[Hindsite]

Some people believe unicorns are mythological horses with one horn, so why does the King James Version of the Holy Bible mention unicorns? This video explains the true identity of the unicorn at the time the King James Verison was translated.

[youtube]7BNsjsbJLaM[/youtube]

[anasawad]

Unicorns are real. They existed in Russia and extinct around 30000 years ago.
Though they dont look like horses. Nor related to horses in anyway.

[Hindsite]

Unicorns are real. They existed in Russia and extinct around 30000 years ago.
Though they dont look like horses. Nor related to horses in anyway.

The only thing I doubt is the 30,00 years. The video does mention and show drawings of those extinct unicorns too.

[Godstud]

We all know why there are no unicorns.
[youtube]_EPsuOEH1fY[/youtube]

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

Everyone knows unicorns are real, even Best Korea. Think unicorns aren't real? Well, guess again, capitalist-imperialist idiot!

Unicorns’ Existence Proven, Says North Korea

You can be forgiven for thinking that unicorns only exist in medieval fables and modern-day cartoons. North Korean scientists say you are wrong.

On Thursday, the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA), the North Korea’s government mouthpiece, said scientists “reconfirmed” the location of the burial site of the unicorn ridden by King Dongmyeong, the founding father of the ancient Korean kingdom of Goguryeo (37 BC-668 AD).

The unicorn’s grave was rediscovered near a temple in the capital Pyongyang, with a rectangular rock engraved with the words ‘Unicorn Lair’ at its entrance, according to the report. The report did not elaborate on what further evidence of the royal unicorn’s existence was discovered.

[ingliz]

The only thing I doubt is the 30,00 years

Doubt no more.

We assimilate cosmic-ray produced carbon-14 atoms at just the rate that the carbon-14 atoms in our bodies disappear to form nitrogen-14. At the time of death, however, the assimilation process stops abruptly. There is no longer any process by which the carbon-14 from the atmosphere can enter our bodies. Therefore, at the time of death the radioactive disintegration process takes over in an uncompensated manner and, according to the law of radioactive decay, after 5,600 years the carbon that is in our bodies while we are alive will show half the specific carbon-14 radioactivity that it shows now. Since we have evidence that this has been true for tens of thousands of years, we should expect to find that a body 5,600 years old would be one-half as radioactive as a present-day living organism. This appears to be true. Measurements of old artifacts of historically known age have shown this to be so within the experimental errors of measurement

[fuser]

Unicorns do exist. You see, I already got one.

[Frollein]

They taste like goat.

[Rei Murasame]

If you drink unicorn's blood, you can become immortal, but at great cost, for you can only live a 'half life' from that moment forward.



Ask Quirinus Quirrell Ted Cruz all about it, he's our special DeathEater Free Trade advocate who has been sent to destroy Harry Potter Donald Trump, while carrying the spirit of Voldemort George H. W. Bush under his epic turban.

It's going to be awesome.

Spoiler: Unlike in the book, Potter Trump will lose.

[SolarCross]

Unicorns didn't go extinct, when the FLOOD happened they just learned to swim.

[ingliz]

unicorns?

Radiocarbon dating reveals that the Great Unicorn (Elasmotherium sibiricum) became extinct around 27000 BC.*

A literal reading of the Bible reveals that the first day of creation began at 6pm on Saturday, October 22, 4004 BC.**

Something doesn't add up.

Something doesn't add up.

Hint: It isn't radionuclide decay. The process obeys a precise mathematical law that is dependent upon time as the sole independent variable. When a precise mathematical relationship exists between the behaviour of a system and the time over which this behaviour takes place, by definition, you have a clock.


* American Journal of Applied Sciences

** Ussher, Annales Veteris Testamenti, a prima mundi origine deducti, una cum rerum Asiaticarum et Aegyptiacarum chronico, a temporis historici principio usque ad Maccabaicorum initia producto.

[SolarCross]

Legends of Dragons from western europe to east asia are PROOF that Dinosaurs are REAL!

Incredible 50-foot 'dragon' dinosaur unearthed by Chinese farmers

[Hindsite]

Radiocarbon dating reveals that the Great Unicorn (Elasmotherium sibiricum) became extinct around 27000 BC.*

A literal reading of the Bible reveals that the first day of creation began at 6pm on Saturday, October 22, 4004 BC.**

Something doesn't add up.

Hint: It isn't radionuclide decay. The process obeys a precise mathematical law that is dependent upon time as the sole independent variable. When a precise mathematical relationship exists between the behaviour of a system and the time over which this behaviour takes place, by definition, you have a clock.

* American Journal of Applied Sciences

** Ussher, Annales Veteris Testamenti, a prima mundi origine deducti, una cum rerum Asiaticarum et Aegyptiacarum chronico, a temporis historici principio usque ad Maccabaicorum initia producto.

