Chestnuts (on legs)... explaining them to a creationist???

[Duramax]

As an instructor who has many up-down kiddies and a few adult beginners on the lesson schedule, inevitably parents or adult newbies will eventually ask me what "those things on the horse's legs are." I used to go through the whole spiel of how they are remnants of toes from when the horse was a five-toed critter. I would explain how the modern day horse is essentially walking on his middle toe, and I would tell them about the two splint bones, the ergot at the back of the fetlock, and the chestnut, thus accounting for all five toes.

But after having one parent flat out say "You actually believe that?" and laugh at me I have altered my answer a bit. :rolleyes: I now preface my spiel by saying "If you believe in evolution then blah blah blah blah blah... If not, then I don't know why they are there, but every horse has them."

I don't have a particularly strong opinion on the subject of evolution but I certainly never thought I would get into a debate about it at the barn, and I am now wondering if I should just shrug and say I have no idea why they are there. :confused:

And to steal Jsalem's wording from an earlier thread because I am feeling unoriginal at the moment, COTH'ers Discuss... :)

[Rt66Kix]

I believe in creation and I know why the chestnuts are there.

They are natural dog treats! As soon as I peel or cut one off, my one dog goes nuts.

A happy day for him is when I trim Mac, the Belgian. His chestnuts and ergots are so huge they actually split and grow into 3 pieces...

[Duramax]

Isn't that the truth? Our barn dogs have a radar for when chestnuts are being picked off. Nellie the corgi is the worst. She will lurk under the horse's feet until a "yummy" hits the ground. :lol:

[poltroon]

Why would a creationist parent even ask that question, when they already know the answer?

I wouldn't hedge. Answer it directly and then if someone challenges you, invite them to research and report back on a better answer. ;)

I'd like a creationist to explain the hock joint to me. Is it because God believes in full employment for veterinarians and pharmaceutical companies?

[CanadianGolden]

Well IMO evolution isn't something that requires belief. The facts are there, and facts do not require faith...they have been proven true. So it's not a matter of "believing" in evolution; that woman is just wrong and foolish.

I probably would have told her that yes, I did believe it, and would she care to provide me with scientific proof for some other way that chestnuts got there. That would shut her up...

[Classic Melody]

I can sympathize. I spent a lot of time around Pentecostals earlier this year, and while they were on the whole lovely people, it was impossible to have a conversation about science with them. You literally could not do it. They would just circle their illogical arguments over and over.

You won't win. The parent was way out of line to laugh at you, but you are never going to change his or her mind. A dignified, "Yes, I do believe that," would suffice.

[Prieta]

Most creationists are "factual literal" translator of the Bible - they simply cannot see how the Bible can be interpreted differently. If they dare to deviate from what they've been brought up on, they fear dire consequences. So, no matter what we say to them, no matter how much evidences we present to them, they will not change their mind. We can only change one mind at a time. :/

The best answer I can give them is what evidences I have in front of me. I'd add that dolphins were once DOGS!!!!!! :D :D I get a big kick out of that! :D

[ExJumper]

Funny story about that!

My barn used to do little Girl Scout clinics for the girls to get some sort of badge. We'd have 3 sections, a little riding (being lead around the ring) section, a grooming.horse care section, and a lecture section. I often lead the lecture section and always went through the same spiel talking about conformation and I always talked about the evolution of the horse and where chestnuts came from.

Once day I was doing my usual talk and one of the girls told me that they didn't believe in evolution and they started arging with me. It turned out that this group of girl scouts were all from some born-again christian school where they taught creationism.

No one told me that. I would have left that section out... I was pretty uncomfortable about the whole thing... And the thing is, you can't argue against that. Empirical evidence means nothing to them...

[Curb Appeal]

If the creationists believe that they were put there by some supernatural power then they should be able to tell you why.

Creationists make me insane.

[jetsmom]

Tell them God put them there to test the faith of creationists....much like why we have Duckbill Platypusses.

(or re the DP- God was stoned and thought, "Hey...This will really mess with their minds...I'll make something that looks like a Beaver, has a bill like a duck,and is a mammal that lays eggs. That will really mess with those people that believe in evolution..Hey Moses!!!Check this out!!!"

[greysandbays]

Well, THIS "creationist" has concluded that anybody that thinks a chestnut is the remanant of an old toe is an idiot. (Evolution may have some believable points, but THIS is NOT one of 'em!)

Think about it. Dogs like them 'cuz they STINK. Think about a newborn foal -- what distinctive odor is right under his momma's nose as she's licking him off -- HIS CHESTNUTS! What distinctive odor is right at his nose level when he's bumbling around trying to get his legs untangled -- HER CHESTNUTS!!! There could be no more perfect system for momma and baby to form a formidable bond in those precious few minutes before the foal is up and running and accidental separation of the mother/offspring could occur, with disasterous results if there wasn't a good way for them to instantly identify each other. Sight isn't good enough. Sound isn't either. But smell -- smell is infallible.

Quit trying to claim toe status for something that was obviously never a toe -- no animal ever had a toe above the knee (wrist) joint. The ergot was never a toe, either. Nothing but some birds has a toe sticking out backwards from the foot. Even from an evolutionary standpoint, these thingamajigs as "scent glands" makes a lot more sense than them being prehistoric toes. Also, no creationist can dispute this, and it will make perfect sense to them as well.

FWIW, deer have scent glands in more or less the same spots. Nobody ever claimed THOSE were toes in prehistoric times...

[tarragon]

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

...not even touching this one.

chugga-chugga-chugga, choo-chooooo!

[carp]

I would keep explaining chestnuts the way you always have. Contrary to the behavior of a certain subset of the faithful, being a devout Christian does not require one to inflict snarky religious comments on random people one encounters during the course of one's daily activities. This parent was rude.

[ExJumper]

Nevermind. Forget I posted. I'm hopping off this train right now.

[eponacowgirl]

AAAAAALLLLLLLLLL AAAAABOOOOAAARD!!

[Kementari]

See? You can't argue with a creationist, because if one person wants (heaven - pun intended - forbid!) EVIDENCE and the other person would rather just make something up whole cloth, the two are never going to be able to find common ground.

Personally, I would give the evolution explanation, and if someone questions it say, "If you didn't want the answer, you shouldn't have asked" - and then refuse to discuss the subject any further.

[Plumcreek]

Would someone please pass me the popcorn?

[twhrider13]

I just want to know what the hell an "ergot" is. I've had horses for years and never heard that term. (I know what chesnuts are, though!) It must be called something else down here, LOL.

[jetsmom]

You know that little nub on the back of their pasterns...It grows...you can trim them...That's the ergot.

[philosoraptor]

But after having one parent flat out say "You actually believe that?" and laugh at me I have altered my answer a bit.

That was extremely rude. Nobody was asking her opinion. And you should not alter your answer, diluting its roots in facts just to keep a few creationists more comfortable.

Next time she starts on that, shift the topic to human evolution. Ask her why human fetuses have a clearly discernable tail up until about day 40 when the appendage is reabsorbed. If humans aren't related to ANY animal, why the tail? :D That ought to confuse her a moment.

Well, THIS "creationist" has concluded that anybody that thinks a chestnut is the remanant of an old toe is an idiot. (Evolution may have some believable points, but THIS is NOT one of 'em!)

Quit trying to claim toe status for something that was obviously never a toe -- no animal ever had a toe above the knee (wrist) joint. The ergot was never a toe, either.

Mark me off as an idiot then. :)

Look more carefully at horse anatomy. Do you really know where the "wrist" analogy is in the front leg? It's not the pastern joint.

Here is a good diagram of horse anatomy including similarities to human limbs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equine_forelimb_anatomy

We also have fossil records that over time show the toes vanishing. Here's one diagram that shows the changes over time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse)

Nothing but some birds has a toe sticking out backwards from the foot.

The location/angle of the ergot isn't much different than the dewclaw on a pig. Neither are actual functioning toes pointing back and perpindicular to the ground (like your bird analogy).

How do you explain dewclaws if they're not the leftover bit of a toe?

[skatepixie]

I guess you could call me a creationist. I don't feel there is enough proof for me to have to accept evolution (if by evolution you mean that bacteria evolved into people, if you are talking gene frequency change that's a diffrent matter). And I believe that God created everything...

I think some non-horsey people might ask that wondering if it serves a purpose for the horse. Same as you might ask what the metal loops on the saddle (I'm forgetting what they are called right now) are for. It doesn't serve an obvious purpose, and they wanted to know. I asked what the chestnut was at one point (I was a little kid at the time) and was told it was a hunk of dry skin that serves no purpose, kind of like the thing some dogs have on the outside of the leg.

[jetsmom]

If they were so foals could find the udder...Why would male horses have them?

[greysandbays]

See? You can't argue with a creationist, because if one person wants (heaven - pun intended - forbid!) EVIDENCE and the other person would rather just make something up whole cloth, the two are never going to be able to find common ground.

Personally, I would give the evolution explanation, and if someone questions it say, "If you didn't want the answer, you shouldn't have asked" - and then refuse to discuss the subject any further.

There is no "evidence" to support the notion that the splint bones and the chestnut/ergot have anything whatsoever to do with each other. There is, instead, that inconvenient little detail that the splint bones are solid bone with no hint of the actual toe remaining, yet the chestnut/ergot have what would be a considerable portion of the toe, more or less, yet not not one sliver of the bone they must have been connected to remains. That makes no evolutionary sense whatsoever. The old wives' tale about chestnuts helping horses see better in the dark makes more sense than this business about toes.

[greysandbays]

That was extremely rude. Nobody was asking her opinion. And you should not alter your answer, diluting its roots in facts just to keep a few creationists more comfortable.

Next time she starts on that, shift the topic to human evolution. Ask her why human fetuses have a clearly discernable tail up until about day 40 when the appendage is reabsorbed. If humans aren't related to ANY animal, why the tail? :D That ought to confuse her a moment.



Mark me off as an idiot then. :)

Look more carefully at horse anatomy. Do you really know where the "wrist" analogy is in the front leg? It's not the pastern joint.

Last time I looked, the horse's "wrist" was what we erroneously call a knee. Last time I looked, the chestnuts on the front legs were above this "wrist". Certainly not an ideal place for a toe...


The location/angle of the ergot isn't much different than the dewclaw on a pig. Neither are actual functioning toes pointing back and perpindicular to the ground (like your bird analogy).

How do you explain dewclaws if they're not the leftover bit of a toe?

"Dewclaws" are associated with cloven hooves. They're not a "leftover bit of toe" any more than one half or the other of the cloven hoof would be -- they are one of the properties of having cloven hooves in the first place. Dewclaws aren't intended to be weightbearing under most circumstances, only a stablizer in deep or steep going.

[greysandbays]

If they were so foals could find the udder...Why would male horses have them?

Because male horses were at one time baby horses, who needed to be identifiable to their mothers.

Though the mother/baby recognition factor is primary, I'm sure it comes in handy for horses to recognize each other in the herd as well.

Anyway, I didn't suggest that chestnuts helped the foal find the udder (though I don't discount it as a possiblity) -- I was suggesting that the odor of the mother's chestnuts would help the foal identify her, as would the oder of the foal's chestnuts help the mother identify him.

[goeslikestink]

hahaha--- for those that dont believe that an ergot and chesnut isnt a toe or a dew claw on a dog isnt a toe --

explain why its made up as like the nails -- like us humans -- with our nails

that if it caught or cut to short it will bleed -- it has ie horse - dog -- human to that kind--- the same make up and and structure of the finger nail

for exsample ahorses foot has structures that xcross and to make that sturcture of the foot it you trim to short it will bleed so to is the ergot and the chestnut --- its is part of the foot -- and there fore as the fooot that once started out as digits --

and as regards to your explaination of a foal graysandbays-- findig its mother as its a scent gland what happpens if the mother dies and that foal is put on another mare -- that bonding comes from when she licks the sack of the foal its important to get that bond as when the foal is born they have there own scent of her and its self-- you can re introduce a ofhan foal to a mare thats lost her foal quite sucessfully --with out the need to disgusie its scent -- as the foal will go to any one to feed once it recongises wher the food comming from like all small animals it will contiune to go to that source even if you are human with a bottle we dont have ergots or chesnuts we have hands and digits -- its hungry it will feed --

lambs do, pigs do puppies do kittens do baby calfs do --
in fact calf are feed from a bottle thats attached to there pens--
its the scent of milk -- that the foal smells ---

[carolprudm]

Bottle fed human babies also recognize where milk comes from if a woman who is nursing picks that other baby up.

[AC & Ty]

Lovin' this thread...

Of course, my ex-husband (a Southern Baptist from Arkansas) also claimed that the skulls and depictions of Cro-Magnon, Neanderthal, etc in the SMITHSONIAN MUSEUM were all FAKE...and he refused to read or look at the exibit AT ALL. Made quite a scene...and the fact that I was laughing hysterically made it a little worse...:lol: As I said...EX HUSBAND. Of course, he also thought Washington state was Washington, DC...but that's another story....:sadsmile:

Dolphins and certain whales have hip bones...and horses were once multi-toed...and SOME humans are actually BORN with a tail if it doesn't get reabsorbed...and it is surgically removed at birth.

And if everything was created in 7 days...on what day were the dinosaurs made?:D :D :D

[Jumphigh83]

So why would evolution preclude creationism? I know my god would be smart enough to "create" through evolution. That has always mystified me. Such an either/or, black/white, way if looking at the universe.....My belief it is the vestigial remains of the "toes".....Sounds like the OPs inquirer was just starting some religious sh*t and really had no interest in the horses' chestnuts but in some type of philosophical arguement!

[DairyQueen2049]

Has a lovely exhibit of the ancient horse WITH his toes showing.

I recall going to this exhibit w/ a boyfriend who was outraged at the display. How dare they tamped with history. :no: Needless to say THAT relationship bit the dust rapidly.

Oh yeah, pass me some popcorn too.

Whooooo whooooooo
Chooga choogga choooga chew!!!

[Rusty Stirrup]

My tactful answer to these questions are "one theory is that the chestnut is the remainer of a toe" and I always add "another is that it is where the legs press together in the womb". I always hope they except that and don't notice the ergot. Jumphigh83, I'm with you. What difference does it make whether Adam and Eve were covered in hair and climbed in trees? Many times we miss the big picture.

[Prieta]

Yep, we are tooo tiny and narrowminded to miss the whole picture! :D

Hey, Pope just forgave a scientist for observing that the Sun is the center of our system. What next will he say?

[Jude]

So why would evolution preclude creationism? I know my god would be smart enough to "create" through evolution. That has always mystified me. Such an either/or, black/white, way if looking at the universe.....My belief it is the vestigial remains of the "toes".....Sounds like the OPs inquirer was just starting some religious sh*t and really had no interest in the horses' chestnuts but in some type of philosophical arguement!I agree with this. I believe something along the lines of: God blew the breath of life into the universe, and set everything spinning, then sat back and watched. Sometimes, God nudged a little here or there, but mostly things just took their various courses, wherever those courses led.

That makes me sounds WAY more fundamentalist than I am!! :lol:

As to the OP, do not hold onto a belief just because it is yours. That is the exact same thing that woman was doing. Keep an open mind, investigate, and learn. Draw your conclusions from what you learn. Don't assume that once you've learned something, your opinion cannot change. But until someone presents you with strong enough evidence to spark a change in your opinion, keep teaching what you believe. However, do not return the ridicule. Be respectful and flexible, but do not compromise - or hold on to - your beliefs for convenience.

An evolutionist stubbornly refusing to even acknowledge that a creationist might have a brain is as bad as the reverse. Not, mind you, that I believe in creationism at all, and am staunch believer in evolution (see above), but what makes me right and them wrong? Just what I've read and observed, same as them.

[Frank B]

Duramax, I'd say give the same explanation that you've always used. Stick to your guns. When science and politics (and too much of today's religion IS politics) mix, mankind loses. Witness the Dark Ages, and a bunch of the goofy laws that exist throught the world's societies even (especially?) today.

Full disclosure here: I'm a church-going Christian, an engineer and an amateur astronomer. I see no conflict between my religion and today's evolving cosmological theories. As a matter of fact, the universe proposed by both the 'Big Bang' and 'Steady State' theories is much grander than that described by literal biblical translations -- much to God's credit! IMHO God is an engineer, not a magician. But did He have to make Pi such a gosh-awful comglomeration of digits??

Oh, this was about chestnuts wasn't it? Just ask those that disagree to provide you with their explanation.

[Prieta]

Frank!

I am so excited to agree with you about science helping to show how Big and Grand God is. Plus, the translation of the Bible using modern technology really helps to glorify God even more! Because of this, we are no longer going to any traditional churches....instead, we are reading about translations of the Bible written by PhD scholars along with new findings in astronomy, chemistry, and physics. To sum up, "God does not play dice with the Universe", Einstein....

[Oldenburg Mom]

Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
I think that quote is Hebrews ...

Anyway, consider: a rational argument is irrelevent to the Creationists as it (the question of Creation vs. Evolution) is a question not of facts, but faith.

I'm surprised, however, that one needs to call others "idiots" regardless of beliefs. The name of the game here is respect, IMHO.

I think the OP solved the problem quite nicely and diplomatically. I think the laughter was just plain rude and certain does not reflect well on the individual. Rusty Stirrup said it quite nicely too.

<KT is seen snapping her fingers to that old Aretha Franklin ... R-E-S-P-E-C-T, Find out what it means to me, R-E-S-P-E-C-T
Take care, TCB...>

[AC & Ty]

So why would evolution preclude creationism? I know my god would be smart enough to "create" through evolution. That has always mystified me.

You know, this is why you LISTEN when people talk.

I have HONESTLY never looked at it like that. That is probably the most open minded thing I have ever heard. I will have to think on that point some more!!! Maybe I will try to stir up my little brother and his wife with this one...(they are BORN AGAINS...I know, I'm surrounded! :eek: ) I would love to hear their (OR even my EX HUSBANDS parents) views on that approach...:)

[monstrpony]

I'd like a creationist to explain the hock joint to me. Is it because God believes in full employment for veterinarians and pharmaceutical companies?


Can I use this as my tag line? I don't think anyone who has posted since this statement has put the discussion in perspective any better. Tho the comment about God being an engineer is a close second.

Carry on--

[Huntertwo]

I used to know a total "Newbie" that didn't think she was a Newbie...lol

She would tell people that the Chestnuts were callouses(sp) from the horse rubbing its legs together when in motion....:lol: :lol:

[Equibrit]

Makes you wonder who is further down the evolutionary chain, doesn't it?

[Appassionato]

I'd like a creationist to explain the hock joint to me. Is it because God believes in full employment for veterinarians and pharmaceutical companies?

And the digestive tract! ;)

In any case, I feel the parent was rude. If anything, she should have pulled the OP to the side later and explained her belief system, and that she preferred her daughter to follow that path. I don't necessarily agree with the path, but I feel it isn't against any laws either. Basically, the parent chose a poor way to handle it instead of a better way.

I go to a SBC affiliated college (Mercer University). I'm always shocked that while they leave creationism, or "intelligent design", out of the mix when discussing the theories. I'm also always shocked to find out the evolutionary "facts" that have been debunked...or not!

For the record, I'm split down the middle. I see both sides and their points. But only because I actually listened and threw my own beliefs to the side and actually listened. ;)

[zagafi]

I think creation and evolution coexist nicely, actually. And since we've got proof of many species evolving, I really don't get the argument that it HAS to be one or the other. Then again, I don't think the Bible dropped straight from heaven in a leather bound King James version, either.

[Alagirl]

I think creation and evolution coexist nicely, actually. And since we've got proof of many species evolving, I really don't get the argument that it HAS to be one or the other. Then again, I don't think the Bible dropped straight from heaven in a leather bound King James version, either.


Heathen!




