Included in this book is some of Micah Morrison's finest work, covering material that has yet to reach the full comprehension of the public, but which someday will seem like the writing on the wall for believers in the American ideals of integrity and individual freedom.

I bought this book for my stepfather when he asked me what to do with tofu. I liked it so well I then bought one for myself. The recipes are innovative and extremely tasty. Friends and family members who would ordinarily turn up their noses at tofu gobble down these recipes, no problem. The only down side to "This Can't Be Tofu" is that the author is overly fond of frying. However, those recipes which call for frying can be easily modified.

This book is a great primer for cooking tofu. She starts with a clear and informative section on different types of tofu, as well as basic preparations that highlight techniques, not ingredients: seared, braised, broiled, grilled, etc. The rest of the book has very yummy tofu recipies for mostly main course preparations. It is the first tofu cookbook I've come across with original (as in not traditional asian dishes like ma po tofu) recipes that are both extremely tasty and, for the most part, do not try to "hide" the tofu in cheesecakes and the like.

As for the comment that this book requires a lot of unusual ingredients, I think that depends on the cook. If your regular repertoire leans toward traditional american food, yes you will need many new ingredients. However, if you cook asian food with any regularity, you should already have soy sauce, sesame oil, rice vinegar, etc. on hand, and be fairly comfortable using fresh ingredients like ginger and scallions. If your tastes lean toward Southeast asian cuisine, you'll probably have things like coconut milk and curry pastes. If your tastes lean toward Indian cuisine, try the dishes that use cardamon, coriander, and turmeric. If your tastes lean toward Chinese, you won't need much beyond the basic list I mentioned above (except for fresh ingredients, of course).

Regarding the comment on the preponderance of dishes that fry the tofu, I only find this to be the case in the section on appetizers. It was not prevalent in the sections on soups, salads/sandwiches, curries/braises, pasta/noodles. The sections on stir-fries/sautes does call for browing the tofu in a bit of oil at the beginning in quite a few dishes, but this is very similar to browning the meat in a regular stir-fry.

Bottom line: the recipes in this book taste great. For that reason, it gets five stars in my kitchen.

I have to respond to some of the negative criticism of Deborah Madison's tofu book.

Too many ingredients? Well, let's look at "Bachelor Tofu Sandwiches": tofu, onion, mushrooms, worcestershire sauce and bread. Yes, there are elaborate recipes too, but nobody with access to oriental markets should be put off. She does use mushroom soy sauce, but she uses it often.

Too much fried stuff? I hate fried food, and it's trivial to avoid it in using this book: most of her "fried" concoctions involve browning tofu in a nonstick pan filmed lightly with oil.

This book is singlehandedly responsible for giving tofu a weekly place at my table, and I have two thirteen-year-olds to speak for the results. DM has one of the most wonderful palates in the USA and a graceful and eloquent way of talking about food. This book is a tiny classic.

This very good book describes the beginning phases of the great Haitian slave revolt. Bell is a talented writer with a real gift for descriptive prose. This long and dense book reads easily and is very informative. Bell depicts a society in which whites, blacks, and mulattoes are locked in a mutual embrace of hatred and exploitation, leading to the horrific events described graphically in this book. This book is not for the squemish, it contains many scenes of horrifying cruelty. This book is very ambitious in scope and has some deficiencies. I find Bell's efforts to emphasize the role of voudon, the syncretic Afro-Haitian religion, somewhat contrived. For a useful comparison, see the brief and evocative novel The Kingdom of this World by the great Cuban novelist Alejo Carpentier. Bell's characters are also somewhat flat. This may be deliberate choice on his part; part of an effort to show the consequences of a society where almost all human relationships are based on asymmetric and exploitative power relationships. Bell does not deal with the role of events in France or how these events shaped what happened in Haiti. This is an understandable but crucial omission. Consequently, we never get a sense of the collision of the ideals of the French Revolution with the reality of colonial exploitation.

