Shop Costumes Learn more nav_sap_SWP_6M_fly_beacon $5 Albums All-New Fire TV Stick with Voice Remote Grocery Introducing Handmade New Kitchen Scale from AmazonBasics Amazon Gift Card Offer redoaks redoaks redoaks  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 Kindle Voyage UnchartedBundle Shop Now STEM Toys & Games

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

87 of 117 people found the following review helpful
on March 23, 2004
The author is to be congratulated! This is the finest synthesis of all the Biblical, linguistic, historic, grammatic, hermeneutic and established science evidence to rebut all the Genesis theories of interpretation that depart from the plain,
straightforward, natural intent of Moses in the text itself.
The interested reader only has to ask:
What did Moses himself intend to convey in Gen. 1-3 to his audience? What would a child or uneducated person think as to Moses' intention?
What did his audience from 1500BC until only recently plainly gather from Moses' depiction of a 6-day Creation?
When Moses mentions the River that flowed from Eden and separated into 4 tributaries, what did he mean by sequencing them: 'the name of the 1st was Pishon, the 2nd Gihon, the 3rd Tigris, the 4th Euphrates'? Do they stop being literal, normal rivers because they are sequenced in ordinal fashion? If they are still real, literal rivers, why would Moses' sequencing of ordinal days in the previous Chapter de-literalize the days?
Why do scholars and skeptics reinterpret Genesis' days as figurative, literary device, non-literal,etc. but not any OTHER references in the text: earth, sky, water, beasts, sun, moon, created, good, light, night, hover, seas?
This book is excellent in detail, in the whole and written with a charitable yet fact-marshalling spirit.
Parties on both sides will find much of value to challenge received presuppositions.
77 commentsWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
79 of 108 people found the following review helpful
on April 14, 2004
This is the best book on the subject of how many Christians compromise with worldly scientific theories to interpret God's revelation. It's a dangerous position to be in. Instead of harmonizing the latest 'scientific' theories to God's Word, the Old Earthers are willing to change the Bible's clear meaning of 6 days and a recent Creation to accomodate to secular interpretation of scientific data.
Most unfortunate to see critics who are oblivious to attacks on the Bible and the church from WITHIN by Old Earthers like Dr. Ross.
When Christians start compromising with secular science the way Ross does in contradiction to the Bible's clear testimony, that is an attack on Scripture. The Word of God should never be subject to human scientific adjudication as to what to believe.
Remember, friends. God Himself was there at Creation. The Holy Spirit inspired Moses exactly how and what to write to us. 6 days means 6 days,not Ross' contrived 6 eons or 6 ages or 4.6 billion years, etc. If that's what Moses really meant to convey to the Hebrews and to all Church History up until Darwin's time, he sure went about it in an ambiguous way!
Remember, friends. Secular scientists and compromising Christians were NOT there at Creation. Too many believers are second-guessing the Holy Spirit's clear testimony and putting words and re-definitions revisionistically into God's mouth.
If the Bible says 6 days = Young Earth and 'science' or Ross says 6 eons/ages = Old Earth, dear readers, whom are you going to believe? The Holy Spirit through Moses or astrophysicist Ross and those willing to change the natural meaning of Genesis?
It's required of Christians not only to contend with attacks from outside the Faith, but also from the misguided, sincere-yet sincerely-deceived WITHIN the Faith as well. Genesis must be safeguarded from BOTH attacks. Unfortunately, Ross and his disciples are unwitting combatants AGAINST the Bible's very words in the name of scientific respectability and people's offense at Genesis conflicting with Old Earthism.