:winkgrin: :lol:

[Kerrysmom818]

So why would evolution preclude creationism? I know my god would be smart enough to "create" through evolution. That has always mystified me. Such an either/or, black/white, way if looking at the universe.....My belief it is the vestigial remains of the "toes"

Thank you for stating so clearly what I believe to be so obvious!!!

[Duramax]

So why would evolution preclude creationism? I know my god would be smart enough to "create" through evolution. That has always mystified me. Such an either/or, black/white, way if looking at the universe.....

Ditto. :)

[arabhorse2]

Former Catholic, and born-again Pentecostal here. :D

I have always been of the opinion that evolution and God dovetail nicely. Why can't they coexist? P.S.--Don't tell my congregation this; I might be unborn-again or something...... :lol:

The Bible states that the world was created in 6 days, and God rested on the 7th, but how long were the days? Isn't God timeless, so therefore our perception of what days are isn't the Lord's?

I marvel at evolution, and think that it's an amazing way to show how God got everything started.

As far as chestnuts being remants of vestigial toes, I thought that argument had been disproved? I could be wrong of course, but I thought I'd read somewhere that scientists didn't believe that theory anymore.

[summerhorse]

Tell them God put them there to test the faith of creationists....much like why we have Duckbill Platypusses.

(or re the DP- God was stoned and thought, "Hey...This will really mess with their minds...I'll make something that looks like a Beaver, has a bill like a duck,and is a mammal that lays eggs. That will really mess with those people that believe in evolution..Hey Moses!!!Check this out!!!"


And don't forget its poisonous spines!!

[cyberbay]

I just use my senses, including observation. I've been coming to the conclusion that people who need a God have a deficit in their relationship with themselves. They don't believe in themselves, they don't believe in their own sense of ability or their own power. They won't accept the full spectrum of the human psyche or human nature (all its so-called 'good' and all its so-called 'bad') -- they absolutely refuse to believe that they could do anything as bad as the criminal they hear about on the evening news, but don't think twice about supporting, say, the death penalty. They need to have something 'outside' of themselves , to explain scary things (like 9-11 or the tsunami), or b/c of their fear of chaos. They don't accept that life is naturally chaotic (all you have to do is look at the supposed chaos of nature), and certainly don't see that chaos has plenty of order (at least in Nature--and these people tend to be fearing and hating of nature, too). They have little sense of wonder. People like this, even scientists, who 'explore' every day in the laboratory, but claim a belief in God, are still stepping away from the full force of life and what's become obvious to me that humankind is irrelevant in the scheme of things. They need a God (human-like, of course) to do an end-run on this fact and to say, "see, see, it IS all about us, after all." And creationist thinking is just more of this need to make humans the center of it all (by making a human-like God who is here like Daddy).

[WingedPanda]

Why do horses have chestnuts and ergots? Because the Flying Spaghetti Monster put them there when he touched the first horse with His Noodly Appendage. Duh.

Well, THIS "creationist" has concluded that anybody that thinks a chestnut is the remanant of an old toe is an idiot.

Nice. I have absolutely zero respect for someone who can only argue their point this way. Always nice to be reassured that our society has not risen above the "you don't think like I think, so you're dumb" mentality.

As for the rest of your "theory", cum hoc ergo propter hoc is a causative fallacy - correlation does not imply causation.

[arabhorse2]

9/11 was terrorist extremists, and the tsunamis, as well as the U.S. hurricanes, were nature/weather. I think that explains them pretty well.

You don't "get" why we're believers, but that doesn't mean you should denigrate us. I accept that there are folks out there who don't believe, and that's their right. I would never condemn someone for thinking differently than me.

What does humanity's capacity to do great evil or good have to do with whether or not I believe in God? People have free will; they will do as they see fit. I do know that some of the worst atrocities committed have been in the name of God, but I also know that others have been committed by people who have no other god than themselves.

Bad things are going to happen, and a lot of it is random. So why can't I see all of that and still believe?

Now going to retire to a safe corner, sing hymns, and watch the rest of the trainwreck.....

[Overo]

Sorry to burst your bubbles but I have it on rather good authority from the local crazy lady that chestnuts are there to assist the horse in breathing while it is being worked. :eek: :lol: You had best all be VERY careful bathing your horses or leaving them out in the rain lest they drown.:D

On a more rational note, there is not going to be a middle ground between a die-hard creationist and a pure evolutionist. Not ever. I'm a palaeontologist by education (specializing in long-extinct invertebrates) and am pretty sure I've heard all the arguments for and against creationism/intelligent design. I personally don't believe in a "higher power" but that doesn't mean I'm arrogant enough to insist that my beliefs are the only correct ones. There is too much that we don't have a good explanation for - yet.

[zagafi]

I just use my senses, including observation. I've been coming to the conclusion that people who need a God have a deficit in their relationship with themselves. They don't believe in themselves, they don't believe in their own sense of ability or their own power. They won't accept the full spectrum of the human psyche or human nature (all its so-called 'good' and all its so-called 'bad') -- they absolutely refuse to believe that they could do anything as bad as the criminal they hear about on the evening news, but don't think twice about supporting, say, the death penalty. They need to have something 'outside' of themselves , to explain scary things (like 9-11 or the tsunami), or b/c of their fear of chaos. They don't accept that life is naturally chaotic (all you have to do is look at the supposed chaos of nature), and certainly don't see that chaos has plenty of order (at least in Nature--and these people tend to be fearing and hating of nature, too). They have little sense of wonder. People like this, even scientists, who 'explore' every day in the laboratory, but claim a belief in God, are still stepping away from the full force of life and what's become obvious to me that humankind is irrelevant in the scheme of things. They need a God (human-like, of course) to do an end-run on this fact and to say, "see, see, it IS all about us, after all." And creationist thinking is just more of this need to make humans the center of it all (by making a human-like God who is here like Daddy).

HUH? A belief in God (or whatever deity one might believe in) doesn't require a sense of wonder? And you don't think science and religion can coexist? And what's more you don't see that you've contradicted yourself--is nature chaotic or orderly?

See, the thing is, YOU seem to have a very narrow view. Yes, I believe in God. What I don't believe, not for one second, is that He's quite so easily packaged as what we might believe. I think he set things in motion and either by design or by "chaos" allowed things to grow and evolve. I don't think God is a giant puppetmaster and certainly don't think "his will" cause any of the tragedies you mention. You've overgeneralized to a ridiculous degree, so I'm not entirely sure what your point is, truly.

[Auventera Two]

Well IMO evolution isn't something that requires belief. The facts are there, and facts do not require faith...they have been proven true. So it's not a matter of "believing" in evolution; that woman is just wrong and foolish.

I probably would have told her that yes, I did believe it, and would she care to provide me with scientific proof for some other way that chestnuts got there. That would shut her up...

Absolutely.

I don't pull punches. Millions of scientific facts point toward evolution while believing in a diety of some type requires faith in the absence of fact. I use chestnuts as another way to show people PROOF that we evolved!

[Mtn trails]

"Dewclaws" are associated with cloven hooves. They're not a "leftover bit of toe" any more than one half or the other of the cloven hoof would be -- they are one of the properties of having cloven hooves in the first place. Dewclaws aren't intended to be weightbearing under most circumstances, only a stablizer in deep or steep going."

This arguement makes no sense at all. So dogs are considered animals with cloven hooves, and cats too?

I'm mixing margaritas, got my lawn chair. Life is good. Anyone want a drink?

[cyberbay]

Geez, arabhorse2. I'm just questioning the outcome of this sort of belief in God. I agree with you, if I'm understanding you, that 'stuff happens, move on.' (But, I do disagree with you that if someone's beliefs are hurting someone, yeah, something should be said. NOt about this post, though)< So, where was my post attacking you? I'm not attacking 'belief' as an action; I'm questioning the need to believe in a third party as a means and solution to all things on this earth or solar system. Why the need for the explanation?

A belief in God, I keep seeing, means needing to have an answer, an explanation, something, anything to explain the events that are seemingly hard to fathom (9-11 or the tsunami, as examples of 'hard to fathom'). Versus just allowing that 'strange' event to be. It's not a sense of wonder, but a need for control, an ordering. For the record, I have great belief. It's 'life belief,' whatever ya wanna call it, but it ain't in no third party (except Nature, since the facts keep repeating themselves there) b/c that's, among other things, a way of aggrandizing and being personally irresponsible.

Well, I do think my view is broad, I'm just seeing that people use the "god" concept as a crutch. (I'm separating this argument from the pursuit of spirituality, which is each person's own struggle). It sometimes seems to me that spiritual growth is stopped by 'god.' Keep going, is what I'm suggesting at this point.

Aologies if I wasn't clear: my point is that I'm seeing that people need to believe in deities or a God b/c they need to feel in control, they need to explain, they don't WANT that sense of wonder. Things on this earth or in the solar system just can't BE, there has to be a reason for them, and it better b/c of a human-like deity who set things in motion. This is what I'm seeing. It's not about me, or a spin-off of me, or a human-like characteristic.

Honestly, the wars and the environmental destruction are often predicated on people seeing things as all about 'them.' Otherwise, don't you think we'd really be thinking twice about felling those 200-yr-old oaks, or filling in that marsh for more soccer-mom housing?

[Aggie4Bar]

I think science has pretty much debunked the toe theory in favour of scent glands. It's also worth mentioning that some horses don't have chestnuts.

Anyway, "what" and "why" are two different questions. If someone asks what it is, that's generally not an invitation for a long-winded explanations. If they ask why, the easiest answer is to smile and say, "I don't know. That's just the way he's made."

[She's Incogneto]

Why do horses have chestnuts and ergots? Because the Flying Spaghetti Monster put them there when he touched the first horse with His Noodly Appendage. Duh.

Woot! FSM!!
“As a neuroscientist and clinical psychologist, I have often been struck by how the brain resembles pasta. Clearly, the Flying Spaghetti Monster theory is worthy of deep thought. Or at least a side order of garlic toast. Which is more than I can say about ID, which, as St. Sigmund taught, should be subservient to EGO (Equally Goofy Observations).”
–James Blackburn, Ph.D.

[Calena]

Why do horses have chestnuts and ergots? Because the Flying Spaghetti Monster put them there when he touched the first horse with His Noodly Appendage. Duh.



I vote for this one :D.

As a um . . . "mature" . . . Bible-believing/studying Evangelical Christian with an entire library of reference/background material to peruse and some time spent in seminary classes, I can say with some confidence that the subject of horse chestnuts and ergots isn't addressed in the Bible. God apparently had other priorities.

Whatever I say or believe, I hope and pray that I have the decency and courtesy share this in a gentle kind caring manner. Otherwise, no matter what I say, I'm wrong.

[arabhorse2]

Cyberbay, point taken. Yes, if beliefs, regardless of where they come from, are hurtful to others then they should be reconsidered.

The problem that I'm seeing is there are people on both sides of the issue that are ignorant, hurtful, and disrespectful. To decry something that either side believes as ridiculous or idiotic, is doing nothing to further reconciliation.

I've never thought it was "all about me". The universe certainly wasn't created for humanity's specific enjoyment or use. Neither was the Earth. We are as much a part of nature as any other species, but I can and do put God into that equation.

We as a species tend to be arrogant and selfish, and the God I believe in wants us to transcend that. We are supposed to nurture and care for each other, as well as the other inhabitants of this planet, human or not.

Everything has a finite life, even the universe. My beliefs indicate that the only thing outside that rule is God. Where I personally fit into that equation is up to Him, not me.

After all, if I'm wrong, I can take comfort in the fact that I was as good a human being as I could be. If I'm not, then maybe I'll earn the ultimate reward as defined by my faith.

I don't want to drag others kicking and screaming into my belief structure. All I want is respect, and I in turn will show respect to those who don't believe as I do.

[DMK]

Why his noodly appendage reached down and touched my horse just the other day. That's the only explanation I have for his behavior. Must have been divine intervention....

Note to self, must get another FSM logo to add to my horse trailer - turns out my car isn't enough!


(yea, yea, like most good lapsed catholics, I'm up close and comfy with the concept of scientific theory, and I'm just as up close and comfy with the idea that something unique and unexplainable might have been behind the big bang... I'm just as equally happy with the idea that that something plays no role in a science class, being as its an article of faith, NOT something subject to the scientifc process. ID is just the first two letters in the word "idiot".)

[dizzywriter]

Lovin' this thread...

Of course, my ex-husband (a Southern Baptist from Arkansas) also claimed that the skulls and depictions of Cro-Magnon, Neanderthal, etc in the SMITHSONIAN MUSEUM were all FAKE...and he refused to read or look at the exibit AT ALL. Made quite a scene...and the fact that I was laughing hysterically made it a little worse...:lol: As I said...EX HUSBAND. Of course, he also thought Washington state was Washington, DC...but that's another story....:sadsmile:

Dolphins and certain whales have hip bones...and horses were once multi-toed...and SOME humans are actually BORN with a tail if it doesn't get reabsorbed...and it is surgically removed at birth.

And if everything was created in 7 days...on what day were the dinosaurs made?:D :D :D

The dinosaurs were quite obviously faked by the same guys who faked the Neanderthals ;-)

[dizzywriter]

Frank!

I am so excited to agree with you about science helping to show how Big and Grand God is. Plus, the translation of the Bible using modern technology really helps to glorify God even more! Because of this, we are no longer going to any traditional churches....instead, we are reading about translations of the Bible written by PhD scholars along with new findings in astronomy, chemistry, and physics. To sum up, "God does not play dice with the Universe", Einstein....

But Einstein was wrong. God does play dice with the universe. It's called quantum mechanics.

[J Swan]

Why do horses have chestnuts and ergots? Because the Flying Spaghetti Monster put them there when he touched the first horse with His Noodly Appendage. Duh.



As good an explanation as any. That and the dog treat one works for me.

Besides - everyone know that the world is supported on the back of a turtle. And for those naysayers who ask what the turtle is standing on - well - it's turtles all the way down, of course.

sheesh.

[Luckydonkey]

all religiousness aside- tell them they are like fingerprints- every horse has them, and they are all different....

[Daydream Believer]

Well, THIS "creationist" has concluded that anybody that thinks a chestnut is the remanant of an old toe is an idiot. (Evolution may have some believable points, but THIS is NOT one of 'em!)

Think about it. Dogs like them 'cuz they STINK. Think about a newborn foal -- what distinctive odor is right under his momma's nose as she's licking him off -- HIS CHESTNUTS! What distinctive odor is right at his nose level when he's bumbling around trying to get his legs untangled -- HER CHESTNUTS!!! There could be no more perfect system for momma and baby to form a formidable bond in those precious few minutes before the foal is up and running and accidental separation of the mother/offspring could occur, with disasterous results if there wasn't a good way for them to instantly identify each other. Sight isn't good enough. Sound isn't either. But smell -- smell is infallible.

Quit trying to claim toe status for something that was obviously never a toe -- no animal ever had a toe above the knee (wrist) joint. The ergot was never a toe, either. Nothing but some birds has a toe sticking out backwards from the foot. Even from an evolutionary standpoint, these thingamajigs as "scent glands" makes a lot more sense than them being prehistoric toes. Also, no creationist can dispute this, and it will make perfect sense to them as well.

FWIW, deer have scent glands in more or less the same spots. Nobody ever claimed THOSE were toes in prehistoric times...

Well...one possible problem with this is the some breeds like Spanish Barbs are lacking chestnuts. In our breed they are very small if present at all. Perhaps they are a different species of horse or "evolved" to not need them? ;)

[DressageGeek "Ribbon Ho"]

As a scientist whose published work over the past 30 years (starting from when I was an undergraduate) only provides more evidence for evolution, I would have replied, "This is the biological and scientific explanation for the process, and there is a huge amount of data supporting it that has been tested and reproduced. However, if you want to put this into a fantasy and fictional scenario, they are the horns of the devil. It's just that in devil horses the horns are on the part of the horse that can do you the most damage. By the way, they also have horns on their teeth."

[DressageGeek "Ribbon Ho"]

As good an explanation as any. That and the dog treat one works for me.

Besides - everyone know that the world is supported on the back of a turtle. And for those naysayers who ask what the turtle is standing on - well - it's turtles all the way down, of course.

sheesh.

Until you get to the Portuguese Man O'War supporting all those turtles, which itself rests on a sponge.

[Percheron X]

Actually you were all created just this moment, along with all your memories of the past. From a hair of a Horse's mane.

[syntax_592]

Until you get to the Portuguese Man O'War supporting all those turtles, which itself rests on a sponge.

BECK: And my time is a piece of wax fallin’ on a termite
who's chokin’ on the splinters


I have always been struck by the similarity of the Genesis Chapter 1 with evolution and the theories of the creation of the universe.

1 In the beginning G-d created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of G-d moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And G-d said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Before the "Big Bang" thre was nothing (without form and void), then the Big Bang was a huge creation/explosion of light. Isaac Asimov wrote a story about this which ties in G-d with science.

Also, in Chapter 1, G-d creates everything, including man (male and female created he them). It always seemed odd that Chapter 2 seems to re-wind the creation story for G-d to create man and woman all over again, this time from the dust and from a rib.

I believe that evolution happens under G-d's direction and is yet another example of how complete and complex He is, and little we comprehend.

As far as chestnuts on horses go, they are a reminder to us of how little we really understand G-d, or horses for that matter.

[mp]

Whatever I say or believe, I hope and pray that I have the decency and courtesy share this in a gentle kind caring manner. Otherwise, no matter what I say, I'm wrong.

Amen.

[greysandbays]

I think science has pretty much debunked the toe theory in favour of scent glands. It's also worth mentioning that some horses don't have chestnuts.

Anyway, "what" and "why" are two different questions. If someone asks what it is, that's generally not an invitation for a long-winded explanations. If they ask why, the easiest answer is to smile and say, "I don't know. That's just the way he's made."

Do you have a source for the debunked toe theory? I haven't seen anything on this, but I came to the conclusion that chestnuts were scent glands based on nothing more than my own observation, and that's been my explanation for over twenty years. Actually when anybody asks me about this, I say, "Well, depends on if you believe the evolutionists theory, the creationist theory, or the old wives' tale?" Then I tell 'em all three.

[philosoraptor]

I have always been struck by the similarity of the Genesis Chapter 1 with evolution and the theories of the creation of the universe.

If they're so similar, why do creationists freak out over the idea this couldn't have happened over eons of time? :confused: I just don't understand their knee-jerk reaction.

Also, in Chapter 1, G-d creates everything, including man (male and female created he them). It always seemed odd that Chapter 2 seems to re-wind the creation story for G-d to create man and woman all over again, this time from the dust and from a rib.

But that does not match up with evolution. If you're a believer in evolution, you know woman wasn't shaped from a man's rib bone.

There are so many things in the Bible which don't match up with what we've discovered about our world. The best solution if you're Christian is to not take the bible literally word-for-word.

As far as chestnuts on horses go, they are a reminder to us of how little we really understand G-d, or horses for that matter.

Just curious-- why are you spelling it "G-d"?

[greysandbays]

What difference does it make whether Adam and Eve were covered in hair and climbed in trees? Many times we miss the big picture.

If humans are evoluting, they sure as hell ain't doin' it in an "improving" direction! I can tell you that this time of year, I start getting mighty miffed at whatever freak of evolution deprived me of my own fur coat. And, dammit, that tail would have come in handy a time or two as well (especially if it was one of them prehensile ones like possums and some monkeys have). :D

Can we imagine dressage saddles with a tail-loop on the cantle to help stabilize our seats? :lol: :lol:

[zagafi]

If they're so similar, why do creationists freak out over the idea this couldn't have happened over eons of time? :confused: I just don't understand their knee-jerk reaction.



But that does not match up with evolution. If you're a believer in evolution, you know woman wasn't shaped from a man's rib bone.

There are so many things in the Bible which don't match up with what we've discovered about our world. The best solution if you're Christian is to not take the bible literally word-for-word.



Just curious-- why are you spelling it "G-d"?

