Missing link found by Norwegian scientist

[AV1611VET]

I dont think you'd fall for the nigerian scam...

Not again, I won't ---

I almost fell off my chair at "unicorns=yes"

Then you must be sitting on a chair with weak legs.

Unicorns are indeed mentioned in the Bible --- they are ... er...

Unicorns are indeed mentioned in the Bible.

They are stronger than an ox, but not as tame. A real asset, if you had the patience to keep one.

And keep in mind: I'm not talking about today's cartoonish unicorns.

You know; skipping around and leaping over rainbows, while a Hallmark photographer is chasing him around?

I'm talking a real beast of the field; capable of getting the work done sooner than the mighty ox.

 

[TheReasoner]

Not again, I won't --- Then you must be sitting on a chair with weak legs.

Unicorns are indeed mentioned in the Bible --- they are ... er...

Unicorns are indeed mentioned in the Bible.

They are stronger than an ox, but not as tame. A real asset, if you had the patience to keep one.

And keep in mind: I'm not talking about today's cartoonish unicorns.

You know; skipping around and leaping over rainbows, while a Hallmark photographer is chasing him around?

I'm talking a real beast of the field; capable of getting the work done sooner than the mighty ox.

Yet we have no bones. No fossils. And where in the bible are they mentioned???

 

[AV1611VET]

so, theres no talking serpents that existed, but, unicorns and angels exist?

you may not believe ANYTING, but you believe such ridiculous things that you might as well believe anything.

Ya, I once heard they believed that the Hittites never existed, either; until they were found.

 

[AV1611VET]

Unicorns?

Okay. Ehm, AV, you're just some guy trying to discredit creationists, aren't you? Heh. Should have seen that one a mile off...

Are you familiar with our motto, FG?

• The Bible says it --- that settles it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yet we have no bones. No fossils.

Keep looking.

And where in the bible are they mentioned???

Nu 23:22 God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.

Nu 24:8 God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce them through with his arrows.

De 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.

Job 39:9 Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?

Job 39:10 Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?

Ps 29:6 He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn.

Ps 92:10 But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn: I shall be anointed with fresh oil.

 

[TheReasoner]

Are you familiar with our motto, FG?

• The Bible says it --- that settles it.

Quite. However, you do not believe that the sky is a hard mirror. Nor that the world is a flat disc. Nor that it is unmovable and the center of the universe. So obviously your motto is highly relative... So I would say your motto should be - if you were really honest:
"The way we read the bible, on these specific verses *provide list* yet not on these verses which are obviously wrong *provide second list* we are utterly convinced that it says this. So that settles it."
The bible is not god's word according to you, is it? Your own interpretation of it is. After all, as I said, there are parts of it you completely forget to read the literal way you read genesis chapter one.

 

[Toclafane]

Are you familiar with our motto, FG?

• The Bible says it --- that settles it.

Like I say, you guys have the attitude that believing in the Bible means we'll believe anything --- and that's not true.

Sooner or later you guys will overstep the bounds with a rookie mistake, and we show up to correct you.

• elves = no
• fairies = no
• talking serpents = no
• unicorns = yes
• angels = yes
• demons = yes
• leviathan = yes

Genesis(KJV) 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

 

[mpok1519]

AV is never going to contribute intellegently to these conversations. He will only discredit christianity as long as he lives, and with that, discredits every hard working biologist, anthropologist and scientist out there.

he discredits life itself, really.

 

[AV1611VET]

Genesis(KJV) 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

And how does the Bible describe that serpent in verse 1?

 

[mpok1519]

please, stop, now. You have no knowledge about any of the concepts being discussed here, only a need to derail the thread for your own short-sighted entertainment purposes...

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Unicorns are indeed mentioned in the Bible --- they are ... er...

Unicorns are indeed mentioned in the Bible.

They are stronger than an ox, but not as tame. A real asset, if you had the patience to keep one.

And keep in mind: I'm not talking about today's cartoonish unicorns.

You know; skipping around and leaping over rainbows, while a Hallmark photographer is chasing him around?

I'm talking a real beast of the field; capable of getting the work done sooner than the mighty ox.

Are you familiar with our motto, FG?

• The Bible says it --- that settles it.

Oh I daresay it does. But the Bible (KJV ro otherwise) doesn't explain what a unicorn actually is; for all we know, God could be referring to ducks.

So when the Bible says a unicorn is "stronger than an ox", what exactly does it mean?

