Noah and the Unicorns

Pointless Posts, Raves n Rants, Obscure Opinions

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
ThatGirlAgain
Prodigy
Posts: 2961
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 1:09 pm
Location: New York City
Been thanked: 1 time

Noah and the Unicorns

Post #1

Post by ThatGirlAgain »

Jax Agnesson wrote:But maybe this is what happened to the unicorns:
As soon as the boat settled on land, Noah cut some of it up to make a fire, and chose the most beautiful animals to sacrifice to the LORD.
Or maybe this…

Image

:(
Dogmatism and skepticism are both, in a sense, absolute philosophies; one is certain of knowing, the other of not knowing. What philosophy should dissipate is certainty, whether of knowledge or ignorance.
- Bertrand Russell

User avatar
ThatGirlAgain
Prodigy
Posts: 2961
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 1:09 pm
Location: New York City
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Unicorns

Post #21

Post by ThatGirlAgain »

greentwiga wrote:One look at the picture and you can see that unicorns were clean to the max. I don't know if it was meet to eat unicorn meat, but I do know you couldn't eat unicorn meat boiled in male unicorn's milk. Anti-evolution was also punctuated by that horn.

By the way, I found agnosticism dull boring and grey. It is a lot more fun being a born again Christian.
They might just have looked clean because of all that rain. Since there are no more unicorns around, it is moot to ask if it is meet to eat unicorn meat, regardless of which mate. (*) And even if they were still around, I could not ride one anyway. ;)

* Oops, I forgot. Both First and Second Mates were on the Ark.


And being a Non-Theist Non-Deist but Non-Materialist like me is anything but boring around here. I get to propose and defend the weirdest proposals. :D
Dogmatism and skepticism are both, in a sense, absolute philosophies; one is certain of knowing, the other of not knowing. What philosophy should dissipate is certainty, whether of knowledge or ignorance.
- Bertrand Russell

User avatar
bluethread
Savant
Posts: 9129
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm

Re: Unicorns

Post #22

Post by bluethread »

greentwiga wrote: I found agnosticism dull boring and grey.
I don't know if it is or isn't. I'm rather sceptical of people who question things.

User avatar
Thatguy
Scholar
Posts: 369
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 8:32 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: Unicorns

Post #23

Post by Thatguy »

greentwiga wrote: By the way, I found agnosticism dull boring and grey. It is a lot more fun being a born again Christian.
As an agnostic, I hear the debate that rages over us. Some, such as yourself, argue dismissively that we are "dull, boring, and grey." But your view isn't the only one, even if you insist you know it's true. There are many others who disagree and are equally certain that we are "dull, boring, and gray." I am agnostic as to which of these two claims is true.

greentwiga
Scholar
Posts: 277
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 10:40 pm

Post #24

Post by greentwiga »

I just stated what was true for me. Don't interpret what I say as true for me as anything else. If you are having fun like that girl, more power to you.

A hint on whether unicorns are clean animals. If they are related to horses, they are unclean. If goats, then they are clean.

My theory though is that they were created. When Darwin showed that all animals evolved, they disappeared. Therefore it is Darwin's fault, not Noah's. :D

User avatar
Thatguy
Scholar
Posts: 369
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 8:32 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Post #25

Post by Thatguy »

greentwiga wrote: I just stated what was true for me. Don't interpret what I say as true for me as anything else. If you are having fun like that girl, more power to you.

A hint on whether unicorns are clean animals. If they are related to horses, they are unclean. If goats, then they are clean.

My theory though is that they were created. When Darwin showed that all animals evolved, they disappeared. Therefore it is Darwin's fault, not Noah's. :D

I was joking, but clearly not humorously so.
You look at the body form and conclude that the unicorn is an extinct horselike (unclean) or goat (clean) animal killed off by Darwin's logic. My research indicates that the unicorn was a speed reader. The horn evolved for turning the pages of books quickly. It therefore was able to read Darwin quickly and thus evolve quickly into the narwhal. Unclean, I'd imagine, because it has no scales. It is fortunate that whales do not have scales, otherwise they might be more weight conscious.
To avoid any uncertainty, also joking. also not funny.

User avatar
ThatGirlAgain
Prodigy
Posts: 2961
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 1:09 pm
Location: New York City
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #26

Post by ThatGirlAgain »

Thatguy wrote:
greentwiga wrote: I just stated what was true for me. Don't interpret what I say as true for me as anything else. If you are having fun like that girl, more power to you.