Because creationists are literalists--they believe the Bible is the *inerrant* word of God. Though a scholarly review debunks THAT theory as well, but I digress.

And the poster likely used "G-d" out of a religious belief. I don't know his/her religion, but I do know Jewish people do not spell out the word, so perhaps that's why.

[La Gringa]

If they aren't a by-product of evolution why then are they of horny material, same as hooves?

I do wonder though why other hooved animals don't have them.. cows for example or pigs.

They are odd, and the chestnut in particular, why is it above the knee on the front legs and below the hock on the rear legs? Strange indeed.

My shire's ergots grow like curly fingernails, and fast. I have to trim them with the nippers, they get so thick. They are wierd.

Mustangs don't have rear chestnuts either, why is that?

[DressageGeek "Ribbon Ho"]

I think it's so as not to be blasphemous.

Personally - I am not religious. I am not certain if there is a God. I do believe that if I try to cause no harm to others, that if I try to do what I can for others, that that is the "right" thing. I don't know if there's heaven or hell or afterlife. These are questions I will never be able to answer (I guess I will find out about the heaven and hell issue when i die though).

What I do find offensive, is when people who do not have the education or scientific understanding and who just state that carbon dating is a load of hooey. I have yet to meet someone who claims this who actually even know what is involved in the process.

I have read both the Old and New Testatments. I do not take them literally. I believe that they are manuscripts written and translated and retranslated that are parables to help people assuage their fears about death and bad things, and to hopefully help them live better lives. On the other hand, I believe religion is a deeply personal issue and that each person makes this decision for themselves as to what they believe, so I can't say what is wrong for me isn't right for them.

However, when someone is simply incapable of passing judgement on a scientific issue because they lack the basic understanding of the science involved, they should return the favor and say, "This is what I believe, but i respect your right to disagree."

Diversity is a great thing. There are actually people out there who do not like horses. There are people who actually prefer warmbloods to thoroughbreds!!! There are people who do Parelli without a Kohlrhabi stick!

It would be nice if we could share our views, learn from each other, and accept what we choose to accept.

that being said, I am simply appalled that the members of the House and Senate, for the most part, completely disregard valid scientific input when making their political decisions.

[greysandbays]

I have always been struck by the similarity of the Genesis Chapter 1 with evolution and the theories of the creation of the universe.

1 In the beginning G-d created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of G-d moved upon the face of the waters.3 And G-d said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Before the "Big Bang" thre was nothing (without form and void), then the Big Bang was a huge creation/explosion of light. Isaac Asimov wrote a story about this which ties in G-d with science.

Also, in Chapter 1, G-d creates everything, including man (male and female created he them). It always seemed odd that Chapter 2 seems to re-wind the creation story for G-d to create man and woman all over again, this time from the dust and from a rib.

I believe that evolution happens under G-d's direction and is yet another example of how complete and complex He is, and little we comprehend.

As far as chestnuts on horses go, they are a reminder to us of how little we really understand G-d, or horses for that matter.

Since you brought this up..... I'm hoping there's somebody here who knows the Bible and "evolution" well enough to clear up something for me:

Bible says God created the world (or at least the world as we know it) in six days. Ok. But doesn't the Bible also say, somewhere, that Lucifer got Big Ideas of being God's equal and staged an uprising with 1/3 of God's angels in Heaven -- the upshot being that God got irrate enough with Lucifer and his followers to hurl them down to the earth? Well, ok. However, since Satan (formerly known as Lucifer) was alread in the Garden of Eden when Adam and Eve appeared, this uprising and expulsion from heaven must have occured well BEFORE "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth".

Therefore, there was something here at some point before Genisis!!! Dinosaurs, perhaps????? Furthermore, that something had obviously been here a while (millions of years, perhaps?), since God didn't have to make it a special point to create a place for the banishment of Lucifer and his followers.

Still pondering though, on why, if God was going to do an earth with humans, did He not have the forethought to have hurled Lucifer down to, say Jupiter, or Saturn? Would have saved everybody a lot of trouble...

[Czar]

Well, we'll see in the end won't we;)

Though I'm pretty sure chestnuts on horses won't be at the top of my list of questions but...to each his own :yes:

On a sidenote...this whole thread is rather pointless since people seem to think their are "sides" to this discussion and depending on what side you're on, you automatically believe the other to be wrong. Both sides have evidence to support their views though both agree that the "other" person's evidence is unfounded.

So.....we will see in the end :lol:

[dizzywriter]

God created the earth in six days. Only six 24-hour days. Metaphors don't count if you are a Biblical literalist. Nothing counts, except for the words of the Bible, as translated into American English (creationism is a distinctly American phenomenon).

If the Bible is taken literally, then the only things that happened in the world happened in the corner of the world where Biblical events happened -- what is now the Middle East. (There was no "rest of the world"). Using that criterion, Irish Archbishop James Ussher counted all the Biblical begats and concluded that creation happened in 4004 B.C.E. But he came up with that in the 17th century -- a time known for deep scientific knowledge.

I'm not sure if any/all/some creationists adhere to that date, but they certainly don't allow for a great deal of time from "let there be light" to the appearance of horses with chestnuts.

As an apostate of whatever religion I was raised, but someone who is very interested in the history of all religions, I personally view the Old Testament as something that began as a Mesopotamian myth and then became a mythologized history of the Israelites, that grew progressively more "historical" with successive chapters. I recommend "God: A Biography" for a wonderful treatment of God's character evolution in the course of the story -- from sex-obsessed, to law giver, to largely absent at the end.

Genesis is a lovely poem about evolution -- first the universe, then the land, plants, animals and humans. It's actually quite accurate in that sense (except for compressed timing and the two conflicting male and female creation myths), which is wondrous in itself, given the lack of scientific knowledge of the time.

As with many myths, the Biblical stories hold grains of truth. For example, scientists found a real candidate for the Biblical Flood story in the Black Sea around 5500 BCE -- well within the memories of the Biblical story tellers who got it from Mesopotamia.

So, I don't denigrate the Bible as a source for interpreting scientific evidence. But it's just one source. Not the sole source.

As for horse chestnuts and the OP, I would advise anyone to avoid discussions on any subject with literal creationists (not the "God is the engineer who formulated the equations (Pi excepted...) that fired creation" types -- I'm kind of one of those myself). But the "God created everything in six days" types. Though evolution has it's holes, creationism is a hole. Why would God leave us all this scientific evidence of evolution? False clues to test faith?

Tell them your chestnut theory and leave it at that. If they are rude, say "sorry, I have work to do. It was nice chatting" and go on your way.

[dizzywriter]

Since you brought this up..... I'm hoping there's somebody here who knows the Bible and "evolution" well enough to clear up something for me:

Bible says God created the world (or at least the world as we know it) in six days. Ok. But doesn't the Bible also say, somewhere, that Lucifer got Big Ideas of being God's equal and staged an uprising with 1/3 of God's angels in Heaven -- the upshot being that God got irrate enough with Lucifer and his followers to hurl them down to the earth? Well, ok. However, since Satan (formerly known as Lucifer) was alread in the Garden of Eden when Adam and Eve appeared, this uprising and expulsion from heaven must have occured well BEFORE "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth".

Therefore, there was something here at some point before Genisis!!! Dinosaurs, perhaps????? Furthermore, that something had obviously been here a while (millions of years, perhaps?), since God didn't have to make it a special point to create a place for the banishment of Lucifer and his followers.

Still pondering though, on why, if God was going to do an earth with humans, did He not have the forethought to have hurled Lucifer down to, say Jupiter, or Saturn? Would have saved everybody a lot of trouble...

Satan doesn't appear in Genesis. The apple villain is simply "the serpent", which is probably a vestige of pre-patriarchal Goddess worship, where serpents played a big role.

[Phaxxton]

I just use my senses, including observation. I've been coming to the conclusion that people who need a God have a deficit in their relationship with themselves. They don't believe in themselves, they don't believe in their own sense of ability or their own power. They won't accept the full spectrum of the human psyche or human nature (all its so-called 'good' and all its so-called 'bad') -- they absolutely refuse to believe that they could do anything as bad as the criminal they hear about on the evening news, but don't think twice about supporting, say, the death penalty. They need to have something 'outside' of themselves , to explain scary things (like 9-11 or the tsunami), or b/c of their fear of chaos. They don't accept that life is naturally chaotic (all you have to do is look at the supposed chaos of nature), and certainly don't see that chaos has plenty of order (at least in Nature--and these people tend to be fearing and hating of nature, too). They have little sense of wonder. People like this, even scientists, who 'explore' every day in the laboratory, but claim a belief in God, are still stepping away from the full force of life and what's become obvious to me that humankind is irrelevant in the scheme of things. They need a God (human-like, of course) to do an end-run on this fact and to say, "see, see, it IS all about us, after all." And creationist thinking is just more of this need to make humans the center of it all (by making a human-like God who is here like Daddy).

I am not religious... but out of this entire thread, this was the single most judgmental post I read. (And there was stiff competition)

[Phaxxton]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calena http://chronicleforums.com/Forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://chronicleforums.com/Forum/showthread.php?p=1942390#post1942390)
Whatever I say or believe, I hope and pray that I have the decency and courtesy share this in a gentle kind caring manner. Otherwise, no matter what I say, I'm wrong.


Amen.

That was well said. :yes:

[CrouchingCheese]

As good an explanation as any. That and the dog treat one works for me.

Besides - everyone know that the world is supported on the back of a turtle. And for those naysayers who ask what the turtle is standing on - well - it's turtles all the way down, of course.

sheesh.

Jswan...have you not read of Discworld? The world is not on a line of turtles, but instead, is a big flat round disc, which rests on the backs of four gigundomundo elephants, which in turn stand on the shell of a giganticus turtle, which, of course, floats lazily through space for all eternity.

Jeez.

:D

[CrouchingCheese]

See, I told ya'll it was real!

http://www.fictionalworlds.com/FICWRLDS/Discworld/Discworld-world1.jpg

[dizzywriter]

I'm no biblical scholar, but googled "horse bible" and found this:http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/horses.htm

So, the Egyptians had horses, as did the Horsemen of the Apocalypse. But not much in the way of horses in between.

What to make of that?

[zagafi]

I'm no biblical scholar, but googled "horse bible" and found this:http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/horses.htm

So, the Egyptians had horses, as did the Horsemen of the Apocalypse. But not much in the way of horses in between.

What to make of that?

Depends if you're a literalist or not. :D

[Rebe]

Hey Mtn Trails - pass me a margarita and some popcorn.

I haven't evolved away from my salt-lick craving yet...or my inability to just look away...

:lol:

[dizzywriter]

I am not religious... but out of this entire thread, this was the single most judgmental post I read. (And there was stiff competition)

Phaxxton, I agree, though my posts on this thread are maybe provocative. But still, I'm asking questions, while the post that you commented on seems like an essay from someone who just came out of Psych 101.

I like this thread: horse chestnuts as a test of faith and/or the scientific method. Who wudda thunk it?

[arabhorse2]

I'm not sure what the correlation to horses and the Bible are, but I found this and horses are mentioned quite a few times:

http://bible.christiansunite.com/Torreys_Topical_Textbook/ttt289.shtml

[lisa]

But Einstein was wrong. God does play dice with the universe. It's called quantum mechanics.

This should be a bumper sticker or a T-shirt.

[dizzywriter]

Depends if you're a literalist or not. :D

A literalist would say horses aren't holy. They are the enemy and/or signs of the Antichrist.

[dizzywriter]

I'm not sure what the correlation to horses and the Bible are, but I found this and horses are mentioned quite a few times:

http://bible.christiansunite.com/Torreys_Topical_Textbook/ttt289.shtml

Thanks for that arabhose. I"m not doing serious research on the subject. Just a quick google for fun. The responses, if there are any, will be interesting to read.

[poltroon]

I can say with some confidence that the subject of horse chestnuts and ergots isn't addressed in the Bible. God apparently had other priorities.

Whatever I say or believe, I hope and pray that I have the decency and courtesy share this in a gentle kind caring manner. Otherwise, no matter what I say, I'm wrong.

Amen.

[TripleRipple]

As an instructor who has many up-down kiddies and a few adult beginners on the lesson schedule, inevitably parents or adult newbies will eventually ask me what "those things on the horse's legs are." I used to go through the whole spiel of how they are remnants of toes from when the horse was a five-toed critter. I would explain how the modern day horse is essentially walking on his middle toe, and I would tell them about the two splint bones, the ergot at the back of the fetlock, and the chestnut, thus accounting for all five toes.

But after having one parent flat out say "You actually believe that?" and laugh at me I have altered my answer a bit. :rolleyes: I now preface my spiel by saying "If you believe in evolution then blah blah blah blah blah... If not, then I don't know why they are there, but every horse has them."

I don't have a particularly strong opinion on the subject of evolution but I certainly never thought I would get into a debate about it at the barn, and I am now wondering if I should just shrug and say I have no idea why they are there. :confused:

And to steal Jsalem's wording from an earlier thread because I am feeling unoriginal at the moment, COTH'ers Discuss... :)

I was raised better than to laugh at someone's faith or creationist ideas.

This person was not raised right if they "laughed" at evolution. This person was rude. I suspect in this case, I would say you have your belief, I have my science. But you are being rude. Do you understand how to behave in a way that is not rude? If so, do so, and we can continue talking. Make sure they are clear that your objection is to their rudeness, not their beliefs. Man, I hope it is not in your job description that you have to get a consensus on things like this - not gonna happen:)

Beyond that, I would explain chestnuts as you believe to be accurate. Like anything else, who cares if a person believes you or not? Doesn't change the facts as you know them to be, so just answer the question, request rudeness stop, move on.

As to cyberbays post - I don't find it judgmental in the slightest. Faith is a strange concept to people of no faith - I find no fault in anyone who tries to come up with an understanding of why religious people behave as they do. It is a possible explanation, amongst many many possible explanations for a belief in a mythical being. Please remember, that is how I see it. I do not expect others to see it this way if they do not wish to. Neither do I care if they agree with me, pity me or pray for me.

[arabhorse2]

Actually Dizzy, if you look at the website I found, like many things in the Bible the mention of horses is both good and bad. Contradictory, even.

But the whole Book is full of contradictions, as well as some major differences between the gospels of Christ's disciples.

I'm a Christian, but far from a literalist. The Bible's been translated far too many times, with too many of the translators' prejudices and personal beliefs thrown in for me to believe it's a literal translation of the word of God.

There are many things in it that I believe, and yet other things that make me go hmmmm.......

[Czar]

Just for a little clarification...a person cannot just pick up the Bible and start reading and understand it; especially if they are predisposed to being skeptical. It was not designed that way...it was designed as a communication between God and his people which means it's two-way...if you're not reading it in the Spirit...you won't get it.

[J Swan]

No - it's turtles all the way down. The voices in my head told me so.

For the OP - you could always say, "Your diety or entity of choice put the chestnuts there - you'll have to ask him/her/it why. " People can be so touchy.....

See, I told ya'll it was real!

http://www.fictionalworlds.com/FICWRLDS/Discworld/Discworld-world1.jpg

[zagafi]

Just for a little clarification...a person cannot just pick up the Bible and start reading and understand it; especially if they are predisposed to being skeptical. It was not designed that way...it was designed as a communication between God and his people which means it's two-way...if you're not reading it in the Spirit...you won't get it.

Who do you believe "designed" the Bible? I'm extremely curious.

[aregard]

As an instructor who has many up-down kiddies and a few adult beginners on the lesson schedule, inevitably parents or adult newbies will eventually ask me what "those things on the horse's legs are." I used to go through the whole spiel of how they are remnants of toes from when the horse was a five-toed critter. I would explain how the modern day horse is essentially walking on his middle toe, and I would tell them about the two splint bones, the ergot at the back of the fetlock, and the chestnut, thus accounting for all five toes.

But after having one parent flat out say "You actually believe that?" and laugh at me I have altered my answer a bit. :rolleyes: I now preface my spiel by saying "If you believe in evolution then blah blah blah blah blah... If not, then I don't know why they are there, but every horse has them."


I would have thought they would be harder to explain from a creationist point of view. "Well, I guess God just thought they were pretty"??

[Czar]

Who do you believe "designed" the Bible? I'm extremely curious.

:) God of course. I do happen to believe that the "word of God" is God breathed...meaning it was written by his instruction through whom he chose.

[JumpingPaints]

I think it's so as not to be blasphemous.

Personally - I am not religious. I am not certain if there is a God. I do believe that if I try to cause no harm to others, that if I try to do what I can for others, that that is the "right" thing. I don't know if there's heaven or hell or afterlife. These are questions I will never be able to answer (I guess I will find out about the heaven and hell issue when i die though).

What I do find offensive, is when people who do not have the education or scientific understanding and who just state that carbon dating is a load of hooey. I have yet to meet someone who claims this who actually even know what is involved in the process.

I have read both the Old and New Testatments. I do not take them literally. I believe that they are manuscripts written and translated and retranslated that are parables to help people assuage their fears about death and bad things, and to hopefully help them live better lives. On the other hand, I believe religion is a deeply personal issue and that each person makes this decision for themselves as to what they believe, so I can't say what is wrong for me isn't right for them.

However, when someone is simply incapable of passing judgement on a scientific issue because they lack the basic understanding of the science involved, they should return the favor and say, "This is what I believe, but i respect your right to disagree."

Diversity is a great thing. There are actually people out there who do not like horses. There are people who actually prefer warmbloods to thoroughbreds!!! There are people who do Parelli without a Kohlrhabi stick!

It would be nice if we could share our views, learn from each other, and accept what we choose to accept.

that being said, I am simply appalled that the members of the House and Senate, for the most part, completely disregard valid scientific input when making their political decisions.

Well said DG.

[dizzywriter]

Just for a little clarification...a person cannot just pick up the Bible and start reading and understand it; especially if they are predisposed to being skeptical. It was not designed that way...it was designed as a communication between God and his people which means it's two-way...if you're not reading it in the Spirit...you won't get it.

You're kidding, right?

Thanks. I'm no expert, but I was raised on the Good Book. Probably differently from you but nevertheless. If I am missing the "spirit", it has nothing to do with horses. But your insight into how the Bible was designed is awe-inspiring, though flawed. If it's "two way", my way counts as well.

Also, if you are calling yourself czar, you may recall that the Russian czar Peter the Great completely subordinated the Russian Orthodox Church to the imperial state. Gee, how spiritual can that be?

[Czar]

You're kidding, right?

Thanks. I'm no expert, but I was raised on the Good Book. Probably differently from you but nevertheless. If I am missing the "spirit", it has nothing to do with horses. But your insight into how the Bible was designed is awe-inspiring, though flawed. If it's "two way", my way counts as well.

Also, if you are calling yourself czar, you may recall that the Russian czar Peter the Great completely subordinated the Russian Orthodox Church to the imperial state. Gee, how spiritual can that be?

:lol: What? :confused: Again, what?

[mp]

Originally Posted by cyberbay
I just use my senses, including observation. I've been coming to the conclusion that people who need a God have a deficit in their relationship with themselves. They don't believe in themselves, they don't believe in their own sense of ability or their own power. They won't accept the full spectrum of the human psyche or human nature (all its so-called 'good' and all its so-called 'bad') -- they absolutely refuse to believe that they could do anything as bad as the criminal they hear about on the evening news, but don't think twice about supporting, say, the death penalty. They need to have something 'outside' of themselves , to explain scary things (like 9-11 or the tsunami), or b/c of their fear of chaos. They don't accept that life is naturally chaotic (all you have to do is look at the supposed chaos of nature), and certainly don't see that chaos has plenty of order (at least in Nature--and these people tend to be fearing and hating of nature, too). They have little sense of wonder. etc etc etc

Sounds pretty "judgemental" to me. I am not a theist myself. But I know people who are. And many have arrived at their faith through much introspection and thought. It's not simply to feel good or safe. Or because they lack imagination and didn't consider other paths for their spirituality.

