Item description for In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood (8th Edition) by Walt Brown...
Overview This understandable, comprehensive, and meticulously documented resource gives new insights that could revolutionize understandings of the beginnings of time and subsequent events.
Publishers Description A comprehensive, meticulously documented resource dealing with the age-old creation/evolution controversy. The author, who received a PhD from MIT, carefully explains and illustrates scientific evidence from biology, astronomy, and the physical and earth sciences that relates to origins and the flood. The hydroplate theory, developed after more than 30 years of study by Dr. Walt Brown, explains with overwhelming scientific evidence earth's defining geological event - a worldwide flood. The book includes hundreds of illustrations, most in full color, an index, extensive end notes and references, technical notes, and 36 frequently asked questions on related topics. This revised 8th edition, 120 pages larger than the previous edition (2001) contains new material on almost every page.
Promise Angels is dedicated to bringing you great books at great prices. Whether you read for entertainment, to learn, or for literacy - you will find what you want at promiseangels.com!
Studio: Center for Scientific Creation
Est. Packaging Dimensions: Length: 11.36" Width: 8.64" Height: 1.25" Weight: 4.15 lbs.
Release Date Nov 1, 2008
Publisher Center for Scientific Creation
ISBN 1878026097 ISBN13 9781878026095
Availability 6 units. Availability accurate as of Oct 26, 2016 11:36.
Usually ships within one to two business days from La Vergne, TN.
Orders shipping to an address other than a confirmed Credit Card / Paypal Billing address may incur and additional processing delay.
More About Walt Brown
Walt Brown received a PhD in mechanical engineering from M.I.T. where he was a National Science Foundation Fellow. He has taught college courses in physics, mathematics, and computer science. Brown is a retired full colonel (Air Force), West Point graduate, and former Army Ranger and paratrooper. Assignments during his 21 years in the military included: Director of Benet Research, Development, and Engineering Laboratories in Albany, NY, tenured associate professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy, and Chief of Science and Technology at the Air War College. For most of his life Walt Brown was an evolutionist, but after many years of study, he became convinced of the scientific validity of creation and the global flood. He has developed the hydroplate theory of the flood. Since retiring from the military, Dr. Brown has been the Director of the Center for Scientific Creation and has been involved full time in research and writing.
Walt Brown currently resides in Phoenix. Walt Brown was born in 1937.
Reviews - What do customers think about In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood (8th Edition)?
BEST SCIENTIFIC BOOK EVER Nov 7, 2009
AMAZING! DR. WALT BROWN WROTE BEST SCIENTIFIC BOOK EVER. I STRONGLY RECOMMEND THIS BOOK TO ALL. ALL EXPLANATIONS OF EVIDENCES ARE VERY LOGICAL AND COMPLETELY IN AGREEMENT WITH BIBLICAL ACCOUNT OF RECENT CREATION AND GLOBAL FLOOD.
Oh come on Oct 28, 2009
I can't believe this book is still available. I read it years ago after a friend at church (who I respect a great deal) loaned me a copy and urged me to read it and give him my opinion. I read the book carefully because I owed that to my friend. The version I read was 5 or 6, I don't remember. I see it is up to the 8th edition now and this edition is available online. So here I will refer to that version. The book begins with a list of over 100 "categories of scientific evidence that support a sudden creation and oppose gradual evolution". Of course it would be impossible to address each point either here or in talking to my friend. But they were mostly recognizable as material I have seen many times before although there was some that was new to me. The arguments are very misleading and supported by half-truths, out of context quotes, misrepresentation of mainstream science, and in some cases outright lies.
