Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Fake Conversation on Unicorns

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by barchan View Post
    Yah, I did too. I always read about unicorns in academic articles.
    Please don't play innocent with me, barchan.

    I'm not buying it.

    Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I'd surmise you're right up there with the rest of academia interpreting a unicorn as a narwhal, or rhinoceros, or mythical horned horse, or anything but what it is:

    A now-extinct animal.

    Academia won't even consider a unicorn a "cryptid," will it?

    After all, that would give a shout-out to the Bible, wouldn't it?
    THE BIBLE SAYS IT, THAT SETTLES IT.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by AV1611VET View Post
      Please don't play innocent with me, barchan.

      I'm not buying it.

      Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I'd surmise you're right up there with the rest of academia interpreting a unicorn as a narwhal, or rhinoceros, or mythical horned horse, or anything but what it is:

      A now-extinct animal.

      Academia won't even consider a unicorn a "cryptid," will it?

      After all, that would give a shout-out to the Bible, wouldn't it?
      I find it kind of fruitless to speculate about creatures that are not shown to have ever existed.

      And I wouldn't consider it to be a burning issue to anyone in academia.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by barchan View Post
        I find it kind of fruitless to speculate about creatures that are not shown to have ever existed.

        And I wouldn't consider it to be a burning issue to anyone in academia.
        I'm just wondering how many times grave robbers have dug one up and attributed it to an ox's common ancestor?
        THE BIBLE SAYS IT, THAT SETTLES IT.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by AV1611VET View Post
          I'm just wondering how many times grave robbers have dug one up and attributed it to an ox's common ancestor?
          I have no idea what you are trying to say. One post, it's academicians and the next it's grave robbers ....

          I'm just wondering when you might be able to focus on a single train of thought.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by barchan View Post
            I have no idea what you are trying to say. One post, it's academicians and the next it's grave robbers ....

            I'm just wondering when you might be able to focus on a single train of thought.
            "Grave robbers" is my term for paleoarcheologists.

            And I'm on record saying that Neanderthals and Cro-magnons were human beings at one time, until God punished them with a bone-altering disease.

            So if grave... if paleoarchaeologists dug one up, they would say it is an ancestor of modern man.

            Applying that logic to the unicorn, I believe they have unicorn fossils, only they think they are the ancestor of the ox.

            In Genesis 1, God created the unicorn here, and the ox over there.

            They both lived at the same time.
            THE BIBLE SAYS IT, THAT SETTLES IT.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by barchan View Post
              I find it kind of fruitless to speculate about creatures that are not shown to have ever existed.
              Ya ... well ... the Bible is full of creatures you'd find fruitless to speculate about.

              Straw-eating lions, unicorns, satyrs, four-legged locusts, behemoths, leviathans, dragons, cud-eating hares, angels, and one or two more I can't remember.

              That's enough to keep academia in denial until the Rapture, isn't it?
              THE BIBLE SAYS IT, THAT SETTLES IT.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by AV1611VET View Post
                Neat.

                I wouldn't be too sure.

                God's amanuenses lived on three continents, you know.

                And Noah would have seen them on his Ark.

                So any academian telling my son a unicorn is a rhinoceros is wrong.
                They weren't allowed on the ark. They kept poking holes in it.

                Wow it took until post 12 for an academian to raise it's head.
                I was quite surprised that Joey's dad wasn't accused of being an academian..

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by barchan View Post
                  I find it kind of fruitless to speculate about creatures that are not shown to have ever existed.

                  And I wouldn't consider it to be a burning issue to anyone in academia.
                  Actually the ivory towers of academia are made from Unicorn horns.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by barchan View Post
                    I find it kind of fruitless to speculate about creatures that are not shown to have ever existed.
                    Like the fossil remains of billions of intermediary links between species that should be in the fossil record but are not.
                    I am not a NPB-Onlyist (No Perfect Bible Onlyist), nor a NA/UBS-Onlyist. Marke

                    If this book be not infallible, where shall we find infallibility? We have given up the Pope, for he has blundered often and terribly; but we shall not set up instead of him a horde of little popelings fresh from college. C. H. Spurgeon

                    For that Revised Version I have but little care as a general rule, holding it to be by no means an improvement upon our common Authorized Version. C.H. Spurgeon

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by AV1611VET View Post
                      The thing with folklore, myth, and other whatnot is simply this:
                      yes.....

                      In folklore, myths, and whatnots, the object of the lore is either made up from scratch (i.e., a figment of one's imagination), or it takes valid objects (e.g., cherubs, unicorns, satyrs) and reduces them to something they are not.
                      So which of those things exists?

