home
RSS
Will camel discovery break the Bible's back?
Camels, shown here in the Liwa desert outside Abu Dhabi, are the subject of a surprising new discovery.
February 11th, 2014
01:56 PM ET

Will camel discovery break the Bible's back?

Opinion by Joel Baden, special to CNN

(CNN) - It’s been a rough 2014 for the book of Genesis.

First a Noah’s Ark discovery raised a flood of questions, then there was the much-hyped debate over life’s origins between Bill Nye the Science Guy and creationist Ken Ham.

And now this: a scientific report establishing that camels, the basic mode of transportation for the biblical patriarchs, weren’t domesticated in Israel until hundreds of years after Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are said to have wandered the earth.

Using radiocarbon dating of camel bones that showed signs of having carried heavy loads, Israeli archaeologists have dated the earliest domesticated camels to the end of the 10th century BCE.

But according to the traditional biblical chronology, the patriarchs were schlepping around Canaan on camels over a millennium earlier, all the way back in 2100 BCE

Taken on its own, this may seem a rather minor problem.

After all, this is Genesis, in which some people live to be 900 years old (hello, Methuselah), all of humanity emerges from Babylon, and the Dead Sea is created from the backward glance of Lot’s wife. (Not to mention the six-day creation story and the stuffing of all land animals on a single boat.)

How important could camels really be?

For those who believe the Bible to be fundamentally true, this is hardly going to change any minds. For those who believe it to be entirely false, this is surely not the most damning piece of evidence.

What the camels in Genesis reveal, in fact, has nothing to do with the “truth” of the biblical story at all.

Instead, the presence of these camels in the story highlights, in a very clear way, the essential humanity of the biblical writers: like the best authors, they simply wrote about what they knew.

The patriarchs are depicted as nomadic, never settling for long in one place, but moving constantly from location to location throughout Israel (and beyond).

An ancient Israelite, wanting to tell the story of the wandering of his ethnic and national ancestors, would have naturally looked to the nomadic peoples around him as models. And indeed, throughout the Bible camels are commonly associated with those tribes who lived in the desert: Midianites, Ishmaelites, Amalekites, Kedemites.

The biblical authors simply transplanted the nomadic standards of their time into the distant past.

There is nothing deceptive about this. They weren’t trying to trick anyone. They imagined, quite reasonably, that the past was, fundamentally, like their present.

They had no real alternative. In ancient Israel, in the period when the Bible was written (which ranges, conservatively, from the 10th to the third century BCE), no one had any way of knowing that camels had not always been domesticated pack animals. After all, we didn’t know that for sure until this past week.

Without any evidence to the contrary, it is perfectly natural to assume that things have always been the way that they are now. Today we have more information about the past than any other moment in history. In ancient Israel, they had virtually none.

And yet we still fall victim to this basic, very human, historical fallacy.

It has been suggested that this anachronism in the biblical text is akin to importing semitrailers into the medieval period. But this is a level of ridiculousness too far.

I would suggest that it is more similar to describing a medieval Italian as enjoying pasta with tomato sauce. How many people, even today, know that tomatoes only came to Italy from South America in the 16th century?

The camels in Genesis may be “wrong,” but they are not a “mistake.” We all imagine the past to the best of our knowledge, the biblical authors included.

The lasting lesson of the camel controversy, such as it is, is a simple one: no writing, not even the Bible, is timeless or without context. Views of the past are contingent on both what we know and how we know it.

The Bible is a historical record, but it tells us just as much, if not more, about the people who wrote it as it does about the people they wrote about.

Since the stories of the Bible remain so central to who we are as a culture, even today (and even for those who dismiss it), it seems entirely fitting that we should be equally interested in the ancient people who composed them.

Despite their lack of historical knowledge — and, equally, because of it — they, more than the characters in the Bible, are our true cultural ancestors.

Joel S. Baden is the author of "The Historical David: The Real Life of an Invented Hero" and an associate professor of Old Testament at Yale Divinity School. The views expressed in this column belong to Baden.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Belief • Bible • Creationism • Evolution • Judaism • Middle East • Opinion

soundoff (3,276 Responses)
  1. BringBackTheFlex

    "The camels in Genesis may be “wrong,” but they are not a “mistake.” We all imagine the past to the best of our knowledge, the biblical authors included."

    This excuse is meaningless as the godsters say the bible is the WORD OF THEIR GOD. Their god who knows everything, which would include the domestication date of the camel. Allowing its authors to write something untrue would be LYING.

    February 12, 2014 at 2:01 pm |
    • JakeSeaVik

      Key word there is, "imagine".

      February 12, 2014 at 2:09 pm |
    • neverbeenhappieratheist

      Oh Camel, now he close, tried to domesticate you
      But you're an animal, baby, it's in your nature
      Just let me liberate you
      Hey, hey, hey
      You don't need no papers
      Hey, hey, hey
      That God is not your maker...

      February 12, 2014 at 2:14 pm |
  2. Doc Vestibule

    The Old Testament is an apocryphal, mythologized history of the Jewish people.
    It is no more meant to be taken literally than the Epic of Gilgamesh.
    Bear in mind that archaeologists have unearthed the ruins of the Kingdom of Uruk and it's mighty walls, just as described in the ancient Epic. There are Babylonian historical records that refer to Gilgamesh as an actual king.
    That doesn't mean, however, that he was a demi-god who ruled for 125 years and took a trip to the Underworld.

    Neither serpents nor donkeys nor flaming foliage are capable of speech.
    The human race is not directly descended from 3 breeding pairs 4,000 years ago wherein all the males were 1st order relatives.
    The planet's bodies of fresh water were not overtaken by the salt water oceans in a global flood 4,000 years ago.

    February 12, 2014 at 1:08 pm |
    • igaftr

      Doc
      We have ice core samples going back 800,000 years. There is trapped atmospheric gas trapped in those samples.they also show an indication of the salinity of the waters.
      The change in salinity would be a dead give-away...but no sign of any global flood in the samples..

      February 12, 2014 at 1:20 pm |
      • Doc Vestibule

        Some time ago, I had a lengthy discussion about ice core samples with one of the resident fundamentalists.
        They basically asserted that you can't prove that the arctic/antarctic light and dark (meaning seasonal) patters have been consistent over time.
        Therefore, Genesis is literally true.
        The same person also claimed that the speed of light is not a constant, that the Bible's authors knew the Earth was spherical because Jesus visited the moon to get a full view of the planet, that continental drift happened much, much faster just a couple of thousand years ago, that the theory of evolution predicts 1 centillion species are necessary for the development of the eye, that there were no ice caps, there was no salt water, the Mayan civilization didn't exist in 30CE.....

