Walter Veith - Creation To Restoration - In The Stream Of Time (Part 1)

[Music] i'm very happy to see so many of you here this evening thank you for coming and taking the time as you heard i used to be in academia i was not a professor at stellenbosch i was senior lecturer there i was there for 19 years and then i was professor of zoology at university of the western cape and in the last few years i was the professor of medical bioscience just because they they they shared the the medical field and stellenbosch university got the the standard medical field and our university got the dentistry field but the subjects are the same and so i was involved in all of these fields now i was always an atheist most of my life i was an atheist from the age of 10 because of all kinds of interesting things that happened in my life and when i married my my dear wife we decided that we didn't need religion in our home because what's the point of a religion if there is no god right and that's how i operated and then through other major circumstances i started rethinking that position and eventually was confronted as an evolutionist and a teacher of evolution and a professor of zoology with this major question creation versus evolution and a creator god the two are totally incompatible now people are trying to to compromise and put them together and come up with all kinds of interesting theories like theistic evolution where you marry the two ideologies but of course the one negates the other completely you cannot have a system that uses death to propagate and eventually to arrive at a perfect situation and humanity when the bible says death is a consequence of the sin of humanity so those two positions negate each other and in fact the whole of christianity is negated because what's the point of christ dying on the cross to give you eternal life which you had lost if you never had it in the first place then what's the point so the cross is negated and the marriage becomes an issue of scientific theological confusion and god is negated and pushed to the sidelines well i started studying this in quite some depth and came to the conclusion eventually that the biblical paradigm was not far-fetched and in fact there was more evidence to support that than to support the evolutionary paradigm and this brought me of course into major conflict with the scientific world eventually while i was at stellenbosch i resigned and i decided that i was no longer willing to sit on two chairs i wasn't going to sit on the fence and pretend there wasn't a problem but i was again appointed at the university of the western cape and they knew full well what my position was so i felt that that was something that i could live with my colleagues were all evolutionists most of them were atheists in fact throughout my entire career most of my colleagues were either total atheists or well theistic evolutionists at best but most of them atheists so this was a major problem now when i was at my university the students used to always ask me why i approached the subject so differently because if i ever spoke about evolution i would say the theory of evolution says and then i tell them what it says now student is a very curious thing did you know that so at some stage they would say excuse me what do you say then i would say to them it's not part of the curriculum but if you want to know then arrange a lecture after hours and i'll tell you now that's a carrot that they cannot cannot refuse so eventually i would give a lecture after hours and then the students would take this back into the other classes and this would create can you guess major confrontation major confrontation eventually legislation in the world started changing and that which is a theory became compulsory so in most countries in the world including south africa the teaching of evolution is now compulsory not only at the tertiary level but even at the level of preschool and school and the whole gambit from the bottom to the top and the counter may never be given now what do you do in a situation where government makes legislation enforcing the teaching of a particular ideology without allowing the opposite ideology equal space and what if on top of that the media only propagates one ideology if you've ever switched on a nature program how long does it take before you are inundated with the time question and the evolutionary paradigm 10 seconds every every 60 seconds at least they will tell you this creature is how old millions of years millions of years and this planet and this all came into existence billions of years ago and they have lots of millions and billions to throw around with so i decided to do one thing if you cannot reach them through the official channels then go unofficial take it to the public because everybody has a brain i assume and everybody has the capacity to decide for themselves whether something is credible or whether something is incredible now of course it doesn't end there because credibility is the basis of the problem but whose credibility in particular god's god's credibility because if god is wrong at the very outset of the book then how much faith can you have in the rest of the book and that is a very very important issue and why is it in the world that we're living in today do we have so many hundreds if not thousands of views regarding this book that won't go away and why are there so many denominations each one with a particular viewpoint regarding this book and what about if god cannot be trusted on the question of origins how can he be trusted on the question of prophecy because origins takes a look into the past isn't that right now good grief if he gets that wrong then what's the probability of him getting the future right nothing zero so the whole credibility of god the whole credibility of the bible actually hinges upon this point and the bible becomes an allegory a book of stories that people wrote down some saying wise some sayings sublime some sayings foolish some sayings according to the scientific world moronic isn't that where we are in the world today so i'm going to have a look at this issue this evening from a totally different aspect i'm not going to go into geology i'm not going to go into the fossil record i'm not going to go into any one of those i have lectures on each one of those and i've written a book on on it as well and i can tell you today that there are thousands of scientists thousands of scientists in all fields biological medical geological physics astrophysics you name it that believe the biblical paradigm why because the evidence is just becoming overwhelming so let's have a look at some of these issues creation to restoration i've titled this one now a few years ago the pressure by the evolutionary guild of this world became so great that the theological world was under so much pressure to conform that it actually capitulated so they started what was called the clergy letter project this was an effort to get the clergy this is the theologians to agree that evolution was the only correct paradigm in which to judge the issues of origins and they wanted the the evolutionary paradigm to be infiltrated into all the churches and the pastors had to put pen to paper and say we believe in evolution as the only means whereby everything came into existence that started in 1998 in 2008 very quickly they had 11 730 signatures even from rabbis saying we believe that evolution is the only way by 2009 they introduced what was known as the evolution weekend now once a year on the evolution weekend they will introduce lectures and sermons into the churches that will underscore the fact that evolution is the only paradigm in which we can consider origins so whatever is there in the bible is a story it's an allegory and that's the way we should see it now it didn't stay there the great evolutionary scientists of the world and one of the greatest of them all is probably richard dawkins he's world famous he's always on television on bbc everywhere and he travels worldwide much the way that i do and he is an ardent hater of anything religious particularly the god of the bible now i actually sympathize with the man because exactly how he is i was so i can understand where he comes from and he started an organization or is part of an organization that calls themselves the brights they're humanists now we also had in our country organization which called themselves the brights but it was only in afrikaans it was called differentis do you remember that politically speaking the enlightened ones the brights now what does it take to be a bright this is their own web page it says well the brights are hugely diverse and most of them are self identified atheists either humanist secular humanists free thinkers rationalists agnostics skeptics ethical culturists