Professional restaurant supplies Textbook Trade In Amazon Fashion Learn more nav_sap_SWP_6M_fly_beacon The Jayhawks Fire TV Stick Grocery Made in Italy Amazon Gift Card Offer out2 out2 out2  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Introducing new colors Kindle Paperwhite Shop Now May4th
Customer Review

21 of 34 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars David's creationism and Goliah's evolutionism, February 22, 2005
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: The Young Earth: The Real History of the Earth: Past, Present, Future (Paperback)
This is indeed a very interesting book. It clearly points out the numerous reasons for us to believe in a young Earth. The theory of an old earth is a social and ideological construct, based on materialism, uniformitarianism and naturalism, without any true empirical factual basis.

Take index fossils, for instance. They are used to date sedimentary rocks, but it takes evolutionary assumptions to date them in the first place. So, this means that the ages of sedimentary rocks and their fossils, are not based in any empirical reliable dating method, but on evolutionary assumptions. Evolutionists may call that science, but I call it a logical falacy, petitio principium.

Take radiometric dating as another example. This method, in its varius modalities (v.g. uranium, helium, lead; rubidium strontium; potassium,argon), is used to measure the age of igneous rocks, and generally points to an age of millions of years. There are a few problems with this method, though: 1) all measurements are made in the present, by scientists in the present; 2) there is no way of going back in time and empirically confirm the dates; 3) the age is based not on the historical observation of the past, but on indemonstrable assumptions about the past, concerning the rate of decay, the closure of the system, and the quantity of parent and daughter elements; 4) the different methods of radiometric dating give many different results to the same rocks, and have in many instances to be corrected on the basis of index fossils, and these, remember, are dated on the basis of evolutionary assumptions; 5) the method sub judice provides old dates for newly formed rocks, as has been observed in many instance, a fact which undermines its credibility to data rocks with unknown ages; 6) it has been found that there is too much helium in zircons of apparently very old rocks, so this means that probably there were ocurrences of accelerated nuclear decay.

This means that radiometric dating methods have a legion of problems, and they are not really a very sound basis to solve the problem of the age of the earth. They really don't tell us how old rocks are, but only how old they might be if uniformitarian principles would hold. But they don't hold, and evolutionists don't give us any convincing reasons for us to accept uniformitarian principles in the first place. This acceptance is strictly a matter of faith and ideological persuasion.

The book then goes on to a subject such as carbon dating, with is really a friend of creationism, since it has dated many biological remnants as recent, when in fact they were found in very very old rocks. The book presents many other problems concerning evolutionary and uniformitarian assumptions about a old earth, such as the lack of erosion between sediments, polystratic fossils, etc., etc.. It also deals with many evidences of a young earth that take the whole earth as the basis for measurement, such as the decay of the earth's magnetic field, the salt in the oceans, the erosion of the continents, and so on. It has good ilustrations and some pages in the end for readers to take notes. This is due to the fact that it is intended to provide material for christian students. It is a valuable book that many secular geologists will have trouble dismissing, so it is possible that they will take the easy way of turning their heads and pretend that they just didn't see the book. Evolutionists have learned that the best, safest and easiest way to deal with creationists is to ignore their arguments, rather than to attempt to refute them.

When Goliah was making fun of God, God's Word and God's people, the israely army was is afraid to face him. But David simply could not stand it. He boldly went to face Goliah and dealt hem a letal blow. When Goliah was just begining to understand what was going on and what was happening to him, it was too late. As far as evolutionism is concerned, Christians should do the same. Evolutionary theory is a kind of Goliah that is mocking God and His Word. Christians should not compromise with it, not should they be afraid to go out and fight. Many evolutionists have not yet realized what is happening to their theory, but the fact is that a bunch of "insane, stupid and wicked" creationists, from outside the mainstream Universities, is shattering the evolutionary myths apart. Evolutionists, fo course, will always remain with us, as will astrologists, witches and Sun worshippers.

As was the case of Goliah, evolutionism is much weaker than it looks like from a distance. Creationists should direct their blows to evolutionism in areas such as 1) the cause of the Big Bang; 2) the origin of the Universe; 3) the origin of stars and galaxies; 5) the origin of the Solar system; 6) the origin of the Earth; 7) the origin of the Moon; 8) the origin of the oceans; 9) the origin of the mountains; 10) the origin of life;11) the common ancestor; 12) the lack of transitional species in current fauna and flora, the fossil record, and molecular biology; 13) the origin of DNA information; 14) "junk-DNA"; 15) vestigial organs; 16) ape-man speculation; 17) Archaeopterix; Archaeoraptor; Galapagos finches; Peppered moths and other icons of evolution, 18) the origins of sexes; 19) the origins of language and consceousness), 20) the age of ancient civilizations, etc. etc.,

This book another example of how creationism is being an effective David against Goliah. That is why the evolutionary establishment is as nervous as it ever has been, not only in the United States but in other countries as well (v.g. England, Australia, Brazil, etc.).
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

[Add comment]
Post a comment
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Amazon will display this name with all your submissions, including reviews and discussion posts. (Learn more)
This badge will be assigned to you and will appear along with your name.
There was an error. Please try again.
Please see the full guidelines here.

