Adolf Hitler - The World's Most Infamous Creationist

[dad]

Who said religions were not divisive? every one a nut job.

Everyone has beliefs. Even atheists.

 

[dad]

Go ahead. There are other methods of course besides just reproduction. That was the last choice in my system. Of course a whale could not breed with a mouse. If you have to ask that sort of question then you really have no business playing this game. My system works for animals that are fairly close.

With species, one thing they use to determine relatedness is reproduction. So what is the first choice in 'your system'? Let's put that to the test.

I could have also said that cheetahs and lions cannot breed at all, rather than the dogs and cats example. If there are major structural differences obviously the two would be different species.

If you can use your system on creatures, then let's see it work for the pics I gave.

Yet you cannot explain with your undefined "kinds" why lions and cheetahs cannot breed,

That seems to indicate they came from a different kind. But why would I guess, and make stuff up like mere so called science?? Since lions are mentioned in the future, I assume they are a kind. In their true form, they eat grass. See, I can tell you about the created kind lion, and science cannot!!! How sweet it is.

and my definition of "species" works in saying since they cannot breed they are more widely separated than lions and tigers.

That actually doesn't explain squat about lions or cheetahs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

With species, one thing they use to determine relatedness is reproduction. So what is the first choice in 'your system'? Let's put that to the test.

If you can use your system on creatures, then let's see it work for the pics I gave.

I did. Go back and read the response to the post.

That seems to indicate they came from a different kind. But why would I guess, and make stuff up like mere so called science?? Since lions are mentioned in the future, I assume they are a kind. In their true form, they eat grass. See, I can tell you about the created kind lion, and science cannot!!! How sweet it is.

Sorry, no we know that you are truly delusional. We can tell that none of the cats, big or small, could digest grass. Not just from their teeth, but from their digestive systems too. There is a reason that cows and other ruminants have four stomachs.

That actually doesn't explain squat about lions or cheetahs.

Sure it does. I cannot help it if you are perpetually purposefully ignorant.

When you do that to yourself no one can help you.

 

[dad]

I did. Go back and read the response to the post.

Nothing in there about the pics.

Sorry, no we know that you are truly delusional. We can tell that none of the cats, big or small, could digest grass.

Get a grip, no one said that. The issue is the future and true nature of the created lion!

Not just from their teeth, but from their digestive systems too. There is a reason that cows and other ruminants have four stomachs.

Irrelevant. Rapid evolving could change that in a New York minute. We just need the right nature again.

Sure it does.

No actually, it doesn't. If so, explain! How did your drivel post explain anything about lions?

If you want to play the devil's advocate, learn how to post.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nothing in there about the pics.

Yes there was. Go back and read it again.

Get a grip, no one said that. The issue is the future and true nature of the created lion!

What?!? Yes someone did. I guess what you said was so foolish that even you want to deny it. You said:

In their true form, they eat grass.

Irrelevant. Rapid evolving could change that in a New York minute. We just need the right nature again.

Nope, we know at what rate animals evolve.

No actually, it doesn't. If so, explain! How did your drivel post explain anything about lions?

Drivel? I guess I should not be casting pearls before swine.

When you are non-delusional we can discuss it.

If you want to play the devil's advocate, learn how to post.

I do know how to post. Perhaps you should learn how to ask questions politely. Especially since you have been shown to be wrong by many posters here, and almost every day too.

 

[AV1611VET]

i know many Hindus that have tasted all of that

 

[dad]

Yes there was. Go back and read it again.

You should point out what you feel relates to the pics specifically.

What?!? Yes someone did. I guess what you said was so foolish that even you want to deny it. You said:

How lions will be you are in no position to know, or call foolish actually. Personal incredulity based on ignorance has no worth at all.

Nope, we know at what rate animals evolve.

That is here in this nature. How it will be and was is the only issue here. That you are truly clueless about.

...you have been shown to be wrong by many posters here, and almost every day too.

Your blind faith statements on how evolving and changes could and will happen to lions in the future shows no one wrong at all actually.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You should point out what you feel relates to the pics specifically.

Sorry, I am not about to spoon feed you the answer. If you don't understand it keep reading it. Perhaps on the 200th time around it will sink in.

How lions will be you are in no position to know, or call foolish actually. Personal incredulity based on ignorance has no worth at all.

English please. I cannot make head nor tales out of this gobbledygook. And when it comes to logical errors please remember that that is why you make, not I.

That is here in this nature. How it will be and was is the only issue here. That you are truly clueless about.

Until you provide real evidence of a different state you cannot claim one. Until then it is truly a delusional state.

Your blind faith statements on how evolving and changes could and will happen to lions in the future shows no one wrong at all actually.

Now you are projecting again, putting your sins upon others.