[dizzywriter]

:lol: What? :confused: Again, what?

Need I repeat? Or are you incapable of an answer?

If I'm unclear, I'd like to hear that from other COTHers. Then I will clarify. If not, I'll consider you incapable of a coherent response.

[Czar]

Need I repeat? Or are you incapable of an answer?

If I'm unclear, I'd like to hear that from other COTHers. Then I will clarify. If not, I'll consider you incapable of a coherent response.

:lol: Calm down a little, shall we? By two-way I meant between God and a person...not sure how you took it?

[dizzywriter]

:lol: Calm down a little, shall we? By two-way I meant between God and a person...not sure how you took it?

OK, deep breath. The Old Testament is not between God and a person, though you may believe that. It is, objectively, a semi-historical document. What further importance we impart to it is subjective belief. Let's leave it at that.

Let's get back to the OP :-). It is about how horse chestnuts are evolutionarily impossible because our world was created in six days, about 4000 years BCE.

[Czar]

But it was written as such if you believe as I do.

Anyway, I will respectively bow out of this thread as I hear a train whistle in the distance and my horse needs to be ridden :)

[dizzywriter]

Have a good ride. I'm going to sleep.

[dq for life]

I'm with Mt Trails. I am having a beer!
Plus, slow down you guys! You all missed why male horses have chestnuts too. That is so the baby can recongize their daddy!

[Smiles]

We just went over this in my Bio 302 course.
http://www.tasc-creationscience.org You guys can read up on the creationist discrediting science, believe me its fun reading times!!!:yes: Honestly to each his own but we live in the 21 century and the world is'nt flat anymore!!!:D

[Prieta]

:lol: :lol: :lol: Fantastic show of diversity here! :winkgrin:

Einstein was one of the few scientists to start working on Quantum Mechanic....he oftentimes referred to The Old One.....

Who wrote the Bible? Oohhhhhhh a perfect topic for Halloween! Ohhhhhh whooosssh! Those ghosts must have had lots of fun riding horses! They must be so puzzled about where chestnuts on their horses came from so they had to write to start the whole thing!

[darkmoonlady]

Just to make it interesting I'd do a little research and see what other cultures have said about horses, chestnuts and the origins of horses. Despite being a hard core believer in science, the poetry of the "allah took a handful of southerly wind, blew his breath over it, and created the horse", I find very moving even though I am not muslim. If anyone wants to say it was biblical, then you get to tell the OTHER versions of it, the bedouin, the native american, the whatever cool creation story that you can find on horses to add to the mix and balance things out.

[DressageGeek "Ribbon Ho"]

Well, whoever is responsible, I am very very happy they made horses. Chestnuts and all.

[Appassionato]

Well, whoever is responsible, I am very very happy they made horses. Chestnuts and all.

Yeah, well, I want to speak with the same guy responsible for hoof design. :cool:


Whatever happened to "Love Thy Neighbor"? I agree with others, chugga chugga choo choo! :lol:

[DressageGeek "Ribbon Ho"]

Yes, and why did they set it up so whenever you are brushing their tail, or something like that...they fart and you are in the direct line of fire? Or is this just a guy thing and mares don't do this, only geldings? And if so, why did they make guys do that?

[RHdobes563]

Well, I'm religious, but I don't go to church. AND I believe in both Creation and Evolution.

Now, in the Bible somewhere it says (and I paraphrase, because I'm lapsed), "a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day to God." So, in MY opinion, each of those Six Days of Creation of God could have been 1,000,000,000 years each. I just figure God was fine-tuning it as he was going on. I don't supposed He gets bored. And He might just have 1,000,000 OTHER worlds that He is doing the same thing with.

So far, He hasn't told me I'm wrong.

By the way, I've had "religious people" tell me in the past that I was wrong and going against God's Will for owning a horse and NOT wanting children. I simply told them that God created me with a GREAT love of animals and NO desire for children, and who am I to question HIM for making me this way?

[Appassionato]

Yes, and why did they set it up so whenever you are brushing their tail, or something like that...they fart and you are in the direct line of fire? Or is this just a guy thing and mares don't do this, only geldings? And if so, why did they make guys do that?

LMAO! Isn't it the truth? And oh, BTW since my guy is older/had him longer, it gets worse. They start the blowing of it, then orchestrating sounds. And look all proud like, 'I don't need no stinking lighter to accentuate it with.". Completely sick I tell ya!

[hundredacres]

Okay...I am prepared for that question the next time: Regular-opened minded people get the answer that science proves...
The Creationists get this one:

The devil was playing with a horse in the pasture one day. God caught the naughty steed and told it the devil was once an angel and banished from heaven (for what, I cannot remember but there is some important lesson in that act)...God told the horse that he must stop or he too would be punished by wearing horns. But the horse was having too much fun........and he took off running like the wind around the pasture --- as he did God tried to strike him with his mighty power of lightening from the heavens, but the damned horse was moving so fast he only got knicked as he sped passed! God tried and tried to nail that horse with his bolts of lightening and make him wear horns as his punishment, but as we know, they can be gigantic PITA's so He gave up to try again another day. All the horse was left with was nubs on his heels and the insides of his legs. God got busy punishing the snake and forgot all about the naughty horse.

Makes sense doesn't it?

[Prieta]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

A great way to explain the mysteries!

[goeslikestink]

ummmmmmm-- one to be lead the other to lead---


may i ask ehat you think of the common --- ant

[zagafi]

:) God of course. I do happen to believe that the "word of God" is God breathed...meaning it was written by his instruction through whom he chose.

Interesting. And what about all the glosses inserted throughout history, the translations, mistranslations and oh--what about the Council of Nicea?

And yes, before you make any assumptions, I am a Christian.

[goeslikestink]

the ant was before time and will be after time ---

my point -- the ant is a clever sole -- for it will work at anything given regardless of -- relegion

[zagafi]

Yes, and why did they set it up so whenever you are brushing their tail, or something like that...they fart and you are in the direct line of fire? Or is this just a guy thing and mares don't do this, only geldings? And if so, why did they make guys do that?

Oh, no, mares do that as well. I keep trying to tell Martini that ladies "don't do that". Just makes her dump a load instead of merely passing gas...

[Risk-Averse Rider]

As good an explanation as any. That and the dog treat one works for me.

Besides - everyone know that the world is supported on the back of a turtle. And for those naysayers who ask what the turtle is standing on - well - it's turtles all the way down, of course.

sheesh.yes!!!yes!!!!yes!!!!!

[DMK]

Ioh--what about the Council of Nicea?


Oh sure, and next thing you will bring up the Dead Sea Scrolls, Martin Luther's concept of free will and probably even mention that Constantinople further expounded on Constantine's work in Nicea. Why I bet Constantine KNEW all about horse chestnuts!

[Moesha]

Horse evolution is held up as one of the best examples of evolution. Of course because of that it has landed in the center of the evolution debate.

I don't understand how evolution and religious beliefs have to be at odds? Science and Religion are really not that polar. Why can't someone who believes in evolution not believe in God and Heaven, Etc? Who can judge such faith?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse

[Tiempo]

ahh,juicy thread!!

cyberbay,I think idealogically speaking you and I are twins seperated at birth.

have you read Dawkins?

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/04/30/dawkins/

[Appassionato]

Science and Religion are really not that polar. Why can't someone who believes in evolution not believe in God and Heaven, Etc? Who can judge such faith?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse

Who can judge? I will! For one, some faiths speak in tongues! I think that stuff is whack, but that's just me!

<running for the hills, since this faith has been mentioned and I'd LOVE to see the defense, but from WAAAAAY over here, thanks.>

[greysandbays]

Horse evolution is held up as one of the best examples of evolution. Of course because of that it has landed in the center of the evolution debate.


And this is exactly why it also has the highest probablity of being wrong. That old adage about "If it seems too good to be true, then it probably is" applies to a lot more than scammer's schemes.

[Appassionato]

And this is exactly why it also has the highest probablity of being wrong. That old adage about "If it seems too good to be true, then it probably is" applies to a lot more than scammer's schemes.

Can't this be applied to many things? Religion, for example?

<Runs like the nekkid dude on Reno 9-11>

[Tiempo]

Ouch....touche!

[LSM1212]

As an instructor who has many up-down kiddies and a few adult beginners on the lesson schedule, inevitably parents or adult newbies will eventually ask me what "those things on the horse's legs are." I used to go through the whole spiel of how they are remnants of toes from when the horse was a five-toed critter. I would explain how the modern day horse is essentially walking on his middle toe, and I would tell them about the two splint bones, the ergot at the back of the fetlock, and the chestnut, thus accounting for all five toes.

Wow... I never knew that. Learn something new everyday. :D

[greysandbays]

Can't this be applied to many things? Religion, for example?

<Runs like the nekkid dude on Reno 9-11>

Religion has too many expectations of its followers for this to apply. Heaven would have to be an unconditional guarantee for it to be "too good to be true". Secular Humanism (godlessness) might qualify, though. :p

[bwf]

Oh boy...I have been there before. I had a teenage girl that worked for me that was a Born Again Evangelical. I made the mistake of saying some thing about horses evolving and OH BOY! It was even better when she found out my husband is Jewish. LOL Shen was shocked at first....but then she told me it was OK since the Jews are Gods chosen people. I still laugh about it with my hubby.

[Appassionato]

Heaven would have to be an unconditional guarantee for it to be "too good to be true".

Or extremists, like in 9-11. They got to have 72 virgins in heaven. Allah knows they believed that.

See my point?

[OakesBrae]

Oh my.

I wasn't going to post on this thread, but all I can say is...oh my.

To the OP, the man who laughed at you was quite rude. Sorry to hear about the situation. I think personally that you can simply explain the belief that the toe is a vestigal toe, and then you can explain that others believe...well, some of the myriad of things that have been presented on this thread.

For me personally, I don't feel that creation and evolution must be distinct. There is far too much evidence and logic supporting evolution, and I do not believe that the Bible is to be taken literally, spirit filled or not. The Bible is a collection of books, decided on by several ecumenical councils based on several criteria - the Old Testament was accepted pretty much as is, but the New had so many different books that they kept only those books that mentioned Jesus and his return from death. That that was the message they wanted to send. As historical books, they are fascinating, particularly when you find out the dates of certain books and how certain books used other books as their basis.

Also, based on other historical writings in the same time period, the writing style was highly allegorical, so it makes little sense that the writers, God-breathed or not, would have suddenly written a literal work. It wouldn't have worked to communicate God's word. No one would have understood it.

But I digress, there is little point in arguing these points with someone who firmly wishes to disbelieve in evolution, or the origination of their own religion. It's kinda like beating your head against the wall. If you do it long enough, someone comes along, puts a helmet on you and gives you some nice happy meds - because now it's YOUR problem.

[Percheron X]

I wonder if horses are gods? We seem to make many offerings to appease them.... and do we not often ask them for their benevolence. :D

[Moesha]

I know that the horse evolution is criticized by many groups, who do believe in Creationism, for example.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c016.html


I believe in evolution, I think the fossil record shows that species have evolved over the years...that does not mean I do not believe in God or spiritual faith.

[greysandbays]

Or extremists, like in 9-11. They got to have 72 virgins in heaven. Allah knows they believed that.

See my point?

Sorry for not specifying the "Christian" religion in my comment, since that's what I was thinking (not sure if other religions have "Heaven" by that name or not).

I think maybe there is a point at which extremism eclipses faith, and the religion becomes the excuse for the extremism. By then, they've whizzed clear past "too good to be true" right on to "plumb crazy".

[RoseBud143]

Im an evolutionist, so you know were my answer lies.... and everyone is right, there is no sense argueing with them, everyine has a right to belive what they want, BUT you really cant deny scientific proof, kind of like dino;s nver lived, but al the fossils we have ore fake....

that said i do belife that jesues once lived as a dramatised man in HISTORY...but trying to convince someone who already has there belifes set is a wast in time, just tell them yes thats what you belive, and ..hey proof not word of mouth.....i always think of how much things have cahnged ovr time and what was perceived then and how it would be today... and were going by things written 2000 years ago with a complete diff, mind sett.....

[CanadianGolden]

And this is exactly why it also has the highest probablity of being wrong. That old adage about "If it seems too good to be true, then it probably is" applies to a lot more than scammer's schemes.

Horse evolution doesn't seem too good to be true (how *would* one define that, anyway?). It seems...hmm...true. Wow, what a concept. Something is proven to be true...and it's true! Shocking.

[greysandbays]

Horse evolution doesn't seem too good to be true (how *would* one define that, anyway?). It seems...hmm...true. Wow, what a concept. Something is proven to be true...and it's true! Shocking.

It is touted as the infallible "evidence" of evolution. A scientists dream scenario, with a minimum of "missing links". If we were offered a money-making scheme this good, we'd know right off it was a scam. The evoluting horse may be science's Shroud of Turin.

Anyway, there isn't any way you can prove beyond all doubt that this evolution thing is right unless you can do DNA parentage verification all the way back to whatever-hippus supposedly preceded Equus Caballus.

[Alagirl]

It is touted as the infallible "evidence" of evolution. A scientists dream scenario, with a minimum of "missing links". If we were offered a money-making scheme this good, we'd know right off it was a scam. The evoluting horse may be science's Shroud of Turin.

Anyway, there isn't any way you can prove beyond all doubt that this evolution thing is right unless you can do DNA parentage verification all the way back to whatever-hippus supposedly preceded Equus Caballus.


I don't think that even DNA evidence would convince the true believer...

I'd sure like to hear their oppinion on the *HUman Genome* poject - I am sure I butchered the spelling...

The traced - via DNA the human conquest of the world from the East African Plains to the Middle East and from there to Europe and on the other branch to the Far East, Siberia and across the Bering Straight into the North Americas. By their guestimation the Native AMerican tribes, From Alaska to Tierra de Fuego decended from roughly around 24 people - total! (BTW, that is proof for evolution, since...we all look different!)

[JER]

The paleontological/fossil record substantiates the evolution of the horse.

The archaeological and historical records do not substantiate the existence of Jesus. Jesus is a theory with far less scientific evidence than evolution.

Funny, isn't it, that we have a better historical record of Egyptian hairdressers and minor local officials who lived centuries BC? But then I suppose a future archaeologist looking at our culture might surmise that we worshiped Paris Hilton.

Creationism is an emotional argument. It's not rational, it's fear-based and reactive, so maybe we should add the creationists to our daily prayers.

[Parysa]

As far as the chestnuts being remains of the toes and Creationists not thinking that was possible, my answer is this: the world has changed since God created it (which is my belief...if there was a Big Bang, well, I've never had the question answered as to...What banged?? And what caused the Bang? My answer--God.), therefore, wouldn't the things that He created change along with the world? I don't believe that we evolved from apes or crawled out of some primordial stew as alligators or that we were put here by aliens. I believe that we were created as some form of humans or humanoids. Were they cavemen or Neanderthals? I don't know. But I know that we look differently now than we did 300 years ago (taller, for one). Therefore, we have, in some way, evolved. So, what's to say that horses didn't start out tiny and with five toes?
So why would evolution preclude creationism? I know my god would be smart enough to "create" through evolution. That has always mystified me. Such an either/or, black/white, way if looking at the universe.....My belief it is the vestigial remains of the "toes"
Exactly!
Hey, Pope just forgave a scientist for observing that the Sun is the center of our system. What next will he say?
:rolleyes: Give me a break. This is why Christians look stupid to others.
They have little sense of wonder.
That's about the most misinformed thing I've ever seen, no offense. Christianity is full of wonder. Just read the Bible. There are so many wondrous things that happen in it. Just to be able to think of a God or being that can create everything in the universe and set the laws of science and physics and all of that is astounding and personally, fills me with wonder.
If they're so similar, why do creationists freak out over the idea this couldn't have happened over eons of time? :confused: I just don't understand their knee-jerk reaction.
It's a throwback to the original Catholic church and being told that if you believed anything aside from what the church taught, you were blasphemous and going to Hell. Too many churches don't point out that the Bible was written by PEOPLE and people are NOT perfect.
There are so many things in the Bible which don't match up with what we've discovered about our world. The best solution if you're Christian is to not take the bible literally word-for-word.
You also have to keep in mind that when the Bible was written, it was not written in an easy-to-translate format. As someone who has studied Middle Eastern languages, I can't tell you how many different meanings one word can have. For example, the verse that says, "It is easier for a camel to go through the Eye of the Needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." That verse can be translated two ways. IIRC, the Eye of the Needle was a hole in the outer walls that certain people had to go through to enter the city. In order to go through, the camels had to be completely unloaded, the packs passed through, and then the camel had to pretty much crawl through, and then be reloaded. Not an easy process. However, the original word for "camel" was either the same or extremely similar as the word "rope." So it could be either. In addition to those difficulties, there was no "Chapter One. Page 1. Page 2. Page 3. Chapter Two." type organization to the writings. AND, there was little or no punctuation. So, it's almost ridiculous to take the Bible word for word. However, even though certain things may be mistaken, I believe that on the whole, it is correct.
The paleontological/fossil record substantiates the evolution of the horse.
The archaeological and historical records do not substantiate the existence of Jesus. Jesus is a theory with far less scientific evidence than evolution....Creationism is an emotional argument. It's not rational, it's fear-based and reactive, so maybe we should add the creationists to our daily prayers.
I suggest you read these books: Evidence That Demands a Verdict: Volume 1 by Josh McDowell (http://www.amazon.com/Evidence-That-Demands-Verdict/dp/0785243038/sr=1-2/qid=1161407490/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/102-5527221-1817736?ie=UTF8&s=books) and Evidence That Demands a Verdict: Volume 2. (http://www.amazon.com/Evidence-That-Demands-Verdict/dp/0785243046/sr=1-1/qid=1161410377/ref=sr_1_1/102-5527221-1817736?ie=UTF8&s=books) The author was an agnostic who set out to scientifically disprove Christianity and instead found evidence that proved it. These books are full of nothing but scientific evidence. They are not written from emotion, but from intellect and are a great read for anyone who is curious about the scientific PROOF of the Bible.
As to WHY horses (still?) have chestnuts...who knows? It may turn out that they really do breathe through them. ;)

[goeslikestink]

we were put ont his earth for a reason what that reason is i dont know

there is many planets and galaxies --so we are not the only inhabitat planet

the universe is to big -- we have ufos that visit us often

my beleif is that god as there is just not one god or one relegion there is many

bible say god rose up from the dead and came back--
inthe wall of the acient aborigines and acient pyramids there is drawing of a man that has a space suit on

i beleive that we are experiment --for out side our control

i belive god or god were spacemen -- yeah wacky and mad but

how else do you explain when someone dies and then rose up to cmoe back serveral day days after death--

if you put an ant in a jam ajr and call one male adam and one female eve
with earth and a leaf then you would have a population of ants before
you knew it ---

ants have been here before christ -- and will be after we all dead and gone

ants are the only species that never changed thoughout time --

and thats what this all boils down to time--

if god was so clever and or gods then there would be wars and or sick people some say its because of the sin or sins commited that your family lays witha curse so bad things will happen etc

some will balme ther relegion-- and debate as like on here a simple thing
so others get het up as they have to have there views

the question was what are chesnuts and ergot s
now its turn into a battle of eveloution versa relegion

and that is how wars are started --
we are all children of our parents and our parents are our children parents

some are born to lead and some are born to be lead

but you cannot become a leader with choking people into what you belie is the correct way or right way that will cause a defense and a battle of wits



the true god doesnt need to ram down beliefs for those belief then become a comonist -- to over take like hitler for exsample or terrorist the choke people --

as to the esperiement with ufos of whome has put the ants in jar --
to see if they live or die , or fight ---for what ever the reason as it always a reason the reason in most casses is power

yeah power who has the power-- for a few to lead and get others to follow in there beleives--

me -- iam unique-- i am my own god my own person of whome likes balance
as with out that you cant exsist-- balance not one nor the other
its the same and everybody is equal---

and i dont have to ram down my belief --for or against --
becuase i just a person with my own vlaues and morals and standards


am a just person --- just -- but others might say i am mad beucaase i beleive in ufos-- and other planets and life --

and i beileve all the gods were in fact spacemen as how else
would one be only one -- god can not enpolinate himself -- if he were human

hitler tried to clone himself and to day people trying to clone things to.

my point its today that counts the past is heriditory and what people did or didnt do we can learn from--

not one person in this world can say they know everything becuase it was written --

if you dont know you ask a question -- its about knowledge and learning
so the world of the future with all the gods and beleifs
can work together and be balanced ---------

[WingedPanda]

And this is exactly why it also has the highest probablity of being wrong. That old adage about "If it seems too good to be true, then it probably is" applies to a lot more than scammer's schemes.