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh I daresay it does. But the Bible (KJV ro otherwise) doesn't explain what a unicorn actually is; for all we know, God could be referring to ducks.

Not hardly.

Let's compare Scripture to Scripture, and see what we can come up with:

1. The unicorn must be extremely strong --- God compares His [omnipotent] strength to one --- [Numbers 23:22].
2. Unicorns must have a voracious appetite --- [Numbers 24:8].
3. Unicorns are very stubborn and unpredictable --- [Job 39:9].
4. Unicorns are hard to keep harnessed, and probably don't keep as straight of a line as an ox --- [Job 39:10].
5. They had hooved feet, and were playful at times --- [Psalm 29:6].
6. Their horns were probably noted for their strength as well --- [Psalm 92:10].

So when the Bible says a unicorn is "stronger than an ox", what exactly does it mean?

Probably that an ox, for all its great strength, was not as strong as a unicorn; BUT, an ox was tamer and easier to handle.

Some people think the unicorn is a modern-day rhinoceros --- or its descendant.

 

[USincognito]

please, stop, now. You have no knowledge about any of the concepts being discussed here, only a need to derail the thread for your own short-sighted entertainment purposes...

If only more people would realize this and not respond.

 

[Baggins]

I think one of the, many, things that Honkytntkmn has misunderstood about evolution is rarity of fossilisation of large animals in certain environments.

Take the most famous fossilised animal in the world - T. rex - every natural history museum you go into has one glowering down at you. They were top predators so they were never massivly numerous, probably a bit like human ancestors. There must be thousands of them right?

Wrong.

There are about 30 T. rex skeletons in existence at the moment despite looking for them for over a 100 years with massive monetary gain for the finders and the fact that they are found in the US.

But they are all complete skeletons aren't they?

No, none of them are complete.

But they all have those big scary skulls don't they?

No. Only 3 skulls have been found.

In comparison we have many more fossils of human intermediary species but only becase we have searched for them so assiduously. We have dug up half of North East Africa looking for specimens. These human ancestors lived in an environment much less prone to fossilise animals than the Cretaceous of North America, that was a land of shallow seas, muddy lagoons and wide braided river valleys, all reasonable environments for fossilising large animals.

Human ancestors lived on the Savannah. If you put a human body out on the african savannah today I doubt you will find so much as a kneecap left by the next day, fossilisation in such an environment is extremely rare.

Honkytnkmn doesn't "believe" in evolution because he doesn't want to, it has nothing to do with a lack of evidence or a lack of fossils, it has everything to do with a strongly held pre-existing religious conviction that can't fit with modern science in this case.

If we found a thousand beautiful fossils that demonstrated the complete pathway of evolution from a chimp common ancestor to Homo sapiens sapiens in the next year he'd just move on to something else that would stop him "believing" in evolution.

 

[TheBear]

I think one of the, many, things that Honkytntkmn has misunderstood about evolution is rarity of fossilisation of large animals in certain environments.

Take the most famous fossilised animal in the world - T. rex - every natural history museum you go into has one glowering down at you. They were top predators so they were never massivly numerous, probably a bit like human ancestors. There must be thousands of them right?

Wrong.

There are about 30 T. rex skeletons in existence at the moment despite looking for them for over a 100 years with massive monetary gain for the finders and the fact that they are found in the US.

But they are all complete skeletons aren't they?

No, none of them are complete.

But they all have those big scary skulls don't they?

No. Only 3 skulls have been found.

In comparison we have many more fossils of human intermediary species but only becase we have searched for them so assiduously. We have dug up half of North East Africa looking for specimens. These human ancestors lived in an environment much less prone to fossilise animals than the Cretaceous of North America, that was a land of shallow seas, muddy lagoons and wide braided river valleys, all reasonable environments for fossilising large animals.

Human ancestors lived on the Savannah. If you put a human body out on the african savannah today I doubt you will find so much as a kneecap left by the next day, fossilisation in such an environment is extremely rare.

Honkytnkmn doesn't "believe" in evolution because he doesn't want to, it has nothing to do with a lack of evidence or a lack of fossils, it has everything to do with a strongly held pre-existing religious conviction that can't fit with modern science in this case.

If we found a thousand beautiful fossils that demonstrated the complete pathway of evolution from a chimp common ancestor to Homo sapiens sapiens in the next year he'd just move on to something else that would stop him "believing" in evolution.

QFT

 

[Honkytnkmn]

I think one of the, many, things that Honkytntkmn has misunderstood about evolution is rarity of fossilisation of large animals in certain environments.

