Rating: 
Summary: Best Recent Comprehensive Book on Creation
Review: This comprehensive, up-to-date, and well written book by a baby-boomer and former hippie/evolutionist/atheist/Marxist is for the Christian and non-Christian alike. Mr Perloff deals with the fossil record, abiogenesis, alleged evidence for human evolution, the Flood, the ice age, radiometric dating, the Big Bang theory, dinosaurs, the Scopes Trial (infamous "monkey" trial), and the social/philosophical/political/moral consequences of evolutionism. There is also a section on the great scientists of the past who were creationists (Newton, Pascal, Pasteur, etc). The book is well documented and has numerous and rare photographs. But be careful, as the back of the book declares: "Warning: This book may change your life!".
Rating:
Summary: This book may change your life
Review: The back cover of this book says, "Warning: this book may change your life." Indeed it may.Several years ago I read a book called Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, by Michael Denton. I was so impressed, in fact, that I read it three times. As an educated person, I had assumed that evolution is more or less an established "fact," but I was absolutely amazed to discover that the suppressed evidence AGAINST evolution is actually quite overwhelming--and that's an understatement! Now Mr. Perloff has taken it a step further. His book is slightly less technical than Denton's, but its impact is even more powerful. After reading Denton's book, I was convinced that the "theory of evolution" is nothing more than a tortured hypothesis. However, I still thought that only lunatics believed in a "young earth." After reading Perloff, I am now open to the possibility of a young earth. If you think I have been hoodwinked, you desperately need to read this book. You'll be amazed at how flimsy the evidence is for the age of the earth, and how "circular" the reasoning behind it is. Several chapters in the book are particularly impressive. For example, "Vegas Odds on Life" really drives home the point that life could not have started by random chance. The simplest living cell is more complex than any man-made device, yet it supposedly fell together by chance. That is about as likely as a Boeing 747 falling together as the result of a "tornado in a junkyard." If you think a few billion years is enough for that sort of odds, your need to study basic combinatorics. The chapter "Good Company" is also very eye-opening. Perloff quotes great scientist after great scientist who firmly believed in divine creation. It turns out that scientists such as Isaac Newton, Francis Bacon, Blaise Pascal, Louis Pasteur, Lord Kelvin, James Clerk Maxwell, James Joule, Joseph Henry, and Werner von Braun, were all "hard-core" Christians and left absolutely no doubt about it. Many of them even lived after Darwin's time and publicly rejected his theory. Rest assured that the so-called "theory of evolution" is absolute and complete baloney. The real question is whether the earth is around 5 billion years old, as the "scientific community" would have us believe, or whether it is around 6,000 years old. Read this astounding book and decide for yourself.
Rating:
Summary: Methodically refutes Darwin's theory of evolution
Review: Darwin's theory of evolution and "survival of the fittest" are taught as fact in nearly all of today's schools. Any other theory of the source and principles of life on earth are shouted down, belittled and attacked with vigor. But how sound is Darwin's theory? James Perloff uses statements from evolutionist scientists and those of prominent scientists to expose the weaknesses of evolution theory. In the end, you have to have more faith in miracles to believe in evolution than you do for "intelligent design" theory. Some of the areas discussed:
* Darwin's own concerns of the weakness of his theory.
* Difference between variation within a species, and transformation of a species into another species.
* Lack of evidence of evolutionary development in the record of 250,000 fossils, or even in the known history of animal life.
* Order does not accidentally arise from disorder.
* Living organisms are rife with examples of irreducible complexity. That is, mechanisms such as reproduction that require many complex components to be available at the same time; there is no means by which the components could be evolved independently. With so many weaknesses in evolution theory, and so many indications of intelligent design in nature and especially life, why is it that evolutionists are so adamant and vigorous in the defense of their own theory and in the attack of competing theories? In other areas of science multiple theories are acccepted and taught simultaneously until hard proof is developed to disprove one or the other. But when it comes to the origin of life the evolutionists are religious zealots of Darwin. It seems obvious their position is not based on science but on a strong desire to eliminate God (or some supreme intelligent being as the creator and designer of the universe)from science. The premise of a creator God is a more valid and consistent theory of life than evolution. Perloff extensively documents the premises of evolution theory and the multitude of "holes" in the evidence, or even evidence to the contrary. He uses the words of evolutionists, Nobel honorees, and prominent scientists from microbology to astronomy to introduce and validate his points. If you are weary of evolutionsist forcing their theory as fact on you, your children and society in general, or are actually a disciplined scientist that wants to explore *all* the aspects of a theory, then read Perloff. James Perloff offers a detailed explanation of the premises and weaknesses of Darwin's theory of evolution. Intelligent design or creationism will appear much more likely as a workable theory than evolution. Science is a useful an honored employment of our rational brain to understand the workings of the world around us. But can we eliminate God from science and still understand the world, especially living organisms? Read Perloff to stimulate your mind.
