Rockin' in the free world since 2005.

[Total: 17    Average: 3/5]
31 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 6555
Rating: 3
Category:
Date: 02/06/14 10:23 AM

31 Responses to Camels Prove Old Testament False [Pic]

  1. Profile photo of Draculya
    Draculya Male 40-49
    14544 posts
    February 6, 2014 at 9:44 am
    Link: Camels Prove Old Testament False - Written Hundreds of Years After Events Depicted
  2. Profile photo of madduck
    madduck Female 50-59
    7421 posts
    February 6, 2014 at 10:34 am
    Well- that`s handy and all but we know that the bible is all cobbled together and rewritten stuff anyway. Like the evidence for polytheism, it is there, and to those who are half sensible you can see how things got changed- and it is really fascinating. Problem is- the looneys don`t care about evidence...
  3. Profile photo of CodeJockey
    CodeJockey Male 40-49
    5607 posts
    February 6, 2014 at 11:05 am
    "...Problem is- the looneys don`t care about evidence..."
    I don`t actively debate anyone that does first bring it up but, it`s interesting to explain to a person that the guys that were walking with `him` didn`t all speak the same language and the problem that presents.
  4. Profile photo of lauriloo
    lauriloo Female 40-49
    1803 posts
    February 6, 2014 at 11:06 am
    Too bad they don`t believe in carbon dating.
  5. Profile photo of suzietoo
    suzietoo Female 18-29
    73 posts
    February 6, 2014 at 11:34 am
    Neither Abraham nor Joseph ever lived in Israel. The ENTIRE POINT of Abraham and Joseph`s story was to liberate the Israelites (so-called because they were sons and sons-of-sons of Israel the person. Israel was not yet a place) from Egypt. If you`re going to publish a story about something disproving the other, make sure there is actually something to disprove!
  6. Profile photo of Jake_Justus
    Jake_Justus Male 50-59
    7033 posts
    February 6, 2014 at 11:40 am

    A title like "Camels Prove Old Testament False" needs to be backed up with data. The names of all the camels involved in this research should be listed, along with links to their papers and YouTube talks. Otherwise they could turn out to be con-artists looking for some cheap publicity...

  7. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36213 posts
    February 6, 2014 at 11:58 am

    You weren`t there to witness it so you don`t know.
  8. Profile photo of kree_
    kree_ Male 30-39
    990 posts
    February 6, 2014 at 12:34 pm
    I do not claim to be a biblical scholar. But didn`t most of the old testament take place around 800-600bc? Or 100-300 years after they say camels were domesticated?
  9. Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    February 6, 2014 at 12:43 pm
    Kree and Suzietoo win the thread.
  10. Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    February 6, 2014 at 12:45 pm
    madduck says inflammatory things, then hypnotizes us with her hotness.

    Unfair. ;)
  11. Profile photo of Neoptolemos
    Neoptolemos Male 30-39
    625 posts
    February 6, 2014 at 2:36 pm
    The bible is inaccurate?? NOO?????

  12. Profile photo of emmettyville
    emmettyville Female 40-49
    4345 posts
    February 6, 2014 at 2:38 pm
    WHAT? you mean everything in the bible is not 100% correct?
  13. Profile photo of Stormith
    Stormith Female 18-29
    543 posts
    February 6, 2014 at 2:53 pm
    Like we really needed more proof that the bible was all crap. But hey, I`m thankful for any proof that can be used to shut down fundies.
  14. Profile photo of ZackDark
    ZackDark Male 18-29
    299 posts
    February 6, 2014 at 3:28 pm
    As it is written, the report makes no sense. It bases on "camel bones in layers that dated from 10th century BC or later, long after they feature in the bible.", which, frankly, does not exclude the possibility of camel bones being found on even older layers...

    Either way, isn`t the 10th century BC older than the world, according to some catholic theologists?
  15. Profile photo of xavroche
    xavroche Male 30-39
    819 posts
    February 6, 2014 at 3:36 pm
    Really, that`s the part that tipped them off to inaccuracies?
  16. Profile photo of naravin
    naravin Female 18-29
    656 posts
    February 6, 2014 at 3:56 pm
    well duh
  17. Profile photo of CodeJockey
    CodeJockey Male 40-49
    5607 posts
    February 6, 2014 at 5:40 pm
    "Either way, isn`t the 10th century BC older than the world"
    `10th Century BC` is 3000 years ago.
    Literalist say the world is 6600 years or younger.

    Had a chat with one about 2 years ago and it was interesting, to say the least, to explain just how twisted the understanding, starting with the meaning of the expression `turn the other cheek.`
  18. Profile photo of rollerx45
    rollerx45 Male 18-29
    3 posts
    February 6, 2014 at 6:52 pm
    @ZackDark what you are failing to understand is that the report says that bones were found in these time periods. It doesn`t mean they didn`t look earlier, otherwise they wouldn`t have even came up with the claim in the first place. It also doesn`t mean that the 10th Century layer and later were the only layers looked at. As a computer scientist that also implements the scientific method, you would look at the layers before the 10th Century as well given that these people are too scientist.
  19. Profile photo of Draculya
    Draculya Male 40-49
    14544 posts
    February 6, 2014 at 7:04 pm
    "WHAT? you mean everything in the bible is not 100% correct?"