This book is a fair, balanced, Scriptural defense of Genesis against attacks by well-meaning Christians who go too far to avoid scientific discomfort.
Better scientific discomfort than Bible discomfort!
Read John MacArthur's Battle for the Beginning to understand Satan's attack on Genesis: "Did God really say 6 days means 6 days?"
22 commentsWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
92 of 129 people found the following review helpful
on April 13, 2004
It is clear the prior reviewer has not read this book or its supporting material carefully. The mind was made up as anti- Young Earth (normal 6 days as Genesis naturally reads).
The author here demonstrates how powerful the Biblical and Scientific evidence (of settled, established Science, not the fabrications and contrived theories of Dr. Ross, et al) is for taking Genesis 1-11, especially Gen 1-2, in a straightforward, plain understanding as 6 ordinary days.
While it is clear many Christians struggle to reconcile Genesis with what they learned in school or from those claiming scientific authority, the Bible is well able to defend itself.
Much non-Darwinian data supports Young Earth, which is upsetting to some who can't handle contrary evidence and the resulting 'scientific discomfort'.
There is NO WAY Moses could have meant his 6 days were anything but - you guessed it - 6 days! The 2 million Hebrews he was writing Genesis for would never have come up with all the outlandish theories we have today, embraced by respectable theologians and scholars of all people!
I suspect when Moses wrote 'God', he meant God. When he wrote 'beginning', he meant beginning. 'Created' meant created.
'Heaven and earth' meant - you guessed it.
Look at all the nouns, verbs, adjectives Moses used. Why, friends, was Moses literal with all his vocabulary except yom (Hebrew for day)???
When explaining Genesis to a child, teenager or non-scientific person, what would they ordinarily gather Moses means? 6 days =
6 days.
It would be great to see Old Earthers try all their interpretive gymnastics about why 'day' means almost anything but day to the rest of Genesis 3-11. Try Chapter 4 where Cain says 'Today'. Or all the references to days in the Flood narrative. Or Chapter 9 where 'Seedtime & Harvest, Day & Night will never cease'. What does Moses mean by yom in these places? Would his original Hebrew audience have tracked with all our notions of what Moses means by Yom throughout Genesis? Or did Moses have just one, standard, dictionary definition that he used consistently?
Please, friends, let Moses tell us what he plainly means. Don't rely on Charles Darwin, Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking, modern science or revisionist Old Earthers like Hugh Ross (whose grasp of Hebrew is problematic at best and treats nature like the 67th book of the Bible. Ross' degree/training is astronomy/astrophysics, NOT Bible interpretation/grammar).
All this book asks is that we prayerfully read Genesis for ourselves without modern scientific filtering. Let Moses speak for himself, plainly and naturally as if you were Joshua or Miriam or Caleb hearing Moses read the Creation account to the people.
When you're done with this book, try John MacArthur's BATTLE FOR THE BEGINNING.
66 commentsWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
143 of 204 people found the following review helpful
on October 3, 2005
This book attempts to defend the interpretation of the creation narrative in Genesis as occurring in six 24 hour days a little more than 6000 years ago. In spite of Sarfati's claim that this has always been the position of the Christian church, the idea was discarded by most educated Christians by the 1940's. It was revived in 1961 in the book The Genesis Flood by Morris and Whitcomb, which was a valid critique of then current geophysical theories, which have all been discarded since plate tectonics made sense of geophysics.

