Tuesday, February 11, 2014 4:53:41 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.
Friday, February 7, 2014 7:29:28 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.