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.
how is it that you continued to think hitler a christian even after proving he wasn't with the use of multiple scriptures (exposing him to be a false convert- and/or apostate)?
how do you explain marine fossils in shale? (46%)
or nautiloids in limestone (22%)
shale is made basically by mud and moving water
Then do it in your own words, using any links for references.
Whats the problem?? Piece of cake.
Already have done that. It is likely a very incomplete record of life in the former state because almost all animals and man could not likely fossilize! Once we could in this present state world, we see man a beast join the record. Piece of cake.
how is it that you continued to think hitler a christian even after proving he wasn't with the use of multiple scriptures (exposing him to be a false convert- and/or apostate)?
Anything somewhere in the record you need explained?... I challenged you to explain the fossil record first ....
You are not in any position to challenge the different future or past in the bible. If you could we would see some case. You are bankrupt in that dept. I am wealthy.Actually I will tell you how it was done. There is no evidence of an altered state, either Biblically or scientifically.
No one cares what you assume.That means there is no valid reason to assume one.
No, you sure can't simply slide that act of faith by us here. The rates and processes are wholly dependent on the forces and laws that exist. You need to know what they were, not assume. I have NO reason from science to believe in your same state past, and every reason to believe it was actually different from God. So you are going to need a whole lot more than belief!That means we can use the rates of today to project back to the rates of yesterday.
Irrelevant.I can show you articles that tell how fast various strata are being deposited today.
False. In other words IF the deposit was uniformly deposited and in this state, then and only then would we assign certain time to how long that would take, should take could take.That and the thickness of various beds gives us a minimum, not a maximum of time necessary for deposition.
Not in any way at all. In many cases we have piling up and uplift that shoved strata together, making the 'deposit' larger than it would have been if the continents had not bashed around. In other cases, we have salt and materials likely originating deep under the earth, and coming up somewhere near or in the flood year. In other cases we have plant and animal fossil remains like coal or oil and such that come from tress and plants that had a super rapid growth rate in the former state. Etc. ALL your stories and ages are religion.When you add up all of the different strata around the world you end up with hundreds of millions of years.
That seems to be a balanced perspective. However when it comes to lying politicians we also ought to know they are lying through their teeth.Hitler was not a Christian in the sense of being redeemed from his sins and guided by Christ in his heart. He was a Christian in the sense of identifying himself with the Christian culture instead of muslim or atheistic cultures.
Both uses of the word have their place.
When I read about christians begin driven out of their homes by muslim extremists, I don't take it that every one of them had a genuine born again experience. I take it that many of them were baptized as babies, and thus may have not personally ever repented and gained salvation through Christ.
But I don't say the reports are inaccurate. I just understand what they are talking about.
Anything somewhere in the record you need explained?
You are not in any position to challenge the different future or past in the bible. If you could we would see some case. You are bankrupt in that dept. I am wealthy.
No, you sure can't simply slide that act of faith by us here. The rates and processes are wholly dependent on the forces and laws that exist. You need to know what they were, not assume. I have NO reason from science to believe in your same state past, and every reason to believe it was actually different from God. So you are going to need a whole lot more than belief!
The challenge was for you to explain the fossil record. Particularly the observed order of fossils. How do you explain the order of fossils that we see? Especially how do you explain the order of microscopic index fossils?
Little things died first, and the the early fossil record would be things that firstly could fossilize and the things which died first. If we consider that the Precambrian and Cambrian layers, for example probably represent only centuries together, we might get some perspective on the order of fossils there.
Seek help elsewhere, either post something of substance or admit defeat.dad, again 9th Commandment please. You have lost every Biblical debate that you have had with me.
That seems to be a balanced perspective. However when it comes to lying politicians we also ought to know they are lying through their teeth.
Hitler was not a Christian in the sense of being redeemed from his sins and guided by Christ in his heart. He was a Christian in the sense of identifying himself with the Christian culture instead of muslim or atheistic cultures.