Evolution is not faith based, it is evidence based. Perhaps you do not know the meaning of the words. But again, I am a bit busy now and cannot bother to teach you something you should have learned in elementary school.

 

[Heissonear]

Evolution is not faith based, it is evidence based.

Evolutionists walk and talk by faith. Look at their foundation.

You cannot prove this existences IS NOT a Creation; that what you are made of WAS NOT Created. No answers to it but "you cannot prove it either". What a reply of EVIDENCE from Naturalists!

Neither have you been able to provide fossils that support EVOLUTION HAPPENED! You nor any other Evolutionist has supplied one example of finely-graduated fossils between millions of fossils that only show GAPS.

Not one Naturalist been able to show how life originated on earth. Nor can they fabricate any life in the lab under ideal conditions and initial materials, much less a rabbit or bird.

I'm pointing at your foundation. It is being exposed.

.

 

[biggles53]

Evolutionists walk and talk by faith. Look at their foundation.

You cannot prove this existences IS NOT a Creation; that what you are made of WAS NOT Created. No answers to it but "you cannot prove it either". What a reply of EVIDENCE from Naturalists!

Neither have you been able to provide fossils that support EVOLUTION HAPPENED! You nor any other Evolutionist has supplied one example of finely-graduated fossils between millions of fossils that only show GAPS.

Not one Naturalist been able to show how life originated on earth. Nor can they fabricate any life in the lab under ideal conditions and initial materials, much less a rabbit or bird.

I'm pointing at your foundation. It is being exposed.

.

I travelled back in time last week and created everything you see, including your memories....

Prove that I didn't......

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evolutionists walk and talk by faith. Look at their foundation.

You cannot prove this existences IS NOT a Creation; that what you are made of WAS NOT Created. No answers to it but "you cannot prove it either". What a reply of EVIDENCE from Naturalists!

Neither have you been able to provide fossils that support EVOLUTION HAPPENED! You nor any other Evolutionist has supplied one example of finely-graduated fossils between millions of fossils that only show GAPS.

Not one Naturalist been able to show how life originated on earth. Nor can they fabricate any life in the lab under ideal conditions and initial materials, much less a rabbit or bird.

I'm pointing at your foundation. It is being exposed.

.

Now we have gone over the fossil record many times with you. You should be able to understand it. The fact is that the fossil record supports only evolution. Creationists have no explanation for it. They have tried in the past and the smart ones gave up when all of their claims were quickly debunked.

There is no evidence for creation, of any kind. There is evidence for evolution. So if you go by evidence and not faith the only choice is evolution.

Your problem is that your own prejudice will not allow you to see the facts. The so called "gaps" in the fossil record were predicted. A stratigrapher would know that and why the "gaps" are there. The fact that you so sadly keep ducking is that all fossils fit the evolutionary paradigm and that creationists cannot even get off of the starting blocks to form a paradigm of their own.

Anytime that you wish to learn I am still here and happy to help you.

 

[Strathos]

Are we still arguing this? The tags really say it all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are we still arguing this? The tags really say it all.

It seems that Hitler has not been a subject for a while. The tags may say it all for you, but I suggest you go back and read the OP's post. She probably got a bit too fed up with some creationist trying to tie evolution and Hitler together. She pointed out quite clearly that it is the other way around. Hitler was definitely a creationist. Hitler always claimed to be a Christian and his actions were cheered on by Christian Germans. They were not supported by the Atheists.

 

[Heissonear]

Now we have gone over the fossil record many times with you. You should be able to understand it. The fact is that the fossil record supports only evolution. Creationists have no explanation for it. They have tried in the past and the smart ones gave up when all of their claims were quickly debunked.

There is no evidence for creation, of any kind. There is evidence for evolution. So if you go by evidence and not faith the only choice is evolution.

Your problem is that your own prejudice will not allow you to see the facts. The so called "gaps" in the fossil record were predicted. A stratigrapher would know that and why the "gaps" are there. The fact that you so sadly keep ducking is that all fossils fit the evolutionary paradigm and that creationists cannot even get off of the starting blocks to form a paradigm of their own.

Anytime that you wish to learn I am still here and happy to help you.

Your reply is a nice tap dance - around the fact there are only gap fossils. Why are there millions of fossils but no finely graduated ones between the gaps? If they DO NOT exist, then say so. Say they do not exist - that the process of Evolution has NO FOSSIL EVIDENCE. The Evolutionary Tree becomes conjecture. A trained Stratigrapher is teaching you this.

Tap dance number 2: you we're mute on THE VERY FOUNDATION of evolution. Evolution cannot exist if life did not come about through physical-chemical processes. Since there is no evidence of the origin of life your walking by faith to say it occurred. No scientist has a clue of how to go into a lab with pristine conditions and chemicals and make ANY form of life, much less a horse or bird.