Again, your argument is a logical fallacy. Please, if you are going to bother arguing in a logical manner, don't base your statements on faulty logic.

[Appassionato]

Sorry for not specifying the "Christian" religion in my comment, since that's what I was thinking (not sure if other religions have "Heaven" by that name or not).

I think maybe there is a point at which extremism eclipses faith, and the religion becomes the excuse for the extremism. By then, they've whizzed clear past "too good to be true" right on to "plumb crazy".


Koresh and Waco, TX then.

And people in Christ's time thought he was plumb crazy too.

[Appassionato]

I suggest you read these books: Evidence That Demands a Verdict: Volume 1 by Josh McDowell (http://www.amazon.com/Evidence-That-Demands-Verdict/dp/0785243038/sr=1-2/qid=1161407490/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/102-5527221-1817736?ie=UTF8&s=books) and Evidence That Demands a Verdict: Volume 2. (http://www.amazon.com/Evidence-That-Demands-Verdict/dp/0785243046/sr=1-1/qid=1161410377/ref=sr_1_1/102-5527221-1817736?ie=UTF8&s=books) The author was an agnostic who set out to scientifically disprove Christianity and instead found evidence that proved it. These books are full of nothing but scientific evidence. They are not written from emotion, but from intellect and are a great read for anyone who is curious about the scientific PROOF of the Bible.
As to WHY horses (still?) have chestnuts...who knows? It may turn out that they really do breathe through them. ;)

Just to be clear, scientifically prove what? That there are Christians? Or something else? I ask because I'm curious with intelligent design being presented to students, why this guy's name was never brought up.

[OakesBrae]

Please don't distort what the Pope did. The Catholic church in early history (when it was the only christian church) DID have a little bit of an issue with science. Okay, a lot of an issue. But since then a lot has happened including an acknowledgement of the probability of evolution.

What the pope has been doing is going back and publically apologizing for actions of the early church (a part of which, he was not). So, it's not that there are any new revelations, but rather to make attempts at reparations for the past.

Just had to clear that up.

[J. Turner]

You know that little nub on the back of their pasterns...It grows...you can trim them...That's the ergot.

They're like hard mini-marshmallows, or marshmallows, depending on the size of your horse.

I don't think the scent thing is such a bad explanation, only that it is certainly not evidence that evolution did not happen.

I think there is enough DNA evidence that traces genetic development to prove evolution. If someone wants to believe that God planned it (evolution) that way, I'm cool with that, but don't tell me that what evidence scientists have found doesn't exist.

Evolution is not a statement that we came from apes. The way a friend/biologist explained it is that it is simply that species change due to genetic mutation.

[J. Turner]

I don't think that even DNA evidence would convince the true believer...

I'd sure like to hear their oppinion on the *HUman Genome* poject - I am sure I butchered the spelling...

The traced - via DNA the human conquest of the world from the East African Plains to the Middle East and from there to Europe and on the other branch to the Far East, Siberia and across the Bering Straight into the North Americas. By their guestimation the Native AMerican tribes, From Alaska to Tierra de Fuego decended from roughly around 24 people - total! (BTW, that is proof for evolution, since...we all look different!)

There is a really good article in a semi-recent National Geographic magazine on that with wonderful maps and diagrams, of course.

I believe they've traced mDNA (mitochondrial) back to a single female in Africa. Eve they call her. Now I don't know if she was wandering around alone, one of a species, or whether her "Adam"'s DNA hadn't mutated into homo sapiens, they had a kid, and that kid carried on the homo sapiens DNA? Now, who the kid mated with I don't know either. I'd have to go back and read the article, or another. Maybe it's like dogs (canis familiaris) and wolves (canis lupus) ... two species that can breed. Maybe homo sapiens had to mate with similar species for awhile to keep the gene pool spread out.

To keep it horse related, I read there is a mDNA project to trace thoroughbred bloodlines back to the matriarchs of the breed (rather than the founding stallions) since breeding records in England weren't always that accurate and the horses didn't even always have a name - just The someone's Chestnut (or Bay). It was very interesting.

Now if you want to believe God gave us this puzzle to figure out, that makes a little more sense.

[Prieta]

Oaksbrae, thanks for explaining more about why the Catholic Church had to forgive nowadays.

Parysa, what Christians are you referring to? :confused: You are one of the Christians; therefore, ??????

[cinder88]

In the beginning, there was nothing.

And then God said "Let there be light!"

And there was still nothing.

But at least you could see it....

[Moesha]

Definitely current to this discussion,

Darwin's work to be online...thousands of documents and findings

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15346154/?GT1=8618

[DressageGeek "Ribbon Ho"]

So last night Ted wanted to know, how did marshmallow peeps evolve? And then I remembered...it's a company called JustBorn, in Bethlehem, PA...


ooo-eee-ohhhh.....

It broke my heart to tell him they evolved from the pre Cambrian Campfire marshmallow, and that the JetPuff marshmallow creme is an evolutionary divergence and how we now have fudge.

[Frank B]

I hope this thread gets put into the archives. Save a few nasty posts, it's very interesting -- and informative.

I haven't had time to read the last few pages, so this may already have been discussed. If not, I'd like to toss it into the pot:

The bible was written (perhaps under devine guidance) in a time when the scientific method and knowledge were virtually unheard of -- although the Greeks, Orientals, and certain Mid-East civilizations were getting the idea. It was worded and phrased in terms and concepts that could be easily comprehended by the uneducated, which most were at that time. It's also suffered somewhat in the various translations (FWIW I prefer the King James version -- but then, I also enjoy reading Shakespear), even to the point of being 'politically corrected' in some cases.

It's also interesting to note that many amateur astronomers are in the clergy, and some write articles for newspapers and even astronomy magazines.

[DressageGeek "Ribbon Ho"]

And I'm certainly grateful to one monk in particular, Gregor Mendel. Just a side note - his original paper did "pick and choose" the data. That is because he wanted to get his point across. I think he had 7 or 8 phenotypes he was studying, and what are the odds that each phenotype would just happen to assort independently onto different chromosomes?

[crackerjack]

I don't usually get involved in discussions like this because things just get too emotional, illogical, and I know what I believe although I respect other's opinions. This discussion just reminded me of something I overheard at work the other day. I work in a library and there are many highly religious homeschoolers that come in. Two of these parents were talking about videos they had taken out and one remarked - oh that one includes evolution theories and we would never take THAT out (she sneered as she said that)! The attitude of closed mindedness really surprised me. 33% of the world's population is Christian - therefore less than 33% are fundamental, literal word for word interpretations of the bible. Does that mean that the rest of the world's population has it wrong on how the world was created.... what about the other religions that have other theories - why should they be discounted. Basically what I mean is, sure believe what you want (I have no problem with that unless it hurts or isolates certain groups of people) if it helps you to have a more meaningful and fufilling life - that's wonderful! Just don't close your mind to other ideas and perspectives you'll be amazed with the amount of new knowledge and understanding that you could gain.

[OakesBrae]

I think that's a good point.

First of all, what would be the motivation for scientists to lie about evolution? This is something that has bothered me for awhile. What motivation is there?

Second of all, I am not threatened by reading creationist - even literalist theory - so why are people so threatened and angered by evolution? I just simply do not get it.

I think it's useful to read texts of all religions. I think it's useful to read all theories if for nothing else then to understand fully why it is that you believe what YOU believe.

[DressageGeek "Ribbon Ho"]

I think that's a good point.

First of all, what would be the motivation for scientists to lie about evolution? This is something that has bothered me for awhile. What motivation is there?



As a scientist, I can assure you, it ain't for the money or the glamour!

[OakesBrae]

Are you sure? *laughing*:D

[SuperSTB]

Oh I'm going to have to mix up a nice batch of margaritas, maybe make a plate of nachos supremes and settle down for a nice read through :D This thread is certainly entertaining to say the least!

I wonder if horses are gods? We seem to make many offerings to appease them.... and do we not often ask them for their benevolence. :D

(Because I just CAN'T resist- call me DEVIL spawn if you may- LOL)

Horses can't be gods because there were almost 100,000 of them slaughtered last year...

chugga chugga Chooo Chooooooooo

[SuperSTB]

Penn and Teller show call B*llsh*t (Showtime) had a very entertaining segment on Creationism.

[ESG]

If they were so foals could find the udder...Why would male horses have them?

For the same reason men have nipples - pacifiers! :D

And I never bother to try to explain anything to a creationist. I leave that to the Jesuits; they're used to dealing with infidels and non-believers. :lol:

Chugga chugga chugga chugga..........................:D

[Alagirl]

For the same reason men have nipples - pacifiers! :D

And I never bother to try to explain anything to a creationist. I leave that to the Jesuits; they're used to dealing with infidels and non-believers. :lol:

Chugga chugga chugga chugga..........................:D



ROFLMAO!:lol:

[Catersun]

Ok... I was really trying to be good and not jump onto this trainwreck... but I just have to be a smarty pants cause too many people are taking this toooooo seriously this is a horse bb for crying out loud!

Has anyone ever prayed for God to do something only to have it happen YEARS later? well my point is that our sense or "TIME" is probably seriously off... just like when I tell my husband that we need to be there at 6 and since he has his own time zone, we show up when the rest of the worlds clock says 7:30. (but his mother is that way... so I think it may be the hole nature vs nurture argument too)

lmao too hard to care about typos and spelling LOL

[aregard]

Or extremists, like in 9-11. They got to have 72 virgins in heaven. Allah knows they believed that.


Wouldn't be much of a heaven for the 72 virgins...

[dizzywriter]

Horse evolution is held up as one of the best examples of evolution. Of course because of that it has landed in the center of the evolution debate.

I don't understand how evolution and religious beliefs have to be at odds? Science and Religion are really not that polar. Why can't someone who believes in evolution not believe in God and Heaven, Etc? Who can judge such faith?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse

Actually, I think that science and religion are polar. Science is empirical -- facts that can be tested or at least confirmed by some objective means. Religion is faith, which can be "tested" in the metaphorical sense, but not by observation.

Science can extrapolate a Big Bang from existing physical evidence. Religion is what makes some of us believe (but not know) that there was an divine force behind the singularity.

That said, I think the two can be compatible (Richard Dawkin's overheated new book aside). They are merely of different spheres.

[dizzywriter]

It's also interesting to note that many amateur astronomers are in the clergy, and some write articles for newspapers and even astronomy magazines.

To my knowledge, the original astronomers were clergy (shamans, whatever you want to call them). The first monumental Bronze age sites in Europe were probably astronomical observatories, and I'll bet the folks in charge of watching the heavens (and knew, for example, when B.C.E. daylight savings time began) didn't share that knowledge with just anyone -- hence, a priestly caste.

[dizzywriter]

33% of the world's population is Christian - therefore less than 33% are fundamental, literal word for word interpretations of the bible. Does that mean that the rest of the world's population has it wrong on how the world was created.... what about the other religions that have other theories - why should they be discounted.

Of course the rest are wrong. And most Christians are wrong, too. Otherwise, more than 144,000 would get into heaven at the End of Times (according to the book of revelations). Then, it would get very crowded. God's place has very specific dimensions and though I've never actually done the math, it doesn't seem much bigger than an apartment building.

[dizzywriter]

First of all, what would be the motivation for scientists to lie about evolution? This is something that has bothered me for awhile. What motivation is there?

.

Isn't it obvious? They are agents of Satan -- who, by the way, put chestnuts on horses so that the weak among us would question God's design.

Personally, I've decided that don't want to be among the 144,000 saved folks. If the guest list is decided by intolerant belief in hooey, I think that the company in hell will be far more interesting.

choo choo

[goeslikestink]

i names ossy osiris -- becuase he was kind and quiet and loved people

and hes good natured

osiris is an egyptian god -- the god of nature

his full brother is also named after an egytian god

the god-- being RA --
ra is bright and alert and brighter chesnut than his brother

my best friend had his full brother

the indians in usa have beleifs and gods again there s arecalled diffferent names
but still represent earth, wind, fire, water, air etc

not one person can say thats how it was or wasnt -- they werent there

no-one was...

[Frank B]

Some (if not more) of the 'evolutionists' can act just as fundamentalist and hostile as some of the 'creationists'. Again, it's that politics-getting-mixed-up-in-science bug-a-boo.

Most of early astronomy was more akin to astrology -- attempting to predict the heaven's influence on mankind. Nontheless, some darn good data was gathered and recorded. It's interesting to speculate what might be known had the great library at Alexandria had not been destroyed.

[Lin]

Oh I'm going to have to mix up a nice batch of margaritas, maybe make a plate of nachos supremes and settle down for a nice read through :D This thread is certainly entertaining to say the least!



(Because I just CAN'T resist- call me DEVIL spawn if you may- LOL)

Horses can't be gods because there were almost 100,000 of them slaughtered last year...

chugga chugga Chooo Chooooooooo

Actually, being slaughtered happens to Gods a lot. Look at Odin, hordes of Indian gods,and even Jesus.

[goeslikestink]

this is weird i often da jar vou--- what frank b wrote -- i saw it before i even came on here--

anyways -- gettting back to chesnut s --- they grow on trees as well some you can eat some you cant ---

horsechesnuts -- haha

sure its nothing to do with a plant -- and not a horse --

[dizzywriter]

Some (if not more) of the 'evolutionists' can act just as fundamentalist and hostile as some of the 'creationists'. Again, it's that politics-getting-mixed-up-in-science bug-a-boo.

Most of early astronomy was more akin to astrology -- attempting to predict the heaven's influence on mankind. Nontheless, some darn good data was gathered and recorded. It's interesting to speculate what might be known had the great library at Alexandria had not been destroyed.

I don't think that the ancients made a distinction between astronomy or astrology. But, yes, the library of Alexandra was truly a great loss. Maybe there were papyrus scrolls about "how to keep my heels down". Though I suspect, the answers would be the same as today, namely "work on it." Some ancient knowledge is pretty obvious.

[Prieta]

I recall this joke:

Once a professor gave a lecture about religion, he then asked the class if anyone had seen God. Silence...He smiled big then said,"Then, God does not exists!" A student raised his hand and asked the class if anyone had seen the professor's brain. No no no students replied. The student said," Then, this professor does not have BRAIN!" :lol: :lol:

Both science and religion require faith.

[goeslikestink]

haha-- balance -

[archieflies]

My tactful answer to these questions are "one theory is that the chestnut is the remainer of a toe" and I always add "another is that it is where the legs press together in the womb". I always hope they except that and don't notice the ergot.

Thank you, Rusty, for posting an actual, helpful answer to the OP's question, rather than turning this into a creation -vs- evolution debate as some very tacky other posters have chosen to do. :)

[ESG]

Wouldn't be much of a heaven for the 72 virgins...

No, it wouldn't. And once the recipient of the favors of the 72 virgins got about halfway through the roster, I bet he'd wonder if he got sent to hell by mistake. :D

My all-time favorite, though, is Trevanian's comment, about Arab's preferring virgins, because they dread comparison. :D

[Freebird!]

You know I haven't gotten a chance to post - or even lurk - here for quite a while, but this thread has been quite a read! Here are some great links that explain much better then I ever could:

Did the modern horse evolve from a fox-like creature?
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c016.html

Ande since someone asked about dinosuars...

If everything was created in 7 days...on what day were the dinosaurs made?
http://www.christiananswers.net/dinosaurs/j-where1.html

Look at the behemoth, which I made along with you and which feed on grass like an ox. What strength he has in his loins, what power in the muscles of his belly! His tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are close-knit. His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like rods of iron. He ranks first among the works of God..." -Job 40:15-19 (http://www.christiananswers.net/bible/job40.html#15) (NIV)

Sure sounds like a Dinosaur-like creature to me...But getting back to the Horse Chestnuts....

What difference does it make whether Adam and Eve were covered in hair and climbed in trees?

Well, while I certainly don't claim to know all the answers, and while a lot of them I just don't care - like, why do horses have chestnuts? - this is one thing that I do think matters, because believing that we evolved from apes would make me an atheist, and I just don't have the faith to be, well...an atheist.

Sometimes, God nudged a little here or there....

I gotta say that my God is a little different. He lives in me, and is in control of my life - although there are times when stupid, stubborn me thinks I can do things better then he can...and I totally screw things up, lol.

keep teaching what you believe. However, do not return the ridicule. Be respectful and flexible, but do not compromise - or hold on to - your beliefs for convenience.

I totally agree with this.:yes:

Originally Posted by WingedPanda http://chronicleforums.com/Forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://chronicleforums.com/Forum/showthread.php?p=1942224#post1942224)
Why do horses have chestnuts and ergots? Because the Flying Spaghetti Monster put them there when he touched the first horse with His Noodly Appendage. Duh.



I vote for this one :D.

As a um . . . "mature" . . . Bible-believing/studying Evangelical Christian with an entire library of reference/background material to peruse and some time spent in seminary classes, I can say with some confidence that the subject of horse chestnuts and ergots isn't addressed in the Bible. God apparently had other priorities.

Whatever I say or believe, I hope and pray that I have the decency and courtesy share this in a gentle kind caring manner. Otherwise, no matter what I say, I'm wrong.

Amen! :yes:

As for the answer to the OP's question...

I just explain that some people believe that it used to be a toe way back when, but until I see actual proof that the modern horse really did come from something that looks like cross between a fox and an Armadillo, I think that the horse's Chestnut is what it is...and what it isn't is something to loose sleep over.

[CanadianGolden]

Regarding the first link posted:

O.C. Marsh commented on living horses with multiple toes, and said there were cases in the American Southwest where "both fore and hind feet may each have two extra digits fairly developed, and all of nearly equal size, thus corresponding to the feet of the extinct Protohippus".

Yes, cases. Not every living horse. If anything, this is a bit of information FOR evolution.

In National Geographic (January 1981, p. 74), there is a picture of the foot of a so-called early horse, Pliohippus, and one of the modern Equus that were found at the same volcanic site in Nebraska. The writer says: "Dozens of hoofed species lived on the American plains." Doesn't this suggest two different species, rather than the evolutionary progression of one?

Coexistence is common during evolution. So yes, it suggests 2 species in the process of evolution.

There is no one site in the world where the evolutionary succession of the horse can be seen. Rather, the fossil fragments have been gathered from several continents on the assumption of evolutionary progress, and then used to support the assumption. This is circular reasoning, and does not qualify as objective science.

Migration is very common. It would have been unusual for the horse to remain entirely in one area for millions of years, especially as a grazing animal.

The theory of horse evolution has very serious genetic problems to overcome. How do we explain the variations in the numbers of ribs and lumbar vertebrae within the imagined evolutionary progression? For example, the number of ribs in the supposedly "intermediate" stages of the horse varies from 15 to 19 and then finally settles at 18. The number of lumbar vertebrae also allegedly swings from six to eight and then returns to six again.
Clearly, variations in these attributes were better for each species. 18 was apparently the ideal number. (i.e., they started with 15, but it was better to have more, so then they evolved to 19, but that was too many, so eventually natural selection settled on 18).

