Walter J. Veith - The fossil record speaks - Part 2

[AScythe]

and he has a different interpretation from the nature reference that he presented...

this is again not good, since you can't really make another conclusion from others scientific work, because you don't have the data...

he is just arbitrarily picking the statements that is consistent to his story, even if the article is really saying otherwise...

very dangerous indeed!

[AScythe]

and he is messing up with the logic of science... and he mocks that logic... and by doing so, he makes the science discovery and logic look ridiculous...

but if you try to look at it very closely, the things that he is mocking are actually the one he fabricated...

I think this is really really bad and dangerous person!

- anonymous chemist-physicist

[courag1]

Since Darwin knew that the fossil record did not show intermediary forms but rather appeared in the Cambrian explosion, then what did we gain from Darwinsim except that if Darwinism is true, then the Biblical God is false. But disproving Darwin, must needs be have the same effect. Except that people know that if it true, that means they cannot live as they like.

[Texoki]

@courag1 :

.

"Science does not have the right to give to me my reason for being.

But I am going to take science's view because I want this world not to have meaning.

A meaningless world frees me to pursue my own erotic and political desires."

Aldous Huxley,

[courag1]

@Texoki I've been studying the religious wars in Europe and I can understand anyone would be sick of it.

[Texoki]

@courag1

.

any difference with now?

This is not getting any better.

we are even destroing the planet.

[courag1]

@Texoki The world is filled with arrogance among rulers. Similar as before the French Revolution.

Those of us who considered to be better citizens have cut down having children. Then others have them with impunity for the sake of barbarian ideals. That is, they allow themselves to murder without answering to any morality, deny history when it isn't complementary which is all the time. And the rest have decided to party until it ends.

[courag1]

@Texoki The educated & enlightened only have one or two children. The stupid & violent multiply. By the end of this century, there may not be anyone who remembers how to generate electricity or read other than snake writing.

But God in all generations, has always preserved a remnant to start over with.

[lizazoon]

@Texoki What bullshit: Did you really graduate from kindergarten ?

[Texoki]

@lizazoon : What bullshit: Did you really graduate from kindergarten ?

.

Mat 11:25 At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from wise and intelligent people and have revealed them to infants.

.

[anonymousone2011]

@courag1 Again, Darwin was a racist and a Eugenecist and based his evolution theory on his personal idea that a white man is more superior since he seems further from the monkey than other races, as in he "EVOLVED" and thus is better and and smarter. If you agree with this theory, you are a dupe. People of other races are no different from the rest. Search in YouTube "A Brief History of Eugenics" there's a video in 3 parts that would help you see what he stood for. He was a total fraud.

[courag1]

@anonymousone2011 Darwin's theories have not been proved but this is not his fault. It is because he expected that many intermediary forms would be found, didn't turn out that way. However, Science buries the truth in the lab and back room and does not change their theory one iota, just get rid of some brilliant professors. Why do you presume that I am a racist? I do not subscribe to evolution either. Why should I spend my time watching your video when you go out of your way to be insulting.

[JesterAzazel]

Roughly simultaneous doesn't mean simultaneous.. It means that it happened in a RELATIVELY short amount of time..

The reality is that it took millions of years..

"everything was there during the from the beginning.."

MAJOR over simplification.. And simply not true..

Archaeopteryx , the oldest known bird, did not exist..

Flying reptiles didn't even exist yet..

Homo Sapiens didn't exist..

The list goes on..

[ExtantFrodo]

@JesterAzazel The dishonesty with which this man represents his side is utterly amazing. Without batting an eye or so much as a blush, he says " Chodata, the phyla to which WE belong (the highest level of evolution) appeared in the CAMBRIAN." As if to suggest that we appeared in the Cambrian. Yet no one in the audience calls him out on a single damned thing.

I'm reminded back to a hymn from my church days... "ALL WE LIKE SHEEP..."

[beedip84]

@ExtantFrodo did he say we appeared in the cambrian? cause i didnt hear that and i looked at the vid about 6 times. just saying.

[ExtantFrodo]

@beedip84 start at 4:29 he speaks what I quoted at 4:35 

[TheRealOne47]

"All these linking lines [linking species together in evolutionary patterns] occur in the mind, not in the fossil record. Theory of evolution is based on political climate, not fossil record.

[gregrutz]

Sediments are the result of erosion.

Unconformitites in the Grand Canyon are due to erosion.

There are 14 gaps due to erosion rather than deposits.

