Ooh Those Horses(Little Bit's religious Creation InfoThread)

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Countryside : One Thread

I am going to be posting some informational material on this thread with regard to creation. Here is the first.

A couple of youngsters in our church recently asked me a question on evolution and the Bible: "How can the Bible be true if life has evolved over millions of years? Evolution is a fact. Look what's happened to the horse." "What has happened to the horse?" I asked. "Well, over a period of 60 million years it's grown from being a small fox-like animal only 61 centimetres tall to the modern-day horse that stands more than two metres high. And it's lost all its toes too." "Really?" I said. "That's a spectacular change. Can you show me your text-book?"

When the textbook finally arrived, this is what it said:

"The horse did not always look like it does today. The diagrams below show how the horse has changed. It took about 60 million years for the horse to develop. Here's a surprise. The earliest horse was only about 61 centimetres [two foot] tall."

At the bottom of the page was this fascinating piece of logic:

A tiger eats only meat. A tiger's teeth are mainly pointed. The earliest horse had pointed teeth. What does this tell us about what it ate?"

My young friend had filled in the answer:

"Meat. It was a carnivore."

I was staggered. If the Melbourne Cup had been held 60 million years ago, it would have probably been a dog race held at Wentworth Park! Could this really be true? I decided to get to the bottom of it for the sake of my young friend, and so I set off to the library. This is what I discovered after digging around on the shelves.

In 1841, the earliest so-called "horse" fossil was discovered in clay around London. The scientist who unearthed it, Richard Owen, found a complete skull that looked like a fox's head with multiple back-teeth as in hoofed animals. He called it Hyracotherium. He saw no connection between it and the modern-day horse. In 1874, another scientist, Kovalevsky, attempted to establish a link between this small fox-like creature, which he thought was 70 million years old, and the modern horse. In 1879, an American fossil expert, O. C. Marsh, and famous evolutionist Thomas Huxley, collaborated for a public lecture which Huxley gave in New York. Marsh produced a schematic diagram which attempted to show the so-called development of the front and back feet, the legs, and the teeth of the various stages of the horse. He published his evolutionary diagram in the American Journal of Science in 1879, and it found its way into many other publications and textbooks. The scheme hasn't changed. It shows a beautiful gradational sequence in "the evolution" of the horse, unbroken by any abrupt changes. This is what we see in school textbooks. The question is: "Is the scheme proposed by Huxley and Marsh true?"

The simple answer is "No". While it is a clever arrangement of the fossils on an evolutionary assumption, even leading evolutionists such as George Gaylord Simpson backed away from it. He said it was misleading.

So what's the difficulty for the horse with the theory of evolution?

If it were true, you would expect to find the earliest horse fossils in the lowest rock strata. But you don't. In fact, bones of the supposed "earliest" horses have been found at or near the surface. Sometimes they are found right next to modern horse fossils! 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". "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? 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. 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. 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 at 43 centimetres (17 inches) tall. Both are members of the same species, and neither has evolved from the other. My research has left me troubled. Why do science textbooks continue to use the horse as a prime example of evolution, when the whole schema is demonstrably false? Why do they continue to teach our kids something that is not scientific? Dr. Niles Eldredge, curator of the American Museum of Natural History, has said:

"l admit that an awful lot of that (imaginary stories) has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs (in the American Museum) is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable ...".

I agree.

REFERENCES 0. C. Marsh, "Recent Polydactyle Horses", American Journal of Science 43, 1892, pp. 339-354 - as quoted in Creation Research Society Quarterly correspondence, Vol. 30, December 1993, p. 125. Niles Eldredge, as quoted in: Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, fourth edition (revised and expanded), Master Book Publishers, Santee (California),1988, p. 78. The horse series is often presented as proof of evolution. The number of toes in foreleg and hind leg supposedly decreased as the horse evolved, and the size supposedly increased from a small doglike horse to a large modern horse. Yet three-toed horses have been found with one-toed horses, showing they lived at the same time. And there are tiny living Fallabella horses only 43 centimetres (17 inches) tall.

written by Peter Hastie Little Bit Farm

-- Little bit Farm (littlebit@calinet.com), January 24, 2001

Answers

My answer needs to be tempered by the fact I'm not an athiest, just a don't carer - I don't care if there is a 'Divine Being' or not. That said, I am not sure there is a conflict between evolution and the Bible. On the first day God said, "Let there me light, and there was light." Is this in conflict with the Big Bang Theory?

People tend to think of the days of creation as being one of our solar days. Who is to say a day might have been a billion years, or 500 million, or 50 million or whatever?

Recently say on TV an example of rapid evolution. African elephants are being hunted down for their tucks. However, every so often a tuskless elephant is born. Over the last 80 or so years, the percentage of tuckless elephants, since they are not being slaughtered, has risen from a small percentage to about 40 percent. It was estimated within 100 years any remaining elephants will be will be tuskless as a matter of survival of the fittest.

Again, bear in mind my non-religious beliefs, perhaps survival of the fittest (e.g., evolution) is not necessary win conflict with someone else's 'Divine Intervention' Beliefs.

And, please, don't send me any 'electronic traces.' And, yes, I still want to know where the people of the Land of Nod came from.

-- Ken S. in WC TN (scharabo@aol.com), January 24, 2001.


Hi Lil bit,

There's already a thread on evolution going. It also has references to horses (and zebras I think.) fyi

Maybe you should put this over there. ?

-- sheepish (WA) (rborgo@gte.net), January 24, 2001.


Sheepish -- where's that discussion going on? I'd like to read it, but I don't see any headings that look possible for it. I have some ideas on the evolution of equuids and would like to see what other folks are discussing.

-- Julie Froelich (firefly1@nnex.net), January 24, 2001.

Watch out Little bit, looks like you might get ticketed for "thread theft"! {grin} Geesh, pleease....so what if there is another thread going? Would this be a violation of rule #203, subsection c? Wonder if I will be in violation if I "choose" to respond on this thread?!

Frankly, I don't give two hoots if someone chooses to believe in evolution. If someone has a genuine interest, is truely seeking what God's Word says about His creation, well, that is a different story. I would go out of my way to offer the various information available. But what I DO care about, what I am outraged about and what I will never agree with, is teaching this religion/theory of evolution, as fact, and under the disguise of science in our Public Schools. First they mandate children will be educated at these "schools", under the threat of law. IF you choose to remove your child, you must either pay above and beyond what you already pay in taxes to support these "schools", to send your child to a private school. Or, educate your children yourself, which also involves additional expense. AND, depending on your state, you may very well face hostile bureaucracy. And I say all this to say, think what you will. You are an adult and have made your "informed" decision. But to force-feed this junk to the children of this country is a disgrace. Why not start your own "private" schools and then you can teach evolution as scientific fact all you want?!?! Just a thought.