However, Morris also took the position that all fossil bearing sedimentary geological layers were laid down at he time of the Genesis flood. Henry Morris was a personal friend of mine, but I couldn't agree. I had already seen rock formations that could not be explained in this way and have since seen many more.

Sarfati spends several chapters trying to prove that the days of Genesis have to be 24 hour days. He disregards Psalm 90 (attributed, probably correctly, to Moses) which warns us that God's days are not necessarily the same as our days, and may be much longer. Since there were no humans until the sixth day, the six were God's days. However, in this review my purpose is to carefully examine Sarfati's scientific claims, not his Biblical interpretations.

In chapter 8 (pp. 260-263) he endorses John Baumgardner's catastrophic plate tectonics theory of the Flood. This is based on computer simulation. As an engineer I use simulations regularly in my work. If you give a computer unrealistic input it won't correct you, it will just give you equally unrealistic answers. Let's give this model a reality check:

"Baumgardner's model begins with a pre-Flood super-continent. While uniformitarian models assume that the ocean crust had mostly hot rock and very little cold rock, Baumgardner started with cold rock. This meant that it was denser than the mantle below."

(Sarfati doesn't tell us how cold the crust is assumed to be. Much of the old West Pacific crust has lost its original heat. It loses as much heat to the ocean above as it receives from the hot mantle beneath. This upward heat flow gives a typical temperature change in the crust of about 12 C per kilometer of depth. The chemical composition of oceanic crust is similar to that of the upper mantle so it is denser than the mantle but not dramatically so.)

"At the start of the Flood year, this began to sink into the softer, less dense mantle below. Without any warm crust to resist, it could sink much more quickly than today."

(Observed subduction rates for old, cold crust at the Tonga Trench are about 20 cm per year. The resistance which limits this rate is not from warm crust but from viscous drag in the mantle. If Baumgardner assumes that entire thickness of the crust was at ocean temperature this only doubles the density difference and resulting downward force. Since viscous drag is proportional to velocity the downward velocity of the slab would only be about 40 cm. per year.)

"The friction from this movement generates heat, especially around the edges. The mantle minerals are known to soften markedly under heat, so the friction would reduce, making it less resistant to further sinking. So the crust sinks faster, generating more heat, which further softens the mantle, which makes the crust sink still faster. Eventually it would sink at several km/h, billions of times faster than is happening today. This is called runaway subduction."

(At this point the model becomes unrealistic. In fairness to Baumgardner, dehydration of basalts and sea floor sediments in the descending slab releases water which substantially reduces the viscosity of the magma on its upper side. At most this can double the rate of descent since the lower side is unaffected. Most of the energy lost to viscous drag produces slow convection in the mantle, not heating. Even if the viscosity were reduced by a factor of 100 we would only have a sinking rate of meters per year.)

"The sinking ocean floor would drag the rest of the ocean floor along, in conveyor belt fashion, and would displace mantle material, starting large scale movement throughout the entire mantle. However, as the ocean floor sank and rapidly subducted adjacent to the pre-Flood super-continent's margins, elsewhere the earth's crust would be under such tensional stress that it would be torn apart (rifted), breaking up both the pre-Flood super continent and the ocean floor"

(The tensional and bending stress is greatest immediately adjacent to the subducting plate and decreases with distance due to viscous friction between the crust and the mantle. Rock is relatively weak in tension so even at the lower observed subduction rates, descending slabs frequently break off from the crust. They can be imaged seismically, as Sarfati notes on page 282. This stress distribution limits rifting to the vicinity of subduction so the remainder of the model is invalid.)

Note that I used no uniformitarian assumptions in this analysis, only the laws of physics. Baumgardner's model is the best young-earth explanation of the Flood, so Sarfati's position on this has no scientific support.

Let's examine the scientific arguments for a young earth which Sarfati presents in chapter 11:

1. Earth's magnetic field decay. Any simulation which neglects the energy input to the "dynamo" from convection due to radioactive heating in the core and lower mantle will inevitably run down. Therefore the results Sarfati quotes are no surprise. The sun has a strong magnetic field which reverses itself every (approximately) 11 1/2 years. Its "dynamo" is based on convection of ionized (and therefore conducting) gas. The earth's "dynamo" based on convection of fluid metal will be much slower to reverse itself, but we have no reason to believe that the underlying mechanism is significantly different. Whether or not we have detailed computer models of this dynamo does not affect the observed facts. Point not proved.

2. Helium in zircons. Sarfati argues as if all of the helium was produced when the rocks were formed and has been escaping ever since, but it is produced continually by radioactive decay. Diffusion is very temperature dependent so a zircon originally formed at high temperature but then cooled might have lost some early helium but retained nearly all that is recent. Unless we have sufficient geological information to determine past temperatures such measurements give no indication of age. Lacking this data, point not proved.

