Do scientists believe in unicorns?

[Extraneous]

No.

I mean those things they dig up and copy-and-paste together until it looks like something that walked around dragging its knuckles on the ground ... then calling it a "transitional species."

I sure dont trust it, whatever it is.

 

[Jimmy D]

Psalm 38:3 There is no soundness in my flesh because of thine anger; neither is there any rest in my bones because of my sin.

Psalm 38:6 I am troubled; I am bowed down greatly; I go mourning all the day long.

Note: After looking at pics of Cro-magnon and Neanderthal, I see I'll have to come up with another species, as they walked upright.

Maybe scientists would give him is own classification.

Like: Homothisthing haroldcookii.

Oh, Ok mate. I don't agree with your interpretation but I see where you're coming from, at least you got me to do a bit of bible study.

 

[Jimmy D]

So does that make Australopithecus afarensis a hoax or is it just the Lucy skeleton?

How does the fact that it's incomplete make it a hoax?

It's quite a bold statement you're making accusing respected scientists etc of lying, I'm curious as to what extent you've studied the bones and in what way you're qualified to dispute their findings.

I'll assume that the fact that my questions remain unanswered is indicative that the posters claiming that Lucy is a hoax are talking out of their hats with nothing to back up their assertions.

 

[Extraneous]

I'll assume that the fact that my questions remain unanswered is indicative that the posters claiming that Lucy is a hoax are talking out of their hats with nothing to back up their assertions.

Plenty of info on the net about it. Not to mention, scientists have a bad track record when it comes to fossils.

 

[Jimmy D]

Plenty of info on the net about it. Not to mention, scientists have a bad track record when it comes to fossils.

Are you saying that they're lying or mistaken? Either way it's quite an accusation. I suppose the fact that you've read something on a blog qualifies you to make such assertions.

I still don't know why Lucy is a hoax though.

 

[Extraneous]

Are you saying that they're lying or mistaken? Either way it's quite an accusation. I suppose the fact that you've read something on a blog qualifies you to make such assertions.

I still don't know why Lucy is a hoax though.

Do some research friend, you will see.

 

[Murby]

Apparently scientist do believe in unicorns
http://phys.org/news/2016-03-humans-unicorns-earth.html

 

[Oafman]

 

[Ophiolite]

Thank you. There are not enough kittens on the internet and since it was designed to disperse pictures of kittens I appreciate you taking the trouble.

Now, as to unicorns. I am not a scientist, but I trained as a scientist and I certainly believe in unicorns. And I know where the live: they live in mythology and in tales of wonder and in the imagination of children. They are wondrous creatures and the world would be a sadder place were they pass into history.

 

[Jimmy D]

Do some research friend, you will see.

I'll have a quick google this afternoon if I get a chance.

 

[Extraneous]

I'll have a quick google this afternoon if I get a chance.

Allrighty, Jimmy D

 

[freezerman2000]

Apparently scientist do believe in unicorns
http://phys.org/news/2016-03-humans-unicorns-earth.html

You beat me to it..this is what I found..
http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2016/0329/Siberian-unicorn-lived-way-longer-than-we-all-thought

 

[Hoghead1]

Lucy is no hoax, Abraxos. Where on earth did you get that idea? Creation-science propaganda, I am guessing.

 

[AV1611VET]

Lucy is no hoax, Abraxos. Where on earth did you get that idea? Creation-science propaganda, I am guessing.

QV please:

In 1979, *Johanson and *White claimed that Lucy came under an ape/man classification (Australopithecus afarensis). But even before that startling announcement, the situation did not look too good for Lucy. In 1976, Johanson said that "Lucy has massive V-shaped jaws in contrast to man." (*National Geographic Magazine, 150:790-810. ) In 1981, he said that she was "embarrassingly un-Homo like." (Science 81, 2(2):53-55.) Time magazine reported in 1977 that Lucy had a tiny skull, a head like an ape, a brain case size the same as that of a chimp 450 cc and "was surprisingly short legged" (*Time, November 7, 1,979, pp. 68-69).

SOURCE

 

[sfs]

QV please:

SOURCE

Did you intend to post something completely irrelevant, or was it an accident?

ETA: Hmm, that came out a little harsher than intended. It was supposed to be snarky, but not that snarky. Nonetheless, the posted quotations have nothing to do with the question of Lucy being a hoax.

 

[AV1611VET]

Did you intend to post something completely irrelevant, or was it an accident?

What I see going on here: is that people are claiming Lucy is not a hoax because they have something in their possession (40% of some skeleton whose gender happens to be in question), and therefore it is classified as "Lucy," and that's good enough for them.

The other side of the coin is that "she" is being classified as a hoax because "she" hasn't been properly identified, let alone classified.

That's the argument as I see it.

ETA: Hmm, that came out a little harsher than intended. It was supposed to be snarky, but not that snarky.

Ain't no thang.

If I don't like it, I am free to vacate the Internet.

Nonetheless, the posted quotations have nothing to do with the question of Lucy being a hoax.

I guess it depends on how you look at it.

 

[Radrook]

LOL.

Unicorns are real. Of course the made-up Hollywood unicorns, where beautiful = good and ugly = evil , are not real just like Garfield, Mario, Mickey Mouse, Santa, Zelda, etc, as they are not meant to be real.
This is one place where those who wrote KJV didn't use the best word in their translation . It's should have been rhino instead of unicorn since a unicorn by definition has only one horn. It's even speak about one horn will be greater than the other (ten thousands of Ephraim vs thousands of Manasseh) just like you find on a rhino. No big deal since at that time they understood a unicorn to be a rhino.

There are many unbiblical ideas which are based on inaccurate translations of the original languages in which the Bible was written. Fortunately there are also translations that do not repeat those mistakes. Those who attempt to discredit the Bible, of course, prefer to use the ones that are known to be incorrect.

 

[Extraneous]

There are many unbiblical ideas which are based on inaccurate translations of the original languages in which the Bible was written. Fortunately there are also translations that do not repeat those mistakes. Those who attempt to discredit the Bible, of course, prefer to use the ones that are known to be incorrect.

No translation is perfect. However, some are better than others. Its about seeking truth with the heart, not building a Rocket engine.

 

[Extraneous]

I'm a KJV, NKJV onlyest kind a guy, who also reads the NIV as well.

 

[Radrook]

No translation is perfect. However, some are better than others. Its about seeking truth with the heart, not building a Rocket engine.

Truth is sought and the search can be thwarted via mistranslations which convey the opposite of what the original truth intended. One reason why this happens is because translators sometimes have preferences based on their particular theological views and these preferences influence their choices. For example, the word "Sheol" which in Hebrew refers to the common grave has often erroneously been translated as "hell" and by doing so has completely wrapped the meaning of the original message. As a consequence, the sincerely-seeking heart finds a falsehood instead of truth.

BTW
Here is a place where the many possibilities concerning the original word translated as "unicorn" are also discussed.
http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/106/does-the-bible-mention-unicorns