Believe it or not, unicorns are real!

[kpete]

Believe it or not, unicorns are real!

Well, they are if you’re a creationist, anyway.

Creationist website, Answers in Genesis, is a site entirely sworn to upholding all the Bible’s most ridiculous details as factual, even scientific information. One author on the page warns readers that refusing to believe in unicorns “is to demean God’s Word” because unicorns are actually mentioned in the Bible a few times.

That author is actually a doctor, if you can believe that – Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell.

#t=83



MORE:
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/02/08/creationists-declare-unicorns-real-denial-is-to-demean-gods-word-videos/

[Major Nikon]

1. Talking donkeys also

[COLGATE4]

2. Don't forget talking snakes. nt

[Major Nikon]

3. And talking shrubbery

[Fred Sanders]

4. Doctor of Quackery. Like Dr. Ben Carson, M.D., D.Q. They are proud of it.

[drynberg]

5. I am so irreverent, that I can ask, "Who wrote what is known as the Bible"...people, that's who.

[Helen Borg]

6. Why doesn't she face her students

When she speaks? Instead of standing there with her back towards them? Bad teacher.

[The CCC]

7. Believe it or not, unicorns are real!

In other words I don't know what it is. So it must be this.

[demwing]

8. Unicorn

[FailureToCommunicate]

9. Not just in the Bible, Asian lore describes unicorns ("Ki-Lins") often

So, OF COURSE they're real:

[zeemike]

10. The whole unicorn thing is so silly.

Why does it sound so far fetched that a horse like animal has a single horn?...and why is it far fetched to think that one could have existed in some time on earth?
Look up the creatures found in the fossil record...some of them are far more fantastical than a unicorn...or go into the sea and see some of the strangest creatures you can imagine.

But we have made the unicorn an icon of fanciful belief so that is our symbol of it.

[tclambert]

11. There are some who say the Bible may be referring to a rhinoceros.

Back in olden times, the taxonomic nomenclature was not as rigorous, and neither were translation standards. Today, the Indian rhinoceros is called Rhinoceros unicornis. I could see where a translation done in the 1600s might not take great care in the use of the word "unicorn," especially when a major goal of the "new" translation, as specifically set by King James himself, was to make sure it adhered to all the doctrine of the Church of England. (Let's not pretend politics wasn't involved.)

[tclambert]

12. Anyway, I solved the riddle of why we don't have unicorns today:

Noah had to feed the tigers something.