Battlecry's "Crack the Code" Debunked

	Duration: 09:54 minutes Upload Time: 2007-01-22 04:15:14 User: TheGreaterSatan :::: Favorites :::: Top Videos of Day
Description: You don't have to shut your brain off to follow Christ. Well... maybe a little. ExtantDodo's videos have inspired me to make a refutation of Battlecry's anti-evolution video "Crack the Code" which is targeted at youths.
Comments
TheGreaterSatan ::: Favorites "it is a logical fallacy to say that speciation is proof that macroevolution happens. its called a hasty generalization." It's also a logical fallacy to move the goalpost. It's called... moving the goalpost. Anyways, you're wrong. If speciation is plausible, so is macroevolution. Watch cdk007's video about Micro vs. Macro Growth to get a better understanding why this "we haven't observed macroevolution" is fallacious. 07-10-19 13:15:01 __________________________________________________
TheGreaterSatan ::: Favorites "the vast MAJORITY of scientists do believe those ape men are not ture" Watch again. Only Nebraska man and Piltdown man aren't real. Scientists do not say Lucy or Java man are not real, as the video implies. "we have never seen a mutation that increases information in the genome" The four phenomena listed have been observed; all them constitute as an increase in info. If you want to refute this, you'll have to first bother learning what "information" is. You'd be the first creationist to do so. 07-10-19 13:10:37 __________________________________________________
darklink0112 ::: Favorites you try to sidestep the question the vast MAJORITY of scientists do believe those ape men are not ture , but you said few. and you stil didnt debunk the mutation. we have never seen a mutation that increases information in the genome, to get from a simple cell to ape to microbiologist. dont try to play word games with the defination of information. and it is a logical fallacy to say that speciation is proof that macroevolution happens. its called a hasty generalization. 07-10-19 12:51:16 __________________________________________________
TheGreaterSatan ::: Favorites "Isn't it easy to see a common "design" in creation which show similarities yet are individually different?" Yes, but for it to be a scientific subject, they would have to prove for a fact that we are designs which are the product of a designer, and would have to explain with evidence how intelligent design works (for it to be considered a theory). Otherwise, it's just a thing you happen to believe which doesn't really help us scientifically. 07-10-12 22:03:35 __________________________________________________
flv50 ::: Favorites The reason there are similarities between different species is because if you trace the evolutionary "tree" back it will eventually lead to a common ancestor. New species evolve from existing species, so there will inevitably be similarities between them. 07-10-12 02:11:42 __________________________________________________
flv50 ::: Favorites You completely missed my point. Why does matter have to be created? Why can't it have always existed? If something has to be created to exist, then who created God? There is no empirical evidence proving the existence of God. 07-10-12 02:05:08 __________________________________________________
brianinptown ::: Favorites I find it easier to believe that an all powerful God created matter, than some sort of nothingness creating matter. Both require faith, but after seeing so many other evidences of God in this world, it's easier to believe in creation. Do you see my point? Thanks 07-10-11 18:07:17 __________________________________________________
brianinptown ::: Favorites I'm interested in what you think of the concept of Intelligent Design...explained simply: If I were to paint 100 different pictures of different houses, it would still be possible to see my personal "signature" throughout each painting, despite each painting being different. Isn't it easy to see a common "design" in creation which show similarities yet are individually different? Hope you understand my examples. 07-10-11 18:04:32 __________________________________________________
TheGreaterSatan ::: Favorites Unfortunately, all this debating has led many people to believe that evolution is an "atheist belief". What they don't realize is that when it comes to the search for God, the question of how we got here is irrelevant compared to the question of why. 07-10-11 17:32:34 __________________________________________________
TheGreaterSatan ::: Favorites I generally agree with you. Of course if you ask me, this debate in particular has nothing to do with finding God. It's about religious ideologues trying to alter science and facts in order to fix things they see as problems with society (eg: sex, drugs, teen rebellion, etc.). Listen to a fundamentalist talk long enough and this, their true reason for wanting an "alternative" taught, will eventually come out. 07-10-11 17:25:28 __________________________________________________