        February 12, 2014 at 1:40 pm |
        • kudlak

          Doc
          Answers in Genesis is chock full of that kind of stuff, most of it boiling down to "How do you know that things couldn't have happened / worked differently in the past if you weren't there to witness it personally?" kinds of defences, but I like to point out that they weren't around to personally see Jesus performing miracles, or God flooding the world either.

          February 12, 2014 at 2:13 pm |
  3. mmcfaddin

    Check this out about carbon dating: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible

    Yes, the website is Christian-ran and Christian-supported, so it is "biased" from a collegiant perspective; however, follow the source trail and see what evidence you find.

    February 12, 2014 at 1:04 pm |
    • igaftr

      Sorry...If you can't see that answers in genesis is flat out wrong in many places. misrepresent science and make up stuff on their own, you haven't seen their page.
      Much of the science they are trying to debunk is VERY OLD science, not the updated more accurate sciences, such as their attack on carbon dating...you do realize that we have updated the science well past the AiG website representation of the science, right?

      They are not a source of information...they are misinformation but REALLY good for a laugh.

      February 12, 2014 at 1:11 pm |
      • mmcfaddin

        Supply to me this updated evidence. I want truth, just like you. I want both sides to the story.

        February 12, 2014 at 1:18 pm |
        • igaftr

          not updated evidence, updated science...just google it yourself and locate the information with the newest dates. Check the site to insure it is a valid scientific source. I'm not teaching science class for free here.
          AiG also does not take into account all of the corroberating methods either.
          Carbon dating is not an exact science but they do take MANY factors into account when doing their calculations.
          Also, Ice core samples that go back as far as 800,000 years have atmospheric gasses trapped within, so give a source to determine the make-up of the air, showing consistant level of carbon...directly refuting the AiG site that claimns the air has changed.

          February 12, 2014 at 1:25 pm |
        • igaftr

          mmcfaddin
          This is the last line of their statement of faith clearly showing why you will NOT find any valuable information.

          From Answers in Genesis:
          "■By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."

          If it goes against the bible, it is wrong. You don't get much more biased than that...they won't even listen to any data that shows the bible is wrong.

          They really are GREAT for a laugh.

          February 12, 2014 at 2:38 pm |
    • neverbeenhappieratheist

      It isn't that the site is "christian" that makes it wrong, it is the fact that their argument is flawed. And in regards to the camel bones being dated using carbon dating methods, the problem Creationists have with carbon 14 is that it can only date objects within about 50,000 years and is thus not usable for older specimens. These camel bones however are within the last 4,000 years and thus we can reliably accept the dates with a very small margin of error.

      February 12, 2014 at 1:15 pm |
      • mmcfaddin

        If you read their take, they do not accept the fact that carbon dating can accurately estimate within 50,000 years. It says that other variables, including a fluctuating atmosphere can result in C-14 levels that are not accounted for within the carbon dating calculations. I simply want truth. Supply me with solid evidence against what I am saying/redistributing.

        February 12, 2014 at 1:22 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          I'd bet that more atheists would happily accept proof of a deity if it was empirically presented and proven. With real, verifiable proof of anything supernatural I'd be the first to jump back on the religious train.

          To the contrary though, the religious would nash their teeth and refuse to believe any empirically presented and proven evidence of evolution and a non-divine origin of the universe. They would spit and snarl at the idea that their God delusion might be wrong and will shut their eyes and clamp their hands over their ears while they rock back and forth muttering about Satan manufacturing false evidence against their God.

          February 12, 2014 at 1:37 pm |
        • joey3467

          Here is a good place to start. However, the fact that you even went to Answers in Genesis is a sign that you don't actually care about the truth because they sure as hell don't.

          http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html

          February 12, 2014 at 1:44 pm |
      • igaftr

        your info is out of date.
        Start here...there is more info available:
        http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carbon-dating-gets-reset/

        February 12, 2014 at 1:27 pm |
    • santiagodraco

      Dr. Ramses Hosopop proved in 1997 that carbon dating was flawed due to nutrino interference caused by cosmic particle deceleration which, when interactive with anti-boson particles causes skewed results in the dating process. Look that up.

      Of course I just made that up much like the "science" used by Creationists in an attempt to discredit real science. The Christian methodology to support their beliefs is simple. Lie. Tell a good story that sounds true.

      February 12, 2014 at 1:18 pm |
      • mmcfaddin

        Thanks for the good laugh. Now, give me some evidence against what I am giving. Please. I don't want to spray you with absurdity and meaningless jargon. Give me the facts, Jack.

        February 12, 2014 at 1:29 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      Some other dating methods that have confirmed the age of the earth as being far greater than 10,000 yeras include:
      Stratigraphy, Dendrochronology,Obsidian Hydration Dating, Paleomagnetic/Archaeomagnetic , Luminescence Dating, Amino Acid Racemization, Fission-track Dating, Ice Cores, Cation Ratio, Fluorine Dating, Patination, oxidizable Carbon Ratio, Electron Spin Resonance , and Cosmic-ray Exposure Dating.

      The people at Answers in Genesis, The Discovery Insti/tute and others like them have openly admitted that their goal is not to teach what they think is fact. They seek to separate science curriculum from what they perceive to be its allegiance to atheistic naturalism and its destructive moral, political and societal legacies.
      In other words, they fear that teaching facts to children will drive them away from religion, thus robbing society of a moral framework and inevitably eroding into a ethically void cauldron of wanton sin.
      If people have reason to doubt the inerrancy of the Bible, they may doubt the existence of God and then what is there to keep everyone from looting, pillaging, robbing, fornicating, coveting their neighbour's donkey and sacrificing children to Ba'al.

      February 12, 2014 at 1:34 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      Answers in Genesis uses science in the same way that Deepak Chopra uses quantum mechanics.
      It is what Trekkies call "techno-babble" – full of sound and obfuscating fury but signifying nothing.

