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.
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.
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.
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.
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 —
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?
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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…
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…>
[QUOTE=Jumphigh83;1941931]
So why would evolution preclude creationism? I know my god would be smart enough to “create” through evolution. That has always mystified me. [/QUOTE]
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…
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?[/QUOTE]
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.
