Are Creationists hypocrites on evolution?

Recently something has puzzled me that shouldn't since I tend to stay away from the evolution vs creationists debate, but why do "Creationists" consider dinosaurs as being on there side of the debate when the discovery of "feathered" dinosaurs lead to evolution being widely accepted by many.

I have no idea what you just said... could you rephrase that?

reply to post by Nogard2012


they claim they were put there by god to test your faith.
hope it helps

hope you stop caring as well. lets not care, and just look ahead?

nope, someone has to prove they are right

Are creationists hypocrites? Some of them are. Some of them aren't. Most of them are merely ignorant of the actual science of things.

It's all about those pesky feathers.
You know, "birds of a feather", and all that.

As creationists we believe dinosaurs support evolution because of the dinosaurs' educational standards. The similarity of intellectual development creates an immediate rapport.

If dinosaurs had feathers, that just proves they were not dinosaurs at all. They were just great big birds. That solves the problem of how they fitted onto Noah's ark. They didn't have to, they just kept flying around for the 10 months or so the flood lasted. Food was not a problem because dinosaurs lay eggs, so they could just dive into the rain of falling eggs and eat their fill as they flew.

Labelling dinosaurs as birds gets over any problems created by proof they evolved into birds. Like gives birth to like, and dinosaur birds gave birth to new breeds of bird, each creature biblically birthing more of the same kind, each one being just a little bit different.
This is not related to the devil's dogma of evolution. This is MICRO-EVOLUTION, which is quite a different animal.

There is proof in Genesis dinosaurs are birds. Both of the accounts of creation clearly state that God created birds, but neither mention Him creating dinosaurs. Therefore we have divine proof that dinosaurs are birds and that God created them. This also proves the Bible is 100% correct scientifically. Of course atheists can't understand what the bible says, because they refuse to stop using their brains, but those of us who have emulated the whales, who through more micro-evolution (They were fish to start off with so they always were, and always will be, fish.) gave up their legs and returned to the ocean, have given up the use of our reasoning powers. Instead, we've gradually learned to be slippery and squirmy, (as illustrated by our fishy logo,) doing our utmost to get in a few tail-slaps while never presenting a solid target of logic or consistency.

reply to post by Kailassa

lol post of the year

You may not believe it, but I was a creationist until I was about 17. I stayed a christian until my mid 20's. Right now I'm without any religion to guide me. No god to seek counsel with. I'm alone.

Let me explain. I thought the earth was 6000 years old. Dinosaurs challenged my faith because this would mean we needed evidence for them in the past 6000 years. This also meant we had to ignore a lot of evidence to support what we had since so much supports evolution.

Without the 6000 year argument, there's not much point in opposing evolution. My own brother, a deep christian, even brought up the big bang and evolution by saying that god could have created this universe by using the processes of the big bang and evolution as tools. Since he's not tied down by the 6000 year limitation, he's free to just accept it and go with it. Not all christians are fundamentalist creationists. Some of them are very open to the possibilities.

It looks either/or but it's not. Many christians and even scientists get too caught up in the arguing.

Here is a thought:

The Creator created everything including evolution and including science.

I don't get why people can't see the broader picture.

You don't have to be one or the other. Being both makes more sense.

It makes more sense to believe in a Creator because nothing can come from nothing, so where did the scientists come from?

Originally posted by catwhoknowsplusone

It makes more sense to believe in a Creator because nothing can come from nothing, so where did the scientists come from?

If nothing can come from nothing, then who created God? Where did He come from?
If He always existed then there are exceptions and not everything would need a creator.

I apologize if this sounds offensive to anyone, I'm just curious.

reply to post by Kailassa


I read this post before reading the username...and it passed the "Holy crap are they joking or are they being serious?!" test. Good show.

reply to post by catwhoknowsplusone


Well...why add a deity in the mix?

Originally posted by catwhoknowsplusone
It makes more sense to believe in a Creator because nothing can come from nothing, so where did the scientists come from?

It makes the least sense of all to believe in a creator, because such being would have to be the most complex thing ever, thus making its beginning the least plausible thing of all things.

Also to stay on topic. Most creationists are massive hypocrites, not because of the evolution thing, but because they (well their leaders) cherry pick stuff from the Bible. For example for some reason homosexuality is bad because the Bible says so, however I'd imagine that vast majority of them gets their hair trimmed even thou the Bible doesn't allow this either. So yes. Big hypocrites. Either follow all the rules, or then shut up about them.

Originally posted by Nogard2012
Recently something has puzzled me that shouldn't since I tend to stay away from the evolution vs creationists debate, but why do "Creationists" consider dinosaurs as being on there side of the debate when the discovery of "feathered" dinosaurs lead to evolution being widely accepted by many.

My suggestion is that you read Jeremiah 4. Notice the three main parts to that chapter:

Existence (v 1-18)
Destruction (v 19-26)
Creation (27-31)

Verse 23 should sound very familiar to you:

I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had not light.