For example point 78. Shallow Meteorites. Brown argues that meteorites are constantly falling to earth. "If Earth's sediments, which average about a mile in thickness on the continents, were deposited over hundreds of millions of years, as evolutionists believe, we would expect to find many deeply buried iron meteorites. Because this is not the case, the sediments were probably deposited rapidly, followed by "geologically recent" meteorite impacts". Brown wants us to think that meteorites are concentrated in the geologically recent part of the stratigraphic record. To support this his references cite the Creation Research Society Quarterly, and the statement "No meteorites have ever been found in the geologic column" from a Geology textbook published in 1950. But since 1980 there has been greatly increased geologic interest in ancient impacts, and the stratigraphic record has been found to contain meteorites. There are grad students with nothing better to do than spend thousands of hours searching thin sections for asteroid remains near impact sites like Chicxulub, sites in the North Sea and various impact sites around the world. And they find them and publish the results for Walt Brown to ignore. But why should we even expect to find meteorites in the stratigraphic column? Meteorites are some of the rarest material on the planet. They are FAR rarer than diamonds. There are only several tens of thousands that have ever been found. Almost all of these on the surface of the earth. Although they are constantly falling, they are not very conspicuous. It is incredibly rare to find a meteorite, even on the earth's surface, so why should we expect to find them in a random slice through a stratigraphic sequence? And yet they are found, in spite of Walt Brown's assertion that they are not. This is incredibly misleading and is arguably an outright lie. There is no excuse for Walt Brown, with a Ph.D. in engineering, for publishing this.
Of course there is something like this to be said for each of the hundred plus of Brown's "categories of scientific evidence". But I have to read it and respond in my spare time. Brown and others like him make their living writing this garbage.
I see there is still a section in the latest edition on "Liquefaction: The Origin of Strata and Layered Fossils". As an engineer Brown should know that liquefaction can only occur in saturated sand. It never occurs in clay, and rather than producing layers, it destroys layering that already exists. Brown may have devised an experiment that demonstrates liquefaction (figure 94), but there are thousands of pages of geotechnical literature that document decades of work by hundreds of workers who have dedicated their careers to researching liquefaction, in the hopes of saving lives from building collapse (and not getting sued!). They have found that liquefaction never occurs in clay. Cyclic softening is a phenomenon that happens in saturated clay but it is very rare.
Christians involved in science, and there are many, should be embarrassed to have this kind of garbage associated with Christianity. This kind of "ministry" does no service to Christianity. Unbelievers who see this kind of thing linked to Christianity will never come to faith. And Christians, especially children who hear people in authority promoting this stuff will be reluctant to pursue careers in science and that's a shame.
There are a lot of people like my friend out there. They are honestly trying to deal with what they see as a conflict, people they respect in authority saying different, contradictory things. But faith in Christ is not threatened by any finding of science. And faith supported by teaching like this is on a pretty flimsy foundation.
Thank Walt! Oct 5, 2009
Thus spake Walt Brown on p. 5 of IN THE BEGINNING: "Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called THE LAW OF BIOGENESIS."
And what moral is the reader supposed to draw from this, exactly? Presumably, that spontaneous generation will NEVER be observed. But what principle of inference underwrites such a conclusion? Some weird variant of Simple Enumerative Induction to the effect that what HASN'T been observed WON'T be observed? If so, then it follows by the same principle that NO research discipline has any future at all, because nothing that hasn't ALREADY been discovered WILL be discovered. Now, it's doubtful whether St. Brown really wants to endorse such a conclusion; so let's be generous and identify his underlying pattern of inference as the following: "It hasn't been shown that spontaneous generation HAS occurred. Therefore, it HASN'T occurred." Aw, gee, too bad we strike out again! Every informal logic text on the market identifies such reasoning as fallacious, as embodying, specifically, the fallacy of Appeal to Ignorance.
"But...but...you haven't taken into account the ENTIRE quoted passage!" you caterwaul, features twisted into a hideous mask of indignation as you scrabble hysterically around the room of all fours, belly up. "What about THE LAW OF BIOGENESIS?" Right, the Law of Biogenesis. Okay, then, back to the drawing board.
Walt Brown is trying to make a case for divine creation, isn't he? He tells us: "All observations have shown that life comes only from life." So now, evidently, Walt wants us to reason in the OPPOSITE direction: All observations have shown that life comes only from life; therefore, life comes only from life. As Walt makes clear, the life-comes-only-from-life shtick rules out the origination of living organisms from nonliving matter. And yet,..., and yet..., and yet.... Life comes ONLY from life? Well, then this organism over here came from one or more previous organisms, which themselves came from previous organisms, which themselves came from.... Uh, oh! The so-called Law of Biogenesis yields a dilemma: either (1) the temporal succession of organisms leads to infinite regress, or (2) the succession leads to an UNgenerated FIRST organism, an organism that existed from all eternity past. But neither alternative supports Creationism. Infinite regress and an ungenerated first organism both entail that life has NO beginning, in which case the hypothesis of divine creation bites the dust. Perhaps you're tempted to identify a putative ungenerated first organism with God. If you do, you'll be maintaining that God the Creator is HIMSELF A BIOLOGICAL ORGANISM. Hmm, let's see now. God: a primordial paramecium? Satan, begone! God is not a physical being with spatio-temporal limitations; therefore, He has no body; therefore, He has no protoplasm; therefore, He has no cellular structure. Nope, I'm afraid God just doesn't cut it as a biological organism. So, in the final analysis, Walt Brown's so-called Law of Biogenesis, far from supporting divine creation, rules it out.
