Adolf Hitler - The World's Most Infamous Creationist

Status
Not open for further replies.

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
How can I define 'it', when you do not say what it is? A created kind? That was a kind long long ago. The created trait of evolving obviously would muddy the waters by the present time.

So you admit defeat. Thank you.
Name the animals.

Why? By saying that you need to know the animals in question you once again admit defeat. I told you that no creationist has been able to do this.


Can you really though? Then do it using an example.

Sure, one useful definition of species is that if members of two different groups can interbreed they and have fertile young they are of the same species. If the two groups can interbreed but not have fertile young they are of slightly different species. And if two groups cannot interbreed at all they are members of two widely separated species.

Now if an example is valid one should be able to show several examples that follow the definition and I can. Wolves and dogs can freely interbreed and their young are fertile. Ergo they are the same species. Horses and donkeys can interbreed and have young that are almost always sterile. They are separate species but very closely related. The same happens with tigers and lions. More closely related species. Dogs and Cats can't interbreed at all. They are widely separated species.


Created kind?

Repeating your failure only makes it more obvious.

So define kinds then, if you do not mean created kind? You mean current kind of animal? We are not mind readers here.

You are the one trying to use the term, it is up to you to define it. So far you have failed. But then so has every other creationist. The problem is that to date working definition of "kind" always support evolution not creation.

Here is an example. I like to treat "Clade" and kind as synonymous. In that case "kind after kind" is what we see in evolution. Once you are a member of a clade or kind your offspring are all members of the same clade or kind.

We are in the same clade or are the same kind as other apes, we are apes. All apes have apes as offspring. We are the same kind as other mammals. All mammals give birth to other mammals. We are in the same clade or kind as other tetrapods. All tetrapods give birth to other tetrapods. We are in the same clade as other vertebrates, such as fish, reptiles, and amphibians. We are all the same kind, we all give birth to other vertebrates. See how nicely that definition works?

If someone cannot define kind then I will gladly take the word away from you by making it a synonym of "clade" and then it will be defined and support the theory of evolution.
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,904
1,261
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
So you admit defeat. Thank you.
In no way is it even a mild setback, let alone defeat, to question your vague posts about kinds!


Why? By saying that you need to know the animals in question you once again admit defeat. I told you that no creationist has been able to do this.
I say give an example, because you are just kicking up dust and blowing smoke. If you name a creature, maybe we can proceed with a diagnosis of your problem.



Sure, one useful definition of species is that if members of two different groups can interbreed they and have fertile young they are of the same species.

Great. That also applies to kinds. So species and kinds that were created have something in common at least.

If the two groups can interbreed but not have fertile young they are of slightly different species. And if two groups cannot interbreed at all they are members of two widely separated species.


The last part gets into a lot of maybe territory. If the big criteria was breeding, and that could not happen, you need some other criteria to relate them!! Obviously.

Now if an example is valid one should be able to show several examples that follow the definition and I can. Wolves and dogs can freely interbreed and their young are fertile.

Great, I can play that game too. Is that all you want? Probably a wolf was the created kind, so interbreeding is still possible. That can apply to kinds as well as species.

Ergo they are the same species. Horses and donkeys can interbreed and have young that are almost always sterile.

So now it gets a little cloudy. We can say probably they came from a created kind, but maybe they had a little history that makes them not so related.
They are separate species but very closely related. The same happens with tigers and lions. More closely related species. Dogs and Cats can't interbreed at all. They are widely separated species.

Related loses meaning then. You see when we get into unknown territory where maybe a creature is missing in the line up, or something happened way back near the flood to where some creatures are not as closely related, then using either term kind or species loses clarity.

The puzzle gets compounded when we realize that a different nature existed also. Evolving perhaps happened to the living creature rather than/as well as to descendants! That would mean differences in animals take on a whole new meaning. We also may have some missing fossils, so that maybe there was some creatures that we don't even now know about that existed. Etc etc. This is why I advise caution when making sweeping pronouncements on what was and what happened when and why.

You are the one trying to use the term, it is up to you to define it. So far you have failed. But then so has every other creationist. The problem is that to date working definition of "kind" always support evolution not creation.
Created kind needs no definition, because we are not now in the time of creation. We need to deal with the adapting, death, evolving, disasters, changes and etc etc that happened twixt then and now. I am a realist.

Here is an example. I like to treat "Clade" and kind as synonymous. In that case "kind after kind" is what we see in evolution. Once you are a member of a clade or kind your offspring are all members of the same clade or kind.