pantheists but then amongst the brights you also find buddhists and yogi and wiccan and trans-humanists unitarians and then surprisingly jews catholics quakers episcopals and others who may personally maintain their religious cultural or aesthetic aspects but not at supernaturalism now in order to be a bright you have to deny that there is a god so you're only bright when you know there is no god this is fascinating but then ask yourself the question to be a bright you must believe there is no god then how does a jew a catholic a quaker or protestant for that matter here get to be a bright well this answer is simple you are a jew a catholic a quaker or a protestant because of the religious cultural aesthetic aspects and not because you believe there's a deity behind it so it's the culture that you embrace but you don't embrace the god behind the culture now in our own country there's been quite a debate about this because there have been ministers who were preaching from the pulpits who were atheists and they tried to fire them but it's unconstitutional because it's his constitutional right to have a particular belief and so we do have ministers in this very country preaching from pulpits who don't believe that there is a god well you can preach a pretty good sermon you can preach a sermon about ethics and ethical values and you can even incorporate christian values thou shalt not steal thou shalt not murder etc etc these are values that even atheists embrace so that's no problem but then they were very adamant about it and they decided to go and publicize their ideas so they wanted to put onto buses the london buses the slogan there is no god and collect money to propagate this idea now they planned to collect about pounds they must multiply that by almost 18 today so that's a lot of money but before you could say jack robinson they'd collected 36 000 pounds but they were not allowed to put the slogan there is no god on the buses because it was unconstitutional and could be offensive so they were only allowed to say there probably is no god so that's what the what there is there's probably no god this is a london bus with that slogan on it and what's fascinating is that people seem to be willing to spend a lot of money to propagate the idea so this is where we are in the world that's where we are in the world and i'm fascinated by modern trends if you look at what what's happening in the world today and the violence in the world and all of these issues religion seems to be at the heart of the violence that we have in the world today isn't it sir and what happened in france recently is even more fascinating but what is coming out of it is is very very interesting because it seems as people don't want to see or don't want to call religion per se the problem it's extreme ideas about religion which is the problem so let's all be one on the issue and let's embrace the cultural but not the specific aspects of religion now of course nobody propagates violence because that is against the very principles of the bible if you are a christian at least you must even love your enemy isn't that so but can we can we embrace every ideology for the sake of peace or is there only one truth or are there many truths it's an interesting question which we'll discuss in later lectures all right so now from this viewpoint let's start right at the beginning and god saw everything that he had made and behold it was very good and the evening and the morning were the sixth day well there are certain things on the planet which are very good but if i switch on my television i can certainly see there are many things that are anything but good so obviously we've moved from very good to not so good so something must have changed but according to this text everything was good and god said let us make man in our image after our likeness let him have dominion over the fish of the sea and the fowl of the air and the cattle and all everything that creeps on the earth etc and so god created man in his own image in the image of god do you think he's trying to tell us something there in our image in his own image in the image of god three times we are told that we are created in the image of god and god blessed them and god said unto them be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea the fowl of the air and every living thing that moves upon the earth so according to this verse man was created as the very pinnacle of the creation process and he was in the image of god which means maybe physical but certainly spiritually in the image of god he was to reflect the character of god and isaiah 43 verse 6 and 7 says i've created him for my glory i've formed him yeah i've made him and whenever you read the word glory you can equate it with the word character in other words he was to reflect the character of god this doesn't sound to me like a being that is crawling out of some evolutionary slime pit and slowly progressing through stages of non-cognitive function to cognitive function and god said see i have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth and every tree whose fruit yields seed to you it shall be for food also and now i want you to listen very carefully to what it says here this is a very important little word there can you read it what's it say every beast of the earth and every bird of the air and everything that creeps on the earth in which there is life i have given every green herb for food and it was so all right so man was given every herb that's plant that yields seed on the face of the earth and every tree whose fruit yields seed that shall be your food so according to this verse what was every creature that god created in terms of its diet they were all plant eaters they were all vegetarian now if you look at that verse and you look at the reality of the planet today then one of the two must be correct or can they both be correct is it possible that when i look at the world today that i could go along with this verse yes or no who's been to the kruger national park who's seen what a lion does or what a leopard does or what any one of those carnivores does or hawk or a vulture or hyena who's seen all those animals uh do they qualify as every beast of the earth all right so here is a major problem verse let's file it as a major problem verse purely by observation it's a problem verse now charles darwin and i'm going to defend the man tonight not all the way though darwin was a very bright man he was theologically trained and he went on this voyage of the beagle and he looked at this world and he looked at the conflict between creatures and he developed the concept of survival of the fittest which was a constant flux and flow and conflict in nature and he came to the conclusion that that which he saw did not align with that which he read in the bible and so he decided that the naturalist view of what he sees must be the standard and the norm and therefore logically must negate that which he reads it's a logical conclusion so he wrote to his friend dr azar gray i'm bewildered i had no intention to write atheistically but i own that i cannot see so plainly as others do and as i should wish to do evidence for design and beneficials on all sides of us there seems to me too much misery in the world i cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent god would have designedly created the ignomini which is a group of parasites where they express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of a caterpillars or that a cat should play with mice when i look at the world what i see does not fit into the picture into the paradigm of what i read in scripture therefore i cannot take scripture literally and i have to negate it and use my mind and my common sense to come up with a logical alternative that's what he did in his first origin of species draft he wrote in 1844 it is derogatory that the creator of countless universes should have made by individual acts of his will the myriads of creeping parasites and worms which since the earliest dawn of life have swarmed over the land and in the depth of the ocean so here i'm looking at all these creatures he says and there are worms and parasites and creature attacking creature and feeding on one another and then to say that god individually lovingly formed each and every single one of them which was the idea at the time doesn't make any sense but if i look at it from an evolutionary aspect then he says we cease to be astonished that a group of animals should have been transformed to lay their eggs in the bowels and flesh of other sensitive beings that some animals should live by and delight in cruelty that animals should be led away by false instincts that annually they should be inculcable waste of pollen eggs and immature beings if i look at the world as i as i