Official Comment

As a representative of this product you can post one Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
The following name and badge will be shown with this comment:
 (edit name)
After clicking the Post button you will be asked to create your public name, which will be shown with all your contributions.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.  Learn more
Otherwise, you can still post a regular comment on this review.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
System timed out

We were unable to verify whether you represent the product. Please try again later, or retry now. Otherwise you can post a regular comment.

Since you previously posted an Official Comment, this comment will appear in the comment section below. You also have the option to edit your Official Comment.   Learn more
The maximum number of Official Comments have been posted. This comment will appear in the comment section below.   Learn more
Prompts for sign-in


Track comments by e-mail
Tracked by 1 customer

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 20 posts in this discussion
Initial post: May 22, 2011 3:54:31 PM PDT
f0rTyLeGz says:
It never fails to amaze me that Creationists can, on the one hand, accept technology, computers, modern medicine, space flight, but on the other hand, believe we have it all wrong about the age of Earth.

In reply to an earlier post on May 23, 2011 2:52:04 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 23, 2011 2:52:58 AM PDT
Technology, computers, modern medicine, space flight,etc., have nothing to do with evolution and are all about intelligent design. So is the Universe, life and man... as for the age of the Earth, the ancient civilizations are very recent... we can speculate about millions of years, but that is pure speculation...

In reply to an earlier post on May 23, 2011 3:06:23 PM PDT
f0rTyLeGz says:
It is the same "science" that has made all of the discoveries in medicine, biology, astronomy, that have shed light on the age of Earth and evolution, and plate tectonics. If evolution was "wrong" it would have been disproved long ago.

The ID folk can not create one experiment to prove their hypotheses. ID is a "belief." Science is a method of discovery.

In reply to an earlier post on May 24, 2011 12:48:28 AM PDT
Medicine tells us that mutations cause disease and death. Biology tells us that life always comes from life, and never from non living chemicals. Astronomy shows us that energy never arises out of nothing by chance...

Evolution has been disproved by evolutionists themselves.

Gradualists (v.g. Dawkins) state that saltationism is biologicallly impossible because evolution can only proceed through gradual genetic mutations...

Saltationists (v.g. Gould, Eldredge) state that gradual evolution didin't take place because there is no trace of it in the fossil record...

Creationists actually agree with both statements...

In reply to an earlier post on May 24, 2011 2:00:39 AM PDT
f0rTyLeGz says:
Asronomy tells us that the universe is 14 BILLION years old.

Biology tells us that life has evolved.

Medicine is taking advantage of evolution.

But I can see that you are a true believer. Nothing will change your faith in a supernatural something who is making everything happen. A prime mover. A creative first causer. It's faith though this belief, and not science.

In reply to an earlier post on May 24, 2011 3:27:45 AM PDT
Some sstronomers, based on naturalistic assumptions, tell us the Universe is 14 bilion years old. But they were not there to see it emerging out of nothing by chance...

The evidence keeps refuting the current astronomical models. Just recently the BBC said that astronomers were "mystified" by high-energy gamma rays seen coming from the Crab Nebula. said this burst "defies explanation."

Some biologists tell us that life as evolved. But none has seen life arising by chance or one species evolving to another more complex one...

Medicine is dealing with the corruption of organs and functions that were intelligently designed... If you think your brain is the the result of errors in protein functions you are a man of strong faith indeed...

In fact, you also have a faith: you believe everything came out of nothing by chance, whatever the means for whatever reason...

In reply to an earlier post on May 24, 2011 2:49:00 PM PDT
f0rTyLeGz says:
"Everything" did not come about because of chance. There is/was a natural reason for everything coming into being. But not some eternal smart being who "decided" to make a friend.

In reply to an earlier post on May 25, 2011 1:30:29 AM PDT
Before the existence of nature, what natural cause could there possibly be for its coming into being?

In reply to an earlier post on May 25, 2011 3:19:12 AM PDT
f0rTyLeGz says:
"Nature" has always existed. Nature is the Laws of Nature. It is how gases act under heat and pressure, and how elements react to each other. Nature IS chemistry, and physics, biology... astronomy. Nature in it's purest form is mathematics.

Without people what is going on here? Just atoms whirling?

Your question about what "caused" all this is is basically the question about First Cause. Check it out in Wikipedia, I'm sure there is a good discussion about it.

We humans live in a gigantic meme of words for things. We have the wisdom of thousands of generations written in WORDS. This consciousness... this constant stream of words in our minds is the rarest occurrence in all of Nature. If there are ever other intelligent beings out there in the universe somewhere... some time, you can count on one thing... they will have words for every little thing, just like we humans.

In reply to an earlier post on May 25, 2011 4:09:11 AM PDT
The idea that Nature has always existed is not scientific.

In fact, even most secular cosmologies assume a begining...

The fact that the Universe is losing usable energy shows that it cannot be eternal. If it was, there shouldn't be usable energy right now...

If the physical Universe had a begining, it had a cause...

... and it couldn't be its own cause, because it would have to exist before it came to being (which is physically and logically impossible)...

That's what science and philosophy tell us...

Faith (with good evidence!) tells us that an eternal, infinite, omnipotent and omniscient God is the cause of the Universe, life and Man...
‹ Previous 1 2 Next ›

Review Details