It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
9 Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?
10 Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?
11 Wilt thou trust him, because his strength [is] great? or wilt thou leave thy labour to him?
12 Wilt thou believe him, that he will bring home thy seed, and gather [it into] thy barn?
Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
Ever dug up a fossil? I have. You know those big monstrosities you see in the museum? They are not found that way. The pieces are dog up over a fairly large site and then painstakingly assembled. Now, I can't say for sure, but I seriously doubt that very many whole animal assembled fossils have ever been found just sitting there.
Originally posted by Maslo
What about fossils? Ancient people probably found some fossils of dinosaurs. Could this be one of the sources of these tales about strange animals?
Dinosaur fossils have been known for millennia, although their true nature was not recognized. The Chinese, whose modern word for dinosaur is konglong (恐龍, or "terrible dragon"), considered them to be dragon bones and documented them as such. For example, Hua Yang Guo Zhi, a book written by Zhang Qu during the Western Jin Dynasty, reported the discovery of dragon bones at Wucheng in Sichuan Province. Villagers in central China have long unearthed fossilized "dragon bones" for use in traditional medicines, a practice that continues today. In Europe, dinosaur fossils were generally believed to be the remains of giants and other creatures killed by the Great Flood.
Scholarly descriptions of what would now be recognized as dinosaur bones first appeared in the late 17th century in England. Part of a bone, now known to have been the femur of a Megalosaurus, was recovered from a limestone quarry at Cornwell near Chipping Norton, Oxfordshire, England, in 1676. The fragment was sent to Robert Plot, Professor of Chemistry at the University of Oxford and first curator of the Ashmolean Museum, who published a description in his Natural History of Oxfordshire in 1677. He correctly identified the bone as the lower extremity of the femur of a large animal, and recognized that it was too large to belong to any known species. He therefore concluded it to be the thigh bone of a giant human similar to those mentioned in the Bible. In 1699,
Edward Lhuyd, a friend of Sir Isaac Newton, was responsible for the first published scientific treatment of what would now be recognized as a dinosaur when he described and named a sauropod tooth, "Rutellum implicatum", that had been found in Caswell, near Witney, Oxfordshire.
The first attempts to understand dinosaurs may have started thousands of years before they were officially named. Humans have long found fossils and incorporated them into their myths. For example, the griffin of mythology may be based on dinosaur skeletons found in the Gobi Desert. As noted by Adrienne Mayor, a classical folklorist, griffins were said to inhabit the Scythian steppes that reached from the modern Ukraine to central Asia. Mayor draws a connection to Protoceratops, a frilled dinosaur that is commonly found in the Gobi. This dinosaur has many features associated with griffins; they share sharp beaks, four legs, claws, similar size, and large eyes (or eye sockets in the case of the fossils), and the neck frill of Protoceratops, with large open holes, is consistent with descriptions of large ears or wings. Additionally, its bones, which appear white, are easy to see in reddish Gobi rocks.
Originally posted by works4dhs
Thus back to "adaptation", not evolution. In darwins tour of the Galapagos, he never showed one species changing into something else, only birds into different types of the same bird etc...
There is also that, I can't believe I forgot to mention that.
my biggest issue is the lack of transitional fossils; theoretically, almost all fossils should be 'transitional'.
Originally posted by BrokenCar
Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by sonofliberty1776
You find me some evidence that isn't from a site that starts with www.bible.anything or that is found from a reputable museum (the Creation Museum FFS???) and I will consider it. I want data, not spin... And I HIGHLY doubt the authenticity of those supposed tracks...
Originally posted by zachi
Why is the Bible "spin?" Maybe evolution is "spin."
If you really want to believe in evolution then consider that forces existing at the time of the dinosaurs would have been much different. For example: "the day/night rotation was 63,000 seconds shorter than the present 86,400 seconds it is today. This would put the Earth's rotation at about 6.5 hours per day/night cycle, when it was created, 4.5 billion years ago." This info is from novan.com... By the time dinosaurs got here, it was still a shorter day.
Another problem is that the moon and earth had to have been much closer, since the earth and moon distance is gradually increasing over time. That mean that land animals would not have much land as huge "tidal plains" engulfed much, if not all of the land area during a normal day a few billion years ago. Even later, tidal pull would have had a much greater effect on animals that it does today. www.talkorigins.org...
As for the Catholic church claiming infallibility, it's the KJB that mentions unicorns 9 times. Job is a pre-flood book. After the flood, atmospheric conditions changed greatly. LIfe spans shortened and many animals became extinct. Dinosaurs had trouble surviving in the new enviourment. Perhaps unicorns did too. Fundamental Baptists are more likely to support Biblical preservation in translation than other Christians groups.
As for fossils, how often are fossilized horns found? Most of the time identifying what animal produced the horn is difficult. Most of the web sites I found talked about the difficulty of identification.
Originally posted by DISRAELI
reply to post by hotbakedtater
Of course unicorns exist.The unicorn is a European artist's impression of a traveller's description of a one-horned animal which he saw charging at great speed across the plains of Africa-
known to modern science as a rhinoceros
edit on 5-12-2010 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)