      "Through the quantum fluctuations of chronometric tachyon fields, one can surmise that at its core, the Universe is composed of Heinsenberg pulse waves interacting on the quantum level.
      Of course, these gravimetric oscillations can only be observed indirectly, but by noting their influence on the sub-atomic quantum flanging, the ferfanational matrices of gestalt knoncleotides proves, beyond a doubt, that the entire fabric of reality as we perceive it is nothing more than the passing whimsy of quantum midichlorians.
      Quantum quantum quantum.
      Quantum.
      Buy my new book."

      – Deepak Chopra (ok, not really – I made it up)

      February 12, 2014 at 1:55 pm |
      • igaftr

        The AiG site is hilarious. Check out their mission statement, but even funnier is the Aig statement of faith.

        Last line "■By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

        Basically...if it goes against the bible it is wrong.

        It boils down to one simple principle. They do NOT want the truth...they want their BELIEF to be the truth.

        February 12, 2014 at 2:30 pm |
  4. bostontola

    Faith, blind faith, then there's blind faith despite contrary evidence (BFDCE).

    I have faith in many things, things that have a proven track record like the scientific method, modern medicine, etc. They don't always work out, but they have earned my trust. I don't need faith for many things that are facts like the earth is spheroid, we are the third planet from the sun, etc.

    Blind faith is obviously different. It is trust given with little or no basis in objective evidence. We are predisposed to have this. Children trust their parents with no evidence required, I'm sure it has helped many a small child to survive. This aspect of humans is likely how belief in the supernatural gets bootstrapped in many people's minds. Children have no problem believing in the Easter Bunny, or Tinker Bell for a while.

    BFDCE obviously exists also. This goes beyond blind faith. Even though there is no objective for their belief and there is objective evidence (not necessarily proof) to the contrary, people believe things. Sometimes it is motivated by denial, there are 4-5% of Americans who believe that smoking cigarettes doesn't harm health. Sometimes it is motivated by a lack of trust, many conspiracy theories pop up here. Most of these cases of BFDCE are limited to very small percentages of the population.

    Religion is a BFDCE that bucks that trend. Most people are in a religion. They're in lots of different religions and sects, by their own beliefs only they are right (of course all the others think that). The only evidence is their own spiritual experience (which all the others have too). It must have a beneficial effect to have persisted for so long (survival of the fittest meme). Of course, being selected for doesn't mean religions are true. Many different ones have survived.

    February 12, 2014 at 1:00 pm |
  5. revrickm

    Quoting from the article, "The Bible is a historical record....." Well, no, not exactly. Some parts of it (and I do mean some) may be true, but many parts are not and archeology has already shown that to be the case. The Bible was assembled by men who were making a theological point. But history and theology are two very different things and we should not confuse the two.

    February 12, 2014 at 12:45 pm |
    • neverbeenhappieratheist

      "history and theology are two very different things"

      Right, history is what happened and theology is what some people want to have happened.

      History is Lance Armstrong using drugs and hormones for an illegal competetive edge to win several championships and then lying about it for years. Theology was the belief that he did it all on his own and should be hailed as a cancer warrior and an inspiration to us all and that he would never lie and cheat, and that is what we would all believe still if a thorough investigation was not supported and evidence gathered and examined to show the truth. Don't just have blind faith in the theology of the past, rigorously investigate with an open mind and embrace the factual history that is discovered.

      February 12, 2014 at 2:10 pm |
  6. Lucifer's Evil Twin

    God is all-knowing and all-powerful... but he/she can't manage to use Facebook and/or Twitter to let us know how he/she is feeling? My 78 year old father knows how to use Facebook...

    ^o)

    February 12, 2014 at 12:40 pm |
    • Akira

      The thought of my mother using FB or Twitter is absolutely frightening to me. She has no filters, lol.

      February 12, 2014 at 1:50 pm |
      • Lucifer's Evil Twin

        Neither do mine... It makes my eyes twitch when my dad posts pro- Tea Party, Anti-Obama, Conservative propaganda... but he's a combat veteran/retired Army and he's my dad... so what are you gonna do?

        February 12, 2014 at 1:59 pm |
        • Akira

          Thank you father for his service for his service to our country for me...and tell him to turn off Rush, lol.

          February 12, 2014 at 2:11 pm |
  7. druffmaul

    As an uneducated Bedouin shepherd leading a nomadic lifestyle in a vast desert, who is completely ignorant of anything even remotely approaching modern enlightenment, science, logic, reason, etc., I was very disappointed when I finally got around to reading the Bible. I shouldn't have let the hype get to me. I expected it to really speak to me. Based on what I'd heard others say about it, it sounded like it would be right up my alley. But I found most of it to be a lot of patently absurd drivel that I simply couldn't swallow no matter how hard I tried. I literally couldn't keep a straight face as I read this tripe. I'm wondering if maybe it was deliberately written from a comedic or farcical angle; if so, it went wooshing right over my head, like one of those great metal birds in the sky.

    I did like the part about the two she-bears tearing apart the 42 children because they made fun of a bald man. (2 Kings 2:23-24) But I think I'll stick with my old favorites: 5000 year old clay tablets with cuneiform carvings. Neat little stories about gods such as An, Enlil, Nammu, Utu... y'know, deities that actually made sense.

    February 12, 2014 at 12:38 pm |
    • Apple Bush

      I enjoyed reading that. :mrgreen:

      February 12, 2014 at 12:46 pm |
    • Dalahäst

      Google "2 Kings 2:23-24" "context"

      February 12, 2014 at 12:55 pm |
      • druffmaul

        Ah, I see now. They weren't "children," they were "youths," which means they possibly could have been an unruly gang of punks. A band of proto Hell's Angels riding camels instead of Harleys. Plus, there were actually 43 of them, so God very magnanimously allowed one to escape with their life. OK, I concede. What a wonderful Book. What a wonderful, loving God.

        February 12, 2014 at 1:05 pm |
      • Akira

        The context tells me God overreacted.

        February 12, 2014 at 2:17 pm |
  8. Vic

    Poster "Dalahäst" brilliantly brought up the subject of "Egyptian Petroglyphs" earlier. I looked it up and found the following concurring evidence from "Associates for Biblical Research" website:

    https://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2009/03/02/Bronze-Age-Camel-Petroglyphs-In-The-Wadi-Nasib2c-Sinai.aspx

    February 12, 2014 at 12:37 pm |
  9. Apple Bush

    If I had God’s gig, and feel certain I would love my creation. Certainly I would not wish to harm or punish the very paradise on Earth I created.

