Do scientists believe in unicorns?

[AV1611VET]

Do scientists belive in unicorns?

 

[Sayre]

No

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I hope not, and neither should non-scientists.

 

[PersephonesTear]

I think you'd have to ask the scientist in question. They are people, after all, and every person has unique beliefs about mythology stuff.

 

[durangodawood]

Maybe some scientists believe in unicorns.

But I doubt that most do. So I voted no.

 

[quatona]

Do scientists belive in unicorns?

Some scientists even believe in god(s), so why not?

Another question would be whether the existence of unicorns is substantiated by scientific research (or even only subject to scientific research).

 

[UnderstandForgive]

I thought there was going to be some article about a newly discovered horned horse. So disappointing.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Clearly a type of cattle now extinct.

Deuteronomy 33:17 “His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh.”

Most likely the Auroch.

Aurochs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://biblehub.com/hebrew/7214.htm

So technically I guess yes, scientists should believe in them, just not the mythological interpretation.

 

[MikeCarra]

Do scientists belive in unicorns?

I hope everyone realizes what AV1611VET is going to do here. If not, let me play it out for you as well as providing a reasonable counterpoint:

AV will take all the "no's" and point out that just because something has not been found is not evidence that it should not be believed. Take the Higgs Boson before the LHC find recently.

Further this is the old "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". You cannot make a universal negative claim unless you can experience the entire universe and all places/conditions within it simultaneously.

Now, here's the reasonable counterpoint:

The reason we think unicorns were a "thing" once is because we see paintings of people with them and we read "stories" about them. But we don't see them today.

The problem is: we have only indirect evidence anyone ever "saw" a unicorn. It's easy to paint a picture that is make-believe and it is easy to write a fictional story. These are, themselves, not indicators of a real thing's existence.

As such, since there are no verifiable reasons to believe a unicorn actually exists then the rational pov would be to assume that they do not exist until such time evidence is provided of their positive existence.

Now, do we have to go through the entire thread's history to see these events unfold?

 

[TillICollapse]

I hope everyone realizes what AV1611VET is going to do here. If not, let me play it out for you as well as providing a reasonable counterpoint:

AV will take all the "no's" and point out that just because something has not been found is not evidence that it should not be believed. Take the Higgs Boson before the LHC find recently.

Further this is the old "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". You cannot make a universal negative claim unless you can experience the entire universe and all places/conditions within it simultaneously.

Now, here's the reasonable counterpoint:

The reason we think unicorns were a "thing" once is because we see paintings of people with them and we read "stories" about them. But we don't see them today.

The problem is: we have only indirect evidence anyone ever "saw" a unicorn. It's easy to paint a picture that is make-believe and it is easy to write a fictional story. These are, themselves, not indicators of a real thing's existence.

As such, since there are no verifiable reasons to believe a unicorn actually exists then the rational pov would be to assume that they do not exist until such time evidence is provided of their positive existence.

Now, do we have to go through the entire thread's history to see these events unfold?

According to the law of PRATTs, yes.

 

[TillICollapse]

Please define what a unicorn is, and describe it in detail. Then I will tell you what I think about it.

 

[Smidlee]

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.

Clearly a type of cattle now extinct.

Deuteronomy 33:17 “His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh.”

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.

 

[Nithavela]

Only the christian ones and insane ones, as well as a few ambitious biologists.

Rhino horns aren't really horns, by the way..

Now, NARWAHLS... That's a different story.

 

[Smidlee]

Rhino horns aren't really horns, by the way..

And the sun doesn't give off light but electromagnetic waves.

 

[TillICollapse]

Rhino horns aren't really horns, by the way.

I frequently remind myself that flat tables are also curved lol.

Now, NARWAHLS... That's a different story.

Actually, their "horn" is a tusk, or elongated canine. A "horn" tends to have live bone as the core.

 

[Smidlee]

From Wiki :

The word rhinoceros is derived through Latin from the Ancient Greek: ῥῑνόκερως, which is composed of ῥῑνο- (rhino-, "nose") and κέρας (keras, "horn")

Just like the word unicorn words can change meaning with time.

 

[TheBear]

Can you prove unicorns don't exist?

[/tongue-in-cheek]

 

[Lost Angel]

The king James translation is a poor one. It can take a hike.

 

[AV1611VET]

This remark brought to you by Lost Angel:

The king James translation is a poor one. It can take a hike.

Cause and effect?

 

[grasping the after wind]

Why not?

500 × 346 - shadesofgreenacj.wordpress.com