Proof Bible written well after events?
Love the squirrels...
Food for thought !
No doubt our friend Scholar will have something to say about this.
my advice is to stay calm scholar, jmb
You can look at the archeological article to which MM's link refers here.
The chain of assumptions necessary for one to reach the conclusion of the archeologist authors is stated plainly enough. If any of them are wrong, the argument fails.
The logical problem in their argument is simple: they find evidence of domesticated dromedaries in the area at a certain period, and then write as if that were evidence that such camels were not in the area at an earlier time. Not having proof that the animals were there is NOT the same as having proof that the animals were not there.
Note also that they admit that dromedaries were in the area previously, but then they dismiss them as wild dromedaries. Their reason for doing so? They presume that domesticated camels would leave skeleton with lesions (which they attribute to their use as pack animals). But, they admit, if camels were kept for other reasons (e.g. for their milk), such lesions would not be expected.
I do like this about the article: they are at least working from evidence (i.e. skeletal remains of dromedaries), not from imaginary documents (such as JEDP fanciers do).
Therein lies the problem with all history. Unless we have a certified provenance, all we do is draw conclusions based on the evidence that we have. I'm listening to a series of lectures on philosophy and religion at the moment and some of the illustrations are quite interesting.
That's spooky. the first time I heard this was last night on "The Big Bang Theory" comedy show.
Here's me thinking a Camel was a thick cable.
Which would make more sense.
So, you are saying, scholar, that evolution is real?