see it then the evolutionary paradigm makes far more sense than the biblical one now was he logical yes or no be honest of course he was honest of course he was logical and so we cannot say that evolution is not based on logic but what if the foundation is flawed what if the foundation is flawed what if something happened which he is not taking into account what then what if something changed what if what we see today is not what it was like in the beginning is there any evidence for that well the bible says in genesis chapter 3 from verse 9 that god called adam and said where are you why are you hiding and adam said i was afraid obviously there was no fear before by the way the bible says perfect faith drives out fear so here he was afraid and he said i was naked so i hate myself and who told you were naked and what happened here and the woman said and he said the woman you gave me she's the problem she made me eat and the woman said no no no it was the serpent that beguiled me and the lord god said unto the serpent because there has done this thought cursed above all cattle and above every beast of the field and upon thy belly thou shalt go and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life now many will argue that point and say and he doesn't eat dust number one and then this verse of ear upon thy belly thou shalt go now can i assume from this text that the serpent didn't go on its belly before i can assume that right so according to the verse circumstances changed and a curse was placed upon the serpent but according to romans the curse eventually spread how far through all creation because the whole creation is groaning and then it went further but let's have a look at some of these issues so if we look at lizards and we look at serpents then most of them of the lizards have legs but some of them have highly reduced legs and some of the serpents have remnants of legs and some of the serpents like here for example there's a remnant of a leg and some serpents that don't have legs sometimes develop legs embryology in their embryology so something goes wrong and there's a leg but the leg is perfect it has every single little bone but it's just highly reduced now my question is this even those that don't have legs if they sometimes produce legs in their embryology then do they have the genes for legs yes or no then they must have the genes for legs all right so can i assume that originally they all had the genes for legs and that those genes must still be there even though they don't develop legs which means that the genetic system must be suppressed in order not to develop the legs is that correct all right so my next question is then did the creature that does not have legs lose something or gain something they lost something it lost something that it had and there's evidence that it had it even in those that don't have it so is it a progression or is it a digression so it's not a way forward it's a way backward so it cannot be evolution it must be devolution are you with me let's ask some more questions all right we have some horrible features in animals today and the bible says it was good it was very good but you have serpents with venomous fangs and venomous glands and they don't look so beautiful either now where do these things come from is this some new evolutionary thing that developed so that one creature could outsmart another creature become more fit and survive to the detriment of the other one well what is a poison gland is it a new structure in these creatures that is nowhere found elsewhere and the answer is no because a poison gland is nothing other than a transformed salivary gland and so library glands produce enzymes by the way do your salivary glands produce enzymes yes or no yes you have the enzyme amylase which helps you to digest carbohydrates so you have enzymes in there now an enzyme is a protein now if i put a protein into your stomach you will digest it if i take the venom of this snake that will kill you and i make you drink it what will happen to you nothing nothing why because you're just digested but if i take that same protein and i inject it into your vein where it won't be digested what will happen to you you'll have a hectic immune response a major reaction which can be so great that it ends up in anaphylactic shock and you could die so by injecting an enzyme into the bloodstream directly you can cause major havoc but it doesn't mean that this structure was originally designed to kill other creatures just like our salivary gland is not designed to kill other creatures it's designed to digest something so the same if we go to a spider the poison glands that we find there also are not new structures but are transformed existing structures now it actually goes a little bit further genesis chapter 3. and unto adam he said because you've hearkened unto the voice of the wife gentlemen you you must listen well here and has eaten of the tree of which i commanded thee saying thou shalt not eat of it cursed is what the ground why for thy sake cursed is the ground for thy sake in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life thorns also and thistle shall it bring forth to thee and thou shalt eat the herb of the field okay the herb of the field was originally given to whom the general plants of the field were given to whom to the animals to the animals to man was given the seed of plants of her bearing seed he was given the seed and he was given every tree with fruit on it but it wasn't his original diet to eat that which the other animals ate which was the herb of the field now it was added so that's good news broccoli will was not on the original menu so cursed is the ground for thy sake why would god curse the ground for adam's sake well we only have to look at the world today if things are perfect the rain falls in its season the farmer plants and everything is perfect at every stage the rain falls just right and the plants grow and the wind blows just right and everything is pollinated what do you have a lot of smiling farmers when do farmers particularly go to church and pray when nothing works when it seems as if the earth is cursed in other words when things go very well with us we sent we tend to lose sight of god now what if god is the only means that you have to have life and life eternal what could god do to remind you that you need him you know this is actually a marvelous verse he didn't say to adam you know what you're such a miserable specimen i'm going to curse you you didn't do it it didn't say to eve because you ate of it i'm going to curse you he said i'm going to let the curse rest on the serpent not because i hate the serpent i created the serpent but to remind you but to remind you and i'm going to curse the earth so that you remember and i'm going to make a little change and there will be thorns and thistles can i assume that there were no thorns and thistles before okay so what are thorns and thistles something new well darwin would say yes it's an evolutionary development by the plant to protect itself against herbivory now anybody living in the bush felt must know that darwin's view is not very practical is there an animal that does not eat the thorny bushes in this country now the giraffe eats the top the elant and the kudu eats the bottom they all consume this this plant but we must admit that thorns are a pain in the neck now where do they come from are they some new evolutionary development some new genetic material that over millions of years accumulated to give the plant an edge and the answer is no because a thorn is nothing other than a modified stem and normally it is environmental circumstances which determine that the structure will develop in the way it will and here the thorns that you see on this cactus for example are actually modified leaves so instead of the leaf unfolding it actually folds in upon itself same genetic material and makes a thorn and the stem takes the place of the leaf it's a modified stem there's no new structure here no new genetic material and the thorn of a rose is a cortical outgrowth now if you want to experiment with this i suggest you get oliver spade and you start turning over your garden what will you eventually develop on your hands calluses that's a cortical outgrowth is that a new evolutionary development to protect you against the spade absolutely not because that would have to take millions of years to accumulate the genes that enable you to actually do that so this is a response to pressure which is already built in and this here is exactly the same no new genetic material so darwin you have a problem dalvin didn't know about genetics there's no new genetic material anywhere and when it comes to thistles exactly the same thing this is the petal of the flower that instead of folding outward