                      Thus the unicorn, probably some type of super ox, becomes a horse with a horn growing out of its head.
                      Or it was made up from pure fantasy.

                      Jewish farmers had mules at their disposal, which could do the work of several people at once.
                      Jewish holy law was pretty hostile to farmers. It was a religion of herdsmen, who despised farmers.

                      If they could afford it, they had an ox, which could do the work of about two mules at once.
                      Or they had slaves do the farming. Or they raided farming cultures.

                      But if they had a unicorn ... well ... they could plow their fields in no time.
                      No. Not even close. If they had a unicorn, all their warriors would be dead, and all their virgins would be safe.

                      A unicorn is no more a horse than a car is a golf cart.
                      Indeed.
                      A unicorn is a composite creature, with the head of a horse, the body of a lion, and the legs of a goat

                      Academia perpetuates myth at the expense of the real thing.
                      Academia has nothing to do with it.
                      FOLK RELIGION created and perpetuated chimeras such as the unicorn.
                      Illiterate peasants, herdsmen, hunter/gatherers, and labourers. Not academia.
                      When evil is powerful, good men are silenced.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by AV1611VET View Post

                        "Grave robbers" is my term for paleoarcheologists.
                        Yes. You do that a lot. Using the wrong word, or making up a new word.

                        And I'm on record saying that Neanderthals and Cro-magnons were human beings at one time, until God punished them with a bone-altering disease.
                        And you are wrong, as usual.
                        Neandertals were ALWAYS human beings.
                        Cro-Magnons were AND STILL ARE human beings.
                        Neither species punished with a bone altering disease.
                        You are a Cro-Magnon.
                        I am a Cro-Magnon.
                        Every living human being with ANY European ancesrors, is a Cro-Magnon.

                        So if grave... if paleoarchaeologists dug one up, they would say it is an ancestor of modern man.
                        Only if there was evidence do support such a claim.
                        A case in point, NO paleoarcheologist, has said that a Neandertal is an ancestor of modern man.

                        Applying that logic to the unicorn, I believe they have unicorn fossils, only they think they are the ancestor of the ox.
                        Ok. So you are wrong again.

                        In Genesis 1, God created the unicorn here, and the ox over there.
                        Thats nice.

                        They both lived at the same time.
                        Except an ox actualy exists.
                        When evil is powerful, good men are silenced.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by AV1611VET View Post

                          I'm just wondering how many times grave robbers have dug one up and attributed it to an ox's common ancestor?
                          About zero times
                          When evil is powerful, good men are silenced.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by AV1611VET View Post
                            Please don't play innocent with me, barchan.
                            He isnt.
                            Dont make bizzare accusations AV

                            I'm not buying it.
                            You only buy fantasy and nonsense.
                            You wont buy flour in a famine. But you will buy magic beans

                            Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I'd surmise you're right up there with the rest of academia interpreting a unicorn as a narwhal, or rhinoceros, or mythical horned horse, or anything but what it is:
                            And since no part of academia has ever interpreted a unicorn as ANY OF THE ABOVE...

                            A now-extinct animal.
                            Or an entirely imaginary animal

                            Academia won't even consider a unicorn a "cryptid," will it?
                            No. Why should they?
                            It is a CHIMERA. An impossible creature, created by mythology.

                            After all, that would give a shout-out to the Bible, wouldn't it?
                            Not even close.


                            There is NO SUCH THING AS unicorns.
                            When evil is powerful, good men are silenced.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by marke View Post
                              Like the fossil remains of billions of intermediary links between species that should be in the fossil record but are not.
                              How many do you need? You have been shown hundreds (well, if you actually clicked on the links, which I'm pretty sure you didn't).

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by barchan View Post
                                How many do you need? You have been shown hundreds (well, if you actually clicked on the links, which I'm pretty sure you didn't).
                                Hundreds of assumed intermediaries? What about the still missing billions which should be more plentiful in the fossil record than the remains of 'fully evolved' life forms?
                                I am not a NPB-Onlyist (No Perfect Bible Onlyist), nor a NA/UBS-Onlyist. Marke

                                If this book be not infallible, where shall we find infallibility? We have given up the Pope, for he has blundered often and terribly; but we shall not set up instead of him a horde of little popelings fresh from college. C. H. Spurgeon

                                For that Revised Version I have but little care as a general rule, holding it to be by no means an improvement upon our common Authorized Version. C.H. Spurgeon

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X