A hint on whether unicorns are clean animals. If they are related to horses, they are unclean. If goats, then they are clean.

My theory though is that they were created. When Darwin showed that all animals evolved, they disappeared. Therefore it is Darwin's fault, not Noah's. :D

I was joking, but clearly not humorously so.
You look at the body form and conclude that the unicorn is an extinct horselike (unclean) or goat (clean) animal killed off by Darwin's logic. My research indicates that the unicorn was a speed reader. The horn evolved for turning the pages of books quickly. It therefore was able to read Darwin quickly and thus evolve quickly into the narwhal. Unclean, I'd imagine, because it has no scales. It is fortunate that whales do not have scales, otherwise they might be more weight conscious.
To avoid any uncertainty, also joking. also not funny.
Whales may think they are big time but they are just a bunch of blowhards. Boring and grey with dull fins. I wonder why Ahab spent so much time chasing them. Maybe it was to get away from that Jezebel of a wife. Or for the profits. Not that it did him any good; Ahab had a lot of trouble with prophets. In fact they said he did (Wait4evidence take note) more evil than all who came before him. (1 Kings 14:9) No wonder they call it the Whaling Wall.
Dogmatism and skepticism are both, in a sense, absolute philosophies; one is certain of knowing, the other of not knowing. What philosophy should dissipate is certainty, whether of knowledge or ignorance.
- Bertrand Russell

greentwiga
Scholar
Posts: 277
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 10:40 pm

Post #27

Post by greentwiga »

If unicorns are speed readers, the would definitely need a horn to avoid accidents.

Is there a law against texting while evolving?

User avatar
Thatguy
Scholar
Posts: 369
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 8:32 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Post #28

Post by Thatguy »

ThatGirlAgain wrote:
Whales may think they are big time but they are just a bunch of blowhards. Boring and grey with dull fins. I wonder why Ahab spent so much time chasing them. Maybe it was to get away from that Jezebel of a wife. Or for the profits. Not that it did him any good; Ahab had a lot of trouble with prophets. In fact they said he did (Wait4evidence take note) more evil than all who came before him. (1 Kings 14:9) No wonder they call it the Whaling Wall.

[waits for the awe to subside and then types]
Your post, as usual, inspires me to explore different avenues of thought. In this case dark alleyways to nowhere rather than actual avenues, but all roads lead to roam.

I listened to all that wailing about Biblical profits and thought this was the first sign of an Occupy DebatingChristianity movement. Then I got to thinking about what the rabbis have had to say about whether the laws of kosher help us identify the big fish that swallowed Jonah. If, after all, God's prophets are to snack only on Kosher morsels, would not God insist that only clean beasts nosh on prophets? If so, we rule out the whale or norwhal. (yes, spell checker, it is a word, get over it.)

But then when I typed rabbi I got, as usual, to thinking that one mutation in Rabbi DNA, the addition of one additional T at the end of the chromosome, would evolve rabbits. Everyone knows this. But my insight was this: A rabbi is a wise, educated man of God. Some would portray Jesus as just another rabbi. But if, in the end, you add the cross, the meaning is transformed. Could this be an explanation for the origin of the Easter Bunny?

It's strange how the discussion of mythical beasts and the laws of kosher gives me so much intellectual cud to chew on.

User avatar
Thatguy
Scholar
Posts: 369
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 8:32 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Post #29

Post by Thatguy »

greentwiga wrote: If unicorns are speed readers, the would definitely need a horn to avoid accidents.

Is there a law against texting while evolving?
Not a question I'd considered before, for some reason. If I were a unicorn I could zip through those law books to find out. I had, however, thought of adding that the horniness of the unicorn no doubt aided its ability to evolve quickly. But then I saw a moderator present and decided not to risk violating the rules of conduct with such racy imagery. Which got me to thinking about unicorn racing. Which made me realize why she might not be able to ride a unicorn. So then I realized my comment was much tamer. So I went ahead and made it.

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Post #30

Post by Goat »

ThatGirlAgain wrote:
Whales may think they are big time but they are just a bunch of blowhards. Boring and grey with dull fins. I wonder why Ahab spent so much time chasing them. Maybe it was to get away from that Jezebel of a wife. Or for the profits. Not that it did him any good; Ahab had a lot of trouble with prophets. In fact they said he did (Wait4evidence take note) more evil than all who came before him. (1 Kings 14:9) No wonder they call it the Whaling Wall.
I will say that the coincidence that they call it the whaling wall is just a fluke.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

Post Reply