folds inward same genetic material nothing new so there's nothing new under the sun now let's get to darwin he particularly mentioned parasites as a proof of his evolutionary way of thinking did we read that all right now what is a parasite a parasite is a creature that feeds on another creature or uses the life cycle of another creature to propagate itself that's what a parasite is now is a parasite some marvelous new evolutionary invention that enables this creature to get the better of its host but what is a parasite well here are some parasites if you take a tapeworm for example a tapeworm is a worm but it doesn't have an intestine and it doesn't have eyes why not because it lives in the intestine of other creatures and it's pretty dark in there can't see anyway so it doesn't have any eyes and it doesn't have an intestine of its own why should it have if you're doing the job for it it'll just use what you are using so question did it gain something or lose something obviously lost something the eyes are not there and the rest is not there now how far will this process go all parasites are actually a reductionist something's gone or something is changed now pathogens those are bacteria or whatever that cause disease it's called a pathogen now normally they are just translocated species so if you take the bacteria which normally occurs in your intestine and is your symbiotic friend in there that you have to have in there to be healthy if that gets translocated by some accident to another part of your body let's say to the pericardium that little skin around the heart this creature which is the exact same one that you need in your body is now in a new location which is not conducive to its lifestyle and it's under extreme stress and produces toxic substances under that stress which can kill you is that evolution now when it comes to these pathogens it's interesting how they change and they can change they tell you you know the germs are getting tougher every year have you heard that well actually what is happening all they're doing is swapping genetic material so bacterium can take a piece of dna and donate it to a neighbor and that'll splice into the neighbors as a recipient and that will be a recombinant but there's no new genetic material in fact mankind does it all the time we swap genetic material between a man and a woman and our children look different from us but they still have human genetic material and there was no new genetic material added in the process it was just recombined genetic material and the same with all the pathogens so acquired immunity resistance to pesticides herbicides antibiotics is not based on new genetic material it's always based on recombined existing genetic material there's no evolution involved here now some parasites live in barnacles and other crabs and some of them are really fascinating here's a parasite these eggs that you see over there are not the eggs of this little crab there these are actually the parasite and all that there is of the parasite is a number of threads that have spread throughout the body of the host and then these reproductive structures so what is there of the parasite a reproductive organ and a number of threads that's it no other structures but this very parasite that just looks like this has a larval stage in other words when this little egg hatches a lava comes out which is free living and guess what it has a tail and it has eyes and it has a mouth and it has swimming organs and it has an intestine it's a fully fledged organism so my question is this creature over here that consists of a reproductive organ and a bunch of threads does it have the genes for mouth must have because its offspring is going to have a mouth does it have the genes for an intestine yes must have because the offspring does it have all the genes it takes to be a free living swimming happy organism yes or no yes then where are those features here they're deactivated the genes have been switched off because once it enters it to the host it doesn't need any of it it just uses everything the host supplies and all it's interested in is producing the next generation now here's a here's a thought if there's nothing new here and if this certainly isn't an evolutionary progression but a deactivation a way back and not a way forward isn't it possible that originally crab were crabs and the parasite never lived in the crab then why did the parasite go and live in the crab well the earth was cursed according to the scriptures and all of a sudden everything changed suddenly there were seasons and instead of the trees bearing their fruit once a month they bear them for one month two months and then winter comes and they don't bear anything now if you were for example a creature that ate a particular plant that used to grow throughout the year but now that plant is only there for a fraction of the year because everything has changed what do you do well you either die or as you said you eat something else and what's more convenient than eating your neighbor so maybe some of these changes actually have nothing to do with evolution but have to do with deterioration or change circumstances a fascinating example is the mosquito the mosquito has all the apparatus required to suck your blood so it has this fantastic proboscis which is like a straw and a drill all in one and it can drill this hole into you and secrete enzymes in there which prevent the clotting of blood because if the blood should clot and destroy it have a veritable sucking experience it has to remain fluid right and what this is evolution this creature's designed through the evolutionary process to have the right enzymes in order to prevent the clotting and to suck up the blood and the apparatus is there and what a marvelous way to feed yourself on the blood of another creature with all those nutrients in it now that would be fair enough except for one little thing the male of the species has exactly the same apparatus but it doesn't suck blood the male is a total vegetarian a gentle plant eater it sucks plant juices now did you know that plant juices also coagulate everybody who knows that they work with fruit or whatever your hands get white sticky because plant juice coagulates that's why you can make things like jams etc because of the pectins and the stuff in there that coagulate now in order to prevent that coagulating the male has the same enzymes to prevent the coagulation of the plant juice now my question is this is this female thus the subject of an evolutionary development enabling her to do what she does or is her design just fortuitously enabling her to do exactly this was it originally designed to suck blood or did it eventually suck blood because it could you see the difference in the way of thinking now in the evolutionary thinking of darwin this creature is a perfect example of evolution if you want to put on your biblical spectacles then you can say hang on a second maybe this was a changed circumstance why this creature started doing what it was doing and maybe there's a reminder of what it was like in the beginning and you can find that by looking at the mail then why did she suck blood and the male knot well the female has to produce eggs and she has to produce all of these high energy products which the male does not have to do and so the male gets sufficient out of what he's doing but what if the earth is cursed and that which is available to him doesn't provide what it did originally what a magnificent way to augment your diet by simply taking something else doesn't mean it was originally like that and so if we look at all these things that cause pain and suffering on this planet like the stings of wasps and hornets and all of these creatures were these structures that cause pain originally part of the design that was good very good or what are they well actually they're transformed ov positives the structures that were designed to lay eggs and associated with these you have a whole lot of glands that produce all the secretions that are necessary to create an egg which is protein right so if i should eat that protein which i can do by ingesting an egg will it kill me or will i digest it i'll digest it but if i were to inject the egg into your bloodstream what would happen to you you would be critically ill you would be critically ill so these structures were transformed ovpositors and a little bee for example will pay for its life by stinging to you because it has a bob on there which brings me to another point the bee lives in a colony and the female worker bee is sterile she does not produce any eggs whatsoever only the queen bee produces eggs now if the queen bee should die what happens to the hive no they don't all die some of the worker bees will start eating the food reserved for the queen