3. Salt in the sea: Sarfati ignores removal of salt by formation of huge salt deposits due to the drying up of seas, as happened to the Mediterranean approximately 5 million years ago. He also considers sea floor sediments a source of salt, ignoring the large quantities that are buried when these sediments are subducted along with oceanic crust. Incomplete data, point not proven.

4. Missing old Supernova Remnants. Sarfati calls the third stage of expansion isothermal. The only way a gas (possibly ionized) can expand isothermally is by taking energy from its surroundings. Therefore it must be cooler than the average temperature of its surroundings. Such gas only radiates energy and is detectable if close to a star. This faint halo around the star is impossible to distinguish from ordinary interstellar gas clouds. Therefore it is no surprise that none have been detected.

5. Comets and the Kuiper Belt: Sarfati points out that all of the 651 Kuiper belt objects detected (as of his writing) are more than 100 Km in diameter. Recently one has been detected that is 50% larger than Pluto and probably should be considered a tenth planet. Comparison with the asteroid belt indicates that small objects are much more numerous than large ones, but we can't see them with present or planned telescopes.

6. Lunar Recession: Most tidal energy loss is caused by tidal friction against the continents, not the sea floor. The early earth apparently had far less continental area than at present, and Pangea is believed to have been located at the South Pole. Thus energy loss and recession rate were lower than at present.

7. Dinosaur blood - Sarfati bases his comments on a 1997 (non-scientist) reporter's interview with researcher Mary Schweitzer. Schweitzer (now a professor) reports studies on a new dinosaur fossil (MOR 1125) in Science, 25 March 2005 p. 1952. Large dense bones in dry conditions may fossilize on the outside but remain as bone inside. After demineralizing a small sample of this bone they found remnants of the fibrous (largely protein) tissue that gives bone its toughness, including capillary blood vessels about 2/1000 of an inch in diameter. Deep embedding in the mineral part of the bone apparently protected these against hydrolysis (breakdown) by water. Sarfati's argument is simply "I don't think these could be that old".

8. Radiohalos: Sarfati seems to consider this the "crown jewel" of his proofs, but they should be called Radon Halos rather than Polonium Halos. Polonium isotopes producing these halos are all products of the radioactive breakdown of Radon 222. Its alpha particle energy is so nearly equal to rhat of Polonium 210, so their halos overlap unless the radioactive source is much less than a millionth of a meter in diameter. Because of overlaps only 5 of the 8 Uranium 238 series halos in Sarfati's drawing on page 358 are seen in photomicrographs. Such halos are usually found in mica (a component of granite) adjacent to Uranium inclusions, but have also been reported in other Uranium-rich minerals.

Unlike the other elements produced by the decay of Uranium 238, Radon 222, an inert gas, easily diffuses through microscopic cracks in the mica. Its half life, 3.5 days, is sufficient for it to travel from Uranium 238 inclusions in the rock to the site of the halo. This can happen over thousands (even millions) of years since Radon is continually produced long after the rocks are formed. These halos are definitely not an indication of either recent or rapid formation of these rocks.

We have to conclude that Sarfati has no convincing scientific evidence that the earth is younger than indicated by radioactive dating of ancient rocks. His claim that radioactivity was greatly accelerated during the Flood is unsupported by either Science or Scripture.

Herbert P Jacobson

BS (Electrical engineering), MS (Computer science)
99 commentsWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
62 of 88 people found the following review helpful
on April 5, 2004
Messages Messages Help

