Did fantastical beasts like the unicorn and phoenix use to exist?

[MagisterCultuum]

Wouldn't that be "both horned" rather than "two horned?"

Also, wouldn't Libya, like Africa, refer to the northern portions of the continent? Since the Rhinoceroi are sub-Saharan, shouldn't they be of Aethiopia?

I'm not quite sure why we made it neuter.

 

[Krogan Doctor]

The Bible is the OP's only source for the existence of unicorns. However, we know the Bible cannot be true because it contradicts the Avesta, which is true. We know the Avesta is true because the Avesta says it is true.

The truth does not need to witness for itself. That would actually hinder believability.

 

[Kyriakos]

Wouldn't that be "both horned" rather than "two horned?"

Also, wouldn't Libya, like Africa, refer to the northern portions of the continent? Since the Rhinoceroi are sub-Saharan, shouldn't they be of Aethiopia?

I'm not quite sure why we made it neuter.

Amphi has both meanings, and while formally meaning "both", it often means "two" cause it refers to quantities that can expand up to two anyway (like horns of most animals). Also i suspect that amphi (at least in Greek) tends to mean "two" for the reason that it usually refers to results or routes that are passable only up to two distinct ways, such as a road by its vehicles (amphidromos) or the result of a contest which does not have a tie as a possibility (amphiropon).
I have not really seen it used for more than two results. Furthermore, to my knowledge, the english term "both" only refers to two distinct cases anyway..

AFAIK Libya was the name for all of Africa. Ethiopia was indeed the regional name for Africa below the Sahara, but the continent seems to have had the overall name of Libya.

 

[peter grimes]

The truth does not need to witness for itself. That would actually hinder believability.

Yo, check you privilege!

And check your commandments - specifically #1 & #2.

I think gods actually do need to witness for themselves, otherwise people shoudln't believe in them. I dont' believe in Rama for the simple reason that I've never seen any evidence to support his/her claim to godhood.

Likewise I don't believe in unicorns, leprechauns, or giant mushroom trees even though they are in the bible.

 

[Lillefix]

I dont' believe in Rama for the simple reason that I've never seen any evidence to support his/her claim to godhood.

Likewise I don't believe in unicorns, leprechauns, or giant mushroom trees even though they are in the bible.

I agree with what you're thinking here, but still I have to arrest you. I bet you haven't seen(or understood) any evidence that electrons exist either. But you probably believe they exist. So the reason we believe something is often that people who we know we can trust in these matters say it is true.

So why is it then so that if a physicist says that electrons exist we believe him, but if a priest says that biblical unicorns exist we probably don't?
(this is not a rhetorical question)

 

[Akka]

Oh, I'm no immature fool. I've always disbelieved that such creatures could exist until I read the Revelations of Saint Bridget.

Oxymoron is usually with two consecutive words, not two consecutive sentences.

 

[peter grimes]

I agree with what you're thinking here, but still I have to arrest you. I bet you haven't seen(or understood) any evidence that electrons exist either. But you probably believe they exist. So the reason we believe something is often that people who we know we can trust in these matters say it is true.

So why is it then so that if a physicist says that electrons exist we believe him, but if a priest says that biblical unicorns exist we probably don't?
(this is not a rhetorical question)

I can only speak for myself, but I trust in science because there is an activist skeptical community among researchers that has everything to gain from disproving their peers.

Regarding electrons, you're of course correct that I've never seen one (has anyone? I dont' think so, but I could be wrong). But there is a robust model of the physical world that predicts millions of interactions only if electrons are real, have -1 charge, mass of 1/1864 the proton, interfere with eachother according to [i forget whose - Dirac's? - equations], etc. There is an enormous body of indirect evidence that points towards the existence of (at least one!) electron - and next to no coherent theory refutes that. I'll take that to the bank, thank you very muchly.

As for unicorns, we have something not quite as trustworthy as a D&D Bestiary telling us that this thing existed, but not a shred of physical evidence. Yet we have physical evidence of millions of different animals, plants, bacteria, and funghi which did and do exist that were never mentioned in that semitic bestiary. Sorry, I have no faith that a bronze age oral history should trump physical science when it comes to claims about paleobiology.

 

[timtofly]

Yo, check you privilege!

And check your commandments - specifically #1 & #2.