-- Wendy@GraceAcres (wjl7@hotmail.com), January 24, 2001.


Julie, it's on "Doreen, thanks for the videos, etc." thread.

What was that about all those people leaving the forum????? They're all baa-aack..... :)

-- sheepish (WA) (rborgo@gte.net), January 24, 2001.



I'm sorry, was I gone?? Just curious. BTW, is this on-topic for this thread? Want to make sure I have not inadvertently broken any thread rules. Thanks!

-- Wendy@GraceAcres (wjl7@hotmail.com), January 24, 2001.

I started a new thread because I had more to cover than I wanted to fit into what was already a long thread. When they get too long, they start taking forever to download. I knew that I was going to post several things, thus the new thread. I also never left and don't intend to anytime in this Century. I am here for the duration. Not only that, but I would welcome anyone who had decided to leave, back happily.

Little Bit Farm

-- Little bit Farm (littlebit@calinet.com), January 24, 2001.


Sister Wendy, Take three deep breaths and count to ten. Love Ya!

Little Bit

-- Little bit Farm (littlebit@calinet.com), January 24, 2001.


Borrowed from another board and posted without comment:

Sorry, but Dr. Hovind is involved in some pretty heavy intellectual dishonesty. This is going to take some space to get at all the problems, though.

First of all, evolution in common useage only refers to Hovind's point 6, that is, biological evolution. Forming planets and the beginning of the universe are not referred to as evolution by the scientific community. In grouping together physical, chemical, biological, and behavioural sciences into one big melting pot, Hovind is employing the machine-gun method of argument -- keep firing at as much as possible in the hope you hit something. The reality is that these sciences all involve different processes. The idea that the process by which humans evolved from monkeys and the process by which the Earth was formed from discrete matter in space are in any way the same is absurd.

The distinction between micro-evolution and macro-evolution shows a misunderstanding of what evolution is. So-called macro-evolution is simply micro-evolution over a time frame of millenia. It is the continual improvement of biological structures that offer advantages. So there was an advantage for the creatures with the first cell that could detect the existence of light. Since there was an advantage, they were able to succeed better in the ecosystem, and their genetic makeup was more likely to be passed on than those without light- detectors. Repeat the loop over time and you get eyes -- continually improved light-detecting structures. This also refutes Hovind's assertion that no animal has ever been observed changing into a fundamentally different animal. We have only been observing for 10,000 years (maximum, certainly much less) a process that takes millenia. Of course we haven't seen anything!

More problematic is Hovind's seeming insistence that evolution describes a series of linked discrete organisms. For example, the idea that Australopithecus existed unchanged for a while, then decided to transition into Cro-Magnons, stayed there for a while, transitioned, etc. Evolutionary theory does not describe discrete steps. It describes a continuum. There are no "transitionary" fossils in the way Hovind envisions them. Rather, every fossil we find, by definition, belonged to a transitional being. We are transitional lifeforms. And so Hovind's assertion about not observing inter- species changes becomes ridiculous. Every species ever in existence on this Earth has been in transition every second. There is no destination lifeform that species are changing into. Every animal has been observed changing, but the statement about "changing into a fundamentally different kind of animal" is meaningless from an evolutionary perspective. There is no change into anything, there is only change.

The idea that the Earth is not billions of years old simply contradicts available evidence. Many different radioactive decay methods, geologic stratification, and many other methods of determining the age of ancient objects all independently agree on the range of the Earth's age. It surprises me that this is even an issue to one purporting to have scientific knowledge, such as Dr. Hovind.

Oh, and the final assertion that we should, "Give up faith in the silly religion of evolutionism, and trust the God of the Bible (who is the Creator of this universe and will be your Judge, and mine, one day soon) to forgive you and to save you from the coming judgment on man’s sin," is an insult to the intelligence of every person who has ever read that page. Disproving evolution can not prove Biblical Creationism. This is simply because this is not a binary issue -- there are not only the two options of Biblical Creationism and Evolutionism. Rev. Rae has posted two beautiful Creation stories above. The Norse, Sumerians, Hindu, Iroquois, every human culture that has ever existed has had a Creation story. That doesn't even preclude the idea that a scientist may come up with a different theory of how we came to be. Evolution itself had changed since Darwin. If we are to be honest in our assessment of how we came to be, we must consider all possibilities. Which means that to establish Biblical Creation as the preferred explanation through Dr. Hovind's method, one would have to disprove every single explanation of how we came to be that humans have ever formulated. I can't wait for his challenge to prove Norse cosmology. ;-)

None of this, of course, proves or disproves the existence of anything Divine. That isn't part of this argument at all. I am simply saying that proponents of Biblical Creationism would do well to understand evolution before they attack it. They would also do well to note that science is continually improving. Newton's Laws have holes in them too -- these were corrected by Einstein and Schroedinger. Despite this, Newton's Laws are perfectly valid when not applied in very large or very small scales. A hole in a scientific theory does not disprove the theory, it merely presents an opportunity for improvement.



-- john leake (natlivent@pcpros.net), January 24, 2001.


Fossil Horses:

Othniel Charles Marsh's Proof for Darwin's Theory of Evolution

When Charles Darwin published his Origin of Species in 1859, there was not much evidence that supported the theory of evolution and its mechanism of natural selection. While Darwin observed variation, such as the finches on the Galápagos, there was no direct evidence available at the time to show development through the ages; nothing to show how animals (including humans) evolved. It wasn't until Othniel Charles Marsh discovered fossil records of extinct horses that Darwin's theory was taken seriously.

Othniel Charles Marsh, born in Lockport, New York, on October 29, 1831, developed a love for the outdoors at an early age. He also had associated himself with the geologist Colonel Ezekial Jewett. It was when Marsh discovered some small halibut fossils while looking for minerals to add to his collection that he first became aware of fossils. Though he wasn't interested in the fossils at the time, Marsh attended school where he met Louis Agassiz who became excited about Marsh's fossils. He described them as looking like they belonged to an animal that hadn't been seen before - a combination between fish and reptile. However, Marsh convinced Agassiz that he was wrong about the fossils and then went on to publish a paper about them seven years after the discovery, naming the fossil Eosaurus acadianus. With this paper, Marsh established himself as a promising paleontologist. He later became a professor at Yale - the first professor in paleontology in America and only the second in the world in 1866. However, the discovery that would make him famous, as well as show Darwin's theory to be correct, had yet been made.

