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

[dizzywriter]

[QUOTE=AC & Ty;1941923]
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[/QUOTE]

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

[dizzywriter]

[QUOTE=Prieta;1941982]
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…[/QUOTE]

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

[JSwan]

@WingedPanda;1942224

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…

[Ridge_Runner]

@greysandbays;1941671

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]

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]

@J Swan;1942465

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]

[QUOTE=DressageGeek “Ribbon Ho”;1942534]
Until you get to the Portuguese Man O’War supporting all those turtles, which itself rests on a sponge.[/QUOTE]

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.

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

[INDENT]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.[/INDENT]
3 And G-d said, Let there be light: and there was light.[/INDENT]

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]

[QUOTE=Calena;1942390]
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.[/QUOTE]

Amen.

[greysandbays]

@Aggie4Bar;1942374

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]

@syntax_592;1942654

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? 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]

@Rusty Stirrup;1941948

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).

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

[zagafi]

@MayS;1942775

If they’re so similar, why do creationists freak out over the idea this couldn’t have happened over eons of time? 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]

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]

@syntax_592;1942654

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

[INDENT]1 In the beginning G-d created the heaven and the earth.[/INDENT]

[INDENT][INDENT]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.[/INDENT]3 And G-d said, Let there be light: and there was light.[/INDENT]
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]

[QUOTE=greysandbays;1942832]
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…[/QUOTE]

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.