    It`s a small detail but it`s a fundamental flaw in any book religion. If one single fact or statement can be proved to be wrong, then:

    (1) The bible is not the literal and infallible word of God. The entire circular logic of the bible collapses. "Bible`s true because God says it`s so. God exists because the Bible says he does."

    (2) At best, some parts of the Bible are correct and others are not. Therefore, you can pick and choose what to believe.

    (3) Every single statement of faith and religious law needs to be researched and re-analysed for veracity and internal consistency.

    (4) Priests and the church have been telling us that the Bible is a contemporaneous document, not an ancient fable about even more ancient times. Their interpretation has been demonstrated false by science.

    (5) Science > Bible
  20. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    February 6, 2014 at 7:28 pm
    It doesn`t surprise me that this is from HuffPo.

    This proves nothing at all, just because they didn`t find bones doesn`t mean they didn`t exist. If finding bones is the level of proof needed for something to exist in archaeology, then a lot of the so called "evolutionary tree" would need to revised.
  21. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36213 posts
    February 6, 2014 at 7:38 pm

    If the Bible says they had camels then by God they had camels! They kept them in the same manger with the unicorns. Dragons had to stay outside.
  22. Profile photo of paperduck
    paperduck Male 18-29
    1745 posts
    February 6, 2014 at 9:32 pm
    Wasn`t it "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"?
  23. Profile photo of Umbobo
    Umbobo Male 40-49
    57 posts
    February 6, 2014 at 10:28 pm
    I`m not one to say that the OT is accurate. I would agree that there is a strong possibility it was compiled much later than previously thought, but without more information on this study, I`d have to call it bullpoo. So, maybe they found undomesticated camel remains from an earlier time... how does that prove that some camels were not domesticated while others were not?
  24. Profile photo of skogsgud
    skogsgud Male 40-49
    94 posts
    February 7, 2014 at 3:52 am
    Maybe they ment Cameltoe?
  25. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    February 7, 2014 at 4:19 am
    This proves nothing at all, just because they didn`t find bones doesn`t mean they didn`t exist.
    They did find a few camel bones in earlier layers, but those are from wild camels. What`s important here is that they have many layers of sediment with human remains, and camel bones are very, very sparse until this one point in time, after which there are very many, indicating domestication.
  26. Profile photo of normalfreak2
    normalfreak2 Male 18-29
    3392 posts
    February 7, 2014 at 6:33 am
    I mean if really want look at the lost books and lost books about Thelga (sp) a woman who was converted by Paul that Paul wouldn`t baptize but baptized herself. These books were ignored because it started to give rise to women being on equal footing. Those theologians at the time didn`t agree with that so those texts were banned from the Bible. The Bible was changed multiple times over the last 2,500 years. There`s no way for us to know the "true" word of God.
  27. Profile photo of papajon0s1
    papajon0s1 Male 40-49
    578 posts
    February 7, 2014 at 7:29 am
    It seems so easy to slam that Hamm guy for his blind faith on creationism, but here and like much of the global warming debate, the science is suspect and clearly slanted in an effort to sensationalize a point. You can make data say anything you want. And yet again, reading the Bible as a history book does it a great disservice.
  28. Profile photo of Zeegrr60
    Zeegrr60 Male 40-49
    2106 posts
    February 8, 2014 at 6:23 am
    Religion is a tool of terrorism and that`s all it is.
  29. Profile photo of ZackDark
    ZackDark Male 18-29
    299 posts
    February 8, 2014 at 9:32 am
    @rollerx45: I certainly hope they did before making such claim. :)

    That`s pretty much why the first thing I said was "As it is written".
  30. Profile photo of hamptoninn
    hamptoninn Male 30-39
    57 posts
    February 11, 2014 at 4:53 pm
    Partisan bickering aside. I hope that some of you caught that logical error that the authors of this article made. The team of researchers simply found several domesticated camel bones from the 10th century BC and a smaller number of what they think are non-domesticated camel bones from earlier. That does not in any way mean that there could not be domesticated camels earlier. It only means that team did not find camels from the patriarchal era at the one site they surveyed. If I found a quarter from 1912 in my backyard, that does not prove there were not quarters printed before then, it only means that they existed at least by that time.
    Besides, we do know that domesticated camels existed long before then in Egypt; so it is no stretch that they could have existed in neighboring Palestine.
  31. Profile photo of hamptoninn
    hamptoninn Male 30-39
    57 posts
    February 11, 2014 at 4:54 pm
    Egyptian Camels

Leave a Reply