While traveling West in 1868, Marsh heard reports of "human remains" at the bottom of a well at Antelope Station, Nebraska. He was skeptical, but upon viewing them, he could clearly see that they were from ancient equines. He had the conductor save some for his return back East. When Marsh examined the bones, he determined that they had come from an animal from Pliocene times that was barely a yard in height and had long slender legs which ended with three toes on each foot. He dubbed the small horse Equus parvulus (now Protohippus). It would later be one of the "missing links" in understanding the genealogy of modern Equus. Subsequent expeditions out West with his students from Yale and often military escorts followed in the early 1870's. By the mid-1870's, Marsh had an exceptional collection of early mammals. A large percentage of those were equine, as they were abundant in the region of Nebraska and the Dakotas. In a paper published in 1874 in American Naturalist, Marsh describes some of the horse fossils he found on an expedition in Wyoming and Utah. One of these skeletons, he named Eohippus, or "the dawn horse." However, instead of using Eohippus in this paper, he used Orohippus, as the former hadn't yet been described. The different skeletons had different

a. b. c. d.

Figure 1. a. Orohippus (Eocene); b. Miohippus (Miocene); c. Hipparion (Pliocene); d. Equus (Quaternary) Follow this by examining the reduction and loss of metacarpal V (red) and its digits (fingers). Do this likewise for metacarpals II (orange) and IV (green). Note that no horse ever had a thumb (I).

numbers of toes and different degrees of variation, which would eventually be Marsh's main proof of development. He believed that the correct line of descent was Orohippus, Miohippus and Anchitherium, Anchippus, Hipparion, Protohippus and Pliohippus, and Equus, the most recent. The way Marsh determined the line of descent was mostly by examining the metacarpal bones of the different horses. Orohippus (the next horse after Eohippus) had four main digits: metacarpals II through V (the I being used for thumbs, which horses do not have). After looking at the bones from Orohippus, from the Eocene, Marsh looked at the other horses that came afterward. The later the horse was from, the shorter the metacarpal bones V, IV, and II became. He compared what he found to the legs of modern Equus, and found remnants of digits IV and II along the cannon bones (this is more evident in the forefeet that hind). (See Figure 1.d.) Marsh also examined the forearms, legs, as well as and upper and lower molars to confirm what he thought was the right line of descent. From his examinations, he found that through time as the horse evolved to be a larger and faster animal, the forearms and legs became stronger to support the weight (a horse's leg in phases of the gallop has to support its entire weight). The molars evolved from browsing teeth to teeth for a grazing animal - such as today's horse.

The evidence so strongly proved Marsh's theory for horse evolution that even Thomas Henry Huxley, known as an ardent advocate of evolution, was taken with Marsh's collection of fossils and his findings. Marsh recalled, that after seeing the Yale collection, Huxley believed that these specimens "demonstrated the evolution of the horse beyond question, and for the first time indicated the direct line of descent of an existing animal," as quoted from MacFadden, 31. Charles Darwin himself at one point expressed a desire to travel to America for the sole purpose of seeing Marsh's collection at Yale. Though Marsh collected specimens from many species of animals, some extinct and some whose descendents exist today, no other collection of fossils showed a direct line of descent as those from the family Equidae. This evidence probably convinced many people in Marsh's time to support evolutionary naturalism, which is to believe that our traits evolved through natural means. There was renewed interest in Darwin's theory of evolution, though the notion of Lamarckism was still popular. Lamarckian ideas are the beliefs that animals evolved features through use and disuse, not natural selection. Edward D. Cope tried to promote neo-Lamarckian ideas of acquired characteristics, but eventually, people adopted Darwinian ideas - especially after a mechanism for variation was discovered by Hugo de Vries, mutation that led to alterations of characteristics. Marsh's work with the horses made him one of the most prominent paleontologists in 1870's till his death in 1899.

With the help of O.C. Marsh, Charles Darwin's theories presented in his Origin of Species became recognized as being truth. The fact that larger faster horses were better able to survive than small slower many-toed horses supported the idea of natural selection as well as survival of the fittest. Marsh's evidence was in the fossil horses in his collection - the changing bone structure through the ages to support a changing environment and to better adapt for survival from predators. Though Marsh examined many different species of animals in his lifetime, it is his work with the line of descent of the horse that he is recognized with, as well as his vast fossil collection which he donated to Yale. He is also recognized as the first professor of paleontology in America, the second in the world, also adding to Yale's prestige.

To Yale he gave his services, his collections, and his estate.

The extinct quagga, related to today's plains zebras.

Fossil Horses in Cyberspace USGS (US Geographical Survey) Paleontology Home Page. Yale Peabody Museum: Vertebrate Paleontology Origins of the Horse: Evolution and Ancestry Introductions to the Perissodactyla Herds of Information about Zebras My Links Page - a wealth of links from architecture to astronomy to horses! My Model Horse Gallery - includes some equines of the long-eared and striped variety. Finland's only native breed of horse

Last updated: 12 March 1999

HORSE EVOLUTION

This is merely the summary of a comprehensive article Horse Evolution by Kathleen Hunt which appears on The TalkOrigins. Archive

For many people, the horse family remains the classic example of evolution. As more and more horse fossils have been found, some ideas about horse evolution have changed, but the horse family remains a good example of evolution. In fact, we now have enough fossils of enough species in enough genera to examine subtle details of evolutionary change, such as modes of speciation.

In addition to showing that evolution has occurred, the fossil Equidae also show the following characteristics of evolution:

1. Evolution does not occur in a straight line toward a goal, like a ladder; rather, evolution is like a branching bush, with no predetermined goal.

Horse species were constantly branching off the "evolutionary tree" and evolving along various unrelated routes. There's no discernible "straight line" of horse evolution. Many horse species were usually present at the same time, with various numbers of toes, adapted to various different diets. In other words, horse evolution had no inherent direction. We only have the impression of straight-line evolution because only one genus happens to still be alive, which deceives some people into thinking that that one genus was somehow the "target" of all the evolution. Instead, that one genus is merely the last surviving branch of a once mighty and sprawling "bush".

The view of equine evolution as a complex bush with many contemporary species has been around for several decades, and is commonly recounted in modern biology and evolution textbooks.

2. There are no truly consistent "trends".

Tracing a line of descent from Hyracotherium to Equus reveals several apparent trends: reduction of toe number, increase in size of cheek teeth, lengthening of the face, increase in body size. But these trends are not seen in all of the horse lines. On the whole, horses got larger, but some horses (Archeohippus, Calippus) then got smaller again. Many recent horses evolved complex facial pits, and then some of their descendants lost them again. Most of the recent (5-10 My) horses were three-toed, not one-toed, and we see a "trend" to one toe only because all the three-toed lines have recently become extinct.

