<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: A Good Reader's Digest Condensed Version
Review: If you want the highlights of Creation in one book, this is a good one. There are many references to tie the actual scientific evidence to the Scripture. For those Christians who have bought the science fairy tale of evolution, this will help you get back on firm footing with the truth. There are those in the end times who will "choose to be ignorant". Don't be one of those.
Rating:
Summary: A Good Reader's Digest Condensed Version
Review: If you want the highlights of Creation in one book, this is a good one. There are many references to tie the actual scientific evidence to the Scripture. For those Christians who have bought the science fairy tale of evolution, this will help you get back on firm footing with the truth. There are those in the end times who will "choose to be ignorant". Don't be one of those.
Rating: 
Summary: Trying to fool you
Review: This book is a weird attempt to reconcile the literal Fundamentalists' view of Genesis with the fossil records and other clear evidences for the theory of evolution. Instead of buying this brainwashing book, the following notes are recommended to be read.Did a Global Flood Form the Fossil Record? The first hypothesis considered by scientists was that the global flood described in Genesis accounted for the geological column and fossil record. Indeed, this explained the presence of fossil sea shells high in the Alps. However, as early as 1757, James Parsons and others attempted to deduce the season of the Flood from fossils. If spring, flowers and young fruit should predominate, mature fruit and nuts if fall. Alas, both were found. It was suggested that mature fruit had been mixed in from the tropics, but if so, then land and ocean animals should be mixed together as well. In fact, they are found in separate deposits, except for some land organisms that floated out to sea. These and other difficulties led scientists to accept the uniformitarian geology proposed by James Hutton (Theory of the Earth) and Charles Lyell (Principles of Geology). The ICR model (presented in this book) is simply the same old flood theory, and it, too, fails to explain basic facts. For example, if all species were created at one time before the flood, fossils deep in the geological record (early in the flood) should be identical to later forms. Extinctions might be allowed, but no new productions. Of course, the fossil record shows both extinctions and creations, with increasingly unfamiliar animals the deeper you go. The 19th century creationist geologist Georges Cuvier proposed a number of successive creation events to account for this. The present author Henry Morris, director of the ICR, proposed in the book that the appearance of progressive change was explained by (1) elevation of habitat, (2) resistance to gravitational settling in the flood waters, and (3) ability to flee the floodwaters. However, this predicts that porpoises and ichthyosaurs, both fully-aquatic air-breathing animals of the same size, shape, and density, living in the same habitat, should be found as fossils in the same strata. In fact, there is a series of transitional forms through Mesozoic deposits leading to ichthyosaurs, overlaid by Cenozoic deposits containing a series of forms leading to porpoises. Countless other specific tests are failed by the flood hypothesis, but passed by uniformitarian geology. (Comment by George S.Bakken, Indiana State University.)
<< 1 >>
| 
