Adolf Hitler - The World's Most Infamous Creationist

[Subduction Zone]

I agree. Actual math doesn't support your religion of a same state past in any way. If it did, you would post some rather than making much ado about nothing, and tip toeing in the tulips all day.

dad, don't you know it is a sin to break the Ninth Commandment? I have demonstrated more than once why our beliefs are not religious. That is your illness, not ours. And the math does support our claims. Would you like to learn? I would be more than happy to help you to learn.

Duh, ya think?

You denied this very fact in your previous post. But then you can't do the math and perhaps did not understand that you did that.

The issue is you talking about some different decay in the past, for example in Noah's day. Once again, prove there was any decay at all then, or stop claiming some.

We have given evidence that decay rates for any element have always been constant. And since you are the one making the claim that they were different you need to provide evidence of that. So far you have provided none. Not one whit of scientific evidence.

Let's see some scientific evidence that you are correct. Until then I will simply be laughing at you.

 

[dad]

I have demonstrated more than once why our beliefs are not religious.

Right, you demonstrated that you have a compulsion to not call your unsupportable beliefs religious. So?

We have given evidence that decay rates for any element have always been constant.

Insanity. All I recall is some touting of daughter parent ratios, and a request to believe that this was all due to a present state in the past!


Let's see some scientific evidence that you are correct. Until then, you remain in the sea of blather, on a dingie of belief.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Right, you demonstrated that you have a compulsion to not call your unsupportable beliefs religious. So?

Wrong, my beliefs are supported by evidence. You sadly don't even know what qualifies as evidence.

Insanity. All I recall is some touting of daughter parent ratios, and a request to believe that this was all due to a present state in the past!

You keep making the mistake of assuming that your delusional state is a fact. You have not given any evidence to support it while we have given evidence that you are wrong. Even the least little bit of evidence beats no evidence at all. Do you want to see the evidence again?

Let's see some scientific evidence that you are correct. Until then, you remain in the sea of blather, on a dingie of belief.

I will be happy to provide you with evidence, under one condition. You have to promise not to deny it without evidence that shows you are correct. And by that I mean you have to debunk it with scientific evidence, not your dusty old Bible that has been shown to be wrong hundreds of times over.


In other words if I provide evidence you cannot deny it without a reasonable scientific reason to do so. Are you ready to make such a promise?

 

[dad]

Wrong, my beliefs are supported by evidence. You sadly don't even know what qualifies as evidence.

I know what you post. That is no more evidence than Hitler was Mother Teresa.

Do you want to see the evidence again?

Sure. We can pretend you posted some before, and this would be the second time if you like.
My \position is solid enough to be able to allow losers to save face. Impress the lurkers then, by all means, let us all see this much ballyhooed 'evidence'! (By the way do tell us what it is supposed to be evidence FOR!)

In other words if I provide evidence you cannot deny it without a reasonable scientific reason to do so. Are you ready to make such a promise?

Cut the looney talk, and post something if you have it! There are many reasons for things. Surely you are not suggesting science knows it all! The issue is whether laws applied in the past, so unless science covers that, obviously no one will post science for or against!

 

[Subduction Zone]

I know what you post. That is no more evidence than Hitler was Mother Teresa.
Sure. We can pretend you posted some before, and this would be the second time if you like.
My \position is solid enough to be able to allow losers to save face. Impress the lurkers then, by all means, let us all see this much ballyhooed 'evidence'! (By the way do tell us what it is supposed to be evidence FOR!)

Cut the looney talk, and post something if you have it! There are many reasons for things. Surely you are not suggesting science knows it all! The issue is whether laws applied in the past, so unless science covers that, obviously no one will post science for or against!

Please, no Ninth commandments failures. You already have shown that you are not trustworthy. Let's here some apologies for your bad behavior in this post first.

Debate civilly, don't refer to unsupported nonsense, and we have a deal.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

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.

Yet you cannot explain with your undefined "kinds" why lions and cheetahs cannot breed, and my definition of "species" works in saying since they cannot breed they are more widely separated than lions and tigers.

That would not be obvious at first glance.

dad, here is the post that you did not understand again.

Now, what part of this post did you not understand?

 

[dad]

Please, no Ninth commandments failures. You already have shown that you are not trustworthy. Let's here some apologies for your bad behavior in this post first.

Debate civilly, don't refer to unsupported nonsense, and we have a deal.

Lurkers...here is what sub z offers as proof of he claimed repeated production of evidence. Makes a limp noodle look like an iron bar!

 

[dad]

dad, here is the post that you did not understand again.

Now, what part of this post did you not understand?....

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

Why should they be able to breed? Why can't apples fly to the moon? Who says they should?? Now if we were in the garden, and they could breed, I might wonder.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lurkers...here is what sub z offers as proof of he claimed repeated production of evidence. Makes a limp noodle look like an iron bar!

Wrong. I am tired of your continual nonsense to say the least. Is it unreasonable for me to demand that you start to act like a Christians for once?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why should they be able to breed? Why can't apples fly to the moon? Who says they should?? Now if we were in the garden, and they could breed, I might wonder.

You forgot you own test!!



You had two widely separated animals and asked why they could not breed. I responded that my test was for closely related species.

You have still failed to define "kinds" ins a useful manner.

 

[dad]

Wrong. I am tired of your continual nonsense to say the least. Is it unreasonable for me to demand that you start to act like a Christians for once?