"But...but...what if God IS the ungenerated first organism but simply isn't LIFE AS WE KNOW IT?" you snivel, all orifices a-drool as you try unscrewing your kneecaps to achieve imbecilic parity with Walt Brown himself. Fine, let's run with that idea. We're now committed to holding that life as we DO know it derives from life as we DON'T know it. This implies that today's biological organisms come from some importantly different biological organism of the past. But in that case, we have DESCENT WITH MODIFICATION, which, by definition, is (drum roll, please!) EVOLUTION! Who'd 'ave thunk it? Walt Brown's so-called Law of Biogenesis actually affords more support for the Theory of Evolution than for the hypothesis of divine Creation.
Fortunately there's some comforting news for Creationists after all. Walt Brown's Law of Biogenesis? He just made it up. Oh, yes, there IS SOMETHING in the biological literature answering to the appellation "Law of Biogenesis", but it sure ain't Walt Brown's aphorism that life comes only from life: rather, it's the thesis that ONTOGENY RECAPITULATES PHYLOGENY, propounded by Ernest Haeckel in his DIE KALKSCHWAEMME: EINE MONOGRAPHIE (Berlin, 1872). Brown's own so-called biogenetic law is pure crappola, manufactured by Walt himself to flim-flam a readership of presumed know-nothings into thinking that the origination of living organisms from nonliving matter is deemed impossible by orthodox science. The man even has the gall to declare on p. 5 of IN THE BEGINNING: "Evolutionary scientists reluctantly accept the law of biogenesis." No, they don't. What everybody SHOULD accept, however, is that Walt Brown is merely a scientific poseur.
Interested in what evolutionary scientists DO have to say about the origin of life? Then check out: (1) Paul F. Lurquin, THE ORIGINS OF LIFE AND THE UNIVERSE (Columbia University Press, 2003); (2) LIFE'S ORIGIN, J. William Schopf, Editor (University of California Press, 2002). It's a safe bet, though, that Walt Brown's admirers won't check out ANYTHING that doesn't conform to their Creationist prejudices.
St. Brown launches another attack on the Theory of Evolution on pp. 5 - 6 of IN THE BEGINNING. This time, he runs his a "where's the evidence?" play, hoping to discredit evolutionary theory by flatly denying that anybody has ever identified a "missing link". Brown says he's willing to swallow microevolution but can't stomach macroevolution. He presents an illustration in the right-hand corner of p. 6, labeled "Microevolution vs. Macroevolution," which, when read from the bottom up, depicts a purported evolutionary progression of animals leading from a lizard to a bird. Everything in the progression between the lizard at the bottom and the bird at the top is isolated with a brace pointing rightward to the comment: "Intermediates (always missing or fictional)".
Just for the record: no contemporary vertebrate paleontologist maintains that birds are descended from lizards. Birds are archosaurs, having (plesiomorphically, at least) both an antorbital fenestra before the eye socket and a quadratojugal bone below and behind the eye socket. Lizards, having neither, are not archosaurs but lepidosaurs. Evolutionary theory assigns archosaurs and lepidosaurs to very divergent branches on the phylogenetic tree. Still, while vertebrate paleontologists deny that birds are descended from lizards, they nevertheless agree that the remote ancestors of birds were quadrupedal diapsid reptiles.
Now, that Walt Brown isn't exactly up to date on the latest tetrapod cladograms is forgivable. But when he asserts that the evolutionary intermediates linking primitive quadrupedal archosaurs to living birds are "always missing or fictional", he commits the paleontological equivalent of running face-first into the blunt end of a four-by-four. The literature of vertebrate paleontology identifies intermediates up the ying-yang. Brown's response? He simply dismisses ALL the fossil evidence as fraudulent (pp. 338 - 341). Yeah, right. Never give an inch, eh, Walt? Talk about a cheap shot! Brown has a lot in common with Erich Von Daniken. Televised documentaries capture the latter's responses when the falsity of his claims is demonstrated right before his eyes: he just goes "dumb" and refuses to acknowledge anything. Ditto Walt Brown.