[gregrutz]

Every small marine creature in the Cambrian Period [54 million years] had a mom and dad, just like today.

"Everything was there from the begining"

WRONG, The phylem were there, there were no land animals in the Cambrian.

[gregrutz]

Sudden is 30 million years, and it took several billion years of evolution to get to this point. Many phyla did appear, but not one land animal existed at the time.

'High up on the evolutionary tree."

No higher than the other Apes

'Everything was there" No, the animals were not all there, just the phyla they evolved from.

More Creationist distortions.

Everybody had a mom and a dad.

Dinosaurs are not just big lizards,

they walked upright, their legs are under them.

[Aaron518]

another 8:41-Still 0 correct statements. On to part 3.

[gregrutz]

Erosion has eroded the planet many times over. Read a geology book.

Darwinism is 150 years old and has been updated.

animal FORMS started, every animal had a mom and dad.

[Texoki]

If you see the Grand Cannon you will se all the layer without any erosion

Didn't it rain for millions of years?

.

[777alucard]

Don't criticize darwin's theory or millions of GOD-less world views are in danger! ;DD

Check out Kent Hovind if you don't already know him if you want to know more true history of this planet!

GOD bless!!!

[magick205]

@Texoki; Ummm, no, you won't. Please learn the geology of the place before you start making blanket statements like that.

[gregrutz]

The Grand Canyon does not have rocks from every time period, it has major uncomformities [Gaps]

It is in the desert or it would not look like it does. The rain made it as wide as it is, the river only carries away sediment under it.

[gregrutz]

You Don't see all the 'layers' in the Grand Canyon, there are 'unconformaties' [gaps] due to erosion.

[Texoki]

Where do you see the erosion?

.

All the erosion you can see it's when it was fully formated, which means that it did not rain during its formation, considering that the lower strata is cambrian, that means it did not rain for million years.

That's what the Bible says, it did not rain till the Flood.

.

[gregrutz]

Where do you think the sediments come from, erosion of mountains pushed up by plate tectonices. There is no evidence of a mud flood layer.

Some layer are for volcano, wind blown sand [Coconino Sandstone of the Grand Canyon] or sediments in a shallow sea [limestones Redwall in GC]

NO RAIN NEEDED !

[Texoki]

Does rain and water produce erosion?

.

Where is it?

.

Even a child sees that.

.

All the erosion in the Grand Canyon it is done after is finished, so it did not rain for millions years,

That's what the Bible specifically says.

.

[gregrutz]

The nearly 40 major sedimentary rock layers exposed in the Grand Canyon and in the Grand Canyon National Park area range in age from about 200 million to 2 billion years old. Most were deposited in warm, shallow seas and near ancient, long-gone sea shores in western North America. Both marine and terrestrial sediments are represented, including fossilized sand dunes from an extinct desert. There are at least 14 known unconformities in the geologic record found in the Grand Canyon area.

[gregrutz]

Prove it didn't rain for millions of years.

[gregrutz]

Sudden is 60 million years, LOL

[gregrutz]

But we do have a fossil record, it shows animals evolving, get over it.

[Texoki]

Million of missing links disprove evolution

"the family trees that adorn our text books are based on inference,

however reasonable, not the evidence of the fossils."

.

"The extreme absence of transitional forms in the fossil remains in a secret of paleontology"

Stephen J. Gould, Profesor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University

"Evolution's Erratic Pace", Natural History, Vol.86, No.5 (May 1977), pp.13-14.

[gregrutz]

Million of missing links disprove evolution

HOW?

What is missing?

Quote mining proves nothing, Stephen J. Gould showed why we don't find ''missing links''.

[Texoki]

gregrutz : Stephen J. Gould showed why we don't find ''missing links''.

.

Any empirical evidences of the

"Puntuated equilibrium"?

.

[gregrutz]

Yes, there were 5 mass extinctions on the earth that shaped evolution.

Darwin thought evolution was 'smooth'

it is not, but it still happened. You are talking about how it happened, not if.

[100pjp001]

"But we do have a fossil record, it shows animals evolving, get over it."

Fossils are bones found in the ground all people have done was get the fossils of one animal and find among what they've found another animal that's very similar and match them up and claim one evolved from the other that doesn't prove anything sorry!

That's not a fossil record how can it be ?? It's just bones of animals that have died a long time ago what do people mean by fossil "record"?

[gregrutz]

"Fossils are bones "

No, fossils are rocks in the shape of bones.