bee which is royal jelly that's why it's called royal jelly and when they eat the royal jelly guess what happens to them they get transformed into a queen bee and normally there will be about five or six of them and the one that gets there first will kill the others and she will be the new queen and no b will become a queen after that because she will produce a pheromone that suppresses all their reproductive functions so my question is this does a worker bee have all the genes it takes to be a queen so can fallen pathetic humanity have all the genes it takes to be sons and daughters of god some points to ponder so when you look at all the suffering and pain that darwin looked at it doesn't mean that god designed each creature to cause the suffering because it doesn't harmonize with his original statement that nobody ate anybody else everybody ate plants all right that brings me to the carnivals darwin said if i look at a cat and i see how it works with a mouse i believe in evolution i cannot believe what god said is that what he said that's what he said so let's have a look well if i look at a lion and i look at this magnificent structure in the front here and all these teeth this creature is certainly capable of tearing you apart it has all the equipment required and it has the aggression as well has anyone have you ever been on the other side of a line charge it's a sobering experience in any case here you have foxes and foxes in the wild are aggressive and because they're not very large the russian scientists dimitri balayev decided he was going to see what this whole situation was about and he started breeding with foxes and then out of the first letter he took the mildest and the gentlest ones and he took them and he bred the next generation and out of that litter he took the mildest and the gentle ones and he bred the next generation and guess what after eight generations there was no more aggression they were just like domesticated dogs playful sweet gentle then he analyzed their organs and he found something fascinating he found that the adrenal glands were much smaller in the gentle foxes and that the hormone levels associated with adrenal secretions which are fight and flight and aggression and all of these were much lower and he analyzed the brain hormones for example serotonin and found that the levels were much higher in the gentle foxes than in the wild population eight generations is that evolution no because that takes millions of years so the whole question of how an animal becomes aggressive and changes its attitude can be nothing other than an hormonal imbalance in fact today we know in the medical field that the way to treat schizophrenics and people that are highly aggressive is by raising their serotonin levels with drugs and then they become calm and sweet and gentle and did you know that in the old days it was not necessary to have police walking up and down the passages of the schools to make sure that the students don't annihilate each other it didn't happen in the previous generations why is the present generation so aggressive well there are a number of factors and just besides what you watch and what influences you just something that you eat for example the artificial antioxidant that you find in most of the snack foods of the world and do kids eat them yes have been found to lower serotonin levels drastically and when the serotonin levels drop aggression increases so there's some truth in you are or what you eat all right so the way an animal operates can be purely based on the level of certain secretions and doesn't necessarily mean that it was an evolutionary progression now if we look at carnivores in general here are bears bears or carnivores based on their teeth and they're classified as carnivores and yes they will tear you apart and they're grumpy and they eat animals and they will eat fish but what does most of their diet consist of they eat fish when the salmon run is on and the salmon run is on only for a very short period and then it's gone well if they were to rely on the fish they would starve they would starve so that's their diet they eat berries berries now the singular of berries is bare and that's why they are called bears because they eat berries in fact 86 of their diet is plant-based so we're looking at that small fraction of animal products and we say this is a highly aggressive carnivore yes he's grumpy and he's aggressive and maybe his serotonin levels aren't what they should be you would too if you were starved through and out an entire winter and if we look at some of the different species that don't live in the cold environment like the panda bear that lives in the tropics where the food is available 24 7 every month of the year then what is the panda bear he's a total vegetarian he eats bamboo that's his diet but if you go to the museums of the world well here's a koala bear it's also a vegetarian it's not a bear i took this picture straight from the fence in the sydney zoo and it says their red pandas are classified as carnivores meat eaters but most of their diet is bamboo so here's my next question he's classified as a carnivore based on his teeth but his diet is bamboo so are the teeth necessarily an indication that a creature has to be a meat-eater yes or no obviously not and the bear is an opportunistic meat eater but 86 of its diet consists of plants is it possible that at some stage when the environment was not cursed but utopic perfect good very good that he could have subsisted entirely upon plants yes or no if an elephant can then surely a bear can if a panda bear can and surely the others can all right things have changed this is a fish did you notice that and the fish has the structure just like we which is the kidney and in the kidney just like in our kidneys we have a structure which is called the glomerulus and this is a structure where the blood is pumped in and goes through capillaries and then out of a narrower blood vessel out and because of this division there's tremendous pressure in there and the fluid oozes out of the blood ends up in there and goes down a tube and that happens to us every single day we drink water the water ends up in the blood it takes up all the the stuff that's in the blood that's soluble eventually it goes through this structure the water is forced out of the blood vessels by the pressure and that water is then some of the stuff is reabsorbed and that water ends up in the toilet it's called urine all right now the fish has that structure but now here's the problem when a fish is swimming in sea water the concentration of the sea water outside is higher than the concentration inside so that means that by osmosis this poor fish is constantly losing water it cannot afford to lose all the water so it drinks water desalinates it through the gills and retains all the water that it can get and this structure is a pain in the neck because this structure is designed to lose water and you certainly need this structure if you're going to drink a lot of water or else you will explode or if you are a fish swimming in fresh water then you certainly would want this structure because now the situation is reversed there's fresh water on the outside it's moving into the fish by osmosis the fish is drinking it it has to get rid of it so this structure has to work now according to evolution all fish evolved in sea water and fish have the structure even those fish that never swim in fresh water now excuse me why would you develop a structure to get rid of water if you can't use a structure in seawater what does this tell me it tells me that something must have changed the water must have originally all have been what fresh water fresh water so the bible says go and ask the fish and they will tell you and go and ask the animals and they will tell you that if you look at it in the right way you will find evidence that the bible is maybe not so foolish as you think now our kidney is such a complicated structure and we are not only able to get rid of water we can actually concentrate the urine so if we're thirsty we don't lose so much water and for that we need this particular structure which can never evolve because if it's not in that exact perfect configuration which is highly complicated it can never concentrate europe and it cannot come incrementally to this position you can cannot improve it over time it's either there and it works or it's not there that's it how does something so complicated come into existence we call this irreducible complexity and your whole body is full of irreducible complexity it can only function in its highly complex perfect present state it cannot improve from bad to good it must be perfect one example let me give you one sperm has a flagellum flagellums have a proton pump which is a highly