Do scientists believe in unicorns?

[Extraneous]

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

I believe that may be true but its also true that translators only applied their ignorance of scripture, not intending to be misleading. All Churches are ignorant too. I believe we, in this age of internet, are far more blessed to find truth, ironically we use it to promote ignorance rather than truth. We hold onto the Dark ages rather than seeking light.

 

[Radrook]

I believe that may be true but its also true that translators only applied their ignorance of scripture, not intending to be misleading. All Churches are ignorant too. I believe we, in this age of internet, are far more blessed to find truth, ironically we use it to promote ignorance rather than truth. We hold onto the Dark ages rather than seeking light.

I have no doubt that translators are usually very sincere in their efforts to translate as accurately as possible. Neither do I doubt that all churches are very sincere in their way of understanding and teaching the biblical concepts as well. However, sincere intentions do not cancel out the potentially devastating effects that inaccurate knowledge can have on people's lives.

For example, the translation of original words into mythological creatures might convince some persons that the Bible is silly and motivate a refusal to take Gospel concerning Christ seriously because it is a biblical message as well and therefore can't be trusted.

 

[Extraneous]

I have no doubt that translators are usually very sincere in their efforts to translate as accurately as possible.

I believe that the Churches were blind by their love for the world. They were not able to see correctly. It started with RCC, or perhaps even something before that, and it all went dark. 2 Timothy 2:4 started long, long ago. As well as 2 timothy 4:3

 

[Radrook]

I believe that the Churches were blind by their love for the world. They were not able to see correctly. It started with RCC, or perhaps even something before that, and it all went dark. 2 Timothy 2:4 started long, long ago. As well as 2 timothy 4:3

I agree that an apostasy that had been gradually developing took over after the last Apostle died as foretold by Paul.
.

 

[Abraxos]

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

Actually it was an atheist that pointed this out to me last year while we were debating over another evolutionary hoax called Darwinius Masillae.

Shoot to 13:00.

 

[Extraneous]

Actually it was an atheist that pointed this out to me last year while we were debating over another evolutionary hoax called Darwinius Masillae.

Shoot to 13:00.

Its a Lemur.

 

[Abraxos]

Its a Lemur.

That's what I told him.

 

[Jimmy D]

Well, I did a quick google research, as promised, and I still don't know why you say Lucy is a hoax. I can't listen to videos (no sound on my PC) so would it be possible to give me a clue as to what you're talking about.

If you won't back up your claims they can be dismissed as unsubstantiated nonsense.

Thanks.

 

[Larniavc]

Santa

Wait a minute. What are you saying?

ABE: oh god it's true!

*sobbing*

 

[Ophiolite]

Well, I did a quick google research, as promised, and I still don't know why you say Lucy is a hoax. I can't listen to videos (no sound on my PC) so would it be possible to give me a clue as to what you're talking about.

If you won't back up your claims they can be dismissed as unsubstantiated nonsense.

Thanks.

That's a sound request. (Accidental pun.) And ideally, I'd like to see published, peer reviewed research justifying the hoax claim, not some internet video. Why do people who do not understand how science works feel qualified to criticise it?

 

[Jimmy D]

Whilst you're right Ophiolite, and I completely agree with what you're saying, I would be happy with any sort of explanation that we could at least get our teeth into.... I honestly haven't got a clue what they're going on about. There was mention of 'mixed up bones' and an 'incomplete skeleton' but that in no way implies a hoax.

A hoax, to me, suggests fraudulent behaviour - quite an accusation to level at someone without anything to back it up and totally unacceptable in my opinion. Of course I could be wrong, maybe there is some basis to these claims, but it hasn't been presented yet.

 

[Goonie]

Whilst you're right Ophiolite, and I completely agree with what you're saying, I would be happy with any sort of explanation that we could at least get our teeth into.... I honestly haven't got a clue what they're going on about. There was mention of 'mixed up bones' and an 'incomplete skeleton' but that in no way implies a hoax.

A hoax, to me, suggests fraudulent behaviour - quite an accusation to level at someone without anything to back it up and totally unacceptable in my opinion. Of course I could be wrong, maybe there is some basis to these claims, but it hasn't been presented yet.

There referring to stuff like this, which this site debunks.
http://www.proof-of-evolution.com/donald-johanson.html

 

[Jimmy D]

Thanks Goonie.