Carbon dating gives a pretty good approximation with plant material as long as contamination can be eliminated. It doesn't work very good with animals and carbon dating is really bad with marine animals, even evolutionists with enough knowledge on the subject will admit that.

How accurate is radiocarbon dating?

[youtube]lg5aDoYUyBk[/youtube]

[Godstud]

Not true. 7 year old video, as well.

This was 3 years after that video, and radio-carbon dating is still being used.

Carbon Dating Gets a Reset
Climate records from a Japanese lake are providing a more accurate timeline for dating objects as far back as 50,000 years
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... ets-reset/

They also use sedimentary layers and other evidence to determine how old things are. Radiocarbon dating is just ONE method. This guy, in your video, says a lot of "I don't know".

[ingliz]

and carbon dating is really bad with marine animals

Rhinocerotes are not marine animals.

How accurate is radiocarbon dating?

Carbon Dating Gets a Reset

Before the reset:

As a rule, carbon dates are younger than calendar dates: a bone carbon-dated to 10,000 years is around 11,000 years old, and 20,000 carbon years roughly equates to 24,000 calendar years.

After:

If you’re trying to look at archaeological sites at the order of 30,000 or 40,000 years ago, the ages may shift by only a few hundred years.

It doesn't work very good with animals

But, even if true, this does not help your argument. 'Before' or 'after' your arguments for a young Earth are not credible when carbon dates are younger than calendar dates.

[Hindsite]

Rhinocerotes are not marine animals.

They are not plants either.

As a rule, carbon dates are younger than calendar dates: a bone carbon-dated to 10,000 years is around 11,000 years old, and 20,000 carbon years roughly equates to 24,000 calendar years.

I seriously doubt that.

If you’re trying to look at archaeological sites at the order of 30,000 or 40,000 years ago, the ages may shift by only a few hundred years.

You will be looking for a long time to find archaeological sites at the order of 30,000 or 40,000 years ago.

It doesn't work very good with animals.
But, even if true, this does not help your argument. 'Before' or 'after' your arguments for a young Earth are not credible when carbon dates are younger than calendar dates.

I am pretty sure that is not going to happen.

[ingliz]

They are not plants either.

So?

I seriously doubt that.

Why?

The general trend is for conventional radiocarbon ages to be about 22% less than calendar ages.

You will be looking for a long time to find archaeological sites at the order of 30,000 or 40,000 years ago.

Why? A key period for archaeology is the period around 40,000 cal BP with the replacement of Neanderthals by anatomically modern humans (see e.g. Lowe et al. 2012).

I am pretty sure that is not going to happen.

Why? The general trend is for conventional radiocarbon ages to be about 22% less than calendar ages.

[The Sabbaticus]

It saddens me that Rei has embraced such vapid and uninspired Potter lore.

Anyway, the Babylonian archives hold thousands of cuneiform tablets. A much richer prize than hand-me-down bibles with a heavily doctored content.

[Hindsite]

Hindsite: They are not plants either.
ingliz: So?

Hindsite: I seriously doubt that.
ingliz: Why?

G. I. Lopez, An application of radiocarbon dating on the west coast of Vancouver Island (2012)
The general trend is for conventional radiocarbon ages to be about 22% less than calendar ages.

Hindsite: You will be looking for a long time to find archaeological sites at the order of 30,000 or 40,000 years ago.
ingliz: Why?
A key period for archaeology is the period around 40,000 cal BP with the replacement of Neanderthals by anatomically modern humans (see e.g. Lowe et al. 2012).

Hindsite: I am pretty sure that is not going to happen.
ingliz: Why?
The general trend is for conventional radiocarbon ages to be about 22% less than calendar ages.

Hindsite: The following are things you failed to mention that were in your G. I. Lopez reference.

A practical limit for accurate dating is 26,000 years. And you can only guess when dating animals because bone is mostly hydroxy-apatitea a form of calcium phosphate.

If a sample shows a lower ratio of C-13 to C-12 than exists in the atmosphere, it is reasonable to expect that the amount of C-14 to C-12 has also been reduced, making the sample appear older than it actually is. This was not taken into account before 1990.

Also, he claims atomic bomb testing in the 1960s and 1970s artificially raised levels of C-14 in the atmosphere.

The conventional radiocarbon age has the assumption that C-14 reservoirs have remained constant through time.

Lakes and oceans act as reservoirs of carbon. The carbon content of a small lake may be only 20 years older than the carbon on the atmosphere, but in the ocean, the carbon may be many hundreds of years older. This will result in marine shells and foraminifera appearing to be older than they actually are.

Comparisons between the radiocarbon ages of wood and shell found at the same
location in ice-age deposits have shown differences in excess of 1000 years.

(The fact that a worldwide flood may also effect radiocarbon dating has not been considered.)

[Godstud]

The worldwide flood hypothesis is not supported by any evidence, and that's why it is not used as a factor.

Even if the carbon dating is off by 1000 years, it still shows a world older than 6,000 years, making your Young Earth bullshit the non-science that it is.