Rating:
Summary: This book may change your life
Review: The back cover of this book says, "Warning: this book may change your life." Indeed it may. Several years ago I read a book called Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, by Michael Denton. I was so impressed, in fact, that I read it three times. As an educated person, I had assumed that evolution is more or less an established "fact," but I was absolutely amazed to discover that the suppressed evidence AGAINST evolution is actually quite overwhelming--and that's an understatement! Now Mr. Perloff has taken it a step further. His book is slightly less technical than Denton's, but its impact is even more powerful. After reading Denton's book, I was convinced that the "theory of evolution" is nothing more than a tortured hypothesis. However, I still thought that only lunatics believed in a "young earth." After reading Perloff, I am now open to the possibility of a young earth. If you think I have been hoodwinked, you desperately need to read this book. You'll be amazed at how flimsy the evidence is for the age of the earth, and how "circular" the reasoning behind it is. Several chapters in the book are particularly impressive. For example, "Vegas Odds on Life" really drives home the point that life could not have started by random chance. The simplest living cell is more complex than any man-made device, yet it supposedly fell together by chance. That is about as likely as a Boeing 747 falling together as the result of a "tornado in a junkyard." If you think a few billion years is enough for that sort of odds, your need to study basic combinatorics. The chapter "Good Company" is also very eye-opening. Perloff quotes great scientist after great scientist who firmly believed in divine creation. It turns out that scientists such as Isaac Newton, Francis Bacon, Blaise Pascal, Louis Pasteur, Lord Kelvin, James Clerk Maxwell, James Joule, Joseph Henry, and Werner von Braun, were all "hard-core" Christians and left absolutely no doubt about it. Many of them even lived after Darwin's time and publicly rejected his theory. Rest assured that the so-called "theory of evolution" is absolute and complete baloney. The real question is whether the earth is around 5 billion years old, as the "scientific community" would have us believe, or whether it is around 6,000 years old. Read this astounding book and decide for yourself.
Rating: 
Summary: Childish nonsense
Review: I just finished reading this mind-numbing waste of time and now I really need to take a shower. I always thought that creationists, with their childish arguments and Santa Claus logic, were semi-amusing and ultimately harmless. But now that I have a child of my own I think it may be time to circle the wagons of intellect. Dig?
Rating:
Summary: Methodically refutes Darwin's theory of evolution
Review: Darwin's theory of evolution and "survival of the fittest" are taught as fact in nearly all of today's schools. Any other theory of the source and principles of life on earth are shouted down, belittled and attacked with vigor. But how sound is Darwin's theory? James Perloff uses statements from evolutionist scientists and those of prominent scientists to expose the weaknesses of evolution theory. In the end, you have to have more faith in miracles to believe in evolution than you do for "intelligent design" theory. Some of the areas discussed:
* Darwin's own concerns of the weakness of his theory.
* Difference between variation within a species, and transformation of a species into another species.
* Lack of evidence of evolutionary development in the record of 250,000 fossils, or even in the known history of animal life.
* Order does not accidentally arise from disorder.
* Living organisms are rife with examples of irreducible complexity. That is, mechanisms such as reproduction that require many complex components to be available at the same time; there is no means by which the components could be evolved independently. With so many weaknesses in evolution theory, and so many indications of intelligent design in nature and especially life, why is it that evolutionists are so adamant and vigorous in the defense of their own theory and in the attack of competing theories? In other areas of science multiple theories are acccepted and taught simultaneously until hard proof is developed to disprove one or the other. But when it comes to the origin of life the evolutionists are religious zealots of Darwin. It seems obvious their position is not based on science but on a strong desire to eliminate God (or some supreme intelligent being as the creator and designer of the universe)from science. The premise of a creator God is a more valid and consistent theory of life than evolution. Perloff extensively documents the premises of evolution theory and the multitude of "holes" in the evidence, or even evidence to the contrary. He uses the words of evolutionists, Nobel honorees, and prominent scientists from microbology to astronomy to introduce and validate his points. If you are weary of evolutionsist forcing their theory as fact on you, your children and society in general, or are actually a disciplined scientist that wants to explore *all* the aspects of a theory, then read Perloff. James Perloff offers a detailed explanation of the premises and weaknesses of Darwin's theory of evolution. Intelligent design or creationism will appear much more likely as a workable theory than evolution. Science is a useful an honored employment of our rational brain to understand the workings of the world around us. But can we eliminate God from science and still understand the world, especially living organisms? Read Perloff to stimulate your mind.
Rating:
Summary: Critique of a Theory is NOT a Theory
Review: Creationists just don't wish to understand the scientific process. Contrary to what some others have said, I will not argue that the complete book is a straw man. It contains some valid critique of the evolutionary theory. Critique of a theory DOES NOT mean validation of another, considerably more farfetched theory. If there is critique to be found in the theory, the model changes, it is not destroyed. Once creationism is able to destroy the central tenets of the theory, I will buy it. In the current case, it is simply redundant. Peer-reviewed critiques change the model already; creationism introduces NOTHING new to the debate.
Rating: 
Summary: Survival of the Fittest
Review: It's always puzzled me how non-living matter became living matter. How can a "survival of the fittest" theory account for - say a carbon molecule combining with other elements to form organic matter - because neither are alive in the first place - they don't 'need' to survive to exist. Well, this book may give you some help in debunking other evolutionary notions.
Rating:
Summary: Great single book on creationism.
Review: If you want a great first book on scientific creationism, or an all inclusive book, this is it. The "groovy dude" tone of some of the book toggles between being a little distracting and being a little funny. A couple of topics were covered in too shallow a manner, but 90% of the topics were terrific, in-depth studies and the overall message is sound and trustworthy. This author does an outstanding, I mean outstanding, job of quoting scientists on each and every point made. Very logical outline. Great read!
Rating:
Summary: The Best Creation/Evolution Book i have read yet
Review: This book is good for anyone regardless of what they know about Evolution/Creation. I have read a few books and have gathered some knowledge on these subjects. I found this book to be very good in all its material. My only problem would be that he excesivly uses quotes from others. I also believe quotes from 100 years in the past are mainly irrelevent to today. The Last chapter of this book was wounderful it raped it all up and gets you on your way. If you read this and do not at least have dought in your mind for Darwinism then I feel sorry for your sake because there might not be much that can help you. I also believe that why the author believes in the ice age and the comming of the flood that there are better theories for it. The theory that i currently see most reasonable is the Hovind theory ...
| 