So that's it? Give me strength, I would suggest that those posters making these accusations take a good look at themselves in the mirror. We already knew people will believe any old rubbish if they think it somehow confirmed their beliefs, fair enough though, that's up to them. Being so arrogant and judgmental as to accuse honest people of fraud when they have neither education or evidence to back it up seems extremely hypocritical and casts religion in a very bad light in my opinion.

 

[sfs]

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.

"Not properly identified" is very different than a hoax: a hoax means someone has been deliberately deceptive. If that charge is made against a scientist and it sticks, that's the end of his career; even a lingering shadow of suspicion can be very damaging. Making such an accusation without good evidence is wrong.

(Not that anything you quoted actually suggests that Lucy was not properly identified, by the way.)

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Do scientists belive in unicorns?

Not any more than any Christian should believe in unicorns. That people mistranslated the Bible to believe in such is a personal problem they need to deal with by learning what the original words mean - not what some translator with his own personal belief thought it meant.

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

Deuteronomy 33:17 makes it clear that unicorns - whatever people want them to be - had horns (plural) like the bull. People simply fail to understand that when a bull gores you - it does so with one of it's horns - not two - and so misconstrue references to a single horn as meaning a single-horned creature. Most likely it was the extinct Auroch, extinct because as the Bible explains it could not be domesticated or made to fit the plow. Job 39:9. Note the same word that is translated as Ox is the same word also translated as unicorn in other versions.

People need to stop spreading myths of some horse with a horn that did not develop and creep into Christianity until well into the middle ages from Pegan sources.

 

[Radrook]

There is also a fiddling around with letter capitalizations where the translator's beliefs deem it essential.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

"Not properly identified" is very different than a hoax: a hoax means someone has been deliberately deceptive. If that charge is made against a scientist and it sticks, that's the end of his career; even a lingering shadow of suspicion can be very damaging. Making such an accusation without good evidence is wrong.

(Not that anything you quoted actually suggests that Lucy was not properly identified, by the way.)

And a knee joint that was found almost 2 miles away then claimed to belong to the same skeleton?????

On November 20, 1986 Donald Johanson, Lucy's discoverer, lectured at the University of Missouri, Kansas City. After showing slides of Lucy, Johanson showed another slide of a knee-joint, and gave reasons why this fossil helped confirm Lucy as a pre-human ancestor. Johanson was then asked by Roy Holt: "How far away from Lucy did you find the knee?". Johanson replied that the knee-joint was found "60-70 metres lower in the strata, and 2-3 kilometres away." When asked, "Then why are you so sure it [the knee-joint] belonged to Lucy?" Johanson answered, "Anatomical similarity." (Tom Willis, "'Lucy' Goes to College", CSA News, Cleveland MO, February 1987).

Only a femur was found with the bones of Lucy - not a knee joint. They are simply assuming - because they want it to be so, that the knee bone belongs to the same hominid as Lucy. Note that no knee joint was ever found with the bones of Lucy - likewise no femur was found with the knee joint. There is nothing even remotely connecting the two except pipe dreams and wishful thinking.

The claim is based upon the leg bone angle, yet present day orangutan and spider monkeys have the same angle as humans yet are adept tree climbers. Even though the portion of the lower jaw was v-shaped totally unlike humans, but similar to an orangutan - they decided to claim it was more human-like than monkey like.

Pipe dreams and wishful thinking is what makes it similar to humans - not facts.

 

[Radrook]

There was once a whole caveman species based on a pig's tooth.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

There was once a whole caveman species based on a pig's tooth.

As there was once a court decision based upon part of a human skull, an orangutan lower jaw and fossilized chimpanzee teeth - that has to this day never been overturned despite the fact false evidence was presented. Imagine that. In any court that relies on falsified evidence - the decision is overturned. But not the decision of that court...... hmmmmm, imagine that......

 

[Radrook]

As there was once a court decision based upon part of a human skull, an orangutan lower jaw and fossilized chimpanzee teeth - that has to this day never been overturned despite the fact false evidence was presented. Imagine that. In any court that relies on falsified evidence - the decision is overturned. But not the decision of that court...... hmmmmm, imagine that......

Irrationality in support of bogus evidence has often cropped up. However, a court of law is the least likely place where one would expect such a display. Very sad indeed.