I think gods actually do need to witness for themselves, otherwise people shoudln't believe in them. I dont' believe in Rama for the simple reason that I've never seen any evidence to support his/her claim to godhood.

Likewise I don't believe in unicorns, leprechauns, or giant mushroom trees even though they are in the bible.

Where are leprechauns and giant mushroom trees mentioned in the Bible? Evolutionist believe that giant mushrooms existed 350 to 420 million years ago. Would you accept their word for it, without seeing or experiencing them yourself?

Even in the time of the writing of the original manuscripts, there were skeptics who had to believe without seeing/experiencing God. Not every single Hebrew who lived back then had a first hand experience of God. When it comes to God's demands, even God could not experience God at the instance of God experiencing death caused by sin. It was not even understood by those who experienced the event.

That we have records from way back then, which people even refuse to accept, and the fact that God is still at work today, should be sufficient. Humans are free to be skeptical and rule out anything they deem unsubstantial. They always have been able to do that.

 

[uppi]

Regarding electrons, you're of course correct that I've never seen one (has anyone? I dont' think so, but I could be wrong).

A single electron by itself doesn't interact with light, so literally seeing it impossible. But it is possible to trap a single electron in a Penning trap and do experiments with it, which is as good as seeing it in my book.

Single atoms can be seen, however. So if you take an atom with only one valence electron, you can in principle literally see effects that are caused by one single electron (and the nucleus)

 

[Birdjaguar]

A single electron by itself doesn't interact with light, so literally seeing it impossible. But it is possible to trap a single electron in a Penning trap and do experiments with it, which is as good as seeing it in my book.

Single atoms can be seen, however. So if you take an atom with only one valence electron, you can in principle literally see effects that are caused by one single electron (and the nucleus)

Are there 'pictures' of such things?

 

[Kyriakos]

I agree with what you're thinking here, but still I have to arrest you. I bet you haven't seen(or understood) any evidence that electrons exist either. But you probably believe they exist. So the reason we believe something is often that people who we know we can trust in these matters say it is true.

So why is it then so that if a physicist says that electrons exist we believe him, but if a priest says that biblical unicorns exist we probably don't?
(this is not a rhetorical question)

Some author of the previous century once commented that out of the teacher and the student, only the student potentially may really sense he is being taught something that is definitely true...

Which is close to your point, i think. Human beings in a young age tend to want to believe the world is based on actual principles which are certain, which is obviously a need they have since no child could really function in any decent level if he would guess how our world is.
And it is quite sad. Reveals the potential for a vastly better world. And also highlights the chasm between that and what we now have.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Stranger animals than horned horses exist and have existed. I don't see why it would be scientifically impossible for such a creature to exist just because people once believed it to exist and drew pictures of it. Seems unscientific to disregard the possibility of it's existence.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

What scientific evidence is there for science to take notice?

 

[Borachio]

Well, there's the evidence of pictures in books, and the tales of travellers.

So, science can look at this evidence, and, comparing it to the known species in the world, and, while recognizing that there still remain some undiscovered species, come to the scientific conclusion that the existence of unicorns is extremely unlikely.

Or, alternatively, it could conclude that the idea of a unicorn is a distortion of a species that is known to exist, like the Indian rhinoceros.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Probably not much. Until this changes I'm sceptical of it's existence, but not certain enough to make a mockery of the possibility.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Fair enough.

 

[Kyriakos]

I don't care if unicorns exist cause they are boring anyway.

Scylla would have been a much better addition to our world, of course:

(spoiler for rather insanely strange but atmospheric illustration)

Spoiler :

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I don't care if unicorns exist cause they are boring anyway.

Suppose there was an ancient Greek tale involving unicorns potentially involving some unicorn ball sucking (sorry but I just watched a Colbert clip on youtube comments involving horse ball sucking). Would this change this sentiment of yours?

 

[Formaldehyde]

Narwhals are clearly the source of unicorn horns and the horse like critter just a stand-in from ignorance, so there is no need for an antediluvian version of the beast.

The only practical solution is better education of our children:

 

[uppi]

Are there 'pictures' of such things?

Yes. Taken with an extremely sensitive CCD camera, so you could say they are real photos. The light is monochromatic, though, so no pictures with real colors.

For example, take a look at the insets of figures 2 and 3 of this paper, where you can see how we can count individual rubidium atoms:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.2442

And those stay for about a minute, so you can sort of watch them in real time.