We are in the same clade or are the same kind as other apes, we are apes.

Despite what you might LIKE to do, we cannot go running into the dark on impulses and wishful thinking. Those that know God's word would know that we did not come from apes, nor are we apes in any way. The way that a clade is determined therefore is the culprit in this case.
All apes have apes as offspring. We are the same kind as other mammals.
?? No. Just because a rat has babies and mankind does in no way means we are rats or related in any way but a common creator! God commanded all the fish and man, and animals, and birds to reproduce.

All mammals give birth to other mammals. We are in the same clade or kind as other tetrapods.

Inventing names for groups of creatures that include mankind doesn't mean man was spawned by the animals.

All tetrapods give birth to other tetrapods. We are in the same clade as other vertebrates, such as fish, reptiles, and amphibians. We are all the same kind, we all give birth to other vertebrates. See how nicely that definition works?
No, I don't. You forgot to define clades and how you get them. Therein lies your weak link in the imagination chain.

If someone cannot define kind then I will gladly take the word away from you by making it a synonym of "clade" and then it will be defined and support the theory of evolution.

That is like asking us to define 'the'. Or maybe to define 'sort'. God created the original kinds. We now have many kinds of animals that came from the kinds of old. It is not I that need to define kind but you! Try using another word or words to convey your muddled thoughts.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Too long, didn't read. You lost.

My definition works for species. You can tell if two groups are different species or not by my definition. It also fits the theory of evolution since it predicts that the exact definition of "species" would be a bit fuzzy. You still cannot show how to unknown groups of animals are or are not of the same kind. You keep trying to cheat by begging the question. I will not allow that. If you can show that nature follows your definition, like I can show that nature follows mine good for you. But since you have failed you have lost.

If you do manage to define "kinds" in a satisfactory manner then you will still not have won, but at least you will not have lost. Until you have done so by definition you lost.
 
Upvote 0

fireof god98

Member
Jul 24, 2013
674
34
canada
✟8,498.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Liberals
Too long, didn't read. You lost.

My definition works for species. You can tell if two groups are different species or not by my definition. It also fits the theory of evolution since it predicts that the exact definition of "species" would be a bit fuzzy. You still cannot show how to unknown groups of animals are or are not of the same kind. You keep trying to cheat by begging the question. I will not allow that. If you can show that nature follows your definition, like I can show that nature follows mine good for you. But since you have failed you have lost.

If you do manage to define "kinds" in a satisfactory manner then you will still not have won, but at least you will not have lost. Until you have done so by definition you lost.

have you ever lost a debate to a creationist
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
have you ever lost a debate to a creationist


On occasion I have had set backs. But not on this site. For example when they first found remnants of cartilage in certain T-rex fossils it was difficult to explain. But then the experts did not know how they were preserved at that time.

Arguing against evolution is like arguing against gravity. It is pretty easy to defend both.
 
Upvote 0

fireof god98

Member
Jul 24, 2013
674
34
canada
✟8,498.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Liberals
On occasion I have had set backs. But not on this site. For example when they first found remnants of cartilage in certain T-rex fossils it was difficult to explain. But then the experts did not know how they were preserved at that time.

Arguing against evolution is like arguing against gravity. It is pretty easy to defend both.

yeah i am having a hard time debating this one creationist who thinks demons speak to him and that the world is 6000 years old
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
yeah i am having a hard time debating this one creationist who thinks demons speak to him and that the world is 6000 years old

You can win the debate but you cannot convince crazy people.

Think of playing to the crowd that is watching. Don't worry about what crazy people think.
 
Upvote 0

fireof god98

Member
Jul 24, 2013
674
34
canada
✟8,498.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Liberals
You can win the debate but you cannot convince crazy people.

Think of playing to the crowd that is watching. Don't worry about what crazy people think.

yeah if people have faith it like their untouchable and very close minded :cool:
 
Upvote 0

mindlight

See in the dark
Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
13,596
2,659
London, UK
✟816,690.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
BY MEG

If you haven't heard the Hitler arguments from a theist yet, I think it's safe to assume that you are in the minority. Here's a brief rundown of the most common accusations that the faithful enjoy slinging about der Führer in case you're not familiar with them:

1) Hitler was an atheist

2) Hitler was a faithful Darwinist

3) It was Darwin's ideals that drove Hitler to exterminate the Jews

Most atheists are aware that Hitler considered himself a Christian, a Roman Catholic to be precise, and know that the accusation of him being an atheist are as patently false as they are absurd. What many do not know is that Hitler was also a Creationist.