The book is excellent. Well documented and comprehesive!
I really enjoyed reading it. Basically, Ross has a LOT of answering for his theological blunders and his "bogus" claims regarding the Hebrew. (Thankfully, he is his own worst enemy regarding his own credibly, especially when he opens
his mouth on Biblical Hebrew. --Dr. Ross, my personal recommendation is don't speak concerning the Hebrew, you just get it all back-words! However, I must thank you for speaking on the Hebrew because it destroys your "ETHOS"!)
Folks, it seems that he is speaking or writing regarding the Hebrew he take much liberty and has even at one time told people to correct the text based on his "expert" opinion. He told them to omit a key word from the inspired text that would put his personal views about the Flood in question - Read it for yourselves on Pg. 254 - 255.(RC)
I am sure there will be a response from the OECist camp on this book because if they simply ignore it their "Fragile Foundation" is sure to crumble with their own credibly. The scholarship of Dr. Sarfati and his comprehensive attack will be a formatible task for even RTB and Co. to deal with, and they MUST deal with it. I doubt they will surrender and say that they were wrong and they have been shown to be in error. -- Spurgeon did say it is better to acknowledge when one is wrong because in so doing you are only admitting to be a bit wiser today! However Pride will keep most people from doing that!
Dr. Ross (e.g. his book "Genesis Question" page: 192 ) encouraged and invited this sort of critique in his teachings and books therefore "Refuting Compromise" is a good thing to be read by all OECists and YECists. That would mean that even Dr. Ross would encourage all of you to get your copy and read it for yourselves!
11 commentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
66 of 94 people found the following review helpful
on April 20, 2004
Excellent refutation of 'arguments' like Damien's who have swallowed big bang cosmology and old earth as 'fact' contrary to Moses' plain statements, language and grammar in context.
Any honest scientist will tell you that radiometric dating methods and big bang theory are far from established facts. While some evidence can be interpreted that way, Sarfati demonstrates conclusively that the Bible in its natural, normal sense CANNOT be interpreted to fit the big bang chronology. Much of the evidence can be just as fairly interpreted to negate billions of years. Starlight, for example, can be plausibly explained with Speed of Light at Infinity during Creation, not repeatable or observable under currently operative conditions.
Hugh Ross and his disciples have the burden of proof to show the Bible means to convey billions, not thousands of years. So far, they have not established their case credibly or cogently after a preponderance of the evidence fairly evaluated.
This book, along with the Bible and established/settled science (not unproven theories) shows the big bang to be a little bust!
22 commentsWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
111 of 160 people found the following review helpful
on September 29, 2006
"Refuting Compromise" completes Sarfati's tendentious trilogy of fundamentalist Young Earth Creationist (YEC) pulp-fiction. Companion volumes (reviewed separately) include "Refuting Evolution" and "Refuting Evolution 2." Chronicling the inane and irresolvable partisan spat between young and old earth creationists brings Shakespeare to mind - "it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Normally I wouldn't read or review tripe like this - but medieval dogmas so corrosive and inimical to a reality-based worldview require rigorous rebuke and reprobation. Before resorting to fundamentalist newspeak bible-babble Sarfati takes a short detour by way of character assassination and trashes Hugh Ross, a leading proponent of the Old Earth Creationism. A scientifically literate secularist could at least establish a dialog with Ross. Any conversation with Sarfati would founder on rocky crags of rampant superstition, magical thinking, and a hermetically sealed hermeneutic with no explanatory or predictive power whatsoever.

As an employee of Answers in Genesis (AiG) Sarfati had to sign a "Statement of Faith" that, among other things, includes the following:

"BASICS ARTICLE 3: The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth and the universe."

"GENERAL ARTICLE 6: No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record."

Discerning the nature of reality challenges human intellect even when armed with the formidable tools of science, philosophy, and reason. By signing this statement Sarfati has unconditionally surrendered to intensely subjective and unverifiable special revelation. In pithier terms he's chosen to bring a knife to a gun fight.

The pitiful 'creationist geochronology and cosmology' scattered throughout "Refuting Compromise" regurgitates erroneous hypothesis and junk findings wished into existence by the RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth) group - a collective of various crank-science Young Earth Creationists whose shallow litany of fallacious non-peer reviewed arguments includes: Helium diffusion in zircon crystals, C14 in coal and diamonds, and my personal favorite - Polonium halos.

Although this drivel occasionally hoodwinks unwary biblical literalists the scientific community (ranging from evangelicals to atheists) remains unimpressed. Sarfati also swills deeply from the capacious trough of ignorance and superstitious fancy promulgated by Answers in Genesis, a delusional creation-cult masquerading as a ministry to which he, utilizing sperm bank euphemism, makes deposits.