Dawgone, drat, dang, rats, shucks, and pshaw! All the King's horses and all the King's Men can't put Walty together again. No matter how often we throw him a lifeline, the poor man just sinks deeper into the quagmire of scientific inadequacy. Kinda reduces the need to guess why Walt Brown is listed in Schlagroom's NATIONAL DIRECTORY OF DUMMIES WITH DEGREES (hardcover edition, Forward by Charles Bronson---Cementville, Ohio: The Punch Press, 2008; softcover edition---Wasilla, Alaska: Buy 'Em Books, 2009). Is there no alternative, then, but to accept that Walt Brown's one-candle-power intellect simply isn't up to the challenge of defending the Faith? Horrors! Say it isn't so.
Fortunately, True Believers are always ready to bite the bullet by heroically adopting as a default position that Walt's inability to think straight affords no reason why they shouldn't go right on believing whatever he tells them. They demonstrate downright eagerness, in fact, to follow the Great Man's lead and blaze their OWN trails of intellectual incompetence by taking the very fact that the guy's not too quick on the uptake logically as CONCLUSIVE evidence that he's a dyed-in-the-wool scientific GENIUS whose every pronunciamento SHOULD be accepted uncritically.
After all, Walt Brown is a retired MIT prof and a retired full colonel from the Air Force. We must be thankful that a man so patently accomplished at walking on the backs of his knees has deigned to disabuse nonscientific morons of any inclination to believe the Theory of Evolution. Indeed, let us kiss the soles of his shoes in gratitude for the way he so vividly illuminates the abstruse deep-logic of scientific reasoning. "Dogs have barks, and trees have barks. Therefore, dogs = trees." Get it? Of course, you do! So you too are now fully equipped to expatiate upon the arcana of geophysics! Yes, your future is assured, thanks to God and Walt.
Hey, wait a minute! Have you noticed? "God" has one vowel, and "Walt" has one vowel. Therefore, Walt = God!
"Science" which ignores evidence contradicting it is not science at all. Sep 13, 2009
The idea that Creationism is a legitimate scientific idea - that examination of our physical universe leads to the conclusion that it was all created by a supreme being in the recent past - continues to be nothing more than fantasy. This book will appeal to people who have already made up their minds that Christian Creationism (to be distinguished from any of the other hundreds of religious creation stories) is true. To those hoping to find "compelling" evidence within its pages, you will be disappointed.
Brown builds his arguments on some shaky foundations, one of these being - in an attempt to explain the vast size of the universe - the hypothesis that the speed of light has been slowing down since the beginning of time. Apart from the fact that there is an appalling lack of experimental data to back this up, the idea was based on the work of someone named Barry Setterfield - and his research was later determined to have erroneous calculations. Not only that, all scientific knowledge about Doppler shift strongly contradicts the idea. In other words, the idea that light traveled much faster in the past has far more evidence disproving than supporting it. Yet if this single idea is wrong, the whole premise of the book collapses. If light did not slow down by a massive margin, then the universe cannot possibly be younger than many billions of years.
But since Christians have an emotional attachment to the outcome of the evolution vs. creation debate, many will no doubt like this book. The high rating is has on this site thus far is proof of this. Those who are interested in science (which really is nothing more than a search for truth) will be unmoved.
There will not be a single solitary secular university that will adopt this book as a legitimate science text, because it absolutely will not be able to survive peer review. As evidenced by the argument above concerning the speed of light, this book is "science" that ignores strong evidence which contradicts it - which really and truthfully is not science at all.
WONDERFUL Sep 7, 2009
"In The Beginning..." is an excellent book - a MUST for every classroom and instructor. I'm still reading it, and appreciating its outright frankness, and thoroughness. Lots of pictures and illustrations. Well done, and a BEAUTIFUL book. Thanks, and so glad to see Darwin's theory being found false and going by the wayside - The sooner the better, and the Supremely Intelligent Creator revealed. And found Evolution to be the result of Six F's: Fraud, Fakes, Falsification, Forgeries, Fallacies, & Fantasies. Tom at Adams Bible Studies.