    I would make it so that all humans had a Bible stamped on their brain from birth. There. Everyone’s got it, no chance that I will have to get pissed off at anyone.

    Yes, I would be nice god.

    February 12, 2014 at 12:37 pm |
  10. ugetthefacts

    and why didn't this god clean up the universe and rested instead?? All those meteors and such. Not so perfect.

    February 12, 2014 at 12:35 pm |
  11. billym67

    Dalahast: "Could be. Or it could be that God is real and religion doesn't have all the answers."

    Really? God is real, meaning it existed/exists and has/had the power to create EVERYTHING in the universe, yet the best it could do to have us understand what it wants is to provide a book written with a bunch of second hand accounts of stories that are so silly only a moron couldn't take a step back and realize their childishness? Oh, I forgot, you have to have “faith” or the magic trick doesn’t work. The ignorance of religious people never ceases to amaze me.

    February 12, 2014 at 12:29 pm |
    • Dalahäst

      – Really? God is real, meaning it existed/exists and has/had the power to create EVERYTHING in the universe, yet the best it could do to have us understand what it wants is to provide a book written with a bunch of second hand accounts of stories that are so silly only a moron couldn't take a step back and realize their childishness?

      No. I wouldn't say that.

      – Oh, I forgot, you have to have “faith” or the magic trick doesn’t work. The ignorance of religious people never ceases to amaze me.

      No, I wouldn't say you have to have "faith" in a magic trick or that the Bible tells us everything we need to know.

      February 12, 2014 at 12:33 pm |
  12. faithfulwatcher

    This article is incorrect on many levels. In Genesis chapter 24, Abraham is in Beersheba in the Negev Desert at this time period, and of course, the camel, the animal that is specifically designed to survive in the heat and dryness of the desert would be present. Also, the ridiculous claim that the Dead Sea was formed by Lot's wife is not a claim of the Bible. I find that in every case of a ridiculer attacking the validity of the Bible, fabrications fly. People must actually read the Bible in order to get the whole truth.

    February 12, 2014 at 12:29 pm |
    • ugetthefacts

      I have read it. And it's silly and inaccurate. The writers obviously understood very little and many of the subjects made themselves the god favorite.

      Man written all over it.

      February 12, 2014 at 12:32 pm |
      • faithfulwatcher

        You have not read it or you would not make such a profoundly inaccurate statement.

        February 12, 2014 at 12:35 pm |
        • ugetthefacts

          I have read it and it is absolute nonsense. Clearly lacks an understanding of the universe and tells tall tales of their heroes.

          Then again, I wouldn't have expected any different from a time when men feared volcanoes and earthquakes, thinking it was an angry god.

          February 12, 2014 at 12:38 pm |
    • igaftr

      the bible is not truth.
      Can I tell if my wife is unfaithful by having her drink magic watermixed with dust from the floor?...of course not, but the bible says you can.
      Can I make striped goats by having mating pairs of goats stare at stripped objects?...of course not but they did in the bible..
      Just a couple examples of the falseness of the bible.
      It was written by superst!tious ignorant men.

      February 12, 2014 at 12:40 pm |
      • faithfulwatcher

        Please provide the Scripture, chapter and verse(s) that supports your claims.

        February 12, 2014 at 12:46 pm |
        • otoh2

          faithfulwatcher,

          I just happen to have a copy of another post citing these... and a couple of other pieces of silliness:

          You cure leprosy by having a dove killed, dipping a live one in its blood and having it fly around. Also, you have to anoint the toes of the suffer with the blood.–Leviticus 14

          – You discover unfaithful wives when their bellies swell and their thighs rot after they are made to drink some magical water. – Numbers 5

          – Prized striped goats are bred by having the mating parents stare at striped objects. –Genesis 30

          – You may buy, own, sell, and will slaves to your descendants (only foreigners for slaves, though, no Israelis) –Leviticus 25

          - “If two men are fighting, and the wife of one man tries to rescue her husband by grabbing the other man’s private parts, you must cut off her hand. Don’t have any mercy." Deuteronomy 25

          There are several other similar instances of absolute rubbish that this "God" purportedly "spoke", along with a bunch of other rules and laws and rituals that are obviously only from the minds of primitive men. How anyone can believe that this stuff came from a real smart divine being is ludicrous.

          February 12, 2014 at 12:52 pm |
        • igaftr

          FFW
          Numbers 5 for the infidelity drink, including an abortion agent if the woman is unfaithful
          Genesis 30 for the striped goats...ah heck, lets just go with all of Genesis...since creation absolutley did not start the way it says in the bible, and the whole Noah myth has been disproved by MANY sciences.

          February 12, 2014 at 1:02 pm |
        • igaftr

          FFW
          Also it is "scripture" not capitalized, and all scripture means is that someone wrote it down. Harry Potter books are scripture. This is scripture.

          February 12, 2014 at 1:04 pm |
        • otoh2

          p.s. Moses (or whichever man/men wrote that stuff) said that The LORD told Moses that assortment of junk.

          If you want a NT one, there's the one in the book of Matthew 27, where dead people rose from their graves and went into the city of Jerusalem and "were seen by many". There is not one single report of this EVER happening (not even by the other NT storytellers). This would have undoubtedly been BIG news in Jerusalem.

          February 12, 2014 at 1:07 pm |
        • otoh2

          p.s. Moses (or whichever man/men wrote that stuff) said that The LORD told Moses that assortment of junk.

          If you want a NT one, there's the one in the book of Matthew 27, where dead people rose from their graves and went into the city of Jerusalem and "were seen by many". There is not one single report of this EVER happening (not even by the other NT storytellers). This would have undoubtedly been BIG news in Jerusalem.

          p.p.s. my modem is crashing - so I might not be able to respond promptly, or at all today

          February 12, 2014 at 1:11 pm |
        • otoh2

          sorry for double post - bad, BAD DSL!

          February 12, 2014 at 1:16 pm |
  13. Apple Bush

    Look at us silly humans, getting all worked up over some bones.
    Ant builds his home, flower reaches for the sun and Tiger prowls at dusk...

    February 12, 2014 at 12:28 pm |
  14. Lucifer's Evil Twin

    The Bible: proof that gullible people will believe any dumbass thing that you tell them

    February 12, 2014 at 12:25 pm |
    • Dalahäst

      Well, except for the Bible believers that have contributed to science and technology. You know, like the fathers of modern chemistry and the big bang theory, etc. Some were so gullible they were awarded prestigious awards by their peers... atheists' votes included!