sophisticated machine much more sophisticated than anything that has been put into any vehicle designed by man and this thing propels creatures and sperm forward if it's not in that exact configuration it cannot work so it had to be perfect that's like saying that the engines which fire a challenger rocket or boeing one day fell out of the sky absolutely perfectly operational you can believe it if you want to so let's get back to our lion lion the bible says originally you were a vegetarian darwin says i cannot be persuaded when i look at cats and their prey that you were a vegetarian you are the product of evolution and you have the muscles for it you developed them over time and you were a creature in progress all right and as for you the same counts for you the tiger is also a vicious carnival as are all these creatures and some these scavengers have the apparatus to take you apart piece by piece the most powerful bite in the world the dingo the wild dog all of these creatures or the birds of prey look at the apparatus this is perfect for killing and the claws perfect for grabbing these creatures were designed meat-eaters they came into existence through the evolutionary paradigm here's an interesting bird it's the new zealand key parrot look at its beak and its claws now this little bird eats the roots of a particular tree digs them out bites them off and eats them it's a softish root like a carrot almost and that's its diet and then one day they developed a certain area and they built houses and they removed all of these trees and then one morning the farmers woke up and their sheep were lying dead on the field and they thought now what strange disease had come upon these sheep and then they discovered that it was the ski parrot the key parrot would sit on the back of the sheep and claw itself to the skin to the pelt and then with a sharp little beak dig through to the fat around the kidney and eat the fat around the kidney leaving the sheep dead now let's assume that some disease had killed all those plants and not human intervention and darwin had come there one day and he'd seen this parrot killing whatever it was killing would he not have said well this creature is evolutionary adapted to do its killing now what did they do in new zealand to solve the problem they replanted the trees and guess what the creature went back to its original diet and the sheep lived happily ever after not really because there was another carnivore waiting for them now if you look at a parrot do you think it could kill with that beak of it do you think it could kill a mouse well have you tried putting your finger into a cage could it bite your finger off it certainly could do a lot of damage so it certainly could kill and it could certainly grab hold of something so because it has the equipment to grab and the equipment to kill does it mean that it was originally designed to be a killer obviously not because it's a sea eater right or a fruit eater and uh they're designed to give you fun or the piranha it has the equipment to be vicious and to tear meat there's it's close relative the paku this is a seed eater this one is a carnival but the two can actually interbreed they're that closely related so your structure doesn't necessarily mean that you are designed for a particular purpose this is a chipmunk and chipmunks eat seeds but with the destruction of the forests you find them today eating roadkills animals that have been run over they will eat them does that mean they were designed to become meat scavengers like i you know obviously not if their food supply was adequate they wouldn't have to do it so we can go through the entire animal kingdom and come across exactly the same thing and i will say this is absolutely in her before was designed to be a herbivore the others are carnivores and rodents or something in between now these rodents or rodents or copper fakes they have to eat their own excreta like rabbits or like the ecwid's horses in nature and zebras and nature and elephants in nature are copper fakes they will eat their own excreta and even the excreta of their neighbor elephants are known to eat elephant dung straight out of the rear end of a fellow elephant question does that sound good very good or does that sound yuck very yuck so what's changed why is it that these creatures need this assistance of the symbiotes and to recycle food twice through the intestine is the earth cursed doesn't it bring forth was it dead so let's get back to the question line are you a vegetarian i was giving a lecture in the united states and i was viciously attacked by some fellow scientists and they said to me it's not a question of teeth only the entire physiology of this creature makes it a meat eater because number one its gut is much shorter than the gut of a herbivore because it eats meat and i said yes but that's that's a product of change within a short period it has nothing to do with an evolutionary process and they were furious with me and of course supported the evolutionary paradigm and so when i got back home i had a student who was working not on lions but on chickens but the principle is the same and this student had the chickens on various dietary regimes because we were looking at antibiotic resistance which is a major killer today and by chance the chickens were being fed what the industry feeds them because who wanted to see if diet can affect the way in which the bacteria develop antibiotic resistance so some of the chickens were on plant-based diet that was millies and soybean now some chickens are actually fed that way in the industry the other group was on the same similar diet but had a percentage of fish meal added to the diet as are many fish many chickens fed today and so we had these various dietary regimes so i said to the student okay plant protein versus animal protein once this experiment is finished and by the way this experiment only ran from the hatching of a chick to the time when it is market size which is six weeks just six weeks and i was wondering what the effect of the different diets would be in that six week period and this is what we found carcass mass a these are chickens that got total plant-based diet so they were fed millies and soybean b were fed millies and soybean the same diet as those with added antibiotic these c were fed the same diet with a percentage of fish meal animal protein and these will fit that same diet with an antibiotic all right so this was plant plant plus antibiotic animal protein animal protein plus antibiotic when it came to their growth no statistical difference they grew equally well whether they had the one diet or the other no statistical difference gut mass if they were fed purely plant diet they had the greatest gut mass when they were fed antibiotics the gut mass was lower when they were fed animal protein the gut mass was still lower and when there were added antibiotics then the gut mass was still lower fascinating why well antibiotics number one will take energy away from your immune fighting capacity and so the animal doesn't have to eat so much because it doesn't have to supply that energy and so the gut was smaller all right but when it came to gut length then it really gets interesting because this is now significant if it got plant-based diet in six weeks the gut was significantly statistically significantly longer than when you added an antibiotic or when you added animal protein or whether you added an antibiotic to that so question can the diet that you consume or the drug that you can consume affect your anatomy within a short period of time yes or no obviously yes so this is not evolution it didn't take millions of years now what's even more interesting is this heart mass when they were fed plant-based diet or animal based diet the heart was compact and strong when they added an antibiotic the heart was enlarged in both groups so can an antibiotic something like an antibiotic on a regular basis cause an enlarged heart yes or no yes do you know that we have far higher incidences statistically speaking of child cardiac failure today than we ever had in the past so what you eat certainly impacts you we also found that antibiotic consumption for example increases your liver size in other words it puts stress on your liver so an antibiotic is something there for disease but it's not there for your diet you were never designed to have antibiotics in your regular diet but you can certainly take it if you are sick and then you'll get over it and get it out of your system and stays out of your system but in the industry they feed this stuff daily daily so that's bad for you so can i assume that what you eat can affect your anatomy and your physiology and your health and everything that goes with it and i can certainly see that gut length can change very