Take the most famous fossilised animal in the world - T. rex - every natural history museum you go into has one glowering down at you. They were top predators so they were never massivly numerous, probably a bit like human ancestors. There must be thousands of them right?

Wrong.

There are about 30 T. rex skeletons in existence at the moment despite looking for them for over a 100 years with massive monetary gain for the finders and the fact that they are found in the US.

But they are all complete skeletons aren't they?

No, none of them are complete.

But they all have those big scary skulls don't they?

No. Only 3 skulls have been found.

In comparison we have many more fossils of human intermediary species but only becase we have searched for them so assiduously. We have dug up half of North East Africa looking for specimens. These human ancestors lived in an environment much less prone to fossilise animals than the Cretaceous of North America, that was a land of shallow seas, muddy lagoons and wide braided river valleys, all reasonable environments for fossilising large animals.

Human ancestors lived on the Savannah. If you put a human body out on the african savannah today I doubt you will find so much as a kneecap left by the next day, fossilisation in such an environment is extremely rare.

Honkytnkmn doesn't "believe" in evolution because he doesn't want to, it has nothing to do with a lack of evidence or a lack of fossils, it has everything to do with a strongly held pre-existing religious conviction that can't fit with modern science in this case.

If we found a thousand beautiful fossils that demonstrated the complete pathway of evolution from a chimp common ancestor to Homo sapiens sapiens in the next year he'd just move on to something else that would stop him "believing" in evolution.

Well, you are partially correct,

It not that I don't understand that it take quite a bit of the right circumstances to create a fossil and its not the fact that I have pre-existing Christian beliefs. I didn't become a Christian till I was in my early 30's. I grew up in an agnostic household where we never learned or talked about God or the bible. About the only religious thing we did was celebrate Christmas. (which a lot of secularists do)

I learned about evolution and just believed it because thats what I was taught. When I started looking into it, I realized that the scientists didn't have the information to back their claims. The problem I find is the even without the information the claims are still put forth as fact, presumably because you have nothing better to go by.

The one thing that would prove your claim (evidence in the fossil record) is not there, but nevermind that because its true and we're supposed to just take your word for it.

Yet everytime some scientist digs up a bone its "proof" of evolution when most of the time its speculation on what that bone even is.

So on one hand the fossil record isn't needed, but on the other hand everyone gets excited when a new bone is dug up. Which is it?

Oh, and The Bear if you don't want to be part of the conversation, you can just bow out. your QFT comment doesn't add anything to the conversation. If you want to say something useful, I'll listen, otherwise.....

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Speakin of T. Rex, I took my kids to the L.A. Natural History Museum about a month ago, and they were working on Thomas the T. Rex, a complete juvenile fossil found in Montana. (Tedious job preparing the bones!). He will be complete and on display in 2011.

 

[Honkytnkmn]

Another thing Baggins, Sure it the environment has a lot to do with fossilization, but it seems to me that the "evolutionists" don't understand the sheer numbers of creatures there would be. After all its not like there was anything intelligent behind the evolution, its trial and error. There would literally be quadrillions, not that they would all be fossilized, but we don't even have 1/2 percent of the needed fossils.

It sounds like you guys believe in faith too, just not faith in God.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Not hardly.

Let's compare Scripture to Scripture, and see what we can come up with:

1. The unicorn must be extremely strong --- God compares His [omnipotent] strength to one --- [Numbers 23:22].
2. Unicorns must have a voracious appetite --- [Numbers 24:8].
3. Unicorns are very stubborn and unpredictable --- [Job 39:9].
4. Unicorns are hard to keep harnessed, and probably don't keep as straight of a line as an ox --- [Job 39:10].
5. They had hooved feet, and were playful at times --- [Psalm 29:6].
6. Their horns were probably noted for their strength as well --- [Psalm 92:10].

So strong, wild, hoofed, and horned. Hmm...

Probably that an ox, for all its great strength, was not as strong as a unicorn; BUT, an ox was tamer and easier to handle.

Some people think the unicorn is a modern-day rhinoceros --- or its descendant.

Sounds like evolution to me .

 

[AV1611VET]

Sounds like evolution to me .

It would be if:

1. God created the unicorn in Genesis 1, along with the other animal "kinds".
2. Or --- the unicorn's predecessor was created in Genesis 1 --- with the rhinoceros as the unicorn's successor.

In my opinion, the only "kind" from Genesis 1 that is still in existence is humankind.

(Perhaps with the exception of the whale.)