Let's examine Sarfati's claim that red blood cells were found in a late Cretaceous T. rex fossil some 70 million years old. Sarfati immediately declares victory over the non-existent yet necessary - for fund raising purposes anyway - evil secular humanist and Darwinist conspiracy and declares his cretinous creationist timeline of some 6,000 years triumphant.

Next time Jonathan read the primary literature - Schweitzer, Mary H., Mark Marshall, Keith Carron, D. Scott Bohle, Scott C. Busse, Ernst V. Arnold, Darlene Barnard, J. R. Horner, and Jean R. Starkey, 1997a. Heme compounds in dinosaur trabecular bone. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 94: 6291-6296 - before putting pen to paper. All the data supported the conclusion that the T. rex fossil in question contained fragments of hemoglobin molecules. "The most likely source of these proteins is the once-living cells of the dinosaur." No red blood cells, only protein fragments.

Here is the abstract on the PNAS paper authored by Schweitzer et al:

"Six independent lines of evidence point to the existence of heme-containing compounds and/or hemoglobin breakdown products in extracts of trabecular tissues of the large theropod dinosaur Tyrannosaurus rex. These include signatures from nuclear magnetic resonance and electron spin resonance that indicate the presence of a paramagnetic compound consistent with heme. In addition, UV/visible spectroscopy and high performance liquid chromatography data are consistent with the Soret absorbance characteristic of this molecule. Resonance Raman profiles are also consistent with a modified heme structure. Finally when dinosaurian tissues were extracted for protein fragments and were used to immunize rats, the resulting antisera reacted positively with purified avian and mammalian hemoglobins. The most parsimonious explanation of this evidence is the presence of blood-derived hemoglobin compounds preserved in the dinosaurian tissues."

The lead author of the PNAS paper, Mary Schweitzer, happens to be an evangelical Christian who notes that "If God is who He says He is, He doesn't need us to twist and contort scientific data. The thing that's most important to God is our faith. Therefore he's not going to allow Himself to be proven by scientific methodologies."

Creationists routinely accuse Schweitzer of collaboration, conspiracy, or worse: "It rips my guts out," she says. "These people are claiming to represent the Christ that I love. They're not doing a very good job. It's no wonder that a lot of my colleagues are atheists." She told one zealot, "You know, if the only picture of Christ I had was your attitude towards me, I'd run."

Molecular paleontology - an exciting new branch of science - has been opened up by Schweitzer's insights and research; proof that workers of any religious tradition, or none at all, can be good scientists since science is based on methodological naturalism - not the medieval demon-haunted supernatural religious conceits Sarfati abjectly wallows in.

Over the past two hundred years scientific advances in a number of disciplines, ranging from cosmology to physics and geology, have demolished YEC pretensions and allowed researchers to determine the age of the Earth with remarkable accuracy - 4.54 billion years (plus or minus 1%). For additional information, and the fascinating history of how multiple lines of scientific inquiry and evidence converged to support this finding, try Ancient Earth, Ancient Skies: The Age of Earth and its Cosmic Surroundings or The Age of the Earth by G. Brent Dalrymple.

A Pb/Pb isochron age, determined from samples of the Earth and meteorites, is the preferred technique used to calculate the age of the Earth. This method measures three isotopes of Lead (Pb-206, Pb-207, and either Pb-208 or Pb-204). The resulting Pb-206/Pb-204 versus Pb-207/Pb-204 ratios are then plotted on a graph.

If the reservoir of matter from which the solar system formed had a uniform distribution of Pb isotope ratios, then any plot made at the time of formation for objects derived from that matter would fall on a single point.

The amount of Pb-206 and Pb-207 changes over time since any primordial Uranium decays to these end products (U-238 decays to Pb-206 and U-235 decays to PB-207). Consequently the data points inevitably diverge. Samples with higher Uranium-to-Lead ratios will express the greatest change in Pb-206/Pb-204 and Pb-207/Pb-204 values.

