(February 6, 2014 at 11:22 pm)Godschild Wrote:

(February 6, 2014 at 9:39 am)EvolutionKills Wrote: I'm sorry, how is the evidence of camels (or lack thereof) a validation for floods, divine plagues, or any other miraculous claim in that book? Each claim must be evaluated separately. For example; simply saying that Jesus ate a fish (a simple plausible claim, people eat fish all the time) doesn't count as evidence towards his claim to being the resurrected son of a god, even if you have evidence that plenty of people ate fish during that time and place in history....

We're focusing on the camels here, what world are you dancing in.

GC

A world where the presence or not of camels in Iraq thousands of years ago does nothing to support the extraordinary claims of your religion.

This is interesting. FOX News...of all places... carried the story.

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/02/0...-in-bible/

Quote: 'This anachronism is direct proof that the [Bible's] text was compiled well after the events it describes.'

- American Friends of Tel Aviv University

What is really amazing is that they did not go to some shitheaded jesus freak for the obligatory denunciation. I guess they consider Drippy and G-C to be non-reliable sources! When FOX stops coddling the jesus freaks they are in real trouble.

(February 6, 2014 at 11:22 pm)Godschild Wrote:

(February 6, 2014 at 12:35 pm)Chad32 Wrote: We have a large collection of human skulls that tell us evolution happens. It's much more than some piltdown man.

So you here skulls talking and you call us delusional.

Yeah, you got nothing.

Biblical literalism strikes again!

(February 7, 2014 at 2:36 am)Minimalist Wrote: G-C, you need to get your head out of your ass...and your fucking bible...and learn that camels were introduced to Egypt by the Persians. Oddly, the evidence suggests that those same Persians introduced monotheism to a bunch of ignorant inhabitant of a burned out city in Judah in the 6th century as well. But I figure that will make your fucking head explode.

No one is saying there were no camels. What they are saying is that they were domesticated for the Arabian trade. It was the riches of the Arabian trade which led the Assyrians to expand southward and dominate those routes.

I really don't give a flying fuck what your silly-assed bible says. It's a pile of shit. This is about archaeology and you are as ignorant on the subject as Drippy. For your information...not that I think you will listen to anything that doesn't start with "In The Beginning" because you are a hopeless case... the domestication (not taming!) of Asian elephants goes back to 6,000 BC.... which oddly is before a first class schmuck like you thinks the world even existed.

Let me say this one more time elephants are not domesticated, period, for some here who claim to be science minded you sure show a lack of what domestication is.
Domestication is breeding animals to change genetic make up for purposes that suit man's specific need or desire. This has never been done with elephants and no on even has the desire to do so, if they did it would have been done long ago.
Tamed animals such as the elephant are trained to do different things to meet needs for man, they are not selectively breed, they come from wild animal population. The elephant is even trained to help in the capture of wild elephants.
You all can argue all you want to about elephants being domesticated and show how arrogant you are or you can accept the scientific definition of domestication and learn something. I was gone all weekend working with truly domesticated animals and I do know the difference in an animal that's been trained to do domestic work and an animal that is breed to be domesticated for a purpose. But if you all insist on continuing your defense of your little god, I'll be glad to use your stupidity in arguments with atheist here.

GC

---

(February 7, 2014 at 11:48 am)EvolutionKills Wrote:

(February 6, 2014 at 11:22 pm)Godschild Wrote: We're focusing on the camels here, what world are you dancing in.

GC

A world where the presence or not of camels in Iraq thousands of years ago does nothing to support the extraordinary claims of your religion.

Listen very closely, I care nothing about camels in Iraq or any other place I made a point about certain animals do not have to be domesticated to be extremely useful to humans. So why don't you get with the program and understand what position someone is arguing from.

GC

Listen, fuckhead...read it and weep and guess who has more credibility?
A useless bible thumping shitstain like you or these guys?

http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/ad031e/ad031e0g.htm

Quote:India has a fascinating history of domesticating wild elephants. Lahiri Choudhury (1988) has traced, on the basis of rock paintings, the history of domesticated elephants in India to about 6000 B.C. Seals of the Indus Valley civilization (2500-1500 B.C.) also suggest the presence of domesticated elephants in India at that time.

Never play hardball with Min. You'll get burned to a crisp.

"GC takes it up the ass, again."

Where are the elephants in your silly bible, G-C?

(February 10, 2014 at 9:02 pm)Godschild Wrote:

(February 7, 2014 at 11:48 am)EvolutionKills Wrote: A world where the presence or not of camels in Iraq thousands of years ago does nothing to support the extraordinary claims of your religion.

Listen very closely, I care nothing about camels in Iraq or any other place I made a point about certain animals do not have to be domesticated to be extremely useful to humans. So why don't you get with the program and understand what position someone is arguing from.

GC

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I give a flying fuck about what you were arguing about. My point still stands; that this new information (however you interpret it) does nothing to validate extraordinary claims in the Bible. As far as the Bible is concerned, it's a trivial piece of information; that if true is trivially true. This thread doesn't revolve around you and your ego dumbass.