      February 12, 2014 at 12:29 pm |
      • Lucifer's Evil Twin

        "except for the Bible believers that have contributed to science and technology" ... It is amazing how people can be so smart and yet still succumb to their silly religious superstitions... but, no one is perfect

        February 12, 2014 at 12:34 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          A Christian can be an elite scientist. And any idiot can be an atheist. It is not rocket science.

          An atheist can be an elite scientist. And any idiot can be an Christian. It is not brain surgery.

          February 12, 2014 at 12:42 pm |
        • Lucifer's Evil Twin

          Concur... but any scientist that believes in mythological beings... would not be considered 'elite' by today's actual elite scientists

          Maybe they would be considered 'elite' by fake Creationist "scientists" but nobody but ignorant hicks listens to them anyhow

          February 12, 2014 at 12:49 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          There are elite scientists that believe in God. Some have said God is the author of the universe, and the free establisher of the laws of motion. And that science brings men nearer to God.

          February 12, 2014 at 12:59 pm |
        • igaftr

          dalahst
          How many of those scientist believers have provided any evidence of any gods?
          Zero.
          They state their belief as opinion.

          February 12, 2014 at 1:07 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Right. Just like the atheists scientists who say that there is no God are just stating their opinion.

          February 12, 2014 at 1:14 pm |
        • igaftr

          dalahast
          There are few that would say there is no god...what they ALL say is there is no evidence of god(s). They are correct.

          February 12, 2014 at 1:18 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I'm not sure you are qualified to say what they all believe. I'd rather listen to the individual scientists explain what they believe.

          February 12, 2014 at 1:21 pm |
        • igaftr

          dalahast
          I see...so you can speak for all scientist and atheists, but I can't...you are too funny.

          Since I work in the sciences with MANY colleagues, and NONE of them will say there ARE no gods, but all will say there is no evidence of gods., I'll just take the sampling I have (around 20) and work with that.

          February 12, 2014 at 1:50 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I haven't tried to make a blanket statement for all scientists. I have mentioned some things actual Christian scientists have said, though. Basically just trying to demonstrate not all Christians are gullible or as dumba.ss.es as LET imagine they are.

          February 12, 2014 at 1:56 pm |
        • joey3467

          Nobody thinks all Christians are dumb we think All Creationists are stupid though because they in fact are.

          February 12, 2014 at 2:11 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          The OP seems to suggest all Christians are dumb. I'm glad you know better.

          February 12, 2014 at 2:25 pm |
      • kudlak

        Dalahäst
        And there are also many practicing Hindus who have contributed to science and technology, as well as people of other faiths, including all those ancient Greeks who were the fathers of modern science. Newton himself was more interested in alchemy than physics. So what? Nobody ever said that scientists weren't human like everyone else. There are countless doctors who still smoke, but they don't go around defending this personal habit as actually being a healthy choice, now do they?

        The real issue isn't what scientists believe personally, but what they can prove professionally. When pressed, don't they all base their beliefs in God on the same personal revelation evidence that all Christians do, "evidence" that isn't demonstrable to anyone else? Where are the peer reviewed papers coming from these Christian scientists that support their claim that God exists? In other words, are these Bible believing scientists able to prove their beliefs scientifically, or is it just their personal belief?

        February 12, 2014 at 1:10 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          –And there are also many practicing Hindus who have contributed to science and technology, as well as people of other faiths, including all those ancient Greeks who were the fathers of modern science. Newton himself was more interested in alchemy than physics. So what? Nobody ever said that scientists weren't human like everyone else. There are countless doctors who still smoke, but they don't go around defending this personal habit as actually being a healthy choice, now do they?

          Yes, there are Hindus that have contributed to science and technology, as well as people of other faiths.

          That is why I don't make stereotyped statements that they are all gullible. I will admit that they probably contribute to science and technology more than I do. I appreciate them, not try to insult and demean them.

          - The real issue isn't what scientists believe personally, but what they can prove professionally. When pressed, don't they all base their beliefs in God on the same personal revelation evidence that all Christians do, "evidence" that isn't demonstrable to anyone else? Where are the peer reviewed papers coming from these Christian scientists that support their claim that God exists? In other words, are these Bible believing scientists able to prove their beliefs scientifically, or is it just their personal belief?

          My point is Christians aren't quite as gullible and stupid as the OP tries to have us believe. I never said they have proved scientifically God exists. But some say science does enhance their understanding of God.

          February 12, 2014 at 1:19 pm |
        • joey3467

          You can be a Christian and contribute to science, that doesn't mean that you aren't also gullible. I appreciate what Christians have done in the name of science, however, believing in god is still silly to me.

          February 12, 2014 at 1:55 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Not all Christians are gullible. Or stupid. I'm sure there are fringe atheist webpages that argue against that.

          But not all people are gullible or stupid enough to believe fringe atheists.

          February 12, 2014 at 1:57 pm |
        • kudlak

          Dalahäst
          I'm not sure if it's a matter of their scientific knowledge actually enhancing their understanding of God so much as their faith being so strong that they just continue to assume that God must still be there no matter how much we learn about the natural processes running the universe.

          My point about Hindus is that they manage to fit their gods into the natural universe just as easily as Christians do, which tells me that there really isn't anything in science favouring the belief in God particularly. What it does appear to me is that the study of the universe generates a huge amount of awe, while still focusing on all the questions still unanswered, and some people choose to see their deities in these things. What's wrong with just being in awe with a natural universe, or saying "I don't know" to questions yet unanswered?

          I know a lot of former Christians and I don't believe that they were somehow dumber back when they use to believe. Gullibility is a different question. People duped by Ponzi schemes couldn't really see themselves as gullible when they get paid a huge return and consequently reinvest. On the surface, they got what they were promised. They didn't know that this money came from someone else's investment and was used to excite them into investing more. Now that people are more aware of how this scheme works it might be a different story, just as how more people are now aware of how the Bible was actually written and the actual age of the universe to actually accept it as completely factual and as any kind of evidence for a god.

          Of course, there are those who intentionally shelter themselves from knowledge that discredits religion. In that case, I imagine they are willingly embracing gullibility, right?

          February 12, 2014 at 3:01 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Yes. And just like Hindus and Christians, an atheist like you can look at the universe and imagine there is no God and all religious people just merely believe in gods to fill in the gaps of knowledge we have.