Yes, Hitler was a Creationist. And before the hypersensitive and pedantic among you get your fingers busy typing about how that doesn't mean all Creationists are evil or that Creationism leads to Nazism; thanks, I'm well-aware of that fact and that's not why I'm mentioning Hitler's beliefs. So take a deep breath, calm down, and enjoy the rest of this post, which is going to give you some helpful ammunition for shooting down the Hitler-Atheism myths.

Nearly a decade ago, I married a German and moved with him from America to Germany. And one of the first things I learned here, besides that there are people on this planet who consider beer an acceptable breakfast beverage, is that no matter how rotten and depraved the actions of the Third Reich appeared when we were taught about them in school and via the US media, the picture we get is still a sterilized version of Nazis' barbarity and beliefs.

As it turns out, the family I married into has a Nazi history, an unpleasant surprise as my (now ex) husband was anything but racist or antisemitic.

My former father-in-law, a highly intelligent person, speaks nearly perfect English, which he learned after being taken prisoner by Allied Forces in France and then shipped off to a work camp in Colorado. He never spoke about his Nazi upbringing and the war with his children and, given that the man has all the warmth and compassion of an iceberg, to his family it was obvious that they were not to mention it.

Then one Christmas when the old man had been hitting the schnapps, and shortly after I had been to visit a former concentration camp, Dachau, I couldn't stand not knowing anymore how anyone could support Hitler, much less be willing to fight for him. So I took advantage of father-in-law's inebriated state and asked.

You could have heard the proverbial pin drop; everyone fell silent.

The old man glared at me and stood up, growled at me to stay there in my seat, then left the room. I assumed he'd gone off to get something, and I knew it could take awhile for him to return. The home of my former parents-in-law is like a museum, complete with a basement full of archives.

As one might expect from people raised during the reign of the Third Reich, which had the organization necessary to round up many millions of people and exterminate them with astonishing efficiency, everything my parents-in-law did was recorded and filed, the belongings not needed for their daily lives never thrown away, and instead neatly stored and organized.

These people could tell you how much they spent on bread in April, 1952. That's not an exaggeration. So I shouldn't have been too surprised when the old man reappeared with large boxes and photo albums, and to find them stuffed with Nazi memorabilia, pamphlets, sew-on patches earned during father-in-law's time with the Nazi version of the Boy Scouts, the Hitler Youth, booklets on how being a good Nazi and being a good Christian were one and the same and the virtues of the Nazi policy of "Positive Christianity", photos of father-in-law in his Nazi uniform taken at Church...

One got the impression that my father-in-law had been waiting his whole life for someone to finally ask him about his past, to give him reason to talk about it. And talk he did, for hours...

I was still a Christian at the time, and I had never given any real thought to Hitler and his own religious beliefs, though if I had done so the last thing I would have considered him was Christian. And the last thing I wanted to admit to myself was that Hitler had been a devout Christian.

But there was a pile of evidence staring me in the face and my father-in-law enthusiastically showing me through it. In his own words, Hitler believed...

"My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them."

-Hitler in a speech on April 12, 1922.

Hitler made similar remarks in his book, "Mein Kampf", which was written when he was young. So he must have changed his mind and lost sight of his faith later, right?

"The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and co-operation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has

been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life."

No, that isn't from a modern day, Republican speech; that's what Hitler said in a statement in 1933.

And even more surprising was the Nazi banned book list; Darwin's "On the Origins of Species" and any book deemed to support evolution it were on it.

"The most marvelous proof of the superiority of Man, which puts man ahead of the animals, is the fact that he understands that there must be a Creator."

"The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger."

Nope, those aren't quotes from Ray Comfort or Kent Hovind as one might understandably assume; Hitler said those things in his book, "Mein Kampf."

As a Christian, I still had no trouble incorporating evolution into my beliefs; I saw evolution as God's method of producing all of the species we see on Earth.

To me, Darwin's book being on the banned list didn't make any sense.

What about the Nazi breeding programs? That's about evolution, isn't it?

Well, no. Hitler's program didn't involve evolution. As my father-in-law explained, Hitler prescribed to a belief called Eugenics, which is breeding for a superior (Aryan) race.

If you're familiar with evolution and how it works, you realize that Eugenics is the exact opposite of evolution.