If one wants a powerful and unsettling sense of how the roots of race were buried so deeply in the western hemisphere, and how they entangle so much of the reality of the 20th Centurye, there is no better guide than Madison Smartt Bell. His powerful, blood-seeped, historical novel "All Souls Rising," traces the vibrant African will to freedom as it collides with the arrogant and brutal Colonial settlers of France and the mixed-bloods and others who sought to ride the horse of horrors. Though the land of Bell's imagination is confined mostly to the isolated half of the island known to Columbus as Hispaniola, and to the modern world as Haiti, the reader's imagination will be carried to events as fresh in their humanity as tonight's news reports. Through Bell's brilliantly informed imagination, the souls he births ring all too true-to-life, shudderingly so. Bell's creations will resonate forever in the minds the readers and chillingly so for those who have ever visited Haiti. The awful reality of Bell's world tell us, yes, it must have been that way and it reminds us that there can no other explanation for the world of the races as we know it today

I found this an extremely difficult read: I was 16, knew nothing about Haiti's history, and spoke no French. I took nearly three months to finish reading the book, because every so often I had to take a break from the horrific violence Bell portrays. In the end, however, this novel remains one of the most impressive I have ever read, in terms of the way it really made me think. The depths of terror and violence to which Bell's characters resorted shocked me. But I did not lose sight of the novel's bigger picture. Ultimately, I have little sympathy for the book's reviewers who could not see past the novel's violence and complexity. Five tries to get through the book? Try a Dick and Jane reader, then, and come back in a few years.

I was disappointed with "The Color of Hope". I felt that it could have been better than it actually was. The story centers around a financially comfortable couple from Boston, who have two children. One day, while summering in Maine, tragedy strikes when the family goes sailing, and their lives change for the worst. Just as things seem as they cannot get any worse, they do. I felt that the author overdid it with the depressing parts of this book. The middle of the story is very slow, but the end picks up speed. However, the reader is left disappointed in the long run.

This book was great. I read it in less than a day. It is the kind of book that keeps you wondering how a person will pick themselves up from a tragic loss. It had me crying throught out the entire book and never I never found any of its content boring or slow. I recommend it to any one that likes a heart felt novel. I will be reading it again soon. I would love to find more novels with this type of story line!

I was so fascinated by this tragically, mysterious family story that I had a hard time putting the book down and looked forward to finding time to pick it up again to find out what was happening next. There was much sadness and gloomy events as well as some happy times for that well-to-do family from Boston. I really enjoyed reading THE COLOR OF HOPE and recommend it highly as a story that is very different from family stories that are a bore.

While previous erotic romance anthology like Captivated and Fascinated blends seamlessly sizzling passion and poignant heartfelt characters, Delighted seems contented only to bombard the readers with sex and... more sex. You begin to wonder why Robin Schone - a frequent excellent contributor was excluded and brought in new entries from Nikki Donovan and Liz Madison.

This is not to say the budding talents are not good. Liz Madison threw in an impressive debut with a medievial romance in England 1250 which tells of Victoria Woodville, a female warrior grappling with the daunting task of protecting her homeland from a despot who craves on territorial expansion. She falls in love with an ally - Stephen de Burgh of Normadic origin and learns to trust him in battling the enemy together. Her style reminiscent of Virgina Henley pleases but lacks the spark of originality and erotic abundance. Nikki Donovan pens "Enchanted" - a surreal tale about the intimidating Beast of Lord kidnapping the lady Esmay to remove his curse through carnal relations. The entry suffers from an overload of sex with a contrived romance between undeveloped characters to whack its flaccid premise.

Veterans Bertrice Small and Susan Johnson scores better, both playing the elements of erotica and romance to a perfect pitch. Particularly Johnson in "Out of the Storm" who proves herself a maverick in creating sensual dialogues and a sizzling couple. She notches up the erotic atmosphere with an unconventional relationship between Lady Darlington and her stepbrother Prince Radovsky through a fateful meeting in the storm. Bertrice Small stretches the boundary with a love story between a courtesan and an enamored customer. It is erotically charged and her female protagonists is particularly strong and cunning though some may be put off by some debauched scenes of threesomes.

