Roger Stanyard writes:

No I'm not; I'm openly saying its drivel. See block word above.

While your point was indeed softened by the in-brackets "or drivel", the overall point of it seemed to be support for the idea that Hitler was a Darwinist based on mere creationist claims. Why else write this:?

I also point out that the modern day creationists virtually all claim that Hitler was a Darwinist and an atheist. They've produced copious amounts (or drivel) to support their claims.

Which of those were you arguing for? "They've produced copious amounts to support their claims? or "They've produced drivel to support their claims?" Anyhow, this is somewhat beside the point.

My position is that you and the OP have an argument that has more holes in it than a collander and is therefore unusable. It's amateur.

But you haven't actually demonstrated any holes in it. All you've really done is argue for a much narrower definition of the term "creationist" (which is really just semantics).

It#s also pretty amateur to start claiming that Hitler was intelligent in support of you argument.

I wasn't. I was merely pointing out that Hitler was reasonably intelligent as a reply to your claim that he was intellectually incapable of distinguishing between creationism and evolution. That's actually quite an absurd position.

However, my arguments would, based on what you say, simply be pulled to shreds and, almost certainly, be dismissed out of hand by professional historians of Germany as amateur conjecture.

There you go again, merely asserting that there are flaws in my arguments, and that they'd be pulled to shreds, without actually showing any of these claimed flaws. You are just making empty assertions here.

The fact is that Hitler's setting forth of his opinions (in Mein Kampf etc) is actually fairly clear and straightforward, and it is certainly clear enough to show that he believed that man was created in current form (rather than having evolved). That view runs repeatedly and consistently through one of the main themes of the book, as I've shown. If this was anyone else we were talking about it would be readily accepted as adequate evidence that that was indeed his opinion -- especially in the total absence of any quotes whatsoever saying the opposite.

So why the huge reluctance to accept it in the case of Hitler? It can only be that the Christians have been so successful in spreading their falsehood that Hitler was motivated by atheism/Darwinism that even non-Christians have assimilated, and thus suffer cognitive dissonance when presented with actually quite clear and straightforward evidence that says exactly the opposite.