Do scientists believe in unicorns?

[Sayre]

Isn't the point here that scientists qua scientists don't believe in unicorns? They as people can believe in whatever they want but not in the role of scientist.

If AV means them as people and not their role, then it was unnecessary to use the word scientists.

 

[bhsmte]

Yes.

All Christians?

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, because unlike clouds and drugs, Unicorns have only ever been written about, and written about by different cultures and with different descriptions as to what they are, no one has ever taken a picture of one, no one has ever filmed one, no fossils or remains have ever been found anywhere and there is nothing in the evolutionary chain that suggests such a beast, also they are not mentioned in the Bible as Unicorns.

Okay ... how was I supposed to know that?

How was I supposed to know that a unicorn fossil isn't on display in some institution somewhere, or even taught in biology?

So there is absolutely zero evidence at all except in tales regarded as myths by pretty much every person on the planet including you!

I take it you're against crypotzoology?

Oh and your thing with Thalidomide, you frequently mention it, yes it was terrible, it was an awful mistake, one that will forever be remembered as such.

Was it?

But the same company that produced it, also was the first to produce penicillin, so they are not all bad Av

Balancing out their work, are they?

 

[AV1611VET]

So AV1611 ... what do you believe about the chupacabra and how would you determine what is true or not concerning it ?

You're asking someone who believes this:

Following is a list of animals found in the Bible:

1. fowled bat
2. behemoth
3. leviathan
4. four-legged grasshopper
5. satyr
6. unicorn
7. dragon
8. straw-eating lions

I contend that these animals are problematic for evolutionists.

 

[Old Ned]

Okay ... how was I supposed to know that?

How was I supposed to know that a unicorn fossil isn't on display in some institution somewhere, or even taught in biology?

Well Av, this is often the point I make, ask a question, great.
Make an assumption based on misinformation and expect questions to clarify.

Now you know, you have learned something today, feels good doesn't it

I take it you're against crypotzoology?

I wouldn't say I am against it, I do not subscribe to it but I do find it interesting.
By the same token, I am not about to start stating that things exist that have zero evidence to suggest such.

To me, this is no different from Astrology.

Was it?

Yes, a formal apology has been made, they have admitted it was a terrible mistake.
However the mistake was honest, there are 2 types of it, one spirals one way, the other spirals the opposite way. Unfortunately they used the wrong one. they admit that.
The drug is still available in it's correct form in the US, UK, Canada and many European countries.

Balancing out their work, are they?

Nope, not balancing, there is no excuse for the mistake. There is a reason, but not an excuse.
But the company itself is not an evil one, it was not on purpose and they have done good things too... Just like your God

 

[AV1611VET]

However the mistake was honest, there are 2 types of it, one spirals one way, the other spirals the opposite way. Unfortunately they used the wrong one. they admit that.

This is not the story as I understand it.

As I understand it, the prevailing theory was that nothing would pass through the placental wall into the unborn child.

 

[Old Ned]

This is not the story as I understand it.

As I understand it, the prevailing theory was that nothing would pass through the placental wall into the unborn child.

From what I read, the statement I made is what they have learned.
What you are saying is I believe what they said back then, part of the mistake.

But do we really want to go from unicorns into a full out debate about a medical mistake decades ago?

Lets get back to Unicorns

 

[AV1611VET]

But do we really want to go from unicorns into a full out debate about a medical mistake decades ago?

Lets get back to Unicorns

We can get back to unicorns if you want to, but for the record, I am not convinced Thalidomide was a mistake.

And I have detailed why in another thread.

 

[[serious]]

And here I thought Narwhals were real.

Well, if you are defining narwhals as unicorns, then unicorns exist. If you define a cat as a 4 legged grasshopper, then 4 legged grasshoppers are real.

 

[Old Ned]

We can get back to unicorns if you want to, but for the record, I am not convinced Thalidomide was a mistake.

And I have detailed why in another thread.

That's great, I personally don't see any point in trying to show it was intentional, nothing to gain from it other than ruining more lives.

Unicorns on the other hand, now these guys can cure illness by taking poisoned water in their horn and feeding it to sick people to cure them... now THAT's medicine

 

[poolerboy0077]

Do scientists belive in unicorns?

Not every question deserves a thread.

 

[RiemannZ]

most scientists I know prefer to sacrifice unicorns of different alignment at their god's altar

 

[14messenger]

I've heard rhinos are unicorns.

 

[Abraxos]

Bump*

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11613890

Guess the Bible was right all along about the unicorn. Not surprised in the least.

Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee? [Job 39:9]

 

[Oafman]

Guess the Bible was right all along about the unicorn. Not surprised in the least.

But not right about the age of the Earth, it seems:

"But the discovery of a well-preserved skull in Kazakhstan has provided evidence to suggest the mammals died just 29,000 years ago"

 

[Abraxos]

But not right about the age of the Earth, it seems:

"But the discovery of a well-preserved skull in Kazakhstan has provided evidence to suggest the mammals died just 29,000 years ago"

Ah Carbon-dating techniques.

An illustration may help: Imagine you found a candle burning in a room, and you wanted to determine how long it was burning before you found it. You could measure the present height of the candle (say, 7 inches) and the rate of burn (say, an inch per hour). In order to find the length of time since the candle was lit, we would be forced to make some assumptions of oh I don't know, maybe 29,000 years.

 

[Oafman]

Ah Carbon-dating techniques.

An illustration may help: Imagine you found a candle burning in a room, and you wanted to determine how long it was burning before you found it. You could measure the present height of the candle (say, 7 inches) and the rate of burn (say, an inch per hour). In order to find the length of time since the candle was lit, we would be forced to make some assumptions of oh I don't know, maybe 29,000 years.

You could have been more succinct by simply writing "I don't understand radioactive decay".

 

[Extraneous]

Scientists believe in big-foot, but i'm not sure about unicorns.

 

[Abraxos]

Scientists believe in big-foot, but i'm not sure about unicorns.

I wonder if they know Lucy was a hoax just like the theory of evolution.

 

[Extraneous]

I wonder if they know Lucy was a hoax just like the theory of evolution.

I dunno