          February 12, 2014 at 3:12 pm |
        • kudlak

          Dalahäst
          I don't have to "imagine" there isn't a God no more than you have to imagine there aren't fairies in your garden.

          No, I think that people believe in gods because they get something positive out of that belief, but just because they get something positive out of it doesn't mean that they're right and it's true, does it?

          February 12, 2014 at 3:51 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Right.

          And just like you imagine that I believe in God because I get something positive out of it, doesn't mean I only believe in God because I get something positive out of it.

          I believe in God because He exists.

          February 12, 2014 at 3:53 pm |
        • kudlak

          Dalahäst
          Why do you think he exists? Can you point to the thing that definitely proves that he does exist?

          February 12, 2014 at 4:25 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I've experienced God to be real in my life. Jesus helps me understand God and what His will for me is.

          I can point to you, a creature that most likely has a creator. Or any life form.

          February 12, 2014 at 4:31 pm |
        • kudlak

          Dalahäst
          How have you experienced God to be real in your life? Jesus of course believed in God, but what makes you think that he was correct?

          I am a poor example of a created being. I have many physical flaws that I can not imagine being built in on purpose. I just have to look at genetic defects to know that intelligence had nothing to do with our development.

          February 12, 2014 at 4:49 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I've experienced God in overcoming my shortcomings and defects. The Bible says "God's strength is perfected in our weakness". I have experienced this to be true.

          Men like Martin Luther King, JR have beautiful testimonies about God in their life. Joni Eareckson Tada, too.

          I'm a bit more optimistic about you in regards to human beings as creatures. We are not perfect. But that is ok. We can overcome our genetic defects. We can help those who have problems doing so by their own power.

          I or you may not be perfect. We may have flaws and defects. But that doesn't mean that God can't use us for a greater purpose.

          February 12, 2014 at 4:56 pm |
        • kudlak

          Dalahäst
          The Self-Help section of your local bookstore can offer you dozens of other methods of dealing with your personal problems, and you have to assume that the Hindus, Muslims, Jews and everyone else have been managing them without the help of Jesus as well. Wouldn't that tell you that just about anything can inspire a person to improve themselves as long as they believe in it strongly enough? You have to ask yourself whether it's actually Jesus that doing something for you, or just the belief in him which inspires you to help yourself, right?

          Martin Luther King, JR had a powerful message, but so did Ghandi and the Dalai Lama. Let's not forget also that MLK was no saint, so his faith didn't help him as much as an atheist who never cheated on their wife.

          I'm OK with our not being perfect, but I'm kinda surprised that you are. Didn't God supposedly create us? Why such serious design flaws, then? Are you suggesting that he creates us with flaws as a kind of experiment to see how we cope? I can't imagine a loving parent doing that to their child, can you?

          February 12, 2014 at 5:33 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I have a lot of respect for Ghandhi and the Dalai Lama. They help me in my understanding of God. So do non-religious leaders and atheists.

          I tell you: love and tolerance of others is my code. And Jesus helps me carry that out. If something else helps you or Hindus do that, too, and it brings you serenity and peace: more power to you.

          The Bible describes God making this world imperfect, but good. No, I'm not suggesting he created us with flaws as a kind of experiment to see how we cope.

          We are created to love. Overcoming a difficulty, and teaching someone else how to overcome a difficulty is love in action. Our difficulties, although not always pleasant in the moment, reshape and redefine us. Often into better people.

          Christianity is definitely not a suffering avoidance program. It is difficult and sometimes painful to follow Christ. But worth it.

          February 12, 2014 at 6:34 pm |
  15. ugetthefacts

    and remember, the bible states that god created two suns, a lesser one. Guess they thought the moon was a sun and not a reflector. And the sun travels beneath the earth every night before arriving at the east.

    February 12, 2014 at 12:21 pm |
    • Dalahäst

      "And God maketh the two great luminaries, the great luminary for the rule of the day, and the small luminary - and the stars - for the rule of the night;"

      Genesis 1:16

      Doesn't really say there are 2 suns.

      February 12, 2014 at 12:24 pm |
      • ugetthefacts

        sounds like they didn't know what a star is and were unable to differentiate. And to travel under the earth?

        February 12, 2014 at 12:29 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          From our perspective, there are stars traveling underneath us right now.

          February 12, 2014 at 12:31 pm |
        • ugetthefacts

          wow!! I can't believe you stated that. Stars traveling beneath us? I see the stars rotate around the earth. Your statement would fit well in the bible to add proof the writer had no concept of the universe.

          February 12, 2014 at 12:34 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Actually, upon further review, that passage doesn't say anything about sun, moon and stars traveling under the earth.

          I'm not sure what you are talking about.

          February 12, 2014 at 12:38 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          And yes, there are literally stars traveling beneath our feet.

          February 12, 2014 at 12:40 pm |
      • g2-8939393a3f6e79b239a2a4bef7be8769

        "And God maketh the two great luminaries, the great luminary for the rule of the day, and the small luminary – and the stars – for the rule of the night;"

        Genesis 1:16

        Then who makes the other 72 bazzillion great luminaries that are too distant to be understood as "great luminaries" to ancient man?

        If you take the time to sit and think about each and every story in the Bible, you will realize that none of it makes any rational sense to rational people. But only if you are being honest with yourself and not afraid to question religion.

        February 12, 2014 at 12:43 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          A lot of rational people trust in the Bible.

          February 12, 2014 at 1:05 pm |
        • Lucifer's Evil Twin

          "A lot of rational people trust in the Bible." That is a very subjective opinion...

          Just like: "A lot of stupid people put their trust in the Bible."

          February 12, 2014 at 1:21 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Yes.

          There are brilliant and stupid Bible believers. Like there are brilliant and stupid atheists.

          Stereotyping all Bible believers as being gullible and dumba-sses is something a stupid atheist might do.

          February 12, 2014 at 1:28 pm |
      • igaftr

        Dalahast
        The two great luminaries... I get one is the sun, but what other luminary is there.
        Do not say the moon, since it is a rock, and not a light source...it reflects light, but it also does not rule the night...you are just as likely to see it during the day as at night. Also, the moon was formed long, long after the sun, and even long after the earth, so your bible cannot mean the moon.

        Where is the second luminary?

        February 12, 2014 at 12:49 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          The moon provides light for the night. It is a lesser light that governs the night.