Additionally, these traits do not necessarily evolve together, or at a steady rate. The various morphological characters each evolved in fits and starts, and did not evolve as a suite of characters. For example, throughout the Eocene, the feet changed little, and only the teeth evolved. Throughout the Miocene, both feet and teeth evolved rapidly. Rates of evolution depend on the ecological pressures facing the species.

The "direction" of evolution depends on the ecological challenges facing the individuals of a species and on the variation in that species, not on an inherent "evolutionary trend".

3. New species can arise through several different evolutionary mechanisms.

Sometimes, new species split off suddenly from their ancestors (e.g., Miohippus from Mesohippus) and then co-existed with those ancestors. Other species came into being through anagenetic transformation of the ancestor, until the ancestor had changed appearance enough to be given a new name (e.g. Equus from Dinohippus). Sometimes only one or a few species arose; sometimes there were long periods of stasis (e.g. Hyracotherium throughout the early Eocene); and sometimes there were enormous bursts of evolution, when new ecological opportunities arose (the merychippine radiation). Again, evolution proceeds according to the ecological pressures facing the individuals of a species and on the variation present within that species. Evolution takes place in the real world, with diverse rates and modes, and cannot be reduced to a single, simple process.

A Question for Creationists:

Creationists who wish to deny the evidence of horse evolution should careful consider this: how else can you explain the sequence of horse fossils? Even if creationists insist on ignoring the transitional fossils (many of which have been found), again, how can the unmistakable sequence of these fossils be explained? Did God create Hyracotherium, then kill off Hyracotherium and create some Hyracotherium-Orohippus intermediates, then kill off the intermediates and create Orohippus, then kill off Orohippus and create Epihippus, then allow Epihippus to "microevolve" into Duchesnehippus, then kill off Duchesnehippus and create Mesohippus, then create some Mesohippus-Miohippus intermediates, then create Miohippus, then kill off Mesohippus, etc.....each species coincidentally similar to the species that came just before and came just after?

Creationism utterly fails to explain the sequence of known horse fossils from the last 50 million years. That is, without invoking the "God Created Everything To Look Just Like Evolution Happened" Theory.

[And I'm not even mentioning all the other evidence for evolution that is totally independent of the fossil record -- developmental biology, comparative DNA & protein studies, morphological analyses, biogeography, etc. The fossil record, horses included, is only a small part of the story.]

Truly persistent and/or desperate creationists are thus forced into illogical, unjustified attacks of fossil dating methods, or irrelevant and usually flat-out wrong proclamations about a supposed "lack" of "transitional forms". It's sad. To me, the horse fossils tell a magnificent and fascinating story, of millions of animals living out their lives, in their natural world, through millions of years. I am a dedicated horse rider and am very happy that the one-toed grazing Equus survived to the present. Evolution in no way impedes my ability to admire the beauty and nobility of these animals. Instead, it enriches my appreciation and understanding of modern horses and their rich history.

"All the morphological changes in the history of the Equidae can be accounted for by the neo-Darwinian theory of microevolution: genetic variation, natural selection, genetic drift, and speciation." (Futuyma 1986, p.409)

"Because its complications are usually ignored by biology textbooks, creationists have claimed the horse story is no longer valid. However, the main features of the story have in fact stood the test of time...." (Futuyma 1982, p. 85)

"When asked to provide evidence of long-term evolution, most scientists turn to the fossil record. Within this context, fossil horses are among the most frequently cited examples of evolution. The prominent Finnish paleontologist Bjorn Kurten wrote: 'One's mind inevitably turns to that inexhaustible textbook example, the horse sequence. This has been cited -- incorrectly more often than not -- as evidence for practically every evolutionary principle that has ever been coined.' This cautionary note notwithstanding, fossil horses do indeed provide compelling evidence in support of evolutionary theory." (MacFadden 1988, p. 131)

"The fossil record [of horses] provides a lucid story of descent with change for nearly 50 million years, and we know much about the ancestors of modern horses." (Evander 1989, p. 125)

"It is evolution that gives rhyme and reason to the story of the horse family as it exists today and as it existed in the past. Our own existence has the same rhyme and reason, and so has the existence of every other living organism. One of the main points of interest in the horse family is that it so clearly demonstrates this tremendously important fact." (Simpson, 1961, p. xxxiii)

 

   

   

   

http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Lab/3773/OC_Mars h.html



-- caballero (horse@stud.com), January 25, 2001.



I haaven't read all this, so if someone has already suggested this, sorry, but why doesn't everybody watch off of the Hovind Creation tapes before any further discussion, then we'd all be on the same page?

-- Cindy (SE IN.) (atilrthehony_1@yahoo.com), January 25, 2001.

I also should have said to read/watch the same thing on evolution. It gets so confusing trying to follow all of this.

-- Cindy (SE IN.) (atilrthehony_1@yahoo.com), January 25, 2001.

OOPS! Guess I could feel embarrassed but I'll just blame it on dyslexia, the two previous should have gone on the other thread. Sorry.

-- Cindy (SE IN.) (atilrthehony_1@yahoo.com), January 25, 2001.

Wendy, the reason is we want your kids to be educated in secular items. We don't want to teach your kids religion. We might teach them the wrong religion. Teach your own kids religion.

Bud

-- Uncle Bud (teachR@safety.net), January 25, 2001.


Wendy, the reason is we want your kids to be educated in secular items. We don't want to teach your kids religion. We might teach them the wrong religion. Teach your own kids religion.

Bud, I am curious, who are the "we" and by whose authority do you operate? I am thinking that perhaps you missed my point. When evolution is presented as scientific fact, rather than theory, that in itself becomes "religion", a belief system that rests on faith. The faith of that particular religion. In this case it would be faith (not fact) in evolution. The premise, with the proof coming along.

I'm not asking you (we) to teach my kids religion, I'm suggesting you refrain from doing so. And if you (we) do choose to do so, you (we) should start your "own" private schools. Particularly when you consider how "education" has been co-opted from it's original roots in this country. And the proof is in the pudding, in regards to the results of that.

And thank you, I do teach my own. And consider it a blessing to do so. And just for the record, they will be well-versed in the theory of evolution. I would like them to be equipped with as much knowledge as possible, that they are able to withstand the onslaught...and discern truth from falsehood, fact from theory, faith from science and faith vs seeing.

-- Wendy@GraceAcres (wjl7@hotmail.com), January 25, 2001.



Wendy:

I think you made the point very well. Expose one's children to as many different theories as possible, educated them in logic, then let them make up their own minds. Heck, I still think space colonization is as probably as the story of Adam and Eve.

My only concern is for their training not to be biased one way or the other.

-- Ken S. in WC TN (scharabo@aol.com), January 25, 2001.