Finally, when evolutionists assume that the horse has grown progressively in size over millions of years, what they forget is that modern horses vary enormously in size. The largest horse today is the Clydesdale; the smallest is the Fallabella, which stands at17 inches (43 centimeters) tall. Both are members of the same species, and neither has evolved from the other.

This is the easiest one to disprove. Those breeds were created by humans who selectively bred horses. You don't see that kind of variation in wild horses--these extremes are a mandmade creation.

[Parysa]

Just to be clear, scientifically prove what? That there are Christians? Or something else? I ask because I'm curious with intelligent design being presented to students, why this guy's name was never brought up.
It has been a long time since I read these books and they're highly technical, so forgive me for not remembering all of it. ;) One example I can think of is the argument that Jesus' followers came in, rolled the stone covering the tomb aside, and stole his body. He did a lot of research on things such as the size and weight of the stones used to cover the tombs (I think they're in the range of a ton or so, but don't quote me), the rules and regulations of the military in that time, and refuted several different things. For example, a unit back in those times was (again, I think) somewhere around 100 soldiers. So how would a few men sneak past a hundred legionnaires assigned to guard that tomb against that specific thing (they knew the prophecy that he would arise again and wanted to prevent his disciples from stealing the body), be able to roll that massive stone away, and sneak back out again alive with the dead body? It would have taken that entire unit of soldiers to just move the stone. Add to that the fact that the penalty for things such as falling asleep on duty was death. He gives way more information than I've given here, but that's a very rough example of the types of things he addresses. It's a very interesting read, if you can understand it (lots of formulas and math...I have to admit that some of it went way over my head).
Evolution is not a statement that we came from apes. The way a friend/biologist explained it is that it is simply that species change due to genetic mutation.
THAT type of evolution, I believe in and don't think it excludes God from the picture.
Parysa, what Christians are you referring to? :confused: You are one of the Christians; therefore, ??????
Not sure what you're referring to...? The statement that certain things ppl (whether Christian or not) do or say make Christians look stupid/extremist/etc?
I work in a library and there are many highly religious homeschoolers that come in. Two of these parents were talking about videos they had taken out and one remarked - oh that one includes evolution theories and we would never take THAT out (she sneered as she said that)!
I was homeschooled in a Christian environment and my science class was Equine Anatomy. I learned about the evolution of the horse in that course and my mother never once said that I shouldn't learn it b/c of our religion. I think that many people don't understand the difference between evolution as in genetic mutations and changes that occur to keep up with the environment and evolution as in "we evolved from apes" bs.
Personally, I've decided that don't want to be among the 144,000 saved folks. If the guest list is decided by intolerant belief in hooey, I think that the company in hell will be far more interesting.
choo choo
LOL, our church did a variation on a haunted house and I was "in Hell" for the first few years and had a blast! The last year I was in it, I was "in Heaven" and was SOOOO bored. I just don't believe in the typical 'gold sashes and harps and halos and everything is white and fluffy' view of Heaven. I begged to go back to "hell" lol! I KNOW Heaven isn't like what was depicted there b/c it says there will be no tears in Heaven and I was certainly bored to tears! ;)

[greysandbays]

Again, your argument is a logical fallacy. Please, if you are going to bother arguing in a logical manner, don't base your statements on faulty logic.

Oh, THAT particular arguement ain't logic -- it's some subsection of Murphy's Law, and I can guarantee you, it's ALWAYS right. :winkgrin:

[J Swan]

I think it's funny that folks are all arguing about this from the Christian perspective. Like there are not other philosophies like Buddhism, for example; a religion that cheerfully accepts that though their religion may hold a certain idea to be true - if science comes along and disproves it - they accept that as well - it does not diminish their faith and philosophy.

It's all good.

[equest]

Tell them God put them there to test the faith of creationists....much like why we have Duckbill Platypusses.

(or re the DP- God was stoned and thought, "Hey...This will really mess with their minds...I'll make something that looks like a Beaver, has a bill like a duck,and is a mammal that lays eggs. That will really mess with those people that believe in evolution..Hey Moses!!!Check this out!!!"


hehehe! jetsmom, you're hilarious!

[Frank B]

Maybe there were papyrus scrolls about "how to keep my heels down".
The library was established around the Third Century BC, when Xenophon was writing his treatises on horsemanship, so it's entirely conceivable some of his works were there. Kinda like the DIY Chilton's Automotive Manuals in our modern libraries! :lol:

You can visualize an ancient version of Rodney Redneck, badly bruised and covered with manure (instead of grease), walking up the the librarian and asking: "Look, I got dis problem wit' muh stallion. Ya got any good scrolls on da subject?"

[DressageGeek "Ribbon Ho"]

Wouldn't be much of a heaven for the 72 virgins...


Man, ain't THAT the truth!!!

[DressageGeek "Ribbon Ho"]

Isn't it obvious? They are agents of Satan -- who, by the way, put chestnuts on horses so that the weak among us would question God's design.

Personally, I've decided that don't want to be among the 144,000 saved folks. If the guest list is decided by intolerant belief in hooey, I think that the company in hell will be far more interesting.

choo choo

OakesBrae, I see that we will be ending up spending eternity together!

[Tiempo]

This covers it all quite well I think..

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html

[WingedPanda]

Oh, THAT particular arguement ain't logic -- it's some subsection of Murphy's Law, and I can guarantee you, it's ALWAYS right. :winkgrin:

....oh. :uhoh: Um. Ok, well have fun with it.

[Alagirl]

No, it wouldn't. And once the recipient of the favors of the 72 virgins got about halfway through the roster, I bet he'd wonder if he got sent to hell by mistake. :D

My all-time favorite, though, is Trevanian's comment, about Arab's preferring virgins, because they dread comparison. :D

LOL! (and with the age they marry the girls off, who would want to be stuck with 72 giggling teenies...)

[La Gringa]

I think it's funny that folks are all arguing about this from the Christian perspective. Like there are not other philosophies like Buddhism, for example; a religion that cheerfully accepts that though their religion may hold a certain idea to be true - if science comes along and disproves it - they accept that as well - it does not diminish their faith and philosophy.

It's all good.

That is a very interesting point. You know people, the Bible was written by Humans... afterall. There are many Chapters that are not in the newest versions of the Bible because Priests (Humans all of them) voted on which ones to keep and which ones not to.

Religion is guided by humans. Yes God is the focus, but everything that is written in the Bible is an interpretation by Humans.

I am Catholic, and personally, I am so sick of the Human part of my church I can't stand it, to the point I am actually considering switching. A lot of these churches are all about Power and Money, even above the teachings of the Lord! The American church is just a variation of the Catholic church. You should see the crap going on in other countries. It's a part of every piece of politics, wars, economics and everything else. It's also very segregated. They lock the churches to keep the locals out, only certain people are let in in many areas. I am talking about South America here.

I believe in evolution and I still believe in God. I don't know the answer to the chestnut question and I don't think many others do either. I guess I may just leave that one up for God to know.. and for me not to worry about. There are a lot more important things to worry about than that, like what the hell are we doing in the Middle East?

Ok, enough of my rant. This thread is really something. :rolleyes:

[BornToRide]

I think God created the 5 footed horse first and that's why :D

[dizzywriter]

OakesBrae, I see that we will be ending up spending eternity together!

Did you mean me?

[crackerjack]

I was homeschooled in a Christian environment and my science class was Equine Anatomy. I learned about the evolution of the horse in that course and my mother never once said that I shouldn't learn it b/c of our religion. I think that many people don't understand the difference between evolution as in genetic mutations and changes that occur to keep up with the environment and evolution as in "we evolved from apes" bs.




"we evolved from apes" bs ??????!!!! Interesting attitude considering the part of my post you quoted ......:lol:

Originally Posted by crackerjack http://www.chronicleforums.com/Forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.chronicleforums.com/Forum/showthread.php?p=1944254#post1944254)
I work in a library and there are many highly religious homeschoolers that come in. Two of these parents were talking about videos they had taken out and one remarked - oh that one includes evolution theories and we would never take THAT out (she sneered as she said that)!


Saying it's bs and sneering are pretty much the same attitude. If someone to disprove this theory with scientific evidence that was accepted by the whole scientific community I'd be ok with that - it may be that we were just plonked on this earth by a god. I'm already on this earth it doesn't really matter to me how we got here.:D

La Gringa I agree with you. Religion and belief is one thing - Organized Religion can be a whole different kettle of fish.

Who knew that horse chestnuts could cause such a ruckus!!

[OakesBrae]

I'll likely be there too if it's 145k - although I've read that part and that's not what it says. People can't read worth beans.

It's funny, it kind of reminds me of a conversation I had with an oil company when I moved into a new house and erroneously didn't call and "become a customer" prior to my oil furnace deciding to stop working.

Customer Service lady - "well, I can leave a message for the guys but they won't get to it until Monday because you're not a current customer"

Me - "so what you're saying is that I have to go without heat all weekend because I didn't have a need to call you guys before now"

Customer Service lady "No, that's not what I'm saying, I'm saying that they won't take after hours calls from customers who are not current customers"

Me - "That's exactly what you are saying. You are saying that I have to go without heat all weekend because I am not a current customer"

Customer Service Lady - "No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that they will not get to your call until Monday because you are not a current customer"

Me - "Then you are saying that I have to go without heat all weekend because I am not a current customer - that's the same thing"

Customer Service Lady - "No it's not"

Me, getting so hot under the collar now that I don't even need heat - "Well, if this is your approach to customer service I do not find it acceptable at any rate, so I will not be using your company" - Click.

Same kind of circular conversation. I question my sanity even getting involved.

[DressageGeek "Ribbon Ho"]

Did you mean me?

Yes I did! And it was even in the quote...which is why I am finishing my coffee because obviously I simply didn't have enough caffeine and sugar in me.

So - dizzywriter - guess we'll meet up in hell, yes? Hope our horses will be there too!

[mrsbwayne]

If heaven is full of jeezoids and virgins, I sure don't wanna go. And to tell the truth, I don't think it will be an issue, hahaha!! :cool:

Back to the toe discussion, I have a hard time believing it used to be a toe and just moved all the way up the leg. I'd be more inclinded to believe it has another purpose that we just ain't figured out yet. There's other stuff about horses that hasn't been figured out yet, like the hippo-hyppo-thing that floats around in the uterus when they are pregnant. ( I don't want to go downstairs and look it up, it's a chunk of stuff that no one knows the purpose of.) And how do we know that the horses with 5 toes didn't have a chestnut too, maybe it's been there the whole time?
Sarina

[dizzywriter]

[COLOR=darkorchid]Ande since someone asked about dinosuars...

If everything was created in 7 days...on what day were the dinosaurs made?
http://www.christiananswers.net/dinosaurs/j-where1.html

]

I actually read this link.

Yup, I definitely prefer hell.

[friesiandriver]

This "debate" always drives me crazy. First of all, as a science major in my fourth year , I can assure you I have a fairly good understanding of the basic tenents of evolution. Interestingly, in my first year of university we had to do a paper on creationism, so that we would know that what it is ect. I was very interested in this topic and I am fascinated by religion as well, and have taken many classes throughout the years from Islam, Christianity to Buddhism, general religion ect. And I have come to understand it all this way:
Science and religion are exclusive. They exist to explain and deal with two completely different realms or types of knowledge. Steven J Gould wrote an incredible book on this topic called "rocks of ages". Mr Gould was one of the most important scientists of this century, and he makes an inargueable case for what I am going to summarize. So anyone who is really interested in this should definately read his book.

His basic idea is what I had mentioned previously, that science and religion exist to deal with two totally different realms. Science opperates purely to explain the physical and natural world around us and it uses a universal tool called the scientific method. If you want to investigate or answer something in science, you use this tool. This ensures that findings are repeatable and observable to everyone who has the technology AND knowledge to check things out. That is why all scientific papers must be peer reviewed. You dont just "find" something, publish it and then voila...everyone agrees. It is tested over and over and over and over , scientists all over use the method to try and find holes in a new discovery. This is how science opperates. Evolutionary theory has been tested from EVERY scientific angle and yet not only does it hold but every time a new technology developes, or a new field of science expands, it provides more support for the theory. Genetics added a whole new angle to the theory, explaining HOW "fitness" is passed on. Biochemistry and all the technology attached to it has allowed us to study proteins(the building blocks of life) in such detail that we can now "map" organisms genomes and find the similiarities and differences between us and other animals. Geology, physics..you name it, these fields strengthen the theory. There are no holes in it. These "holes" you read about come from some baptist preist who has decided he is now an evolutionary biologist and that he must "publish" a paper on the internet. There is NO debate about the legitamacy of the theory within the scientific community!!!. There are debates about certain miniscule aspects of it but they are not actually debating the theory itself. I think that is important to understand. I was once told that "without evolutionary theory, nothing in all of biology would make sense". This is exactly true. Every science class I have taken, I have marvelled at how evolutionary theory underlies every concept. In biochemisty, I marvel at how certian hemaglobins evolved differently in certain species and how this allows them life. In physiology..well evolution is everything. Form to function. And I am being serious here.

As for religion, it covers the realms of the supernatural. While religion does deal with many non supernatural things(human interelations ect), it's entire existance is based on faith and faith supports all understanding of the supernatural. Faith is the key ingredient and the key to religious knowledge, like the scientific method is to science. Faith cannot and should not EVER enter into science (notice how it is NOT one of the steps in the scientific method?). Just as science cannot expain miraculous or supernatural events, religion cannot be used to investigate natural ones. It falls short because it oversteps its realm. In science, you MUST adhere to the scientific method, just as in religion, you must have faith.
And this is where the problem stems from. People do not understand the limits of each. Anyone who believes in creationism(and yes, it requires faith) clearly is lacking a basic understanding of science and its method. There is not ONE scientist in this world that is accepted by the scientific community that adheres to the creationsist beleif system. It is not science, it is not grounded in science, it evades the scientific method. PERIOD. Do you notice how science does not attempt to say wether or not god exists, or wether or not there are or are not miracles. Science knows its buisness. It knows these are out of its realm, and it doesn't attempt them. (at least real scientists that belong to the scientific community DO NOT). So when you see people who are CLEARLY not scientists trying to "prove" something without adhereing to the scientific method you have got to laugh. At least us scientists do because it's truly a joke AND it is laughable. And people who buy this bs make me laugh as well. WHY on earth, if you wanted to learn about science would you ask your priest? Come on people. If I want to know what is wrong with my knee after my horse kicked it, do I go to my librarian and ask her and take her opinion for gospel? NOOOO. I should hope not anyways, as it certainly won't help me. It is the same here. People don't ask for help understanding the bible from their Bio prof. So why would you look to religion to explain science? I just don't get that.

Religion and science can exist side by side but they do not overlap. It doesn't have to be one or the other because they are not even adressing the same things...see? So when you say, I believe in evolution..you are assuming that it is a belief system, like relgion ..which as I explained previously...it is not. When you say that you believe both work together, you need to brush up on your basic understanding of science. If you understand the basics of science, it is absolutly impossible to comprehend creationism from a scientific perspective. Those of you throwing out the links to the silly creationism site for "evidence" please, do yourself a favor and really educate yourself. Go to a SCIENCE based source that is peer reviewed and read it, read about what science is. When you have learned about science, then you can make your decision about what you can or cannot comprehend, and if in fact, you still see no fault in creationism, you clearly did not comprehend the basic tenents of science. When you have no understanding of science, how can you say that you disagree with evolutionary theory, a massive scientific concept? You just cannot. And it is very very foolish to believe that you can.
kyla

[Ghazzu]

But it was written as such if you believe as I do.

Anyway, I will respectively bow out of this thread as I hear a train whistle in the distance and my horse needs to be ridden :)

Can I inquire then, why God thought it necessary to forbid the wearing of fabric made from more than one type of fiber?

[zagafi]

This "debate" always drives me crazy. First of all, as a science major in my fourth year , I can assure you I have a fairly good understanding of the basic tenents of evolution. Interestingly, in my first year of university we had to do a paper on creationism, so that we would know that what it is ect. I was very interested in this topic and I am fascinated by religion as well, and have taken many classes throughout the years from Islam, Christianity to Buddhism, general religion ect. And I have come to understand it all this way:
Science and religion are exclusive. They exist to explain and deal with two completely different realms or types of knowledge. Steven J Gould wrote an incredible book on this topic called "rocks of ages". Mr Gould was one of the most important scientists of this century, and he makes an inargueable case for what I am going to summarize. So anyone who is really interested in this should definately read his book.
His basic idea is what I had mentioned previously, that science and religion exist to deal with two totally different realms. Science opperates purely to explain the physical and natural world around us and it uses a universal tool called the scientific method. If you want to investigate or answer something in science, you use this tool. This ensures that findings are repeatable and observable to everyone who has the technology AND knowledge to check things out. That is why all scientific papers must be peer reviewed. You dont just "find" something, publish it and then voila...everyone agrees. It is tested over and over and over and over , scientists all over use the method to try and find holes in a new discovery. This is how science opperates. Evolutionary theory has been tested from EVERY scientific angle and yet not only does it hold but every time a new technology developes, or a new field of science expands, it provides more support for the theory. Genetics added a whole new angle to the theory, explaining HOW "fitness" is passed on. Biochemistry and all the technology attached to it has allowed us to study proteins(the building blocks of life) in such detail that we can now "map" organisms genomes and find the similiarities and differences between us and other animals. Geology, physics..you name it, these fields strengthen the theory. There are no holes in it. These "holes" you read about come from some baptist preist who has decided he is now an evolutionary biologist and that he must "publish" a paper on the internet. There is NO debate about the legitamacy of the theory within the scientific community!!!. There are debates about certain miniscule aspects of it but they are not actually debating the theory itself. I think that is important to understand. I was once told that "without evolutionary theory, nothing in all of biology would make sense". This is exactly true. Every science class I have taken, I have marvelled at how evolutionary theory underlies every concept. In biochemisty, I marvel at how certian hemaglobins evolved differently in certain species and how this allows them life. In physiology..well evolution is everything. Form to function. And I am being serious here.
As for religion, it covers the realms of the supernatural. While religion does deal with many non supernatural things(human interelations ect), it's entire existance is based on faith and faith supports all understanding of the supernatural. Faith is the key ingredient and the key to religious knowledge, like the scientific method is to science. Faith cannot and should not EVER enter into science (notice how it is NOT one of the steps in the scientific method?). Just as science cannot expain miraculous or supernatural events, religion cannot be used to investigate natural ones. It falls short because it oversteps its realm. In science, you MUST adhere to the scientific method, just as in religion, you must have faith.
And this is where the problem stems from. People do not understand the limits of each. Anyone who believes in creationism(and yes, it requires faith) clearly is lacking a basic understanding of science and its method. There is not ONE scientist in this world that is accepted by the scientific community that adheres to the creationsist beleif system. It is not science, it is not grounded in science, it evades the scientific method. PERIOD. Do you notice how science does not attempt to say wether or not god exists, or wether or not there are or are not miracles. Science knows its buisness. It knows these are out of its realm, and it doesn't attempt them. (at least real scientists that belong to the scientific community DO NOT). So when you see people who are CLEARLY not scientists trying to "prove" something without adhereing to the scientific method you have got to laugh. At least us scientists do because it's truly a joke AND it is laughable. And people who buy this bs make me laugh as well. WHY on earth, if you wanted to learn about science would you ask your priest? Come on people. If I want to know what is wrong with my knee after my horse kicked it, do I go to my librarian and ask her and take her opinion for gospel? NOOOO. I should hope not anyways, as it certainly won't help me. It is the same here. People don't ask for help understanding the bible from their Bio prof. So why would you look to religion to explain science? I just don't get that. Religion and science can exist side by side but they do not overlap. It doesn't have to be one or the other because they are not even adressing the same things...see? So when you say, I believe in evolution..you are assuming that it is a belief system, like relgion ..which as I explained previously...it is not. When you say that you believe both work together, you need to brush up on your basic understanding of science. If you understand the basics of science, it is absolutly impossible to comprehend creationism from a scientific perspective. Those of you throwing out the links to the silly creationism site for "evidence" please, do yourself a favor and really educate yourself. Go to a SCIENCE based source that is peer reviewed and read it, read about what science is. When you have learned about science, then you can make your decision about what you can or cannot comprehend, and if in fact, you still see no fault in creationism, you clearly did not comprehend the basic tenents of science. When you have no understanding of science, how can you say that you disagree with evolutionary theory, a massive scientific concept? You just cannot. And it is very very foolish to believe that you can.
kyla

I usually don't do this, but do they not teach the concept of "paragraphs" where you attend school? GAH! That hurt my eyes...to the point where I didn't even bother reading it all so I have no idea if it was worthwhile or not.

