Because Youwerecreated referred to "the one layer of strata that is world wide which contains all complex organisms" and said it was discussed in this video, I feel obligated to look it over so I can respond responsibly. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URWilfB2RVU]The Genesis Conflict 103 - Bones in Stones - Walter Veith[/ame] Only 2 minutes in, this asshat starts greasing the specious path to the intellectually and morally bankrupt conclusions he hopes to use as props for his defense of the beliefs of superstitious retards like himself. ~ 0:02:00 Considering Veith's unambiguous record of disingenuousity, it's worth pointing out that relative to the geologic time scale, the occurrence of the Cambrian "Explosion" is arguably "sudden." Veith (disingenuously) fails to point out that "suddenly" on this scale occurred some 900,000,000 years after the earliest eukaryotes, and the "explosion" he is describing is about 600,000,000 in duration. @ 0:02:45 Veith asserts that there is no such thing as primitive creatures. He (disingenuously) wants to get one thing straight: "There is no such thing as a simple organism. Every organism on this planet is highly, highly complex." As if the absolute complexity of life is at all in dispute. Veith is boldly demanding that evolutionists are not using the terms "primitive" and "simple" as descriptors on a relative scale. Without foundation in fact of reality, verifiable evidence, or valid logic, Veith is attempting to invalidate patently obvious observations along the lines of, "Single celled organisms are simple, compared to multi-cellular organisms." What he is doing (as he has done throughout this series thus far) is presenting a generalization made by evolutionists (which they clearly assert as being only a generalization) and then he picks specific examples not explained by the generalization, and then asserts (disingenuously) that this specific example is inexplicable for evolutionists. Veith is clearly an intellectually dishonest douche. @ 050 Veith begins to demonstrate that there's more than one way that a fossil record can be established. He then tell a story about the "catastrophic" effect that a bulldozer might have on a small pond, as it buries the organisms associated with it. He of course, does not make it clear (for the purposes of metaphorical accuracy and honesty) that aside from this burying, there is to be no evidence what-so-ever that such a bulldozer was ever present or logically necessary, so you could validly hypothesize by verifiable evidence and/or valid logic that such a bulldozer was present. @ 0:06:30 Veith asserts that it is the fossils in a layer that determine the age of the layer they are found in; then he demands that by circular reasoning alone are the ages of the layers and the fossils found in them determined. The suggestion he presents is NOT that fossils simply offer evidence of the age of a layer, or that similar fossils offer can offer strong evidence of similar ages for similar layers, but that fossils are the sole determinant factor for the age of the layer of sediment. It's a patent error of fact that Veith is certainly aware of, and so are Youwerecreated and MarcATL, making the three of them intellectually dishonest retards. @ 0:07:38 While discussing the conditions that paleo-geologists consider to be ideal for fossil formation, Veith takes the refusal to assert the clearly local nature of localized (in both time AND location) "catastrophes" as evidence of a global catastrophe, to be the denial of the evidence that local catastrophes occurred and could therefore be responsible for fossil formation--thus by default, this same set of scientists are then somehow obligated to recognize ONLY uniformitarian explanations. Other than intellectually dishonest superstitious retards, who can take this guy seriously? @ 045 Veith just goes entirely off reservation regarding how scientists classify an organism as "primitive." I really do not think it is at all necessary to view the remaining 65 minutes of Veith's intellectual dishonesty to make the obvious conclusions regarding its intellectual value in light of this forst 10 minutes, and the thoroughness of his dishonesty in the 2 previous presentations. I seriously wish there was a transcript available, so that examining this crap would consume so much time. So I'm going to try to skip ahead to this "one layer of strata that is world wide which contains all complex organisms" that YWC was on about, so I can respond to him. ========================================== ===============INTERMISSION=============== ========================================== This is as good a spot as any to insert this excerpt from an essay I discovered while looking for this single layer of silt found world-wide that was undeniably deposited during Youwerecreated's and Walter Veith's global deluge. Even if all biologists were in the clutches of evolution’s vile, atheist conspiracy, presumably bribed by their academic paychecks and research grants, there’s no reason for profit-seeking corporations to cripple themselves by sticking with a “fraud” like evolution — not when there’s an allegedly better theory around. The free enterprise system isn’t interested in ideology — only what works. Business executives and their shareholders are results-oriented, and if there’s a legal way to use knowledge to earn profits, they’ll do it. But somehow, despite the incentives to stay ahead of the competition, flood geologists aren’t recruited by the mining or oil industries, creation scientists aren’t hired as researchers for the biotech industry or pharmaceutical firms, and — this is trivial, but true — specialists in Noah’s Ark aren’t in demand by naval architects. Isn’t it amazing that these industries, which are profit-oriented and thus non-ideological, which employ tens of thousands of scientists in the fields of biology, geology, etc., never specifically recruit creationists and don’t waste their time or their shareholders’ money doing “creation science”? Why don’t they offer big salaries to hire the leading ID scientists away from the Discovery Institute? Why don’t they make tempting offers to all the creationists who claim that universities discriminate against them? Why are they avoiding such a rich source of talent? If there were any creationists who were actually doing creation “science” in any industry, or if there were any fruits to be derived from the “science” of creationism, the usual websites would be delighted to point it out. They routinely proclaim that evolution is dead, and creationism is the future, yet they are strangely silent about their failure to penetrate results-oriented industries. Does the “Darwinist” conspiracy control not only academia, but also the hiring and research activities of major corporations? Oil companies too? If so, where are the gutsy little start-ups that have some hot new creationist development to sell? Why don’t venture capitalists bankroll such enterprises? If creation science is such hot stuff, why isn’t there a creationist version of Silicon Valley? Could it be that — gasp! — investments in creationism don’t offer anything of value? --The Sensuous Curmudgeon, 2009========================================== =============END INTERMISSION============= ========================================== I couldn't find Veith's discussion of "the one layer of strata that is world wide which contains all complex organisms" which is not at all surprising, as I couldn't find any discussion of such a thing anywhere, except to say that no such thing exists. YWC will just have to point it out to me specifically. But, while I was searching this video I found: @ 0:15:24 Veith asserts that "you can't have your cake and eat it." Of course, he is just as wrong about this as he is about nearly everything else. What you cannot do is eat your cake, and then have it. You in fact CAN have your cake and eat it. As it turns out, it is a logical necessity of reality that you have cake in order to eat it--you MUST have your cake in order to eat it.