Ken, what you just described was the educational system back in the 50's, prior to the "religious phobia" that exists today. I even learned the indian flood theory back in 6th grade.

-- diane (gardiacaprines@yahoo.com), January 25, 2001.

Ken, there is nothing wrong with teaching my children all viewpoints, so they have knowledge. To tell them, here are the theories, you choose, would be shirking my responsibility. Public schools present the theory of evolution as fact, and expect our children to embrace it. I teach my children about creation, and expect them to embrace it. It's a parents responsibility to guide their children in the way they should go. If we don't, someone else will.

-- Lena(NC) (breezex4@go.com), January 25, 2001.

Lena:

Precisely my point: Children should have exposure to both sides of the debate, so to speak. Schools which teach evolution is the only possible way are not being fair to them, nor are religions which say creationism is the only possible way for mankind to have occurred. I would advocate an unbiased, standardized course in evolution versus religious concepts (regardless of being it being a contempory religion or ones which apparently existed thousands of years before the Bible has Christ being born.) To try to force them into one's only beliefs isn't being fair to them, which may be why apparently so many bolt and run given the first opportunity, as I did from the Catholic faith.

-- Ken S. in WC TN (scharabo@aol.com), January 25, 2001.


I have no trouble with believing in creation and evolution-God created the heavens and the earth and it evolved from there. Seems pretty simple to me. Also, I agree with Ken about creation days not being one of our 24 hour solar days. After all when God began creating there was no sun in existance to cause there to be a 24 hour day.

-- debra in ks (solid-dkn@msn.com), January 25, 2001.

Ken, I think a lot of people run at some point in their life, I did. My family still loved me. I was always welcomed home. It makes a big difference when you live what you teach. Instead of using force, use love. That's what my husband and I do.

It's nice to have a discussion with a gentleman, one who doesn't insult or call names.

-- Lena(NC) (breezex4@go.com), January 25, 2001.


Wendy, I guess I'd like to know if there is anything you would consider a fact. The sun going to rise tomorrow? Nah, no proof. Pearl Harbor bombed by the Japs? Nah, no proof. Hell, there are even people who deny that the Holocost ever happened. Perhaps you are one of them. How much proof do you need to consider something a fact?

By the way, I hope I get you on my jury if I'm ever charged with a crime.

-- uncle bud (teachR@safety.net), January 25, 2001.


Wendy, I guess I'd like to know if there is anything you would consider a fact. The sun going to rise tomorrow? Nah, no proof.

We can safely assume the facts concerning the rising of the sun have been proven. Is the sun going to rise tomorrow? Based on the factual evidence, yes. Is that a guarantee? No.

Pearl Harbor bombed by the Japs? Nah, no proof. Hell, there are even people who deny that the Holocost ever happened. Perhaps you are one of them. No, I am not. Kinda cheesy, don't ya' think? To suggest the rising of the sun in the morning, or offering the Holocost or Pearl Harbor as on par, (factually) as evolution......well, suffice it to say, we are not on the same page. Not even close.

How much proof do you need to consider something a fact?

More than evolution offers.

By the way, I hope I get you on my jury if I'm ever charged with a crime.

Me too, hee-hee.

-- Wendy@GraceAcres (wjl7@hotmail.com), January 25, 2001.


Let me inject a cute joke:

A young boy asked his father on a Sunday morning, "Dad, did you go to Sunday School when you were a little boy?" "I sure did. Never missed a Sunday," replied the father smugly. "See Mom? It won't do me any good either."

-- Ken S. in WC TN (scharabo@aol.com), January 26, 2001.


This is interesting reading, as I have always been interested in the creation/evolution debate. And man can it be debated!

From a Judao/Christian point of view, the bible does state that a day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as a day. This means to me that time is of no issue in reference to creation and evolution, since we can't be sure how long God takes. Lot's of stuff in the universe. Who knows, maybe it started with a single living atom back in time forever ago, and now the universe is expanding daily. Evolution is taking place daily in our lives, the lives of our animals, the life of the trees, the once living stone, the air we breath. Nothing stays the same.

I believe if a set of beliefs is importent to you, pass it on to those importent too you. Religion has evolved this way since before Mary and Joseph. Even the Jewish faith has undergone changes since Moses (who happens to be key to at least 3 religions), not to mention the early christians are much different than most found today.

Where can you look and not see something that exists (or was created) that is not evolving or moving forward? It is regretable that information that is as honest as we can scientifically or spiritually come up with AT THIS MOMENT is not what is tought. Is it because "facts" change as quickly as we can discover something?

If you want your children to know God, teach them God. They either will accept or reject, but you should be true to your beliefs, and hope that they find the truth, wherever that may be found.

-- Marty (Mrs.Puck@Excite.com), January 26, 2001.


Wendy says We can safely assume the facts concerning the rising of the sun have been proven. Is the sun going to rise tomorrow? Based on the factual evidence, yes. Is that a guarantee? No.

I says We can safely assume the facts concerning the existence of evolution have been proven. Is evolution going to continue in the future? Based on the factual evidence, yes. Is that a guarantee? No.

How much proof do you need to consider something a fact?

More than evolution offers.

Sounds like you're pretty closed minded? Remember, a mind is like a parachute: it works best when it's open.

-- uncle bud (teachR@safety.net), January 26, 2001.


Little bit, my dear, your reference is mistaken about his conclusions. He says Yet three-toed horses have been found with one-toed horses, showing they lived at the same time. Horses and other members of the horse family are living together now. So what?

caballero

-- caballero ((horse@stud.com), January 26, 2001.


Little bit, my dear, your reference is mistaken about his conclusions. He says Yet three-toed horses have been found with one-toed horses, showing they lived at the same time. Horses and other members of the horse family are living together now. So what?

And what's all the falderal about a miniature horse? Is it any different than a miniature chihuahua, as far as it's being bred from larger horses, mating the smallest from each generation to "evolve" the breed into something cute? The fallabella isn't a naturally occurring horse, is it? caballero

-- caballero ((horse@stud.com), January 26, 2001.


Here is the problem. According to evolutionary scientist these breeds were supposed to be separated by millions of years. In my opinion it is very possible that these breeds all did exist together, as separate species. Just as zebras and horses are separate species today. In fact some of these species may not have been horse-like at all, since some of them were carnivores. The question is not whether they were horse however, but whether one species evolved into another. It makes it kind of hard to believe when the earlist "horse" and the most recent "horse" are found in the same strata. Or how about human foot prints being discovered in the same strata as dinosaur prints in Oklahoma. Come on people, not only is evolution bad science, it has come to the point where it requires more faith than the alternative. Here are some questions. Why when people landed on the moon was there only a couple of inches of dust, when all the scientists at the time assumed that there would have to be much more dust on the moon because of all the "millions of years" of build up? Why in order for the grand canyon to form in the manner currently being asserted by science, would the river have had to actually flow up the mountain at some points along the way? Why are sea shells currently found on the tops of the highest mountains on earth? Why does evolution break the second law of thermodianamics?