Tap dance number 3: you cannot say this Physical realm IS NOT a Creation, nor can you say what you are made of WAS NOT Created.

You really avoid looking at the foundation Naturalism is built upon. You will lie before all if you say you walk by evidence and evidence alone.

We ARE NOT talking about Creationism, although you insert such. We are talking about your foundation, the foundation you stand on to claim what you do.

I'm pointing at your foundation.


.

 

[Black Akuma]

A trained Stratigrapher is teaching you this.

Who? Because it's not you.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hitler always claimed to be a Christian and his actions were cheered on by Christian Germans.

You don't sit in the bleachers on the side of the Dallas Cowboys and cheer for the Green Bay Packers.

 

[paul becke]

No. They were nationalsocialists... which is about as socialist as green is red.

But of course people who use the term "Christian" only because they want to play to a certain demographic have to be totally honest when using the term "Socialist", haven't they?

No. you're right. You don't get too many Socialist industrialists - which latter category were Hitler's primary supporters, followed by liberal professionals, such as lawyers, doctors and accountants. None notably left-leaning...!

Hitler knew better than to take on the Church head on, so bided his time. He then insisted on replacing the bible with a Nazi version! Many Christian minsters were sent to concentration camps and murdered there. The Christian church soon became unambiguously viewed and treated as an enemy of Nazism.

Hitler and the Nazis despised Pius XII, because he 'played footsie' with them, instead of roundly denouncing them, but there were many priests (and Protestant ministers), nuns, religious and lay Christians, who witnessed to the truth at the cost of their lives.

The monied classes in the West, not long before the war, had raved about the glorious fascist leadership of Mussolini and Hitler. So, to a certain extent, Pius has to be seen in that light.

Had the Church denounced the notion that the Second Commandment is negotiable, atheist Communism would never have arisen, but once it had, it was too late; their dereliction had sealed the fate of the Church - until this time, when it looks like she is making a come-back in no uncertain terms.

In terms of religion, like Thatcher and Reagan, Hitler seems to have been a New Ager.

 

[dad]

Sorry, I am not about to spoon feed you the answer. If you don't understand it keep reading it. Perhaps on the 200th time around it will sink in.

You have no answer, just bluster. Whatever profundity you think lurks in your post is M.I.A.

English please. I cannot make head nor tales out of this gobbledygook. And when it comes to logical errors please remember that that is why you make, not I.

You cannot tell us God will not have lions and a nature that is different in a big way. They will eat grass.

Until you provide real evidence of a different state you cannot claim one. Until then it is truly a delusional state.

Until you provide real evidence of a same state past you cannot claim one. Until then it is truly a delusional state. Pretending to have done so is delusional also.

Evolution is not faith based, it is evidence based.

Not if you include a first lifeform, old ages.

Anti creation, anti God, anti Jesus, anti bible old age godless evolution is 100 % faith based. It is from the pit of hell.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have no answer, just bluster. Whatever profundity you think lurks in your post is M.I.A.

Wrong. You could not refute that simple claim. But then, failure is your game.

You cannot tell us God will not have lions and a nature that is different in a big way. They will eat grass.

Then they would all starve to death. I am not telling the lions this, nature is. They are not set up to digest grass. So it seems that you are claiming your god in his cruelty will force lions and other predators to starve to death.

Until you provide real evidence of a same state past you cannot claim one. Until then it is truly a delusional state. Pretending to have done so is delusional also.

Loudmouth has presented it several times. I have posted it too. You cannot answer to the fact that we can observe radioactive decay through telescopes in the gas of novas many hundreds of thousands of years ago. The rate of radioactive decay was the same then as it is now. We can show rocks on the Earth with two totally different parent and daughter products. That shows that radioactive decay has been constant for the life of the Earth. You have provided no evidence. That makes your claim the delusional one.

Not if you include a first lifeform, old ages.

Once more in English please. This nonsense makes no sense as written. I am sure it will still make no sense if you try again.

Anti creation, anti God, anti Jesus, anti bible old age godless evolution is 100 % faith based. It is from the pit of hell.

Wrong all counts. Simply pro-science. You are the faith based hypocrite. My beliefs are based upon observable evidence only. How can you be anti something that does not exist? Are you anti-Easter Bunny? How about anti-Smokey the Bear? Doesn't your claim look incredibly foolish when your try to look at it logically?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You don't sit in the bleachers on the side of the Dallas Cowboys and cheer for the Green Bay Packers.

So now you are libeling the Dallas Cowboys fans.

I did not think that you would sink that low. What have Dallas Cowboys fans ever done to you?