• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Adolf Hitler - The World's Most Infamous Creationist

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by Klonz, Nov 21, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Regular Member

    +6,510
    Atheist
    Single
    So you admit defeat. Thank you.
    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.


    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.


    Repeating your failure only makes it more obvious.

    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.
     
  2. dad

    dad On the winning side Supporter

    +1,179
    Canada
    Christian
    Private
    In no way is it even a mild setback, let alone defeat, to question your vague posts about kinds!


    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.



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


    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.

    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.

    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.
    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.

    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.

    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.
    ?? 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.

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

    No, I don't. You forgot to define clades and how you get them. Therein lies your weak link in the imagination chain.

    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.
     
  3. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Regular Member

    +6,510
    Atheist
    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.
     
  4. fireof god98

    fireof god98 Member

    674
    +32
    Lutheran
    In Relationship
    CA-Liberals
    have you ever lost a debate to a creationist
     
  5. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Regular Member

    +6,510
    Atheist
    Single

    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.
     
  6. fireof god98

    fireof god98 Member

    674
    +32
    Lutheran
    In Relationship
    CA-Liberals
    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
     
  7. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Regular Member

    +6,510
    Atheist
    Single
    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.
     
  8. fireof god98

    fireof god98 Member

    674
    +32
    Lutheran
    In Relationship
    CA-Liberals
    yeah if people have faith it like their untouchable and very close minded :cool:
     
  9. mindlight

    mindlight See in the dark Supporter

    +1,571
    Germany
    Christian
    Married
    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
     
  10. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Regular Member

    +6,510
    Atheist
    Single
    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.
     
  11. fireof god98

    fireof god98 Member

    674
    +32
    Lutheran
    In Relationship
    CA-Liberals
    sounds like good stuff :)
     
  12. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE Supporter

    +40,415
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    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.
     
  13. dad

    dad On the winning side Supporter

    +1,179
    Canada
    Christian
    Private
    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.
     
  14. dad

    dad On the winning side Supporter

    +1,179
    Canada
    Christian
    Private
    More importantly, would he know it?
     
  15. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE Supporter

    +40,415
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    Hey ... give these guys a break, will ya?

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

    dad On the winning side Supporter

    +1,179
    Canada
    Christian
    Private
    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.
     
  17. dad

    dad On the winning side Supporter

    +1,179
    Canada
    Christian
    Private
    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.
     
  18. biggles53

    biggles53 Junior Member

    +40
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    AU-Greens
    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.....
     
  19. biggles53

    biggles53 Junior Member

    +40
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    AU-Greens
    But, it was the same god, was it not...?
     
  20. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE Supporter

    +40,415
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    Should we be offering animals within the bounds of sacerdotalism too?

    Or are you just picking and choosing?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...