In evolution, the larger and more dynamic the gene pool, the better.

The more genetic diversity you have, the less likely a disease or a gene defect is going to wipe out the entire species. More genes = more likely to adapt and survive. And evolution is not a ladder; there is no end goal, no perfect being, only a being well-suited for its current living environment.

In Eugenics, the aim is to breed a "superior" version of a species; to lessen genetic diversity in favor of traits deemed to be preferable.

Purebred dogs are an example of why Eugenics is a really bad idea and how it runs contrary to evolution. The Rhodesian Ridgeback is thought to be superior when it has an especially large ridge on its back. Due to breeders selecting animals for their ridges, it's not uncommon now for the dogs to be born with ridges so large that they develop open canals that lead from the surface of their skin straight to their spinal column, resulting in a horribly painful, open wound directly on their bare spine.

"From where do we get the right to believe, that from the very beginning Man was not what he is today? Looking at Nature tells us, that in the realm of plants and animals changes and developments happen. But nowhere inside a kind shows such a development as the breadth of the jump , as Man must supposedly have made, if he has developed from an ape-like state to what he is today."

- Hitler in his book "Tischgespräche"

"Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith."

- from a speech Hitler gave on April 26, 1933.

Did I mention that school prayer was mandatory under the Nazis? If I wanted to commit the logical fallacy of guilt by association comparing Hitler's beliefs in a Christian nation, family values, creationism, and school prayer to America's modern Religious Right, this would be an ideal opportunity for it. But that would bring me down to their level. Oops. Guess I already drew the parallels. Oh well.

In his own words, Hitler was a devout Christian and he was a Creationist.

"For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties."

- Hitler in his book "Mein Kampf"

So the next time someone wants to equate you, as an atheist, with Hitler, I invite you to share Hitler's actual beliefs with them. Then just sit back and relax as the faithful endure spastic mental gymnastics trying to spin it all.

Looking back on that discussion with my father-in-law, considering the information I've gathered about Hitler myself since becoming fluent in German, and combined with my loss of faith, I'm actually not surprised anymore that Hitler was a Christian and a Creationist. If someone is delusional enough to think they're on a mission from God to commit genocide, it isn't much of a stretch for them to be delusional enough to believe that Adam and Eve probably saddled up a triceratops when they had to make long journeys, is it?

So why aren't we told about Hitler's enthusiasm for Jesus in America? After all, it's common knowledge in Europe. Funny how there's little to no mention of Hitler's religious beliefs in the average school curriculum or documentary, while we learn at length about Hitler's other beliefs.

Economics and politics played huge roles in the Nazis coming to power.

But so did religion. Anyone who denies or ignores that fact is enabling a repeat.

Finally, the faithful might argue that Hitler was not a real Christian. Although the average German, including my former father-in-law, himself a Christian, will readily tell you that Hitler was. And given Hitler's statements, I think it's safe to assume he would argue that he most certainly was a Christian, and that's the important aspect. Because whether Hitler was a Christian in someone else's view or according to their definition is beside the point; the point is that, as someone who believed in a god, Hitler was not an atheist.

Interesting account. I also married a German, live in the place and have had my experiences and even court cases against old Nazis. But in essence you confuse the marketing with the reality. Hitlers Table talk and speeches reveal a faith in fate and Destiny rather than a Christian outlook though the imagery and language of his catholic background is also there. The purpose of the Hitler Youth literature that you mentioned was in part to substitute for the catholic boys clubs that Hitler closed down. He used religion to bring in his own theology and world view and that has little to do with the Christian God.

I have a lot of sympathy with this old man who sounds like he needed a proper conversation on his experiences several decades before he met you on this subject and with someone who was not going to be initimidated by a man moulded in a warrior culture. In a way it is a shame he met a Christian on the slide to have this debate rather than one who really had good grounds to believe it all and could have helped him exorcise his ghosts and debunk some well entrenched myths embedded in his character.

As to whether Hitler was a Creationist that also is controversial and the arguments on both sides appear to be the product of the larger war between these two world views. There are well researched works that disagree with you here and I tend to the view that evolutionary theory and survival of the fittest works better with the kind of Eugenics the Nazis were advocating.