[friesiandriver]

SORRY! I am not great at computers and it wouldn't let me put paragraphs in so I just put spaces in...is that ok??

[DressageGeek "Ribbon Ho"]

On the other hand, friesandriver, as a scientist, and a teacher at the graduate school level - very well explained! And right on target. A+!!

[Silk]

If they were so foals could find the udder...Why would male horses have them?


Because God forgot to remove them?

[Parysa]

I know I'm not being completely open-minded b/c I do not, will not believe that there is enough proof--fact/law, not theory--that humans evolved from apes. Doesn't mean that I don't believe in evolution at all, just that I accept some forms of it and not others. I believe that we do change and evolve, that everything does. But, you cannot say that evolution doesn't require belief, that it's fact. It's the theory of evolution, not the law of evolution. And if I remember my science correctly, theories can still be disproven. IMO, the "humans=apes" is bs. But I don't bash any of you for believing it. But ya know what...I think I'm done with this topic b/c while it seems that many of the Christians/Creationists on here are finding a compromise, we're just getting bashed and made fun of. There is no point trying to talk to people who think that they know everything. You can't have a two-sided conversation with people like that b/c while you may listen to their POV, they're never going to consider yours b/c they already "know" what it is. So, you guys have fun. I'm not wasting my last day of internet for the next couple months (moving) on people who won't even consider being open-minded.

[xeroxchick]

If I was born with a tail I'd be pretty mad if my parents had it cut off.
"Creationists" are idiots of course. Everyone knows that.
Common misconception: Humans and apes had a common ancestor, we did not evolve from apes, although you'd think it seeing as how many people haven't actually read evolutionary theory.

[just_me]

Well, whoever is responsible, I am very very happy they made horses. Chestnuts and all.
He/she/whomever could have left off the chestnuts and ergots, unless it was designed to cause confusion and discussion (not to mention having to trim them).

He/she/whomever could have come up with a better design for the hoof, hock, and digestive system. What was up with that?

[dizzywriter]

Because God forgot to remove them?

I would hazard this guess: Males have nipples because in fetal development, mammals (dunno know enough about plants and reptiles and platypuses to say) start out as female and only become male when the Y chromosome kicks in with its supply of macho.

[Ghazzu]

If chestnuts were to help foals find the udder, why are they on the forelegs?

[J. Turner]

I know I'm not being completely open-minded b/c I do not, will not believe that there is enough proof--fact/law, not theory--that humans evolved from apes. Doesn't mean that I don't believe in evolution at all, just that I accept some forms of it and not others. I believe that we do change and evolve, that everything does. But, you cannot say that evolution doesn't require belief, that it's fact. It's the theory of evolution, not the law of evolution. And if I remember my science correctly, theories can still be disproven. IMO, the "humans=apes" is bs. But I don't bash any of you for believing it. But ya know what...I think I'm done with this topic b/c while it seems that many of the Christians/Creationists on here are finding a compromise, we're just getting bashed and made fun of. There is no point trying to talk to people who think that they know everything. You can't have a two-sided conversation with people like that b/c while you may listen to their POV, they're never going to consider yours b/c they already "know" what it is. So, you guys have fun. I'm not wasting my last day of internet for the next couple months (moving) on people who won't even consider being open-minded.

1) We did not evolve from modern primates. I believe the common DNA proves we have a common ancient ancestor.
2) Things with DNA evolve. That is fact. New species of flu are created through mutation and "survival of the fittest" every year. That is why pharmaceuticals have to come up with new vaccines every year. That is why we have staph and methycillin-resistant staph. These facts are easier to accept because they happen within a space and time we grasp our primitive-humanoid minds around. These are species with short lifespans so we can see the change (or evolution, if you will).
3) I think many Creationists are closed minded. There are many scientists who deny the existence of God or believe that science and faith/religion are mutually exclusive. Einstein once said something like he was trying to figure out the rules of God's universe. I don't know about the Creationists here. I just don't believe in the literal Genesis.

Genesis 1:
1) heaven and earth
2) light
3) Day & Night
End of first day
4) Firmament (heavens) created from the waters
End of second day
(So how long was a day before it was divided into day and night? 24 hours? a century? An eon? A millenium?)
5) Dry land separated from seas
6) Grass, herbs, fruit trees
End of third day
7) "Let there be lights in the firmament of the
heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for
signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years"
(Again, I ask, so how long was a day, a season, a year before then?)
8) "God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the
day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also."
Ie - sun and moon
Question: If he made the sun and the moon and the stars after the "lights in the firmament of ... heaven", what are those lights that make seasons, days, years? I thought the moon and the sun - or rather our movement around them them which the Pope has so recently recognized - designated our seasons?
End of fourth day
9) Water fowl and air fowl (fish and birds?)
10) every living creature that moveth in the water and air
11) Go forth and multiply
End of fifth day
12) Earth bound creatures, ie - cattle and everything that creepeth
13) And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our
likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea,
and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over
all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth
upon the earth."
OK - man's been made
14) "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God
created he him; male and female created he them." (1:27)
SO WHAT HAPPENED TO THE RIB?
End of fifth day

Aaah - but then Genesis 2 gets a little confusing. God decides to make things in a different order.

2:1 "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when
they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth
and the heavens"
1) Heaven and earth

2:1.
"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and
breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became
a living soul."
2) man
WAIT A MINUTE, I thought God had already created man ...
3) trees and plants
"And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree
that is pleasant to the sight"
4) rivers, gold, onyx
5) beasts
1:2.19: "And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the
field, and every fowl of the air"
6) woman
Ah, here is the rib. Therein lies the rib.
1:2.22: "And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a
woman"
Question 1: Why are there two creation stories with two different orders in which God created the world?
Question 2) If Adam lived for 950 years, and he was human, how long was a year really?

[dizzywriter]

while it seems that many of the Christians/Creationists on here are finding a compromise, we're just getting bashed and made fun of. There is no point trying to talk to people who think that they know everything. You can't have a two-sided conversation with people like that b/c while you may listen to their POV, they're never going to consider yours b/c they already "know" what it is. .

Who is getting bashed? You say there's no evidence but don't acknowledge what evidence exists. How about genetic evidence? Humans and chimps differ by only a tiny snippet of DNA. How about Lucy? I agree that evolution has its holes, but that's at least in part because the fossil record is incomplete. If you read ancient Hebrew myths, you'll see that God experimented with human design (take Lilith, who became a demon because she didn't like the missionary position).

Lilith could be a mythologized echo of early versions of humans (say, Lucy), with which God experimented over millennia and found that their brains weren't big enough to recognize its (sorry, I don't buy a gendered god) existence and so stepped in with some divine input to add more grey matter.

But one can be open minded about issues subject to some kind of proof. If the proof is ambiguous, in comes the open mind. There is no proof of creationism whatsoever, except for some clearly mythologized verses in an ancient text.

Tell me, how do you read Gen 6:4: "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days -- and also afterward -- when the sons of God went in to the daughters of humans, who bore children to them. These were the heroes that were of old, warriors of renown."

This, in my view, has always been one of the most mysterious passages of genesis. (the "new revised standard" translation isn't my favortite, the King James version is much more majestic, but this is the one in my library.)

I've always believed that God created humans to make the universe real, because according to what I understand of quantum mechanics, for omniscient types, the universe is just a fuzzy mass of mathematical probabilities. It takes dumb but conscious beings to make it real, and appreciate the maker. But it took lots of trial and error to create those beings.

So, Parysa, don't think that people who don't believe in creationism don't believe in a Creator. Personally, I just give it more credit for creativity.

And yes, that is a belief that I don't confuse with fact.

[friesiandriver]

On the other hand, friesandriver, as a scientist, and a teacher at the graduate school level - very well explained! And right on traget. A+!!

Thank you!

I know I'm not being completely open-minded b/c I do not, will not believe that there is enough proof--fact/law, not theory--that humans evolved from apes. Doesn't mean that I don't believe in evolution at all, just that I accept some forms of it and not others. I believe that we do change and evolve, that everything does. But, you cannot say that evolution doesn't require belief, that it's fact. It's the theory of evolution, not the law of evolution. And if I remember my science correctly, theories can still be disproven. IMO, the "humans=apes" is bs. But I don't bash any of you for believing it. But ya know what...I think I'm done with this topic b/c while it seems that many of the Christians/Creationists on here are finding a compromise, we're just getting bashed and made fun of. There is no point trying to talk to people who think that they know everything. You can't have a two-sided conversation with people like that b/c while you may listen to their POV, they're never going to consider yours b/c they already "know" what it is. So, you guys have fun. I'm not wasting my last day of internet for the next couple months (moving) on people who won't even consider being open-minded.

Oh lordy. You are a perfect example of what I just posted about. You have such an incredibly weak understanding of the theory of evolution that you think that the theory includes us evolving from apes. This is NOT what evolutionary theory teaches and yet you think it does and you've based your judgement on that. Did you read my post??
This doesn't have alot to do with open mindedness, it has everything to do with education. If you don't understand science, let alone the basic tenents of evo theory then PLEASE don't make a judgement, for your own sake... it only makes you look like a fool.

many of the Christians/Creationists on here are finding a compromise,
There is no compromise or middle ground between creationism and evolutionary theory. Creationism is wrong.Period. THE END. It is not even a scientific veiwpoint, for the reasons I listed above. Science cannot entertain creationist "theory" because it's "findings" do not follow scientific protocol. It's the exact same as people who argue that the earth is flat. We all KNOW based on science, that this is simply false . If we had the money we could hitch a ride up there and check it out. Evolutionary theory requires belief in the same way. If you have the technology you can reproduce and see any of the evidence for evolution. So while I have not myself reproduced any of this evidence, I understand the whole concept of science, the method and the objectiveness. And it is in this light that I understand evolution. I may not have seen it occur because I have not lived for 3 million years HOWEVER, with science I don't have to.Just like I don't need to ride in a spaceship to believe the earth is round. Contrary to what creationists beleive, science isnt out there to trick you or create some sort of conspiracy. It exists to solve problems related to the natural world. It is what cures cancer and provides us with all the technology we have and the reason we are no longer living in caves. We didn't need faith for this to occur. We used scientific knowledge.

[dizzywriter]

Yes I did! And it was even in the quote...which is why I am finishing my coffee because obviously I simply didn't have enough caffeine and sugar in me.

So - dizzywriter - guess we'll meet up in hell, yes? Hope our horses will be there too!

And margaritas!

[PiedPiper]

This "debate" always drives me crazy. First of all, as a science major in my fourth year , I can assure you I have a fairly good understanding of the basic tenents of evolution.

Interestingly, in my first year of university we had to do a paper on creationism, so that we would know that what it is ect. I was very interested in this topic and I am fascinated by religion as well, and have taken many classes throughout the years from Islam, Christianity to Buddhism, general religion ect. And I have come to understand it all this way:

Science and religion are exclusive. They exist to explain and deal with two completely different realms or types of knowledge. Steven J Gould wrote an incredible book on this topic called "rocks of ages". Mr Gould was one of the most important scientists of this century, and he makes an inargueable case for what I am going to summarize. So anyone who is really interested in this should definately read his book.

His basic idea is what I had mentioned previously, that science and religion exist to deal with two totally different realms. Science opperates purely to explain the physical and natural world around us and it uses a universal tool called the scientific method. If you want to investigate or answer something in science, you use this tool. This ensures that findings are repeatable and observable to everyone who has the technology AND knowledge to check things out.

That is why all scientific papers must be peer reviewed. You dont just "find" something, publish it and then voila...everyone agrees. It is tested over and over and over and over , scientists all over use the method to try and find holes in a new discovery. This is how science opperates. Evolutionary theory has been tested from EVERY scientific angle and yet not only does it hold but every time a new technology developes, or a new field of science expands, it provides more support for the theory. Genetics added a whole new angle to the theory, explaining HOW "fitness" is passed on.

Biochemistry and all the technology attached to it has allowed us to study proteins(the building blocks of life) in such detail that we can now "map" organisms genomes and find the similiarities and differences between us and other animals. Geology, physics..you name it, these fields strengthen the theory. There are no holes in it. These "holes" you read about come from some baptist preist who has decided he is now an evolutionary biologist and that he must "publish" a paper on the internet. There is NO debate about the legitamacy of the theory within the scientific community!!!.

There are debates about certain miniscule aspects of it but they are not actually debating the theory itself. I think that is important to understand. I was once told that "without evolutionary theory, nothing in all of biology would make sense". This is exactly true. Every science class I have taken, I have marvelled at how evolutionary theory underlies every concept. In biochemisty, I marvel at how certian hemaglobins evolved differently in certain species and how this allows them life. In physiology..well evolution is everything. Form to function. And I am being serious here.

As for religion, it covers the realms of the supernatural. While religion does deal with many non supernatural things(human interelations ect), it's entire existance is based on faith and faith supports all understanding of the supernatural. Faith is the key ingredient and the key to religious knowledge, like the scientific method is to science. Faith cannot and should not EVER enter into science (notice how it is NOT one of the steps in the scientific method?).

Just as science cannot expain miraculous or supernatural events, religion cannot be used to investigate natural ones. It falls short because it oversteps its realm. In science, you MUST adhere to the scientific method, just as in religion, you must have faith.

And this is where the problem stems from. People do not understand the limits of each. Anyone who believes in creationism(and yes, it requires faith) clearly is lacking a basic understanding of science and its method. There is not ONE scientist in this world that is accepted by the scientific community that adheres to the creationsist beleif system. It is not science, it is not grounded in science, it evades the scientific method. PERIOD. Do you notice how science does not attempt to say wether or not god exists, or wether or not there are or are not miracles. Science knows its buisness. It knows these are out of its realm, and it doesn't attempt them. (at least real scientists that belong to the scientific community DO NOT).

So when you see people who are CLEARLY not scientists trying to "prove" something without adhereing to the scientific method you have got to laugh. At least us scientists do because it's truly a joke AND it is laughable. And people who buy this bs make me laugh as well. WHY on earth, if you wanted to learn about science would you ask your priest? Come on people. If I want to know what is wrong with my knee after my horse kicked it, do I go to my librarian and ask her and take her opinion for gospel? NOOOO. I should hope not anyways, as it certainly won't help me. It is the same here. People don't ask for help understanding the bible from their Bio prof. So why would you look to religion to explain science? I just don't get that.

Religion and science can exist side by side but they do not overlap. It doesn't have to be one or the other because they are not even adressing the same things...see? So when you say, I believe in evolution..you are assuming that it is a belief system, like relgion ..which as I explained previously...it is not. When you say that you believe both work together, you need to brush up on your basic understanding of science. If you understand the basics of science, it is absolutly impossible to comprehend creationism from a scientific perspective.

Those of you throwing out the links to the silly creationism site for "evidence" please, do yourself a favor and really educate yourself. Go to a SCIENCE based source that is peer reviewed and read it, read about what science is. When you have learned about science, then you can make your decision about what you can or cannot comprehend, and if in fact, you still see no fault in creationism, you clearly did not comprehend the basic tenents of science. When you have no understanding of science, how can you say that you disagree with evolutionary theory, a massive scientific concept? You just cannot. And it is very very foolish to believe that you can.
kyla

There zagafi, I didn't want you to have an excuse to not read this wonderfully written and very insightful synopsis of what science is and isn't. Is there anything else I can do? Change the font, add some bolded words, add any pretty colors? :rolleyes:

Religion has always been at war with science though there is really no need. In fact there are many highly spiritual people, including monks and priest, etc who have been on the cutting edge (at their time) of science. Why does accepting one mean you can't accept both? If truly understood, one would realize what fresiandriver speaks is the truth.

[crackerjack]

IMO, the "humans=apes" is bs. But I don't bash any of you for believing it. But ya know what...I think I'm done with this topic b/c while it seems that many of the Christians/Creationists on here are finding a compromise, we're just getting bashed and made fun of. There is no point trying to talk to people who think that they know everything. You can't have a two-sided conversation with people like that b/c while you may listen to their POV, they're never going to consider yours b/c they already "know" what it is. So, you guys have fun. I'm not wasting my last day of internet for the next couple months (moving) on people who won't even consider being open-minded.


But you ARE bashing it nd YOU are not considering it because you are calling the idea BS. I don't call creationism BS even though I don't believe that theory. It's your belief system and I respect that... in turn my belief system should be respected and not called BS.:yes:

[dizzywriter]

But you ARE bashing it nd YOU are not considering it because you are calling the idea BS. I don't call creationism BS even though I don't believe that theory. It's your belief system and I respect that... in turn my belief system should be respected and not called BS.:yes:

Evolution is not a belief system. With genetic evidence, especially (but not only), it is science. Creation is belief, period. I wouldn't call it bs because I don't denigrate anyone's beliefs. But I would not try to debate it on a scientific level.

Creationists always bow out of debates because they have no evidence. You can only repeat "I believe" so many times. I'd call it intellectual laziness, especially considering how many evolution folks on this thread consider themselves "believers".

Welcome to hell. It'll be fun.

[LouLove]

Well, THIS "creationist" has concluded that anybody that thinks a chestnut is the remanant of an old toe is an idiot. (Evolution may have some believable points, but THIS is NOT one of 'em!)


Sigh.

Another idiot here! I'll only be here for a second though - the train's on it's way through town!!!!!

[darkmoonlady]

But, you cannot say that evolution doesn't require belief, that it's fact. It's the theory of evolution, not the law of evolution. And if I remember my science correctly, theories can still be disproven. .

Gravity is also a "theory" however I doubt any creationists would in fact say test that it is just a "theory" by jumping off a building. Just because something is held under the name theory doesn't make any less valid. And evolution doesn't require belief, it requires a knowledge of science enough to know what is logically true and what isn't. Logic, science, TESTING, say that evolution is true.

The fact that people want to deny science, evolution etc, comes as a result of those FACTS not jivving with their beliefs. It isn't science's fault that people have beliefs that are archaic...however when those people who believe science is wrong, need to BACK IT UP, and creationists don't.

There is more than one creation story as well, creationists seem to (again based on their beliefs) think that their creation story is the only valid one. If they want that belief to be taken seriously then you must bring in ALL creation stories and give them as much time and credence.

[La Gringa]

Reminder.... this is a HORSE bulletin board, not a Religion or Science BB.

I think we all get it... agree to disagree and move on!! The train is crashing.

[HoochieMama]

As a devout believer in evolution I have to ask the question of the creationists...has it never occured to any of them the evolution may be the mechanism of intelligent design?

[CanadianGolden]

Evolution is not a belief system. With genetic evidence, especially (but not only), it is science. Creation is belief, period. I wouldn't call it bs because I don't denigrate anyone's beliefs. But I would not try to debate it on a scientific level.

Creationists always bow out of debates because they have no evidence. You can only repeat "I believe" so many times. I'd call it intellectual laziness, especially considering how many evolution folks on this thread consider themselves "believers".

Welcome to hell. It'll be fun.

THANK YOU. I was about to post the same thing. FACTS DO NOT REQUIRE FAITH. I don't care if someone doesn't "believe" that the Earth is round. It IS, and not believing that doesn't change the fact that it's true.