So what should I do, an exorcism?

 

[dad]

You forgot you own test!!

Look up for my tests.

You had two widely separated animals and asked why they could not breed. I responded that my test was for closely related species.

Maybe they were too widely separated! Or..maybe they never were that close! How can you tell?

You have still failed to define "kinds" ins a useful manner.

Look who's talking! Play us another tune.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So what should I do, an exorcism?

I don't think one would do you any good.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Look up for my tests.



Maybe they were too widely separated! Or..maybe they never were that close! How can you tell?
Look who's talking! Play us another tune.

Once again, my test is only necessary when animals are very closely related. Whether dogs and wolves or horses and donkeys my test works. I don't need it for the pictures you gave. Perhaps you do.

So let's see your test for telling if two animals are different kinds.

 

[Doctor Strangelove]

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.

I appreciate your postings of real science instead of Young Earth pseudo-science. But it is pseudo-history to say that the Nazis or the "German Christian" movement had anything to do with orthodox Christianity - quite the opposite. Those who believe the slander that Nazism was an expression of Christianity might want to check out this:

Positive Christianity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Subduction Zone]

I appreciate your postings of real science instead of Young Earth pseudo-science. But it is pseudo-history to say that the Nazis or the "German Christian" movement had anything to do with orthodox Christianity - quite the opposite. Those who believe the slander that Nazism was an expression of Christianity might want to check out this:

Positive Christianity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I did not claim that Hitler was an orthodox Christian. But by the rules of this forum he would be considered a Christian. Here a Christian is anyone who claims that he is a Christian. That includes Catholics, who outside of here were said not be Christians by many protestants. And protestants, who were said not be Christians by many Catholics. And Mormons and even Jehovah's Witnesses who have been denied to be Christians by almost everyone. Hitler was far from an orthodox Christian. Even at his worst he still seemed to believe in him, though he did have his own very strange beliefs.

The fact is that Hitler was more of a Christian and a creationist than he was any other religion.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

I did not claim that Hitler was an orthodox Christian. But by the rules of this forum he would be considered a Christian. Here a Christian is anyone who claims that he is a Christian. That includes Catholics, who outside of here were said not be Christians by many protestants. And protestants, who were said not be Christians by many Catholics. And Mormons and even Jehovah's Witnesses who have been denied to be Christians by almost everyone. Hitler was far from an orthodox Christian. Even at his worst he still seemed to believe in him, though he did have his own very strange beliefs.

The fact is that Hitler was more of a Christian and a creationist than he was any other religion.

Furthermore, I've heard it argued that the nazi racial purity idea originated in a creationist viewpoint where all the races were created separately and thus maintaining the purity of the aryan race, which was superior and created in god's image, was paramount. They weren't, apparently, trying to create a super/master race but trying to preserve aryan purity. This viewpoint seems to allow microevolution with selective breeding but rejects macroevolution. Ring any bells?

 

[dad]

Once again, my test is only necessary when animals are very closely related.

Since kinds reproduced after their kind at creation, all you have done is borrow a criteria of kinds! Let's not pretend you own it. It is what it is.

Whether dogs and wolves or horses and donkeys my test works. I don't need it for the pictures you gave. Perhaps you do.

Well, the pics were from the former state I think. So, yeah, you need it badly to enforce your ideas on critters there!

So let's see your test for telling if two animals are different kinds.

"Are"? Don't you mean "were"? What we have now, in this state is not the purebreds of the created kinds. The example I used was lions do not now eat grass, nor the wolves. If they were pure created kinds, I would expect that they would. Therefore, since a kind in this present time and nature can be so different, I would not even be certain that the reproduction ability would be a solid absolute indicator of original kinds. Maybe. Maybe not. Unlike so called silly science, I do not like to make stuff up, or make big claims just for the sake of trying to be seen as wise.

So, besides a borrowed test from the bible kinds, you cannot even tell us about creatures fossilized in the pics I gave. OK. Maybe run along now. You are done.

 

[Strathos]

I did not claim that Hitler was an orthodox Christian. But by the rules of this forum he would be considered a Christian. Here a Christian is anyone who claims that he is a Christian. That includes Catholics, who outside of here were said not be Christians by many protestants. And protestants, who were said not be Christians by many Catholics. And Mormons and even Jehovah's Witnesses who have been denied to be Christians by almost everyone. Hitler was far from an orthodox Christian. Even at his worst he still seemed to believe in him, though he did have his own very strange beliefs.

The fact is that Hitler was more of a Christian and a creationist than he was any other religion.

And do you think that means all Christians are genocidal warmongers like Hitler? Or that it means that Christianity inevitably leads to becoming like Hitler? Or that Hitler did what he did because of Christianity?

 

[Subduction Zone]

And do you think that means all Christians are genocidal warmongers like Hitler? Or that it means that Christianity inevitably leads to becoming like Hitler? Or that Hitler did what he did because of Christianity?

No, of course not. You have not been following the conversation. Creationists very often make the mistake of assuming that Hitler was pro-evolution and try to tar the science with that claim. Now by their logic, since in reality Hitler was more of a Christian than anything else this would make a tie between Christianity and Nazism. Lucky for creationists I don't use creationist logic.

It is nice to see that using the fact that Hitler was a Christian against Christianity is bad logic.