If the solar system also formed from source material with uniform Uranium isotope distribution ratios then a plot of the data points will fall on a single line. The slope of this line can be used to calculate the amount of time (age) since the original matter pool separated into discrete objects.

Sarfati would undoubtedly object to the assumptions noted above. Unfortunately for him the validity of these assumptions is elegantly tested by plotting the Pb/Pb ratio data. The actual underlying assumption is that, if these requirements have not been met, then there is no reason for the data points to fall on a line.

Every time a credible researcher or lab runs these tests on valid samples and plots the results, the data points fall on a line. Not only is the age of the Earth determined, the underlying assumptions are verified - something Morris never bothers to tell the reader. Scientific case closed. The Earth is old, immensely old, deep time old, 4.54 billion years old, but the author can't deal with the result since they overthrow his childish religious conceits and cherished creation myth.

Even when anomalous Pb/Pb isochron dates (from invalid samples, sloppy lab work, or both) are deliberately cherry-picked by YECs the outcome is not in favor of a young Earth. One particularly notorious example (Woodmorappe, 1979, p.113) only proved that Pb/Pb dates are far more likely to be too young than too old. Sarfati and Wodmorappe need the dates to be too old if their viewpoint is correct. Once again reality-based science trumps myth-based creationism - in spite of creationist attempts to load the dice!

Does the fringe theology and make believe 'science' championed by this book justify overturning centuries of spectacular advances in cosmology, astronomy, physics, geology, paleontology, chemistry, and biology? Should we overthrow reason and embrace a new post-modern medievalism as we hurtle toward a second Dark Age? Absolutely not.

Sarfati can't even present a valid case, let alone make it. Farce is tragedy the second or third time around, and so is this book.
66 commentsWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
104 of 152 people found the following review helpful
on April 18, 2004
Today more then ever it is becoming increasingly important for Christians to defend the faith in a faithful and credible manner. Material like what is found in this book strays far from this goal.
An Earth/Universe that is 6000yrs to 10,000yrs old is as credible as a flat Earth or geocentricism. The fact that we have multiple independent lines of evidence for the big bang theory (14b yrs) and a 4.5 b yr old Earth is factual should be a wake up call to these people.
My recommendation to anyone that wants to get a handle on the Young/Old Earth debate is to read "The Genesis Debate" where these different views are debated back and forth. Also Hugh Ross' new book "A Matter of Days" set for release in June this year is definately a recommendation.
44 commentsWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
76 of 112 people found the following review helpful
on June 3, 2004
If you want a 400 page tirade against astronomer Hugh Ross with a preposterous cosmology thrown in that includes such ideas as "white holes", a universe centered on our galaxy, and "quantized red shifts", then this book is for you. I view Brian Greene's writings as a much better investment for someone seeking an enlightened education in the latest cosmological findings.
Sarfati apparently considers Hugh Ross the biggest threat to Christianity since the ancient Romans. Why else would he mount such a vicious, malicious, and personal attack.
Save your money and your time.
11 commentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
60 of 89 people found the following review helpful
on June 13, 2004
If your supreme authority is the infallible Bible you will enjoy and profit from reading this book. It is an excellent resource not only for refuting the compromise positions of people like Ross but also giving a very clear and concise refutation of the myth of evolution.
If your supreme authority is something other than the infallible Bible, you will probably hate this book. Although I'd urge you to read it with an open mind and open bible!
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
Customers who viewed this also viewed
Refuting Evolution
Refuting Evolution by Jonathan Sarfati (Paperback - August 23, 2008)

The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution
The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution by Jonathan Sarfati PhD (Paperback - March 1, 2010)

Refuting Evolution 2
Refuting Evolution 2 by Jonathan D. Sarfati (Paperback - May 1, 2011)

Send us feedback

How can we make Amazon Customer Reviews better for you?
Let us know here.