Little Bit farm

-- Little bit Farm (littlebit@calinet.com), January 26, 2001.


Here is a great site with excellent essays on creation.

http://www.parentcompany.com/creation_essays/essaytoc.htm Little Bit Farm

-- Little bit Farm (littlebit@calinet.com), January 26, 2001.


Who cares how deep the dust is on the moon? Don't you know that assume means makes an ass of you and me?

Why do you think the Colorado River had to flow uphill? I don't get it. you're grasping at straws, Little bit.

I suggest that you are stating your biases as facts. Do you even understand these supposed theories, or are you repeating the same dogma that wendy is?

-- uncle bud (teachR@safety.net), January 26, 2001.


went to your excellent essays site. whoever wrote that stuff is like an aligator, if you know what I mean.

-- uncle bud (teachR@safety.net), January 26, 2001.

I says We can safely assume the facts concerning the existence of evolution have been proven. Is evolution going to continue in the future? Based on the factual evidence, yes. Is that a guarantee? No.

And? So your threshold for accepting the "fact" of evolution is much lower than mine. So what? I am not debating the evolution argument, I tried to make that clear in my original post. I am suggesting that evolution ought not be taught in the Government Indocrination Centers, as proven science. I think it would be safe to say that if we gathered 1000 scientest's randomly, and asked the question "Has it been proven according to all scientific criteria, that the Sun rises in the morning?" You would get 100% agreement. This would not be the case with your position on evolution. This seems to be a bit redundant.....

The point is Federal Funding of Government schools. This is not proven science, it is a theory at best and a religion at worst. Do as Ken suggests, in which case it is unquestionably presented as theory, along with other theroy's or fund private schools, and teach what you want. And last but not least, it should be a local matter with no interference or "helpful suggestions" from the State or Feds, with "funds" attatched to thier "helpful suggestions".

Sounds like you're pretty closed minded? Remember, a mind is like a parachute: it works best when it's open

Unless it opens too much, then your brains are liable to fall out.

I do find it interesting that because I reject the theory of evolution, I am accused of being close minded. Hmm, how does that work? When my mind is open, I don't buy it. When my mind is closed, I don't buy it. And even in the in-between times, I don't buy it. But no matter, I only suggest it not be taught as fact. That is my only point.

-- Wendy@GraceAcres (wjl7@hotmail.com), January 26, 2001.


Do you even understand these supposed theories, or are you repeating the same dogma that wendy is?

What "dogma" would I be repeating? Gee, I thought I was offering an opinion.....same as you.

-- Wendy@GraceAcres (wjl7@hotmail.com), January 26, 2001.


In the interest of balance here, I am offering the following link:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt.html

It addresses many, if not all, the questions that creationism supporters ask. I think every person who is honest in their quest for serious answers will take the time to explore the information at this link. I found it to be quite fascinating.

Just posting here to present another way of looking at the "facts."

-- sheepish (WA) (rborgo@gte.net), January 27, 2001.


Some of the difficulty that I see in these types of discussions is that some people think that the word "theory" is synonymous with "unproven" and this is simply not the case. There are two seperate usages of the word "theory", which are not interchangeable. The first usage of "theory" is that of an unproven suppostion, cobbled together from available experiential data (ie what I can gather from looking around, etc). Such as "I have a theory that all the idiots come out on Sunday to drive around my town slowly just to aggrevate me personally" This is a theory. It is also (possibly) BS, merely a personal, biased alignment of what I know and/or think I know.

However, the term "theory" is also a stictly governed scientific term and it does not have anything to do with the above. It means an amalgamation, or collection, of what we do know, based on facts, studies, some rational and science-supported extrapolations (based on knowledge, not guesses. Guesswork falls into the other "theory" definition.), and other hard-science based data accumulation and organization. In other words a scientific "theory" (of something) is a different animal than a posited "theory" (about something). Sort of like an artist's portfolio can either be his ouvre of work, or his briefcase. These are called homonyms - words that are spelled the same and sound the same, but have different meanings.

For example, the "theory of gravity" is not a grouping of unproven suppostions about what we think of as gravity. Neither is it the same as a theory of gravity (which could be anything from sticky feet to "God just said to stay here, so we do"). The theory of gravity is a portfolio, or body of work, of what we know to be true about gravity. So, does this change? Yes - science is constantly growing and allowing us to grow in our understanding of our environment. But everything that is included in what is generally referred to as the theory of gravity is hard, provable, repeatable scientific fact. (Or as close as we've been able to come to such, in the case of newer, more cutting edge "theoretical" sciences such as quantum mechanics and such which have not had time to "mature" by virtue of experimental repetition, which condition is generally extant because theoretical science often goes into areas where we have to wait for testing technology to follow!)

Sometimes, people get the two confused when they hear about a "new theory" of (whatever), or "scientists have disproven the theory that (whatever) does this, that, or the other, for these reasons." People get the idea that because these (lesser) theories are often in a state of flux (as individual theories often are), and that scientists seem to use the terms interchangabley, that they are indeed the same things. However, a scientist, talking to another (or to an educated layman), understands (as does his audience) which he means when he speaks, much the same way that an artist's friends would know that what the artist means when he says "My portfolio is on display at the local gallery. By the way, did I leave my portfolio at your house last night after the wine and cheese shmooze?". This conversation might be puzzling to someone unfamiliar with the art world, who might think "Well, duh, it's in the gallery. You said so yourself!"

The (grand) theories are not a collection of the (lesser) theories, although a few (lesser) that are fairly well established and are currently compatible with known tests and results may sort of "orbit" the grander theory, until they essentially die of old age, new experimental data proves them wrong, or it doesn't and they become part of the canon. Disproving a lesser theory doesn't reflect on the reality or stability of the (grand) theory. After all, if the sticky feet theory of gravity is disproven, gravity is still there. It's still there regardless of what we believe about its origins and causes (we still don't know for sure - about gravity, that is). And we still have the established canon of gravitational theory (this is the scientific usage of the word) that says that a piece of matter X big reacts this way in these conditons, etc.., the entirety of which is known as the theory of gravity.