rapidly now this is the american journal of clinical nutrition and it says here in a study done on humans that a high ratio of dietary animal to vegetable protein increases the rate of bone loss and the risk of fracture in post-menopausal women so in other words your bones get more brittle if you take animal protein than if you were to take plant protein so purely from a design aspect which one would be better for you then plant protein plant protein what was the original diet again plant protein okay now i was giving some lectures in stellenbosch and uh we have a great agricultural school there and they were interested in what i was saying because i was talking about animal protein and the effect that it has on bone metabolism and the scientists came to me and said you know what we have a major problem with sheep these days sheep that are red in pens where they don't get a lot of exercise they develop skew legs are you telling me that you think it could be diet related and we're looking at germs and diseases and genetics and all of that and i said certainly it can be diet related he said no it can't be and when you feed them he says well it gives the structure and there's a lot of animal protein in this either carcass meal or poultry by-product or fish meal or whatever is in there i said that's your problem say nah i can't be i said let's do an experiment so we got some students together and we started running an experiment and we used cheap as a model and we used merino sheep now these were young little rams that we raised again only for a three-month period very short time and this is what they were fed the one group received a diet of basic plant protein with a 12 percent protein ratio that's what you would find if the animal ate lucerne that's what he would get 12 percent protein then we took the next group gave them the exact same diet but added three percent animal protein take another group the exact same diet and added five percent animal protein all in the form of fish meal then we took another group and added eight percent animal protein which brought the total protein up to twenty percent protein of which eight percent was from animal protein now if this might look mean but this happens in the industry all the time and the industry goes as high as 35 we didn't go that high we only went to 20 and then just to make sure i said let's add in a final group and let's also take 20 percent protein so that we can compare apples with apples and pears with pears but we'll add the extra protein in the form of plant protein so we added gluten which is a plant protein so that was also 20 now this was the result this is the animal protein when you add animal protein then the leg's got skewer but it didn't happen when you added plant protein now here is a mr legs he's got beautiful legs as was a plant protein sheep this one was a five percent protein five percent animal protein and that one was eight percent animal protein now that's significant wouldn't you agree that's highly significant now we wanted to know why so we analyzed the bone structures this one has just been shown to show the deformities you can see the deformities in the hooves and one of the factors if you want to have strong bones is you have to have exercise so it doesn't necessarily happen to sheep that are running around but if they're stall fed they're standing and they're getting no exercise and it happens to them so it shows you what's happening at the physiological level we analyzed the bone calcium to phosphorus ratio and found that the more animal protein we added the lower the calcium to phosphorus ratio became in other words there was less and less calcium in the bone and more and more phosphorus now these are the top two groups the twenty percent twenty percent whether one had eight percent animal protein in it calcium loss in the urine and the stool just look at the difference two thousand milligrams a day loss if they received animal protein as opposed to only about 800 loss if they received plant protein so you lost more than double the calcium more than double the calcium if you look at the deformity the deformity by the way 50 percent is zero deformity then there was huge deformity if they received animal protein and the calcium to phosphorus ratio look at the difference animal protein a pathetic ratio of calcium to phosphorus plant protein and excellent ratio now this one's a bit complicated so i won't go into that one that caused quite a consternation this one is is very informative this is where you take the animal and you want to see what happens in a 10-day period of bone growth now some things like certain antibiotics will stain your teeth and they will also stain bone so you give the animal an antibiotic you let it wait 10 days and you give it another one and under fluorescent light you can see two stains in the bone and between the two you have 10 days growth and that gives you an exact picture of what happens at the micro level of the bone and just graphically this is what happens this is a 12 plant protein and it had perfect anatomical bone structure in those ten days if you added three percent animal protein it got worse if you added five percent it got even worse if you added eight percent it got terrible so if you looked at it under the microscope the microstructure of the bone was all distorted if you added plant protein then it was perfect again fascinating now you will argue and you will say to me hello there was a sheep it wasn't designed to eat meat it's a herbivore but here's the interesting thing repeat the experiment with a pig repeat the experiment with a dog with a cat with any animal under the sun with a rat guess what exactly the same result so here's my question is it possible that they were actually all designed for plant protein is it possible if your answer is yes then all of these creatures could have been designed for plant protein now the human system we have canines we have an intestine which is not as short as a carnivore but it's not as long as a pure herbivore herbivore it's something in between so they tell us we're omnivores or based on our teeth we should be carnivores could you open your mouth please huh look at those canines they're impressive would you agree so based on the canine what would the diet of this creature be he should be a ferocious meat eater but he's not he's a herbivore he's a herbivore so you cannot rely on the teeth you cannot rely on the gut in order to determine exactly what the diet should be if you take a carnivore like a dog and you put it on a herbivorous diet it goes thin and then after a while it picks up and it gets normal again like any other creature what happened in the interim between the two periods well the gut was too short to handle the plant material and then it increased in size and the receptors in it increased in number and eventually was totally capable of dealing with it this is not evolution it has nothing to do with evolution and if we ask the evolutionists about all the vestigial organs they will say that they're all sort of remnants of an evolutionary past there's no such thing every single vestigial organ has a function your appendix is absolutely essential in determining whose friend and foe in your gut in the early stages of development after that you can live without it doesn't mean you don't need it every single structure is either important in the embryological stage or in the early developmental stage or in a later stage there is no such thing as a vestigial organ the thymus triggers immune systems etc etc every single structure is important and so there is no such thing as an evolutionary afterthought or when it came to the embryos and the evolutionary history and heckler looked at them and he said you know we actually recapitulate the past firstly he cheated he drew them incorrectly to fit his paradigm and today we know that this is not the case jave george gaylord simpson who was a great evolutionist even admitted that hekel had misstated the evolutionary principle involved it's now firmly established that ontogeny that's your embryological development does not repeat phylogeny which is your evolutionary development so all these things that the students have to learn in the classes are based on either frauds in this case or suppositions here's a great one they'll tell you we're all related somewhere along the line because we have homologous structures structures which look the same so a human hand and the pore of a cat and of a baton of a poor person of a horse they all have common ancestors because they have similar structures that's what we're told and this is drummed and drummed and drummed into the students what's interesting is that the most primitive structure is the pentadactyl one which is five digits which we all have on our