Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jack the Bodiless · 09-15-2006, 02:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

I have noticed that on creation-evolution forums that evolutionists have little philosophy/religion/faith to defend except protozoa-to-man (or whatever the current theory is). For myself those issues are almost like play-things, and many of the evo theories are in the realm of absurdity. No more, no less. And occasionally I will discuss that from a probability standpoint. And/or try to point out that the root issue is spiritual.

Hilarious! The real problem is that the Bible is contradicted by overwhelming physical evidence, but you want to pretend that it's all about "philosophy", "faith", and "spiritual" stuff.

Why not apply that to the camel argument too? What if I'm an acamelist? I see no philosophical justification for faith in the existence of camels, and ascribe no spiritual significance to them. So camels don't exist, and the Bible is wrong.

Steven Avery · 09-15-2006, 04:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregor

So the source you site purports to be an objective and neutral compilation?

Hi Gregor,

Actually I don't think there is anybody on the web who claims to have such a neutral compilation.

Anyway this issue is a lot simpler than compilations or comparative lists of evidences.
This question is not one of preponderance like saying -
"more donkeys were used than camels".
Such an assertion would do well with a compilation like the one from Anat and could be well-defended.

However, what we have is almost entirely an argument from silence - the type of argument that has the potential to be fully refuted by only one counter-evidence. If there is one decent (not even necessarily conclusive) evidence of camel domestication by the time of Abraham then any assertion as the following is completely non-functional and must be discarded for scholastic integrity.

"The Bible is anachronistic, the Penteteuch was written much later by folks who did not have their facts right because it has domestication of camels at the time of Abraham. Camels were only domesticated way past that time."

(Of course somebody could take a fallback position of an entirely different probability argument .. would there be of x number of domesticated camels in the exact land of Abraham at such-and-such a time under these conditions .. However the nature of such an argument is entirely different.)

Now there are at least three apparently strong evidences that would all have to be refuted to have any hope of rehabilitating the anachronism accusation. So I indicated three of the more decisive evidences that Paul Tobin does not address in his article (even while claiming 'fatal flaws' in all the response-evidence) in my response to Toto.

And that is where we stand now.

Is there anyone who wants to say that each one of these does not offer good, solid evidence for early domestication of camels ? Ultimately to defend the anachronism argument you would have to discredit all the archaeological claims in terms of their applicability to this discussion - but I will ask you whether you feel there is a strong counter-argument to even any one of them ?

For those who are still off-topic on this thread, I bid you well and perhaps we will chat in other venues at other times.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

gregor · 09-15-2006, 06:09 AM

Ok, I just wanted to confirm that yours was simply a cut-and-paste argument from an apologist site, rather than an actual analysis.

Steven Avery · 09-15-2006, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregor

I just wanted to confirm that yours was simply a cut-and-paste argument from an apologist site, rather than an actual analysis.

That's fine. I studied the sites on all the web sites I could find (both sides of the issue) and analyzed them. I did not do primary source research (nor did I claim to). And I did write to two sites, one on each side, to pursue some questions.

There is no need to do additional research unless the various references given have a substantive challenge. So far there is none at all, other to wave the term 'fatal flaw'.

So as it stands they are full refutation of the camel-domestication-anachronism claim as given by Finkelstein and Silberman and on the web by Paul Tobin.

The claim remains an embarassment, and (unless some strong counter-argument suddenly appears) perhaps you could join me in asking Paul Tobin to remove his section, or better yet, an update where he acknowledges that this claim is now inoperative.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Sven · 09-15-2006, 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

I studied the sites on all the web sites I could find (both sides of the issue) and analyzed them. I did not do primary source research (nor did I claim to).

:huh: These two sentences flatly contradict each other.

Steven Avery · 09-15-2006, 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sven

:huh: These two sentences flatly contradict each other.

Wrong. I was accused of simply doing cut-and-paste.

In fact I read them looking for consistency and whether they really were accurate to the issue. eg. I highlighted particularly the quotes from Paul Tobin that represented a logical fallacy. And the quote that was consummate handwaving - 'fatal flaw', mostly based on the genetic fallacy. And how Paul addressed a weaker argument while ignoring the stronger ones.

All of that is not cut-and-paste, it is in fact analysis.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Sven · 09-15-2006, 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

Wrong. I was accused of simply doing cut-and-paste.

In fact I read them looking for consistency and whether they really were accurate to the issue. eg. I highlighted particularly the quotes from Paul Tobin that represented a logical fallacy. And the quote that was consummate handwaving - 'fatal flaw', mostly based on the genetic fallacy. And how Paul addressed a weaker argument while ignoring the stronger ones.

All of that is not cut-and-paste, it is in fact analysis.

Not at all. There's a continuum between cut-and-paste and analysis. Without any investigation of primary source material, I won't call anything an "analysis" - especially in the field of history.

Steven Avery · 09-15-2006, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sven

Not at all. There's a continuum between cut-and-paste and analysis. Without any investigation of primary source material, I won't call anything an "analysis" - especially in the field of history.

You are welcome to your definition. I respectfully disagree. There is a wide gap between cut-and-paste and analysis short of primary source analysis (which itself can have various levels).

Anyway, I appreciate that you make a distinction between cut-and-paste, the original accusation, and other aspects of the analysis continuum.

Remember no one, not Finkelstein, or Sven, or Tobin, or anyone, has offerred a single specific objection to the three evidences I highlighted. Other than that they were referenced up on web sites of Christians.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Clivedurdle · 09-15-2006, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Dromedary camels are no longer considered wild animals. Dromedary camels are semi-domesticated animals, freely ranging, but under herdsman control. In fact, dromedary camels have been "extinct" from the wild for the past 2000 years. The earliest evidence for dromedary domestication dates to about 4,000 years ago on a small island off the Abu Dhabi coast. Northern Arabian tribes began to use dromedary camels as riding animals around 3,100 years ago (Kohler-Rollefson 1991). The only surviving feral herds of dromedary camels are those found in Australia. Introduced, feral dromedary camels were also found in the southwestern United States until about 1905.

http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.ed...omedarius.html

The problem would seem to be more around when the camel train was invented.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...caravan_2.html

And moving salt around is very ancient.

Clivedurdle · 09-15-2006, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Trans-Saharan trade between North Africa and the West African Sudan pre-dated Carthaginian and Roman settlement in North Africa. It was the introduction of the camel to the Sahara in the first centuries that made regular and extensive trade possible. Expansion of the trans-Saharan caravan trade, with the Arab conquest of North Africa in the seventh and eighth centuries, was a major stimulus to the creation of political organization south of the Sahara

http://www.routledge-ny.com/ref/africanhist/tuareg.html

Carthage say 500 bce, but interestingly major expansion is CE to Islam - what is the date of the earliest copies of Genesis? Might these stories mentioning camels be post xian interpolations? Remember, elephant had been there at least from Hannibal, when were camel trains introduced?

Do the gospels or Paul mention camels?

http://www.boop.org/jan/justso/camel.htm

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-15-2006, 06:09 AM	#23
gregor Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 932	Ok, I just wanted to confirm that yours was simply a cut-and-paste argument from an apologist site, rather than an actual analysis.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.