As this refers to evolution, the "theory of evolution" is a fact. Species do change in reaction to a changing environment, and yes there have been proofs of this in our lifetimes. The one that is coming to mind immediatlely is a type of tree moth in England that, as the Industrial Revolution polluted the air, changed coloration (in the species that lived there) to match the trees which were now darker. Fast forward to the modern age, the moths have started lightening up, just as the trees have, in response to environmentally friendly laws and clean air initiatives that have signifigantly reduced soot content in the air. This was not an instant change (chameleon-like) in individual moths. This was a slow, continual change, and reversal, in adaptive response to the changing environment over a period of many, many generations. That's all the "theory of evolution" is: That species faced with changing environments either change to adapt to the environment (over time sometimes becoming completely different species - this has recently happened somewhere or the other in a bird species that was one and is now two that cannot now interbreed, basically because of a changing food source) or they die off entirely. Of course, this in no way precludes any number of hokey (or outright hoaxy) "thoeries" about evolution.

The talk about diffent horse breeds is irrelevant to this discussion, as almost all of these different breeds are the result of human selective breeding (a process that would be impossible if the theory of evolution were fundementally untrue - after all, if species were what they've always been and are unchanging regardless of outside influences, we couldn't get different breeds no matter how we tried, genetic engineering notwithstanding). These are not different species, as horses and zebra are (different species can't interbreed). Before humans began "evolving" horses, they (like dogs) consisted of a very small handful of scattered breeds, mostly small, stocky, and very feral. Highland ponies and Mongolian steppe ponies most resemble these "basic" horse models, as the wolf is most like the ancient (undifferentiated) dog. A variety of an animal and an evolved species of the same family group are different things, although they can be caused by similar circumstances.

Please understand that I am not trying to tweak any noses. I just hate that so much misunderstanding about these things is due soley to the fact that the non-professionally trained interested parties are unaware that there are two completely different usages of the same word, often in the same conversational context. I hope I have been clear and not just muddled this up worse than it already was.

-- Soni (thomkilroy@hotmail.com), January 27, 2001.


PS: Felt so strongly about my previous posting that I posted it seperately as a thread. So, if you just loathe repetition, just ignore the new thread on it. If you just loathe my viewpoint, feel free to ignore me altogether!

-- Soni (thomkilroy@hotmail.com), January 27, 2001.

Ken, I agree with your first posting on the subject here 100%, it is simple, as you said, "Who knows exactly how long a day is to the Creator, whoever he/she is?" Don't understand what all the big controversy is????

-- Annie Miller in SE OH (annie@1st.net), January 28, 2001.

Soni, thanks for the excellent explation of the two meanings of "theory".

Do you thiink the creationist proponents will be able to a. understand (since they mostly lack scientific training) , or b. admit to ANYTHING which goes against their pat answers?

I don't understand what you're saying about almost all the horse breeds being created by man. I assume you're referring only to modern horses?

Caballero, is this what you were talking about with your question about fallabella?

JOJ

-- jumpoffjoe (jumpoff@echoweb.net), January 28, 2001.


First of all I believe that Gravity is considered a LAW.It is no longer the theory of gravity, but the LAW of Gravity. Scientifically there are three standards of proof. First you have a hypothesis, which is just an unproven guess. Then you have a theory which is just a hypothesis with a book of evidence to back it up. Then you have a law. A law is fact. Gravity is a law. I am surprised that all you "scientifically educated" evolutionists, can't seem to remember that. To my way of thinking, evolution is not much better than a hypothesis, because when you set out to prove that something is true by ignoring all the other evidence to the contrary you necessarily can't come up with an unbiased answer. I used to be a Theistic evolutionist, until I studied the subject further and realized that it was a bunch of bunk. I studied both sides carefully, and remain unconviced that there is any merit to evolution whatsoever. The only purpose to the theory of evolution, is that it creates a fine excuse to deny the existence of God. The problem is that to believe that all the detail and order of this universe was formed out of chaos is to practice a particularly crazy kind of self deception. What would make all those individual cells form themselves into such complex organisms. This happened by accident? The fact that at any given moment your own body performs thousands of tasks with the most amazing fuel system, that you are self aware, that there are thousands of species with similar abilities all over the earth, this was supposed to have happened as some kind of cosmic accident upon accident. And you say us creationists are uneducated. Talk about not being able to see the forrest for the trees.

The site above said that whales have legs. Now have anyone of you ever seen a whale wih legs? It also said that because a flower is prettier after being bombarded by radiation that mutation is benificial to plants. Never mind that the flower can't produce seed, it is after all prettier. Heck you bombard me with radiation and I might grow an extra set of toes, of course my skin will be burned off in the process, my children will be born dead, and I eventually will die of cancer if the radiation doesn't kill me first. But hey those extra toes are benificial.

Little Bit Farm

-- Little bit Farm (littlebit@calinet.com), January 28, 2001.


The Falabella was created by the Falabella family of Buenos Ares, using Shetland Pony stock, and by breeding smaller individuals to smaller individuals, they have been bred down to what is today not a very healthy animal. The better looking ones have genes similar to those that cause midget humans, and the worse looking ones have dwarf genes. All kinds of genetic defects run with it. If they were turned out to survive in a natural environment, the breed would have to be given the new name of Lunch.

Modern horses still have 5 toes, you can only see three of them externally (and two are not obvious - the chestnut and ergot), and many still have canine teeth.

-- Julie Froelich (firefly1@nnex.net), January 28, 2001.


Little Bit, I think you are trying too hard to understand something that is actually quite simple, you know, sometimes one cannot see the forest for the trees in the way. Who knows for sure just how long a "day" is to the Creator? End of the confusion and controversy, sometimes the simplest answer is the most correct or appropriate.

-- Annie Miller in SE OH (annie@1st.net), January 28, 2001.

"The number of lumbar vertebrae also allegedly swings from six to eight and then returns to six again. 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 at 43 centimetres (17 inches) tall. Both are members of the same species, and neither has evolved from the other."

Well, someone already made the case for the Fallabella horses. The majority of modern "breeds" have been created by man using selective breeding. Most truly wild horses are very alike the other individuals in their herd groups. Environmental factors shaped their bodies to a point (ex: desert gave rise to wide hooves,big nostrils,and thin coats & marshes have small, shaggy, sturdy pony types, etc). Man took those "types" and created "breeds" by selecting for various traits that were of use to him.

-- elle (eagle-quest@juno.com), January 29, 2001.


Bit, you say Heck you bombard me with radiation and I might grow an extra set of toes, of course my skin will be burned off in the process, my children will be born dead, and I eventually will die of cancer if the radiation doesn't kill me first.

I don't think you have a clue about what would happen if you were bombarded with radiation. Maybe you should try it; you're always talking about proof.

-- Big (big@bit.farm), January 30, 2001.