hands isn't it fascinating that the so-called most advanced creature has the most primitive hand should i tell you why because otherwise you couldn't play the piano now this is the interesting part so based on these we say we're all related now this is what william fix who's an evolutionist says the older textbooks on evolution the new ones as well make much of the idea of homology pointing out the obvious resemblances between skeletons of limbs of different animals thus the pentadactile five-digit limbs is found in the arm of a man the wing of a bird the flipper of a whale that must mean we have a common origin right now if these various structures were transmitted by the same gene couples varied from time to time by mutation and acted upon by environmental selection the theory would make good sense unfortunately and that's never written in any textbook it's always conveniently left up this is not the case homologous organs are now known to be produced by totally different gene complexes in different species the concept of homology in terms of similar genes handed on from common ancestors has totally broken down all right here's my bottom line darwin looked at the world he saw chaos he saw pain he saw suffering he concluded that it didn't match the description of the original world that god had obviously not been part of the equation and so god was sidelined and naturalistic processes took his place now after tonight's lecture you can take the glasses of faith and you can look at that same story and see whether darwin perhaps missed something perhaps what we see today is a faint reflection of what it once was and perhaps if we develop that mindset then the bible and what it tells us is not so far-fetched for example can i find beauty in this world absolutely is beauty necessary for reproduction yes or no does a dog care what the female looks like before he will reproduce with her no she can be as ugly as whatever he couldn't care less right as the pheromone is right that's all it takes beauty is not necessary for reproduction and why is there beauty why is there color is color necessary for reproduction a horse is totally colorblind doesn't sony sees black and white most animals don't have any color vision you don't need color where does it come from and how do you develop color how do you get all those rods and cones and all of these structures into your eye and that's not the major problem because that is only translated into electrical impulse how do you get the brain to develop the capacity to make a picture of it that you can actually recall there is no evolutionary pathway whereby this could have developed so beauty in the environment smacks of design symmetry and color and if you look at all the beautiful birds in the world and their feathers you don't have to be beautiful in order to reproduce this is the sacred ibis it's a very beautiful bird and it has beautiful colorations and this is the common bald ibis and the hearty die is also a family of this group and this one is no butte at all and yet he's perfectly capable of reproducing with the sacred ibis and this is the result not quite so ugly but certainly not perfect and why is the one ugly and the other one is not they live in different environments their diets are different the circumstances are different the genetic expressions are different but they can reproduce now an old paradigm in science says if they can reproduce they're actually one they're actually one in the same so birds tell us that beauty was part of the original design and when you see the handwriting of god on a sunset then certainly everyone must consider what is written now the bible in the old and the new testament say the following behold i create a new heaven and a new earth and the former shall not be remembered nor come to mind that's isaiah 700 years before christ nevertheless we according to his promise look for a new heaven and a new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness second peter romans for the earnest expectation of the creature waited for the manifestation of the sons of god for the creature was made subject to vanity not willingly but by reason of him who has subjected the same in hope because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of god for we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now there's something wrong with this planet but that doesn't mean there is no god or that god is not in control or that he didn't create now this is desire explaining to us what the new world will look like and he writes the wolf also shall dwell with the lamb and the leopard shall lie down with the kid and the cough and the young lion and the fatling together and a little child shall lead them question will there be any aggression in these animals if a little child will lead them yes or no so i guess their serotonin levels will be perfectly in order and the cow and the bear shall feed their young ones shall lie down together and the lion excuse me was it say they shall become a vegetarian so according to the original what was he a vegetarian according to the future in the bible what will he be a vegetarian like the ox and the sucking child shall play at the whole of the asp so will the serpent still have toxic venom to inject into this little child no and the weaned child shall put his hand in the cockroach then in other words he'll put his hand into the place where a snake lives without any fear that something's going to happen to him they shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the lord as the waters covers the sea okay what's the key to the restoration why will it be as it was in the original because the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the lord i have a question is the earth today full of the knowledge of the lord or is the earth full of disinformation regarding god so all that i have done tonight is present you with a choice you can go along with the world and with the darwin mystic theory which is your perfect right because everybody has freedom of choice but you now have an option to say perhaps god was right after all and perhaps his word is not so far-fetched now if at the most extreme level of what we've been talking about today where even legislation enforces the teaching of the evolutionary parable paradigm exclusively because it's so improbable if that tonight becomes probable or possible then what about prophecy could that become possible and probable so tomorrow night we're going to jump from the one paradigm to the other paradigm today we looked at the past tomorrow we're going to look at future now i don't think this is what god had in mind when he said the child will play with the serpent because i have a suspicion that the serpent won't have its original diet and won't look like that anymore and if the serpent was so beguiling then he must have been quite good looking now you know today as a scientist we are always aware of the conflicts of nature and humanity and today we want to separate them all and let everything run its natural process is it possible that the animal kingdom and man were actually originally designed to mingle yes or no don't we all love animals don't you all want to cuddle a cute little dog or a cute little cat or a sweet little bird even if he nips you occasionally yes we all have this longing and when it comes to the big animals we have even greater longings but we are told you know the two are separated as far as the east is from the west it's not so originally because the bible says the little child will play and walk with these animals in other words we were designed to be one with the animal kingdom we were to rule them and you know in taming animals god has left little reminders of what that relationship will be like here is a little video of this man coming to visit his lion i for one am actually looking for forward to the earth renewed and i think we are going to have experiences which we cannot even imagine and the foods that we eat today are but a faint remnant of what used to be there in the original if you look at the paleontological record there is such an abundance that is not present today that we are living on fractions of what originally was available to all of us and to the animal kingdom so tonight i just want to encourage you to read your bible as it stands and to believe it because man does not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of the lord see you tomorrow night for a prophecy lecture and i suggest you bring your seat belts thank you

Channel: Amazing Discoveries Africa

Views: 69,090

Rating: 4.867249 out of 5

Keywords: Walter Veith, Creation To Restoration, In The Stream Of Time, From Creation To Restoration, Bible Creation, Six day Creation

Id: 4LyAngsMYuc

Length: 105min 6sec (6306 seconds)

Published: Fri May 22 2015