That is stated between the destruction and creation phase. It is not Noah's flood described because there was no man and all the birds of the heavens were fled.(v 25).

In my opinion, Job 40.15-24 describes dinosaurs, plant eaters. Chapter 41 is dedicated to leviathan, which is obviously a corruption of behemoth (a meat eater), and the reason all of the large creatures were destroyed before man could exist here in the flesh.

This earth is very ancient, indeed.

Originally posted by Kailassa
It's all about those pesky feathers.
You know, "birds of a feather", and all that.

As creationists we believe dinosaurs support evolution because of the dinosaurs' educational standards. The similarity of intellectual development creates an immediate rapport.

If dinosaurs had feathers, that just proves they were not dinosaurs at all. They were just great big birds. That solves the problem of how they fitted onto Noah's ark. They didn't have to, they just kept flying around for the 10 months or so the flood lasted. Food was not a problem because dinosaurs lay eggs, so they could just dive into the rain of falling eggs and eat their fill as they flew.

Labelling dinosaurs as birds gets over any problems created by proof they evolved into birds. Like gives birth to like, and dinosaur birds gave birth to new breeds of bird, each creature biblically birthing more of the same kind, each one being just a little bit different.
This is not related to the devil's dogma of evolution. This is MICRO-EVOLUTION, which is quite a different animal.

There is proof in Genesis dinosaurs are birds. Both of the accounts of creation clearly state that God created birds, but neither mention Him creating dinosaurs. Therefore we have divine proof that dinosaurs are birds and that God created them. This also proves the Bible is 100% correct scientifically. Of course atheists can't understand what the bible says, because they refuse to stop using their brains, but those of us who have emulated the whales, who through more micro-evolution (They were fish to start off with so they always were, and always will be, fish.) gave up their legs and returned to the ocean, have given up the use of our reasoning powers. Instead, we've gradually learned to be slippery and squirmy, (as illustrated by our fishy logo,) doing our utmost to get in a few tail-slaps while never presenting a solid target of logic or consistency.

Wow. It makes so much sense now

Originally posted by catwhoknowsplusone
Here is a thought:
The Creator created everything including evolution and including science.
I don't get why people can't see the broader picture.
You don't have to be one or the other. Being both makes more sense.
It makes more sense to believe in a Creator because nothing can come from nothing, so where did the scientists come from?

It makes sense to honestly live by what you sincerely believe. Many people sincerely believe there is a god. Many others sincerely don't.

As for something not being able to come from nothing -
How many -1s and +1s can you get out of zero?

Our universe is made out of atoms and forces. These atoms are made out of more forces, positive and negative.
Add up all the positive and negative forces that make up this universe, and I'm guessing you'd end up with a nice fat zero.

Originally posted by Nogard2012
why do "Creationists" consider dinosaurs as being on there side of the debate when the discovery of "feathered" dinosaurs lead to evolution being widely accepted by many.

Creationists like all religionists are given over to a strong Confirmation bias. In the case of dinosaurs they cannot deny they existed so they cherry-pick and reinterpret the available data so that it seems to confirm what they believed a priori when in fact it does not.

Originally posted by Nogard2012
Recently something has puzzled me that shouldn't since I tend to stay away from the evolution vs creationists debate, but why do "Creationists" consider dinosaurs as being on there side of the debate when the discovery of "feathered" dinosaurs lead to evolution being widely accepted by many.

We only need to give evolution an infinite amount of time just to get started. How long before this micro organism of a thread, evolves into one that dosn't belong in CHIT CHAT?

Are creationists hypocrites? Some of them are. Some of them aren't. Most of them are merely ignorant of the actual science of things

Or maybe science is ignorant of the greatest scientist of all. The one that blows the doors off of any human scientist by the span of a universe. yuc yuc.

reply to post by Kailassa


You are a very talented science fiction author....

Originally posted by catwhoknowsplusone


It makes more sense to believe in a Creator because nothing can come from nothing, so where did the scientists come from?

It makes absolutely no sense. If nothing can come from nothing, then how come there is a Creator in the first place???

Originally posted by catwhoknowsplusone
It makes more sense to believe in a Creator because nothing can come from nothing, so where did the scientists come from?

Something actually does come from nothing:

scienceblogs.com...

Nothing did come from nothing. That's the way it happened. Light isn't matter, light is nothing. But light happens to be energy. Enough ultraviolet or X-Ray light produces matter and a symmetrical amount of anti-matter, thereby creating an energy production in equilibrium, which consequently leads to no matter. Fortunately for us, occasionally, the amount of matter exceeds the amount of anti-matter by about 1 in every million. And this simple asymmetry, though seemingly minuscule, in the proportion of matter to anti-matter created is why we are here today. The sun creates matter all the time, and it simply arises from light, aka energy.

Matter is anything that has mass.

Hence Energy = mass x (the speed of light) ^2

Why is there an insatiable need to invoke some existence of a supernatural being?

EDIT: See above post for an explanation from another perspective