          February 12, 2014 at 1:04 pm |
        • igaftr

          dalahast
          No...it REFLECTS light and is just as likely to be "up" during the day as night.
          If the sun stopped shining, would the moon provide light? NO...it is not a luminary.

          Where is the second luminary?

          February 12, 2014 at 1:16 pm |
        • Lucifer's Evil Twin

          "The moon provides light for the night. It is a lesser light that governs the night."

          In the Army we would call that 'Tap dancing' your way out of a question you don't have an answer for...

          February 12, 2014 at 1:18 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          The dictionary defines "Luminary" as "an artificial light" and also a "body that gives light; especially : one of the celestial bodies"

          Is there a lesser light provided by the moon at night? Yes.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminary_%28astrology%29

          Not tap dancing, guys.

          February 12, 2014 at 1:37 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          lu·mi·nar·y
          [loo-muh-ner-ee] Show IPA
          noun, plural lu·mi·nar·ies.
          1.
          a celestial body, as the sun or moon.

          http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/luminary

          February 12, 2014 at 1:39 pm |
        • igaftr

          dalahast
          If the sun did not shine, would the moon "provide" any light?
          No.
          So one of those lights is utterly dependant for its light on the other...was God trying to save electricity.

          Sorry...apologize all you want...bible fail
          Also, you keep saying luminary...EVERY version I see says light, which the moon is not.

          February 12, 2014 at 1:45 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          "Where is the second luminary?"

          – igaftr

          I've never met a Christian or religious person that denies that the moon reflects the sun's light. Nor do I see anything in the Bible that says the moon is an independent source of light.

          In Genesis it describes the moon provides a lesser light at night. Which it does.

          February 12, 2014 at 1:49 pm |
        • joey3467

          No, at night the sun is still providing the light.

          February 12, 2014 at 1:58 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Via the moon. A luminary.

          February 12, 2014 at 2:00 pm |
        • igaftr

          dalahast
          The bible clearly says:
          "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night" ( the moon is just as likely to be up during the day...it divides nothing)
          and again it says: ' And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night"
          again the moon is up during the day as much as at night, so claiming it rules the night is wrong.

          Bible fail. You can rationalize it all you want. The moon is set to rise here in about to hours...still day for a while.
          Ignorant men wrote your bible...no wonder they got so much wrong.

          February 12, 2014 at 2:10 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I've never met anyone in Christianity or any religion that has suggested I have to believe that the Bible says God literally made 2 lights. So I'm not really sure what your point is. I know there are a few butthurt atheist websites that claim the passage proves The Bible is completely wrong. But I, like many other rational and reasonable adults, disagree with those site's theories.

          I think it is just saying that God made the sun for day, and the moon and stars provide a lesser light at night on Earth.

          February 12, 2014 at 2:30 pm |
  16. mk

    It's hard to believe that people put all their "faith" into one single book. There are millions and millions of books available, but so many believe in this one book, a book that, despite being edited many, many times by human men, is called the "word of god".

    Fascinating.

    February 12, 2014 at 12:20 pm |
  17. Guy Fuller

    The bible has withstood attacks and criticism for centuries and has proven even the smartest of scholars to be wrong. This case is no different. The bible will always be true though every man a liar.

    CAMELS were among the domestic animals that Abraham received from Pharaoh, says the Bible. (Gen. 12:16) When Abraham’s servant went on a long journey to Mesopotamia, he “took ten camels from the camels of his master.” So the Bible clearly states that Abraham owned camels about the beginning of the second millennium B.C.E.—Gen. 24:10.

    In Mesopotamia, cuneiform lists mention the creature [the camel] and several seals depict it, indicating that the animal may have reached Mesopotamia by the beginning of the second millennium, that is, by Abraham’s time.

    The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia therefore concludes: “It is no longer necessary to regard the mention of camels in the patriarchal narratives as anachronisms, since there is ample archeological evidence for the domestication of the camel before the time of the patriarchs.”

    Not opinion folks, fact.

    February 12, 2014 at 12:04 pm |
    • santiagodraco

      And as the great Albert Einstein once said "there are none so blind as those who will not see." Very applicable in your case I'm afraid.

      February 12, 2014 at 12:24 pm |
      • Guy Fuller

        Before injecting such harsh criticism, I would encourage you to investigate the bible for yourself as opposed to believing what someone has told you.

        February 13, 2014 at 5:36 pm |
    • ugetthefacts

      actually, the bible continues to fail. Proof scaring children with voodoo will traumatize them into adults who fear facing reality. Sad, but true. Imagine telling small children of a place they will go to where they will get painful third degree burns with scary monsters who will eat them. Of course they must reduce the child first by calling them a sinner.

      Sounds just like terrorist group training camps.

      February 12, 2014 at 12:25 pm |
      • Guy Fuller

        Cruelty does not endear us to God it in fact repels us.

        ugetthefacts, true to your name – the bible has never taught that humans are tormented by God after death. This is a teaching that false religion has advocated and has twisted the bible so that others would be forced into a certain course of action. A God of love has not and never will burn individuals in a fiery torment.

        In fact, It is unthinkable for the true God to act wickedly,For the Almighty to do wrong! Job 34:10

        February 12, 2014 at 8:50 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          Who goes to hell and what happens to the people there?

          February 12, 2014 at 8:56 pm |
        • Guy Fuller

          There is no biblical teaching of a fiery hell! Hades and Sheol are the greek and hebrew words to describe mankinds common grave. Jesus and the apostles never taught that after death God torments the dead. This is not a bible teaching but the work of flase religion who have tried to besmirched God's good name.

          February 13, 2014 at 5:27 pm |
    • jsharp2014

      "The bible has withstood attacks and criticism for centuries and has proven even the smartest of scholars to be wrong."

      Probably the most dishonest statement ever made on this post.

      The bible has been proven wrong, time and time again. Just a bunch of silly stories made up by people that were so scared of the world around them they came up with a god to explain what they could not explain.

      No, there was no talking snake.
      No, the world was not created in 6 days, no matter how hard these pathetic people now try to change what the word day means, they are they worst. Because you know when they start arguing about what day means you know even they know they are lying.
      No, there was no global flood that allowed Noah to put all of the animals in his little boat,
      The list goes on and on.
      I would be more interested in how much has actually been scientifically verified.
      Genesis turned out to be a bunch of crap, that section is patently not true for sure.
      Come on, that statement is just absurd.