Just curious....... Why do so many people think that evolving over time to adapt to changing circumstances is started by conscious choice? Gee....those apples are WAAYYYY up in the tops of those trees, I think I'll evolve a longer neck to reach them. I dunno........

-- Sparrowhawk (sparrowkiak@yahoo.com), January 30, 2001.

I have a serious question....what is it about extinction that is soooo hard to reconcile all the five toed silly horses with? Extinction, although not something encouraged, is part of the natural process and it seems to be denied by evolutionists...then we find a coelecanth or two and go "ooooooh aaaaaaah", then we find a "50million+" year old shark and go "oooohh aaaaaahh"....beeerother. Neither of these "scientific" finds evolved into something else you silly people....:) Check it out. The shark was about 7 years ago off the coast of southern Cal and several coelecanths recently, like 3 months max off the coat of Africa. If evolution is true, why are they here? Are they immortal?

-- Doreen (animalwaitress@excite.com), January 30, 2001.

We are here, Doreen. We are here to test your faith in evolution.

-- sharkie (greatwhite@shark.chow), January 30, 2001.

Doreen, can you restate the question in a serious manner? I for one, am having trouble making heads or tails of what you are asking with the sarcasm in it.

-- Julie Froelich (firefly1@nnex.net), January 30, 2001.

Sorry, Julie. I honestly wasn't trying to be sarcastic. I'll try to do better.

Here's the thing, years ago in California or baja Cali some fishermen caught a shark that was supposed to have been the predecessor of the great white (I might not be right about the particular strain there) and it was presumed to have been extinct for eons...as it had evolved into something we now have. Why was it still alive? I presume it couldn't have been 50 million years old itself. Wouldn't you think that a rational presumption? It sure could of gotten tired of birthday parties in that length of time.

Also, the coelecanth which was something like 300 million years old and thought to be extinct is now popping up in diverse places. Interestingly, to me anyway, the assertian was that the coelecanth was the predecessor of the quadrupeds who first crawled from the water...Why is it still alive?

I think the best way to paraphrase "my" position is to say that these things became extinct or just became exceedingly rare as opposed to turning into something else. The coelecanth sure had enough time to crawl out of the water since it was thought to have been the predecessor of those who did. I'm just honestly curious as to what people who subscribe to evolution make of these kinds of things. It seems that when something this ancient and inexplicable by evolutionary standards pops up that proponents of evolution just say "whoops" and carry on without truly assessing the premises of the theory.

Anyway, I really am curious as to what you all think about these kinds of things.

-- Doreen (animalwaitress@excite.com), January 30, 2001.


Doreen- The answer to your question is that you are still thinking of evolution as a simplistic, linear process. It is neither. Coelocanths have been known to exist since the 1930's off the coast of Africa when it was discovered that local fisherman were angling for them. If I follow your logic, you assume that just because one member of a species mutates or evolves all members of that species must do exactly the same at the same time thus creating all new life forms and removing the old. More realistically, if there were, for example, 10 coelocanths 100 million years ago, one mutated in some way to allow it's fins to be more useful in moving about in tidal flat areas during conditions of low water, this one would pass along this genetic material to a new line creating a coelocanth-like animal. The other 9 could go about their little coleocanth lives passing along their unchanged genetic material for eons until we find them in existance today. It is through the continual branching and changing that evolution occurs, not because a coelocanth wakes up one day and decides it's a horse.

-- ray s (mmoetc@yahoo.com), January 31, 2001.

The shark hasn't changed because it was and still is a perfect killing machine.

-- Bettie Ferguson (jobett@dixie-net.com), January 31, 2001.

Somebody pulled out that old saw about Creationists being uneducated (the last resort when you can't answer the question is to accuse the other party of being uneducated!!). But there is a rather large body of Creationist scientists, men and women with advanced degrees and many years of practical experience. Most of them started out believing in evolution (it's what we are taught all through school, after all, so it must be true!), but eventually became convinced that there was no valid evidence to support that theory and took another look at the Creation theory. As far as the day-age theory, that one isn't scriptural. The "thousand years is as one day to the Lord, and one day is as a thousand years", was intended to indicate first, that God is outside of Time. He does not exist within the space-time- matter continuum, He is outside of it, therefore all of Time is always before Him. An analogy, though a poor one, would be if we were to spread a film strip out in front of us -- Time is to God like that filmstrip is to us. We can see all of it at once (though not as well as God sees all of Time) and we have each frame forever available for us to look at. Second there was, I believe, some prophetic value to the thousand years/day analogy, but we don't need to get into that on this thread. But it has no application to Genesis 1:1, and couldn't possibly. If you have a Bible get it out and read the first chapter. Notice that each day consists of an evening and a morning. How could a thousand years, or some longer time span, do that? Secondly, notice that green plants are created on day three, the sun on day four. If we were talking about long spans of time, how did the green plants survive aeons without sunlight? Generally, the best reading for any passage of scripture is just what it says. Parables, analogies, and prophetic "mysteries" are usually clearly identified. All other passages should be understood to mean just what they say. It is foolishness to think to change the meaning of God's Word to conform to some man-made theory or supposition. God is all-wise, all-knowing, and eternal -- it is supreme arrogance to think that any human thought on any subject could supersede what God plainly states in His Word. Especially when we are talking about Creation, since He was there, and we weren't!!!

Someone said something along the lines of not thinking the theory of Creation was very important (I don't recall the exact words, but that was the thought). But it is important. Genesis is the book of beginnings. If you take away its validity, you take away the validity of everything the Bible teaches. This is why the fight is so fierce against Creationism -- it's the age-old struggle of Satan to mislead the human race and keep them from believing in and trusting in God. We have friends who have a Creation Science ministry, and they have seen people believe in God and be saved as a result of learning that the Bible is really true, all of it, not just the little bits some people *want* to believe. Even the hard parts are true, and no amount of arguing is going to change that fact. (You could just as well say that the sun is green, but that wouldn't make it true, nor change the fact that it is -- usually -- yellow. God is an immutable truth, even more immutable than the existence of the earth and the sun. No paltry human argument is going to change the fact of God's existence, and it is foolish to think otherwise.)

Someone commented on the appearance of some of us who "said we were leaving" -- wishful thinking? I specifically said that I wasn't going to leave entirely, but wouldn't be here as much as I had been, and that is exactly what has happened. The Christian Homesteader's Forum is a place of refreshing for which I am very thankful, but there is still a place in my life for this forum -- for a while yet -- I see that the polite arguers are starting to be outnumbered by the childish name-callers. And I wouldn't have posted on this thread if it hadn't been specifically labeled for what it is.

Little Bit, thank you for posting the information.

-- Kathleen Sanderson (stonycft@worldpath.net), February 01, 2001.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