[crackerjack]

Evolution is not a belief system. With genetic evidence, especially (but not only), it is science. Creation is belief, period. I wouldn't call it bs because I don't denigrate anyone's beliefs. But I would not try to debate it on a scientific level.

Creationists always bow out of debates because they have no evidence. You can only repeat "I believe" so many times. I'd call it intellectual laziness, especially considering how many evolution folks on this thread consider themselves "believers".

Welcome to hell. It'll be fun.

Sorry sorry I actually meant to edit that post and change it from belief system to beliefs. (As in I believe that my ancestors were primitive ape like creatures as opposed to I believe they were put on this earth as is or by aliens) I know it's not a belief system. :yes: A million sorries for my forgetfulness! :D Anyway hell should be fun - being bad is always more fun that being good!! Plus I believe (oh there it is again) my hell will be a series of neverending cavalettis and bounces. :D

[greysandbays]

As a devout believer in evolution I have to ask the question of the creationists...has it never occured to any of them the evolution may be the mechanism of intelligent design?

And I have to ask the question of the evolutionists...has it never occured to them that some, if not many (or even ALL) of their "evidence" for "evolution" might only be the result of the archictect/engineer/"creator" re-using or recycling ideas?

And just an intersting observation about "science" I read a while back: Scientists, by their very definition, are searching for "truth". As such, they are often shockingly unskilled at detecting deception. The "scientific method" is very linear and makes no allowances for flashes of intuition that might land closer to the "truth" than peer review ever could. Just because something cannot be proven to be so within the limits of technology and human intelligence does not mean it's false. We may think we've "proven" evolution because we don't have the equipment or the brain-wiring necessary to do better.

Like the "Flat Earth" thing that evolutionists are fond of denigrating creationists with -- to the people of that time who rarely got further than five miles from the place they were born, a flat earth made sense, even though it wasn't the "truth". As clever minds applied themselves to the necessary technology, they found not only a round earth, but a solar system with nine planets. But even that was not the "truth" -- increasing sophisticated technology has found moons (or rings, in the case of Saturn) around some planets not previously observed, added the possiblity of previously undiscovered planets, and questioned the validity of Pluto as a planet. So the "Solar System With Nine Planets" that science had accepted was WRONG. Just as WRONG as the "The Earth Is Flat" proponents had been in their own time. Who knows what knowlege the next 500 years will bring? Evolution has every bit as good a chance of being disproven as creation does.

[La Gringa]

Tell me what the hell does this have to do with HORSES?

This is so lame, and getting nowhere.

[crackerjack]

And I have to ask the question of the evolutionists...has it never occured to them that some, if not many (or even ALL) of their "evidence" for "evolution" might only be the result of the archictect/engineer/"creator" re-using or recycling ideas?

And just an intersting observation about "science" I read a while back: Scientists, by their very definition, are searching for "truth". As such, they are often shockingly unskilled at detecting deception. The "scientific method" is very linear and makes no allowances for flashes of intuition that might land closer to the "truth" than peer review ever could. Just because something cannot be proven to be so within the limits of technology and human intelligence does not mean it's false. We may think we've "proven" evolution because we don't have the equipment or the brain-wiring necessary to do better.

Like the "Flat Earth" thing that evolutionists are fond of denigrating creationists with -- to the people of that time who rarely got further than five miles from the place they were born, a flat earth made sense, even though it wasn't the "truth". As clever minds applied themselves to the necessary technology, they found not only a round earth, but a solar system with nine planets. But even that was not the "truth" -- increasing sophisticated technology has found moons (or rings, in the case of Saturn) around some planets not previously observed, added the possiblity of previously undiscovered planets, and questioned the validity of Pluto as a planet. So the "Solar System With Nine Planets" that science had accepted was WRONG. Just as WRONG as the "The Earth Is Flat" proponents had been in their own time. Who knows what knowlege the next 500 years will bring? Evolution has every bit as good a chance of being disproven as creation does.

Yes but they continued to research even after they thought they were right, saw that they were wrong, accepted that fact, proved why they were wrong and accepted a new theory (with even more scientific evidence). They were not unmovable in their theories disputing everything else others had to say. They were willing to learn, take in new facts and create the theory why pluto is not a planet. Scientific theories change as we gain new information - it's called learning.

Sorry this really isn't horse related at all and I will stop now:yes:

[friesiandriver]

I am a little confused as to your meaning in the first paragraph. Flashes of intuition are what drive the scientific method. A person observes something that raises a question which usually stems from some sort of wonder or intuition or whatever you want to call it. Ie they think ..."hey I think I might have an idea what is going on" and then they see if the data supports what they originally thought.

How are they unskilled at detecting deception, says who and based on what??? The method weeds out falsehoods. Everything being tested pionts to evolution being truth. There is sooooo much evidence for it, from so many different areas of science that the likelihood of evolution being totally wrong or incorrect is soo extremely small. You are refering, with the flat earth idea, to a time before science as we know it today. The time when there was essentially no technology, so it's not really comparable. However, nobody is saying it is 100 percent impossible that things are out of line, if someone finds something that BLOWS the entire theory out of the water, then so be it. That is what science is for. Then I will change my mind no doubt!

Evolution has every bit as good a chance of being disproven as creation does.
Well..no, creationism is false and all of it's "facts" are disproven by science or they rest on a faith belief and are thus invalid (in relation to scientific knowledge). Evolutionary theory has sooo many peices of evidence that do not rest on one another for validy, that the chance of all of them being proven wrong are very low because you would have to add all of those individual probabilities. So while yes...it could theoretically happen, you cannot even compare them because creationism is out of the running in terms of probability of being declared false. It already has been.

Tell me what the hell does this have to do with HORSES?
This is the off course board. I am assuming that non horsey things are a go.

[DressageGeek "Ribbon Ho"]

I would hazard this guess: Males have nipples because in fetal development, mammals (dunno know enough about plants and reptiles and platypuses to say) start out as female and only become male when the Y chromosome kicks in with its supply of macho.

You are correct! Female is the default.

[darkmoonlady]

To get this back to the OP topic, what are you supposed to do when this topic comes up? This entire message board generally deals with science. Horse care, the science of equine medicine, sport horse breeding is very science intensive, nearly all the discussion topics on this forum rely heavily on a knowledge of science.

So what are you supposed to do if you rely on a science that someone says to you straightfaced they don't believe? Horses have chestnuts because of evolution. The fact that this has supposedly become a "train wreck" just illustrates the pickle the OP is in.

It is a timely discussion horse related or no, and I think in the end has do to with openmindedness and tolerance on both sides. HOWEVER I do think that the burden lies on the side of the creationists who believe through faith not fact. In dealing with the care of your horse faith is a part of it but you better believe that fact is what you would rely on. And I think that is what the OP was trying to get across.

[zagafi]

There zagafi, I didn't want you to have an excuse to not read this wonderfully written and very insightful synopsis of what science is and isn't. Is there anything else I can do? Change the font, add some bolded words, add any pretty colors? :rolleyes:

Religion has always been at war with science though there is really no need. In fact there are many highly spiritual people, including monks and priest, etc who have been on the cutting edge (at their time) of science. Why does accepting one mean you can't accept both? If truly understood, one would realize what fresiandriver speaks is the truth.

First, yes, I know I was being pissy about the format. Like I said, I usually don't worry about that stuff and likely should not have this time, either. But the English teacher in me just cringes...at any rate, pretty colors would be nice. And Papyrus is a very nice font...

But you're barking up the wrong tree if you think I *don't* accept both. I thought I'd made it pretty clear that I do. Heck if anything I lean far more toward accepting the evolutionary theory even though I'm a good church going girl!

[zagafi]

SORRY! I am not great at computers and it wouldn't let me put paragraphs in so I just put spaces in...is that ok??

Sorry--I know I was being pissy. My apologies. The information was worthwhile!

[DressageGeek "Ribbon Ho"]

And I have to ask the question of the evolutionists...has it never occured to them that some, if not many (or even ALL) of their "evidence" for "evolution" might only be the result of the archictect/engineer/"creator" re-using or recycling ideas?

And just an intersting observation about "science" I read a while back: Scientists, by their very definition, are searching for "truth". As such, they are often shockingly unskilled at detecting deception. The "scientific method" is very linear and makes no allowances for flashes of intuition that might land closer to the "truth" than peer review ever could. Just because something cannot be proven to be so within the limits of technology and human intelligence does not mean it's false. We may think we've "proven" evolution because we don't have the equipment or the brain-wiring necessary to do better.

Like the "Flat Earth" thing that evolutionists are fond of denigrating creationists with -- to the people of that time who rarely got further than five miles from the place they were born, a flat earth made sense, even though it wasn't the "truth". As clever minds applied themselves to the necessary technology, they found not only a round earth, but a solar system with nine planets. But even that was not the "truth" -- increasing sophisticated technology has found moons (or rings, in the case of Saturn) around some planets not previously observed, added the possiblity of previously undiscovered planets, and questioned the validity of Pluto as a planet. So the "Solar System With Nine Planets" that science had accepted was WRONG. Just as WRONG as the "The Earth Is Flat" proponents had been in their own time. Who knows what knowlege the next 500 years will bring? Evolution has every bit as good a chance of being disproven as creation does.


You have missed the boat completely - major kerplunk in the water. I am a scientist. I do research. I have hypotheses that I test. Sometimes I get started in a new direction because of that flash of intuition. Can't be a good scientist if you're not creative and able to think outside the box. That is, I have a theory, for example, that chestnuts are the remnants of a toe. Having stated the theory, it is testable, and I should be able to make predictions based on my hypothesis. So I would predict that ergots and chestnuts would be comprsied of the same sort of biological material, that they might still retain some of the properties that bones might have. It is possible there would be fossil evidence to suggest intermediaries. I would then do the experiments, and see if they validated my hypothesis. The experiments would have controls so that I would know that the design of the experiment was actually specifically testing what it was supposed to be testing. If the experiments disprove my theory, well, then, hey, it's out the window, and I come up with a new idea.

If this was written up as a paper, or in a grant, it would then be subjected to peer review. For a paper, this is usually 3 people who are acknowledged experts in the field, and they are supposed to read the paper without bias. And yes, I have declined to review both grants and papers because of either a negative or positive bias. For a grant, there are 3 major reviewers, backed up by a panel of over 20 people (and that doesn't count the editor of the journal or the program driector of the review panel). Once published, the work would have to be reproduced independently by other researchers before it would be accepted.

CREATIONISM IS NOT A THEORY THAT CAN BE TESTED OR VALIDATED. EVOLUTION CAN, AND HAS BEEN.

Just so you know. Weeny fruit flies have the same signaling molecules in the brain that we do. Yes siree, we can actually go waaay lower than apes. They not only have them, they are synthesized the same way, by the same molecules, and they modulate many of the same behaviors. There are actually people who do experiments to determine whether flies have consciousness.

And thank goodness for fruit flies. Without them as a wonderful model system, we wouldn't have been able to characterize many, many crucial and vital developmental genes that have given us tools to study human diseases. For example, the human gene that encodes the Alzheimer precursor protein rescues the neurobiological defects in fruit flies.

That being said. Is there a God? I don't know. I don't worry about it much. Do I think the Bible is the literal word of God? Well, obviously not.

But I would like to know what chestnuts and ergots, vestigial little whatevers that they are, used to be. Just out of curiousity. Thank goodness for baby vaseline (GET YOUR MINDS OUT OF THE GUTTERS, PEOPLE!) because it gets rid of chestnut protrusion.

[Rudy]

There are differences between scientific laws and theories but I think some people misunderstand them.

To the average person, something that is a theory is just speculation and hasn't been proven. While scientific theory is a bit more encompassing. It is something that has not been disproven. They have all sorts of information to support their findings but do not feel it is enough to consider it a law.

Some examples are the cell theory. How many people believe there are cells? Have you ever seen them? Learned how they function? The theory states that all living things are composed of cells, the cell is the smallest unit of life, and all cells come from preexisting cells. We know cells exist, we know they come from other cells and that they are the smallest unit of life BUT it is STILL a theory.

The Theory of Tectonic plates. There is another I would not dispute but it is still a theory.

So for something to be considered a Scientific theory is a big thing and is not taken lightly.


*******

Now back to the original topic at hand. I believe chestnuts and ergots could possibly be evolutionary left overs of previous toes. But I really don't know and don't care either way. All I do know for sure is they can be a pain in the a** when the only thing that can cut my shires is a nice sharp pair of hoof nippers and his ergots are split into 2-3 pieces and grow in curls...eek!! O.o

[friesiandriver]

Well it is a tough situation because you know this woman is raising her kids up to be totally ignorant to reality. I find it very sad that by the time they are old enough to learn about science their minds are already to warped by everything they have invested in literallist religion, so much so that they are unable to see science for what it is. One of my best friends became a Jahovas Witness. I went with her to one of the gatherings they have every week. The kids were putting on a little skit. It was about how they were to go about convincing people that evolutionary theory was the work of the devil on their weekend door to door missions. These kids were young. It was depressing.
On one hand you know you'll never ever come across as even remotely sane if you try to explain anything to her because her mind is totally blocked. Her whole life is clearly invested in her faith and changing her view on evolution would knock her entire world view off kilter. But then I don't know if I could control myself if someone that clearly uneducated about the issue came right out and implied that I was some sort of moron because I wasn't brainwashed from the age of 3 to believe what she believes.

[DressageGeek "Ribbon Ho"]

Rudy - vaseline! Really! Makes them soft and you can peel them away.

I use baby powder scent vaseline, and Ted just has to deal with that. Fifth toe or not.

[greysandbays]

I'll get this back to horsey in a roundabout way....

Science is forever telling us, "Ohhhh, this or that or the other thing is SO BAD for you.....ooops, wait a minute, that's not quite so": Butter is so bad for you, eat oleo -- scratch that, the transfats in fake butter are worse than the cholesterol in butter; chocolate is bad for you -- scratch that, a bit of dark chocolate is good for the heart; booze is bad for you -- scratch that, an occasional glass of red wine is good for you; coffee is bad -- scratch that, moderate coffee consumption does improve your performance; eggs are bad -- scratch that, they aren't as bad as we thought. Or the other way around, "Ohhhh, this is SO good for you.... oops, wait a minute it'll probably KILL you": Premarin (here's the horse thing) is the menopausal miracle -- scratch that, not only is it not as good as we thought, it's actually harmful; Viox is the miracle pill for arthritis -- scratch that, it might kill you; thalidomide is great stuff -- scratch that, it causes birth defects.

If science can't do better than that on the little stuff, how is it going to be right on the big stuff? It would be funny if the day came when Science has to admit, "DAMN, those pigheaded, closeminded, sneering creationists were right the whole time".

[DressageGeek "Ribbon Ho"]

I have to be honest. Science doesn't tell you squat. We tend to be not very politically active, for which we have suffered - at the hands of PETA and others.

Scientists do research. They report the findings. But it is rarely (cigarettes, for example, being an obvious exception, as is global warming) all or none as in good or bad. In fact, alcohol, in moderation, may have protective effects.

And scratch the cigarettes. There's evidence to suggest nicotine may be neuroprotective for Alzheimers. Not taht that means you should smoke, of course, but it may give us a better therapeutic against neurodegenration.

[philosoraptor]

Science is forever telling us, "Ohhhh, this or that or the other thing is SO BAD for you.....ooops, wait a minute, that's not quite so": Butter is so bad for you, eat oleo -- scratch that, the transfats in fake butter are worse than the cholesterol in butter; chocolate is bad for you -- scratch that, a bit of dark chocolate is good for the heart; booze is bad for you -- scratch that, an occasional glass of red wine is good for you; coffee is bad -- scratch that, moderate coffee consumption does improve your performance; eggs are bad -- scratch that, they aren't as bad as we thought. Or the other way around, "Ohhhh, this is SO good for you.... oops, wait a minute it'll probably KILL you": Premarin (here's the horse thing) is the menopausal miracle -- scratch that, not only is it not as good as we thought, it's actually harmful; Viox is the miracle pill for arthritis -- scratch that, it might kill you; thalidomide is great stuff -- scratch that, it causes birth defects.

That's not science. That's the mass media picking up on whatever press releases the food PR companies are spitting out. That's the pharmaceutical companies trying to sel their products. That's the Dairy Advisory Board trying to make money for their members. Real science has nothing to do with the pre-written news releases you see on your evening news.

You also can't fault real science for putting forth theories, testing them, and finding some of them don't work. That's the beauty of science: the theories that aren't proven to be right are discarded, and science moves on. It's a learning process that started with the dawn of civilization and it's going on right as we speak. Science can admit when it's wrong; creationists do not.

If science can't do better than that on the little stuff, how is it going to be right on the big stuff? It would be funny if the day came when Science has to admit, "DAMN, those pigheaded, closeminded, sneering creationists were right the whole time".

Except that logically everyone admits there is just no way for the creationsts to prove their point. Everything the creationists say is goes back to a core belief system that is 100% rooted in FAITH, not science or observation or reality. Even more interesting is that the creationists try to insist the creation story is true because the Bible said so, but we all know the Bible can't be taken literally word-for-word.

The hypocrisy is that while these creationists say what people really need is faith, at the same time they totally ignore every other religion out there. Why is their creation story the "right one" when other people believe just as strongly in their faith's creation stories?

[DressageGeek "Ribbon Ho"]

Funny thing about science. Every time I give a seminar (not just me, of course) people ask questions. And sometimes you say, "I don't know." Or, "That's a great idea! Thanks!" Or, "WHOOPS! We didn't think of that!"

The great thing about science is that it must be reproduced to be generally accepted. And to get more than 2 or 3 people to agree on anything (witness this board!) takes a lot. But them's the facts.

[Calena]

Can I inquire then, why God thought it necessary to forbid the wearing of fabric made from more than one type of fiber?

Hand going up! Can I answer this one?

But before I do I just wanted to say I thought friesiandriver's post #203 was superb. Thanks for that. I don't want to re-quote it because it was very long.

Now, referring to what seems like the ridiculous guideline of only wearing clothe of one color, it has two points of relevance. First, at that point in time, they didn't have dry cleaners and they had no way of washing clothes that consisted of more than one type of natural material, it would destroy them. Second, the passage refers to (remember, the Bible is a spiritual textbook) spiritual purity, a main theme throughout the book and repeated continuosly in a variety of lessons. It's an Old Testament instruction. The Old Testament says exactly the same thing as the New Testament, but the spirituality is concealed. My course instructor has a PhD in Biblical Theology and I'm glad - I'd never be able to figure this stuff out on my own.

Where's the relevance of all this to our horses? Today we took a 23 yo gelding to the horspital. We don't know if we'll be bringing him home or not. He's in intensive care with IV's and all sorts of drugs in him. Both Ohio State and Michigan State have been consulted, looking for a solution to help this horse.

We've been praying for his recovery and we thank God for the trained vets, the wonderful people that have freely given their time to help this old horse and the technology that will give him the very best chance to come home and recover. Our faith comforts us and is giving us the strength to do what Halston needs us to do.

The Apostle Luke was a physician. The Apostle Paul had a sophisicated multi-cultural university education. The Bible embraces science and education.

Proverbs 1:22-23

How long will you simple ones love your simple way?
How long will mockers delight in mockery
and fools hate knowledge?
If you had responded to my rebuke,
I would have poured out my heart to you
and made my thoughts known to you.

I have no idea what purpose horse chestnuts serve. Penicillin came from bread mold. Maybe someday someone will find a cure for something from horse chestnuts. Heck, we're already using pregnant mare pee to help women (no further comment).

Matthew 7:7
Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.

On a lighter note, I'm amazed this thread is still going. Then again, I guess it's one of those never-ending debates.

I'm going to go back to praying for Halston - there's nothing else I can do for him till morning. All prayers and jingles appreciated.

[Erin]

Sorry folks... no longer horse-related.