• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Adolf Hitler - The World's Most Infamous Creationist

Status
Not open for further replies.

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
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!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
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.


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
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
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
✟15,998.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Liberals

have you ever lost a debate to a creationist
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
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
✟15,998.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
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
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
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
✟15,998.00
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
 
Upvote 0

mindlight

See in the dark
Site Supporter
Dec 20, 2003
14,268
2,995
London, UK
✟1,004,385.00
Country
Germany
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
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
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
yeah if people have faith it like their untouchable and very close minded

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

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

fireof god98

Member
Jul 24, 2013
674
34
canada
✟15,998.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Liberals

sounds like good stuff
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,781
52,544
Guam
✟5,137,639.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
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!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
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
..
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
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,781
52,544
Guam
✟5,137,639.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
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

dad

Undefeated!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
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!
Site Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,905
1,259
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
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
72
Pottsville, NSW, Australia
✟25,841.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
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.....
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,781
52,544
Guam
✟5,137,639.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
But, it was the same god, was it not...?

Should we be offering animals within the bounds of sacerdotalism too?

Or are you just picking and choosing?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.