Why Didn't They Just Use Evidence about Camels and the Bible?
Many times, Christians and creationists will point out that the evidence supporting the Bible and creation is on our side. However, we cannot just "out evidence" scoffers because for every fact, every bit of evidence, there is an equal and opposite rescuing device. That is, if someone does not want to accept the evidence, they will find a way to reject it.
Everyone has a worldview built by their presuppositions, and their presuppositions are composed of beliefs, opinions and things that they consider self-evident truths. The "truths" of materialists are actually self-refuting because they are comprised of unsupported assumptions. (Often, they do not even realize that the things they take for granted as being true are unfounded.) Also, people will cling to their worldviews in spite of compelling evidence to the contrary. These will find excuses to avoid examining the evidence that supports biblical matters and even call Christians "liars" because our interpretations of the evidence does not comport with their belief systems. Further, some will use logical fallacies to avoid unpleasant truths, such as the genetic fallacy ("I won't read that creationist site, it's not science!") and so on.
When refuting assertions made by anti-biblical sources, their biases need to be addressed as well as the errors in their claims. Also, the proper evidence needs to be presented. Someone wrote a disparaging letter to Answers In Genesis, upset that an article refuting a claim that archaeology disproved the Bible's record of domesticated camels at the time of Abraham. The writer fired off a number of possible facts from history and archaeology that may or may not have been accurate, but many were also irrelevant, and would have been an incomplete answer to the issue. Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell explained why simply citing facts are not enough in "Feedback: Does Archaeology Prove the Bible Is Right about Camels?" I recommend that you read it.