[gregrutz]

There are no land animals in the Cambrian TIME Period. Just primitive animals. No land animals, not one.

If he believes what he is saying, he accepts evolution.

The Cambrian was 500 million years ago.

[Texoki]

Where are the transitional fossils ancestors of the 70 phyla of the Cambrian Explosion?

[Texoki]

If you do not explain how this biological explosion occurred,

could be the beginning of creation.

.

Primitive animals with sofisticated eyes?

.

I do not accep your timeing.

.

[gregrutz]

Who says they were sofisticated eyes?

Creationist. There were no land animals in the Cambrian period, 60 million years long.

[Texoki]

gregrutz :

Who says they were sofisticated eyes?

.

"For instance, the double-lensed, combed eye structure of trilobites is a wonder of *design*.

.

The design of the trilobite's eye lens could well qualify for a patent disclosure

.

"has an optimal design which would require a well-trained and imaginative optical engineer to develop today"

David Raup, a professor of geology in Harvard University.

.

[gregrutz]

The point is >> Trilobites were the most advanced life form on the earth. King of the hill, and they were small sea creatures.

[Texoki]

"For instance, the double-lensed, combed eye structure of trilobites is a wonder of *design*.

.

The design of the trilobite's eye lens could well qualify for a patent disclosure

.

"has an optimal design which would require a well-trained and imaginative optical engineer to develop today"

David Raup, a professor of geology in Harvard University.

[incredible916]

You believe in man over God very foolish. The fact being evolution makes you your own god

[gregrutz]

Evolution happened, fact. I didn't say anything about God.

[gregrutz]

Living fossils don't prove evolution wrong, some people don't understand how evolution works.

After 3 Billion years, life exploded, yea.

[100pjp001]

Can I ask you about evolution please?

Do you think people are unreasonable for not accepting a theory that comprises of all life BLINDLY mutating for millions of years for instance fish which happen to mutate the correct tools to live on land, lungs to breathe and limbs to move on land.

That's some lucky shot ain't it for a totally blind process. There are trillions of things fish could of mutated which could of EASILY caused their extinction but instead they've gone from sea to land to sky.

[gregrutz]

blindly mutating!?

Natural selection is not random.

DNA mutated, species evolve.

[100pjp001]

Natural selection is a process by which the strongest species survive better than the weaker ones, it's nothing at all to do with the changes within DNA.

So my point again dna "blindly" guided by "nothing" to make us human beings with eyes to see, ears to hear, nose to smell, feet to walk on, skeleton as a support structure to our bodies.

I don't care how long it took and I don't care if the change wasn't sudden, it's still highly unlikely for blind nothingness to produce what we have sorry.

[gregrutz]

DNA was blindly guided by natural selection, not 'nothing'.

Natural selection is what Darwin is talking about, he didn't even know about DNA and he figured it out.

And it is not the 'strongest' species.

Bunnies made it too.

[100pjp001]

it's all circumstantial with the species like Bunnies were obviously not in much competition with the other animals or they were stronger than others otherwise they wouldn't be here today.

But again natural selection is just the strongest survive which is why many species have become extinct because others live better than them. What does it have to do with DNA?

Also natural selection being the blindly guidance is no different to what I said it's still blind and makes evolution highly unlikely

[gregrutz]

First you say natural selection makes you better, then you say it is blind guidance. Which one is it. Make up you mind.

[100pjp001]

I'm not claiming the whole process is blind am I it's you. Again I'll say that blindness could not have guided us to where we are today. Just think about it if the changes within our DNA are indeed blind then those changes could produce "ANYTHING". But these changes seem to produce the means necessary to eventually live on land from the ocean and eventually fly.

If any change happens within our DNAs then there's just as good a chance of producing the changes that would make all life extinct.

[Texoki]

That is your faith

Any empirical evidences to prove your faith?

.

[gregrutz]

Yes, Biology, Geology, Chemistry.

[Texoki]

That's your faith.

Any empirical evidences?

[gregrutz]

Yes, enough to prove evolution happened.

search proof of evolution if you dare.

[Texoki]

Who or how made life exploted?

[100pjp001]

Evolution is nothing more than a religion and Darwin is the saviour of their souls I mean chemicals in their bodies because apparently we don't have souls or a heart all our emotions come from our scientific unexplainable minds but for some "strange" reason we feel our emotions in our hearts which is quite interesting.

Anyway whatever Dawkins lol!!