From Darwin to Hitler - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
yeah if people have faith it like their untouchable and very close minded :cool:

People that demand a literal interpretation of the Bible can be shown to be wrong by several means. First you could show that they do not believe the Bible literally, no one does. The Bible describes a flat Earth in both word and deed. The often mistranslated line from Isaiah when translated literally describes a flat circular Earth, not a spherical Earth. No where in the New Testament does it say exactly what the "New covenant" is and Jesus himself said that not one law of the O.T. was to change. Therefore no pork, no shellfish (well there is one weak verse that supports this for Gentiles) but definitely no mixed fabrics, no mixed crops, no cheeseburgers.

It is easy to show that literalists are not literal in their behavior. Ask them if they have stoned disobedient children lately. Most say no:thumbsup:

In all of these debates there are more people reading the posts than participating. Those are the ones that you want to convince.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

fireof god98

Member
Jul 24, 2013
674
34
canada
✟8,498.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Liberals
People that demand a literal interpretation of the Bible can be shown to be wrong by several means. First you could show that they do not believe the Bible literally, no one does. The Bible describes a flat Earth in both word and deed. The often mistranslated line from Isaiah when translated literally describes a flat circular Earth, not a spherical Earth. No where in the New Testament does it say exactly what the "New covenant" is and Jesus himself said that not one law of the O.T. was to change. Therefore no pork, no shellfish (well there is one weak verse that supports this for Gentiles) but definitely no mixed fabrics, no mixed crops, no cheeseburgers.

It is easy to show that literalists are not literal in their behavior. Ask them if they have stoned disobedient children lately. Most say no:thumbsup:

In all of these debates there are more people reading the posts than participating. Those are the ones that you want to convince.

sounds like good stuff :)
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,665
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,428.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Those are the ones that you want to convince.
That door swings both ways.

I've had many lurkers invite me to other sites (which I respectfully decline), and tell me to "keep up the good work."

I've also had some ... well ... expose their malcontent.
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,904
1,261
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
It is easy to show that literalists are not literal in their behavior. Ask them if they have stoned disobedient children lately. Most say no:thumbsup:
..
What sort of Obama level nonsense is that? Nowhere does it telll us to stone anyone. That was for a people and a place long long ago.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,665
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,428.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
What sort of Obama level nonsense is that? Nowhere does it telll us to stone anyone. That was for a people and a place long long ago.

Hey ... give these guys a break, will ya?

They don't want the Bible taught in school, and this is what they get.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

dad

Undefeated!
Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,904
1,261
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
My definition works for species.
I say give an example.

Probably a wolf was the created kind, so interbreeding is still possible. That can apply to kinds as well as species.

Related loses meaning then. You see when we get into unknown territory where maybe a creature is missing in the line up, or something happened way back near the flood to where some creatures are not as closely related, then using either term kind or species loses clarity.

The puzzle gets compounded when we realize that a different nature existed also. Evolving perhaps happened to the living creature rather than/as well as to descendants!

Those that know God's word would know that we did not come from apes, nor are we apes in any way. The way that a clade is determined therefore is the culprit in this case. You need to show the basis and criteria for calling something a clade.

Inventing names for groups of creatures that include mankind doesn't mean man was spawned by the animals.
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,904
1,261
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Hey ... give these guys a break, will ya?

They don't want the Bible taught in school, and this is what they get.

Almost like nations are not one people and one happy family. United we stand, divided we fall. If our back should ever be against the wall, it will not be united that the US and some other nations will fall. A house divided cannot stand.
 
Upvote 0

biggles53

Junior Member
Mar 5, 2008
2,819
63
70
Pottsville, NSW, Australia
✟10,841.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
AU-Greens
People that demand a literal interpretation of the Bible can be shown to be wrong by several means. First you could show that they do not believe the Bible literally, no one does. The Bible describes a flat Earth in both word and deed. The often mistranslated line from Isaiah when translated literally describes a flat circular Earth, not a spherical Earth. No where in the New Testament does it say exactly what the "New covenant" is and Jesus himself said that not one law of the O.T. was to change. Therefore no pork, no shellfish (well there is one weak verse that supports this for Gentiles) but definitely no mixed fabrics, no mixed crops, no cheeseburgers.

It is easy to show that literalists are not literal in their behavior. Ask them if they have stoned disobedient children lately. Most say no:thumbsup:

In all of these debates there are more people reading the posts than participating. Those are the ones that you want to convince.

Very well put.....and your last para is especially relevant. We will likely never convince the dads and the EDs and the AVs of this world....if they're going to change the means by which they gauge reality, they'll have to do it themselves...

But, those who lurk in the fringes.....
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Status
Not open for further replies.