportable with present data".
>
> Yes, that would have been a more sensible conclusion.

What genealogical statement is not made with the understanding
that data yet to be discovered may alter the conclusion? This
is, in fact, the case with all genealogy. [Heck, we are all just
one DNA test away from finding out that our father is not our
father, yet I am not going to address him as "Dad (With Present
Data)".] A qualifier that applies universally is not worth
repeating with every statement.

taf

This thread: