The Bible Takes It Up The Ass, Again!

[Minimalist]

I like it when the fucking catholics aren't covering up their crimes.

Guess we are both fated to be disappointed.

[Chad32]

I know. But providing a fake fossil as evidence of it is tepid at best. If you want better standards of proof, pay attention to the scientific knowledge you're arguing for.

There Chad. Thank the nice man for the valuable advice

I forgot the piltdown man was fake. You're right. We should ensure that we have real evidence before spreading something around.

[Godscreated]

---

The atheist and others here have shown exactly how dishonest they are, you all ask for factual proof of things from scripture, when it comes you ignore it like the plague because what you asked for makes you look like an idiot (Min). You never tried to disprove what Drich gave you, you just ignored the facts that were given and came with your usual tripe to avoid any embarrassment. Each one of you is guilty of this and, showing others how you are dishonest not just with Christians but among yourselves. I've printed this off to use in future debates here where I live to show how dishonest atheist are, thanks for the ammunition and I'm sure atheist here will be dumb founded by the truth you are revealing about atheist and their only desire, to run down Christianity at all cost. You've payed a high price here to protect you god Min. Now who are you going to blame for your weak minded stupidity and, the atheist that have to come up against such dishonesty in the future will be rather upset with you guys, again thanks for the ammunition, I will enjoy dropping this bomb.

GC

PS, to Min, the elephant has yet to be domesticated but is used for heavy task all the time, so who made up the rule that camels had to be domesticated to use as beasts of burden before they were domesticated.

---

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

---

GC did god send u on a mission to atheist websites. To preach the word of god, to defend YOUR faith? If god knows everything then he set u up for failure because he knows that atheists are smarter that theist. Its true because..... well.... its true.... the wheels on the bus go round and round... !!

It's true because you say it's true

GC

---

Sorry GC, I fail to see the dishonesty of my fellow atheists here. Could you reiterate why you think this and then maybe I will be able to understand?

I thought I made it quite clear, they avoided the facts presented and just spouted off about anything but the facts. Nothing more nothing less. By he way the one post that brought something to the argument doesn't hold water against the facts Drich brought.

GC

---

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.

GC

[Boris Karloff]

Thanks for this!

I can use this next time I'm arguing with a religious moron

[Godscreated]

I would personally suggest that the act of training an animal to perform directed work or to otherwise serve human purposes is pretty much the definition of the word 'domestication', but I'll defer to the guy who can't even pluralize the word 'atheists' despite attempting to do so multiple times in a single post.

Given that GC himself seems barely housebroken, it's probably no surprise that he doesn't know what domestication is.

Given that he has to twist the meaning of every word under the sun in order to make them fit his holy book, it's even less of a surprise that he has such a hard time with them.

So I guess you believe elephants are domesticated, ever hear of the word tame, elephants are tame yet are useful to man in doing tasks for man. The camel was first tamed before it was domesticated, can't skip the taming part and go directly to domestication. So why do you find it so hard to believe camels were not useful as a tamed animal. the only dodging going on here are the ones who have no answer to Drich's post of facts. You care nothing for truth, just to win at all cost and this one has cost you thanks for more ammo.

GC

---

Thanks for this!

I can use this next time I'm arguing with a religious moron

You would be no competition for a religious moron, I'd stay home if I were you.

GC

---

PS, to Min, the elephant has yet to be domesticated but is used for heavy task all the time, so who made up the rule that camels had to be domesticated to use as beasts of burden before they were domesticated.

I would personally suggest that the act of training an animal to perform directed work or to otherwise serve human purposes is pretty much the definition of the word 'domestication', but I'll defer to the guy who can't even pluralize the word 'atheists' despite attempting to do so multiple times in a single post.

You need to learn what domestication means, science claims the elephant is a tame animal not domesticated. I noticed Min did not respond to my statement to him, wonder why, could be he's smart enough to know the difference between a domesticated animal and a trained one and that trained animals have been useful to man for a very long time.

GC

---

I think this might be the most pointless argument I've ever read!

Atheists. These people believe the earth is 6000 years old in defiance of cosmology, astronomy, archeology, geology, paleontology, and probably a dozen other ologies I don't even know about. If the grand canyon and brontasaurus skeletons are not convincing them that the bible has some historical problems then a study on when camels were domesticated is hardly likely to make much of a dent!

And theists, if you could prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, that camels were in use in OT times, how much closer would that move our heathen friends towards salvation ™? I submit, not very!

Don't include me in your assumptions please. This two Christians are defending against an attack on what we believe, while you mostly set back and do your best to collect kudos, I submit at least God sees we try.

GC

[Boris Karloff]

That's right. At least your imaginary friend sees you try

[Esquilax]

So I guess you believe elephants are domesticated, ever hear of the word tame, elephants are tame yet are useful to man in doing tasks for man. The camel was first tamed before it was domesticated, can't skip the taming part and go directly to domestication. So why do you find it so hard to believe camels were not useful as a tamed animal. the only dodging going on here are the ones who have no answer to Drich's post of facts. You care nothing for truth, just to win at all cost and this one has cost you thanks for more ammo.

I really have no interest in this argument. My only contributions to it have been to point out that, for someone who claims that we "care nothing for truth," you're very happy to ignore all the refutations already in this thread with your claim that non exist. And then you ignore that I've pointed them out to you a page or so back.

It doesn't really matter to me, about the camels; pointing out hypocrisy when I see it, that's what matters.

[Ryantology]

You need to learn what domestication means, science claims the elephant is a tame animal not domesticated. I noticed Min did not respond to my statement to him, wonder why, could be he's smart enough to know the difference between a domesticated animal and a trained one and that trained animals have been useful to man for a very long time.

A 'tame' animal is one brought in from the wild and made to work. A 'domesticated' animal is the result of generations of breeding and training. Like elephants often were.

Don't bother getting semantic with me.

[Minimalist]

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.

[truthBtold]

What's a Brontosaurus?

http://www.npr.org/2012/12/09/166665795/...en-existed

One of those big fuckers which was in jurassic Park. Whatever name you want to give it.

Fred on the flinstones ate that at dinner time..