Both uses of the word have their place.
When I read about christians begin driven out of their homes by muslim extremists, I don't take it that every one of them had a genuine born again experience. I take it that many of them were baptized as babies, and thus may have not personally ever repented and gained salvation through Christ.
But I don't say the reports are inaccurate. I just understand what they are talking about.
As far as the Theory of Evolution goes, it wouldn't matter if Hitler was inspired by Darwin. It would not matter if Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, Mary Poppins or Mickey Mouse were inspired by Darwin. That has no affect on the validity or merits of the TOE in any way.
It wouldn't matter to the Theory of Evolution if Darwin was a horrible person. He could be a rapist, mass murderer, dog diddler, or a person who stole quarters from the collection plate as it was passed around. That also would have no impact on the Theory whatsoever.
Trying to discredit the person or ascribe bad results to the person who develops a scientific theory or discovery has no relevance to the theory or discovery itself.
So trying to establish if Hitler was influenced by Darwin as a way of criticizing the TOE is just rather useless rhetoric and bad logic.
It appears to me that animal breeding and the works of Martin Luther had a far bigger impact on the Nazis than Darwin did. But even if he did, it has nothing to do with the theory itself.
Dizredux
As far as the Theory of Evolution goes, it wouldn't matter if Hitler was inspired by Darwin. It would not matter if Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, Mary Poppins or Mickey Mouse were inspired by Darwin. That has no affect on the validity or merits of the TOE in any way.
It wouldn't matter to the Theory of Evolution if Darwin was a horrible person. He could be a rapist, mass murderer, dog diddler, or a person who stole quarters from the collection plate as it was passed around. That also would have no impact on the Theory whatsoever.
Trying to discredit the person or ascribe bad results to the person who develops a scientific theory or discovery has no relevance to the theory or discovery itself.
So trying to establish if Hitler was influenced by Darwin as a way of criticizing the TOE is just rather useless rhetoric and bad logic.
It appears to me that animal breeding and the works of Martin Luther had a far bigger impact on the Nazis than Darwin did. But even if he did, it has nothing to do with the theory itself.
Dizredux
It is an old creationist tactic. When losing the debate bring up Hitler as a derail. Of course they lose that argument too. Unless you get questionable sources like gradyll did it is very obvious that he was an avowed Christian. He may not have followed today's Christian practices, but that does not change his beliefs. Also if anything Hitler was a social Darwinist, that had about as much to do with evolution as social Newtonism, also known as defenestration, has to do with Newtons theory on gravity:
Top 10 Defenestrations (People Thrown from Windows)
Did you note that your quotes came from one source? They were not publicly made and the source was noted as being both anti-Christian and pro-Hitler. You should have found a better source. These quotes were publicly made and can be confirmed from more than one source:
Hitler's Christianity
No, it's not. And it has been explained to you many times why it is not.I am discrediting survival of the fitest which rooted in darwinism has led up to social darwinism and resultantly : Nazism.
not publically made means that they were his real personal beliefs. Public quotes many times are innacurate because of the PR and facads put up.
But please finally do yourself a favor and debate honestly, for once. (thats all I ask you).
I beg of you.
I mean it's one thing to be stumped, to not answer. but to dismiss all facts and dodge the post repeatedly over and over again, is simply dishonest.
again here are the quotes of hitler rejecting christianity:
Was Hitler a Christian?
this has been debunked before, social newtonism does not exist.
Natural selection is a scientific theory. How can bringing in Hitler discredit a scientific theory?I am discrediting survival of the fitest which rooted in darwinism has led up to social darwinism and resultantly : Nazism.
which is considerably much different from Spencer's ideas especially in that Spencer believed self improvement could be inherited as well as Darwin's ideas that all species were equally valuable.Darwin first used Spencer's new phrase "survival of the fittest" alongside "natural selection" in the fifth edition of On the Origin of Species, published in 1869, intending it to mean "better designed for an immediate, local environment".
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?