      February 12, 2014 at 12:28 pm |
    • Vic

      Poster Dalahäst brilliantly brought up the subject of "Egyptian Petroglyphs" earlier. I looked it up and found the following concurring evidence from "Associates for Biblical Research" website:

      https://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2009/03/02/Bronze-Age-Camel-Petroglyphs-In-The-Wadi-Nasib2c-Sinai.aspx

      February 12, 2014 at 12:33 pm |
  18. joedriver1001

    "Using radiocarbon dating of camel bones" AND your positive every camel's bones that ever existed before the 10th Cent has been found and examined? come on what a ridiculous article written by someone who claims to be factual...BLAH BLAH BLAH

    February 12, 2014 at 11:41 am |
    • jayharland

      Whatever you gotta tell yourself.

      If we're finding dinosaur bones and ancient human bones, there is more support for this research than there is against it. Get a clue.

      February 12, 2014 at 11:53 am |
      • joedriver1001

        I'm sorry are you talking to me. The claim states a conclusion based on archeological discovery of bones for a given period not over all time hence its an incomplete hypothesis got a clue, obviously logic isn't one of your strengths.

        February 12, 2014 at 12:01 pm |
        • jsharp2014

          Your missing the point though, they have never found camel bones that go that far back.

          Because they weren't there. That is the answer, it is not confusing.

          Sorry it contradicts the fairy tale book.

          February 12, 2014 at 12:32 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          That is not what the study states. They found camel bones from that era, they just claim the bones they found show that the Camels weren't used for transport.

          And they haven't excavated every single location ever inhabited by man in that era.

          February 12, 2014 at 12:36 pm |
    • jackmeirod

      You are exactly correct. People are so eager to attack religious faith that they throw logic out the window. The fact that the oldest Camel bones discovered are dated to the 10th century BCE does not logically lead to the conclusion that no older domesticated camel bones exist. This article is nonsense and detracts from legitimate biblical criticism.

      February 12, 2014 at 1:17 pm |
  19. Dyslexic doG

    God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance
    – deGràsse Tyson

    February 12, 2014 at 11:36 am |
    • Dalahäst

      [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbvDYyoAv9k&w=640&h=360]

      Amen.

      February 12, 2014 at 11:43 am |
    • Dalahäst

      "Does it mean, if you don’t understand something, and the community of physicists don’t understand it, that means God did it? Is that how you want to play this game? Because if it is, here’s a list of things in the past that the physicists at the time didn’t understand [and now we do understand] [...]. If that’s how you want to invoke your evidence for God, then God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that’s getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on – so just be ready for that to happen, if that’s how you want to come at the problem. "

      No, I'm a Christian. That is not how I want to invoke my evidence for God.

      February 12, 2014 at 11:49 am |
      • jayharland

        There is so much to figure out and you're content thinking ancient humans answered all of the questions? The Greeks and Romans had Gods they absolutely, without a doubt in their mind, believed in... what about those Gods, why don't we believe in them? Could it be that religion is ancient, and in this day in age anyone still clinging to it is slowing the progress of humanity?

        February 12, 2014 at 11:55 am |
        • Dalahäst

          @ jayharland

          – There is so much to figure out and you're content thinking ancient humans answered all of the questions?

          Absolutely not.

          – The Greeks and Romans had Gods they absolutely, without a doubt in their mind, believed in... what about those Gods, why don't we believe in them? Could it be that religion is ancient, and in this day in age anyone still clinging to it is slowing the progress of humanity?

          Could be. Or it could be that God is real and religion doesn't have all the answers.

          February 12, 2014 at 12:02 pm |
      • wrathfuldiety

        I actually think a good way to define the faith believers are talking about is that it is between subjective and objective.

        A scene in the movie Contact describes it well. In the film Jodie Foster's character is a very rational scientist while her boyfriend played by Matthew McConahey is a famous spiritual speaker. In a conversation she says she only believes in what can be analyzed and proven. Her boyfriend thinks for a moment and asks her, "Did you love you father?" A little surprised she answers "Sure". "Prove it" he says. She is completely taken aback and has no answer.

        Her love for her father is as true and real as the sky is blue and the sun is a ball of ignited hydrogen....but she can't prove her love in any objective manner. It's true FOR HER and not for others. I think this is what those with a religious belief/faith are trying to say.
        For me personally, I see nothing wrong with this.Every one us has ways of defining our world that only work for us. As long as we don't impose them on others against their will I can live with it.

        February 12, 2014 at 11:56 am |
        • Dalahäst

          Nicely put.

          February 12, 2014 at 12:02 pm |
        • santiagodraco

          That's a wonderful non-answer and to people not familiar with seeing the forest for the trees it sounds convincing. However.

          What someone believes/feels/wantstobetrue has nothing to do with what is/isn't true nor does it have anything to do with the validity or not of an ancient text which is the topic of this article.

          I agree, believe what you will, however that doesn't change reality (except in the persons mind) and as you said nor should it be imposed on others. Listen well Mr. Ham. Your Creationist psychobabble nonsense has no place in schools where actual real science is taught. Or let me put it another way if it DOES belong there then we should also be teaching L. Ron Hubbard's Scientologist Xeno Alien origin story along with all the other religions.

          February 12, 2014 at 1:11 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Non-answer? What was the question?

          He was posting a statement.

          February 12, 2014 at 1:23 pm |
        • wrathfuldiety

          santiagodraco

          I agree. Creationism should never be in a science class. It doesn't meet the definition of science. It is not falsifiable. It's possible you could find objective evidence that evolution didn't occur. But the basic premise behind creationism/intelligent design is that a god/creator made the world in some way – period. It is not allowed to ever falsify that. The definition of those ideas MUST have a creator with no ifs, ands, or buts. That isn't science. Those ideas belong in a philosophy course where they can be discussed and argued to the heart's content.r

          February 12, 2014 at 2:23 pm |
  20. bobaboohee

    EVERYTHING in the Bible is made up. Why would Camels be any different? Wake up you so called "Christians"!

    February 12, 2014 at 11:35 am |
    • gent49

      And is your motive – not to mention your proof – academic? I thought not. "Men loved darkness rather than the light, becaues their deeds were evil." (Jesus from the gospel of John) And when you're being thrown into Hell, you'll know that to be true.

      February 12, 2014 at 1:17 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.