Journal of Creation archive > Volume 24 Issue 2
Journal of Creation
Volume 24, Issue 2
Published August 2010
127 pages
Click here to subscribe to the Journal of Creation
Click on the PDF icons below to view any of these articles as a PDF
in a new window. You can save the PDF to your computer from there or right click
on the icon below and click on ‘save target as’ (or similar).
Contents:
Page |
Title |
3–5 |
Gene duplication, protein evolution, and the origin
of shrew venom
Perspective by Jean K. Lightner |
6–7 |
New woolly mammoth dated 5,725 BP on St Paul Island,
Alaska
Perspective by Michael J. Oard |
8–9 |
Quasars again defy a big bang explanation
Perspective by John Hartnett |
9–11 |
Australopithecus sediba—no human ancestor
Perspective by Peter Line |
11–12 |
The Heart Mountain slide becomes more catastrophic
Perspective by Michael J. Oard |
13–15 |
Cell systems—what’s really under the hood
continues to drop jaws
Perspective by Brian Thomas |
16 |
320-million-year-old amber has flowering plant chemistry
Perspective by Michael J. Oard |
17–20 |
Hitler’s evolutionary ethic A review of Hitler’s Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress by Richard Weikart Book Review by Lael Weinberger |
20–23 |
Britain’s decline—a novel approach? A review of The Undercover Revolution: How Fiction Changed Britain by Iain H. Murray Book Review by Carl Wieland |
24–27 |
D’Souza defends the afterlife; falls short on
evolution A review of Life After Death: The Evidence by Dinesh D’Souza Book Review by Lita Sanders |
28–31 |
An important academic resource A review of Coming to Grips with Genesis: Biblical Authority and the Age of the Earth by Terry Mortenson and Thane H. Ury (Eds.) Book Review by Andrew S. Kulikovsky |
31–34 |
Helpful in places, confusing in others A review of God’s Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science by James Hannam Book Review by Dominic Statham |
35–37 |
Deconstructing modern atheism A review of The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions by David Berlinski Book Review by John Woodmorappe |
38–42 |
Dembski’s god not worth finding A review of The End of Christianity: Finding a Good God in an Evil World by William A. Dembski Book Review by Andrew Hodge |
43 |
Disconformable contacts in the Grand Canyon and the
lack of a global sequence
Letter to the Editor by Emmet L. Williams |
43–45 |
Hebrew scriptures as an aid to developing a creationist
taxonomy (1)
Letter to the Editor by Gal Pfeffer. Reply: Jean K. Lightner |
45–47 |
Hebrew scriptures as an aid to developing a creationist
taxonomy (2)
Letter to the Editor by Joel Klenck. Reply: Jean K. Lightner |
47–49 |
Hebrew scriptures as an aid to developing a creationist
taxonomy (3)
Letter to the Editor by Meave Levy. Reply: Jean K. Lightner |
49–50 |
Marine fossils in amber support the Flood Log-Mat Model
Letter to the Editor by Clem Rook. Reply: Michael J. Oard |
51–55 |
Comments on: ‘Creation, preservation and dominion’
by Andrew Kulikovsky
Forum by Alex Williams |
56–61 |
Response to Alex Williams
Forum by Andrew Kulikovsky |
62–68 |
Why Pharaoh Hatshepsut is not to be equated to the
Queen of Sheba
Viewpoint by Patrick Clarke |
69–74 |
Darwin Chicago 2009: a report from the University of
Chicago’s celebration
Viewpoint by Daniel Davidson |
75–77 |
Which prey do predators eat? Paper by E. Norbert Smith |
78–82 |
The geological column is a general Flood order with
many exceptions
Paper by Michael J. Oard |
83–86 |
John C. Eccles, Nobel laureate and Darwin doubter
Paper by Jerry Bergman |
87–94 |
Solar system formation by accretion has no observational
evidence
Paper by Jonathan Henry |
95–104 |
Is the K/T the Post-Flood boundary?—part 1: introduction
and the scale of sedimentary rocks
Paper by Michael J. Oard |
105–107 |
Where are we in the universe?
Paper by John Hartnett |
108–116 |
Evolutionary legal theories—the impact of Darwinism on western conceptions of law
Paper by Augusto Zimmermann |
117–121 |
Freud and Darwinism
Paper by Jerry Bergman |
122–127 |
An illusion of common descent
Paper by Peer Terborg |
Readers’ comments
Comments are automatically closed 14 days after publication.