(December 9, 2012 at 8:56 pm)Darkstar Wrote: Oh, but you certainly implied it, especially when pressed on it.
So, either accept eyewitness accounts for Hitler's rise to power, or throw out your own. Not to mention that thousand+ year old "eyewitness accounts" are not particularily reliable. Seventy year old ones, on the other hand, are much more apt to be trustworthy.
Al-Fatihah Wrote:Yet if asked how you know that these historians were eyewitnesses, your answer is "because they said so", thus you debunked yourself again. For it still relies on hearsay that the eyewitness were actually eyewitness.
Response: It ws not implied, as there is nothing synonymous to the words "eyewitness are useless"mentioned. You fail again.
So once again, Hitler proves nothing, bevause the qur'an challeneg proves that it is impossible from a hands-on eyewitness account. Therefore, any history claiming otherwise is false.
