geocreationism.com

After taking a hiatus, I am back to the task of reviewing Glenn Morton’s evidence for humanity extending back 5.5 million years, which is when Morton believes Adam and Noah lived.  In Does “Full Humanity” Predate Homo Sapiens? (Part 1 - Altars), I concluded that it was reasonable to consider Altars as evidence of humanity.  Even Hugh Ross uses that as a criterion for dating the beginning of humanity, though he only goes back 24,000 years.  Then, in Does “Full Humanity” Predate Homo Sapiens? (Part 2 - Neanderthals), I reviewed …

God’s Wrath on Mankind

Racism

DeRosa documents the racist undertones in some of the early Evolutionary literature.  Though certainly not Darwin’s intention, the idea of Natural Selection fed an assessment of the races based on where each falls in the spectrum between advanced society and primitive ape.  Such conclusions are offensive and unbiblical, and have a modern root in society’s acceptance of Evolutionary theory.
The late Stephen Jay Gould, a prolific evangelist for evolution, acknowledged evolution’s racist impact, stating,

“Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.”
Additional application of these “insights” has led to philosophies embracing racial purity and supporting abortion.

Nazism

Darwinian evolution undoubtedly influenced Hitler’s ability to rationalize the …

I ended “Evidence for Creation” (Review) - Chapter 5 “Evidence from Man” (Part 1) rather unfortunately.  I closed with this:
DeRosa’s reasoning reminds me of the little kid who gets made [fun of because] the big kids won’t let him use their baseball bat. “Well it’s a stupid bat anyway.”  Maybe.  Or perhaps you don’t know how to play baseball, and they don’t want their “stupid bat” getting broken.
I reread it today and I clearly sounded like I think Creation Scientists cannot be trusted with handling fossils.  I apologize for that.  I have no doubt as to their trustworthiness.  My point was that the people overseeing the fossils probably do not …

I have finally reached the last chapter of Tom DeRosa’s Evidence for Creation.  This good Christian man has continuously shown misunderstandings of science and the scientific method, presented evidence for Creation Science that also supports Evolution, engaged in arguments against Evolution that are only true if one assumes the conclusion, and presented conflicting data as evidence.  This may well become the basis of my final summary for the book.  One more chapter to go however…

Evidence From Man
Evolutionists have a compelling reason to demonstrate an evolutionary link between man and ape.  They know that if they succeed, they will silence the arguments of those who believe in special creation.  Without any question, evolution would triumph if the fossil evidence were to …

Well, I am almost done with chapter 4 (yay).  I had to slow down because my holiday vacation ended and I had to go back to work.  Let me jump right in…

Monkey and Man DNA
No one will disagree after a visit to the zoo that chimps look more like us than any other animal… but the differences are so huge that we would never confuse a primate with a human.  The proportions of the lengths of our arms and legs, the appearance of the neck, skull, pelvis, hands, and soft tissue structures–including our lips–clearly distinguish the two species.  Internally, our proteins are 71 percent different from that of a chimp.  We have 46 chromosome at meiosis while a chimp has …

It pains me to call a brother in Christ “the opposition”, but I gotta say that it’s how I feel. 

If you have been following my blog over the last week, I have been reviewing “Evidence for Creation” by Tom DeRosa.  I received the book as a gift from my Pastor, who is also a friend.  He knows I believe in an Old Earth, and he gave me this book coincidentally when I started reviewing Glenn Morton’s evidence for Adam and Noah existing 5.5 million years ago.  Given the fact that God’s timing is always perfect, and the fact my pastor has never given be a book like this before, and it was right after I started reviewing Glenn’s theories in earnest, I decided that …

Well, I had posted some guidelines that I was going to follow during my review of Tom DeRosa’s “Evidence for Creation”, but I have not been able to follow them.  The problem is that, as it appears to me anyway, DeRosa is making comments about science that he doesn’t understand.  His approach appears to be to explain why the science is unreliable and cannot be proven.  Therefore, simply open the one true Word of God, and go from there.  To be honest, I am not enjoying this review.  I feel like I am watching my brother in Christ just shut himself off from all rational reason, and yet that is exactly what he thinks all Evolutionists (from Darwinian to Theistic) …

As discussed, here is a reminder of my ground rules: “Evidence for Creation” (Review) - Ground Rules for the Review
Because I believe DeRosa’s opening paragraphs exclude discussion of any viable form of Theistic Evolution…

I will weigh DeRosa’s anti-Evolution arguments as they pertain to Darwinian Evolution, separately from a (for lack of a better term) Geocreationist Theistic Evolution.
I will be weighing DeRosa’s pro-Creationist arguments as they pertain to Creationist theories in general, and specifically Geocreationist Theistic Evolution.
I am knowingly excluding all other specific Creationist and Evolutionary theories, though I realize there are other theories that are worthy of discussion.

DeRosa begins this chapter with a summary of the …

As discussed, here is a reminder of my ground rules: “Evidence for Creation” (Review) - Ground Rules for the Review
Because I believe DeRosa’s opening paragraphs exclude discussion of any viable form of Theistic Evolution…

I will weigh DeRosa’s anti-Evolution arguments as they pertain to Darwinian Evolution, separately from a (for lack of a better term) Geocreationist Theistic Evolution.
I will be weighing DeRosa’s pro-Creationist arguments as they pertain to Creationist theories in general, and specifically Geocreationist Theistic Evolution.
I am knowingly excluding all other specific Creationist and Evolutionary theories, though I realize there are other theories that are worthy of discussion.

“Why does the Same Evidence Lead to Opposite Conclusions?”

DeRosa’s …

From the first page of Chapter 1, I can see that I might end up repeating myself if I do not set some ground rules for how I review this book.  Consider the second paragraph (emphasis added):
In the origins debate, the evidence leads to one of two conclusions: evolution or creation.  These two basic views are completely at odds and admit no middle ground.  On the one hand, evolution relies on pure random chance as the agent by which matter and energy, over time, are assembled into living systems with all their mind-boggling complexity.  The evolutionary process, we are told, requires billions and billions of years.  Creation, by contrast, relies on the “mechanism” of an outside intelligence which we define …