[gregrutz]

Evolution is science.

Science does not use the supernatural.

All Cambrian animal were small sea creatures, apearing over 50 million years.

[Texoki]

gregrutz : Evolution is science.

.

NO, It is half lie

Microevolution is truth

Macroevolution is a Lie.

.

[Texoki]

All Phyla appeared fully formed

No transitional fossils ancestors of the 70 phyla of the Cambrian Explosion.

.

[gregrutz]

No they didn't, stop lying.

[Texoki]

You seem not to understand what is

"Cambrian Explosion"

They just appeared, without any transitional fossil ancestor

Just like if they where created

Can you explain that?

.

[gregrutz]

They all had ancestors, nothing appears out of nothing.

The Cambrian Period was 80 million years ling, that is not ''sudden'', and it was when shells and bone evolved so fossil numbers exploded too.

Everyone had 2 parents.

[100pjp001]

Can I ask you a question please?

The half man half ape species how many of their fossils have been discovered?

[gregrutz]

Sahelanthropus tchadensis, Orrorin tugenensis, Ardipithecus ramidus, Australopithecus anamensis, Australopithecus afarensis, Kenyanthropus platyops, Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus garhi, Australopithecus aethiopicus, Australopithecus robustus, Australopithecus boisei, Homo habilis, Homo georgicus, Homo erectus, Homo ergaster, Homo antecessor, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo floresiensis

And man is still an ape, so there is no such thing as a half-man, half-ape.

[100pjp001]

@gregrutz

Ok fair enough then, thanks. Time to find out more on them.

That alone's not going to prove to me that we came from a little cell or a chimp being our cousin. But I will look into these species I've got to give it a chance.

[gregrutz]

Evolution says everything had a common ancestor.

Creationist say, poof, sudden appearance from nothing.

You have it backwards.

[NarrowWayMedia]

Thanks for the video. Explains things clearly using the obvious interpretation of the evidence.

[gregrutz]

Darwinism is a strict following of Darwin, it is 150 years old, please keep up with modern evolutionary thinking.

Evolution happened, they are discussing how it happened, not if.

Phyla had to start somewhere, it wasn't a 'big group' when they started.

[gregrutz]

Cambrian Explosion was 60 million years long. It dose not prove evolution wrong.

Livinging fossils, animals that didn't change much, do not disprove evolution.

Keep trying.

The people he is quote mining all still believe in evolution, every one of them.

[hdiylove7]

FANTASTIC!!!  Sharing National Sunday Law by A. Jan Marcussen=)

[CBALLEN]

Even though Walter is a 7th day adventist,does not change the facts that he's presenting for creation.

[SJS4JC]

Fair enough...but these videos posted refer to evolution and the debunking of that yet he never tells you that he is Seventh Day Adventist...

[SJS4JC]

One very important thing is left out of Walter Veith making an analysis on anyone when upon research it is clarified that he is Seventh Day Adventist which is considered a 'cult' in the Christian community because of its desire to have people live 'under the law' rather than that Jesus Christ and his coming changed a lot of these things. If you want truth look at Ken Hovind

[Texoki]

When I want the truth I look to Jesus

[DeathRattleShakes]

I would spit in evolution's face..... But that wouldn't be very Christian now would it????

[100pjp001]

Why isn't it Christian to spit in the face of evolution?? If evolution turns out to be false as well as a lie then spitting on a lie like that would stand for truth which is what Christ is the truth, the way and the life.

[DeathRattleShakes]

Its a joke sir. Evolution is a lie, and I will laugh at the calamity of everyone who believes in such a Godless lie.

[100pjp001]

Oh sorry lol. That could of came from another angle from an atheist maybe. Yea I just find it hard to believe that our whole genetic make up was a result of replicating DNA going wrong! Look at our anatomy and the hundreds of different tools we have useful too yet scientists say we're an error formed from bacteria by a DNA replication going wrong?? to where we are today over millions of years?? that requires information which requires one hell of a mind.

[gregrutz]

Evolution was accepted 150 years ago, but keep dreaming.

[100pjp001]

Global warming ("caused by us") has been accepted at the moment doesn't make it "TRUE" does it? See one thing we need to realise about scientists is that they are "people" too, and what do people do? They "lie" don't they, and that's what's happening right now with global warming and maybe evolution.

Governments put the blame on us as an excuse to tax their citizens. Air travel, congestion charges for driving on the road. Its a BIG JOKE!!