The romance element is sadly missing in this erotic anthology which strays towards giving readers a hot sex read. They may be delighted but without a stronghold of memorable romance, it falls below the expectations. Disappointed is the word.

Having enjoyed Captivated & Fascinated, I was interested to read Delighted with 2 new authors. As usual, Bertrice Small and Susan Johnson did not disappoint. I can't say the same for Nikki Donovan. Enchanted basically reads as a disjointed, flat, Beauty and the Beast with sex. Very uninspiring, almost didn't finish reading it. With His Promise by Liz Madison, on the other hand, is engaging within the first 2 pages. Her story line is well developed, the characters have depth & personality and her descriptive writing flows so well it pulls you in immediately. The sexual innocence and erotic build up is extremely hot and is coupled with a believeable love story and likeable protagonists which makes the sex even hotter. You don't want to miss this one. Great prelude to your own delights!

I found two of the stories worth the price of the book. Nikki Donovan's and Betrice Small's stories were interesting and well executed. Like other reviewers, I found the Nikki Donovan's Enchanted tale (Beauty and the Beast) to be delightful and highly erotic. Betrice Small's story on true love not caring about the circumstance of someone's life was enjoyable (and erotic). Unfortunately, I found the editing mistakes in Liz Madison's story to be disruptive to the story. I didn't think women were named Victoria in 1250 AD nor had chocolate been discovered by the English at that time. These editing mistakes seriously distracted from the storyline. Susan Johnson's character arguments over who is in charge detracted from the sex. They don't like each other so why is good sex worth it?

I like Jackie Collins books for a light read on the beach. Her older books, the Lucky series, Hollywood Wives, and Hollywood Husbands I particularly liked. This is trashy, averagely written "literature", so I take it for what it is.

Although this book is fairly entertaining, it is inherently flawed. One thing Jackie Collins is good at is creating a variety of characters and bringing them all together in the end. She does that in all her books, and Lethal Seduction is no different. However, this book nowhere near measures up to her previous efforts. In fact, it almost feels like a duplicate of all her other books.

I'm so tired of all the women being the most beautiful thing on the face of the Earth. Sure, they may be famous, but not all famous people are beautiful! Second, all of her characters speak the exact same way. Some of them may speak a bit more slangy, but the vulgarity abounds from every character. I can't imagine some of these characters saying the things she has them say. All everyone does is have sex, and lots of it. Come on, how about some depth! The Gem character was ridiculous, yet another perfect and innocent wannabe actress. Dexter talks to her for five minutes, and he's in love? And he practically stalks her from Vegas and she doesn't think he's a nutcase?

I don't know...this book is good for a day at the beach, but don't expect anything groundbreaking, and don't expect anything different from any of her other novels.

Jackie Collins once again takes us into her wonderful world of sex, lies, and deception that true Collins fans have loved for years. Lethal Seduction was a fast paced, tell all story involving the lives of the rich and famous (of course). I really enjoyed all of the characters, in particular "Rosarita". She gives the word 'bitch' an entirely new meaning. Enjoy reading about her plot to kill her husband and the lengths she must go through in trying to reach her ultimate goal (utterly hilarious at times). Also, the character of "Madison", from the L.A. Connections series, was extremely well written. I would say that the only thing that stopped me from giving this book a five star rating was its abrupt ending. It almost seemed like Ms Collins was in a rush all of a sudden to get through with the book and in doing so, completed the last couple of chapters in a half-assed manner... something I couldn't understand, considering she added yet another surprise in store at the very end. But I'm sure that whatever it was that caused her to do this will be explained in her next book (a sequel perhaps)? At any rate, this book was very entertaining and I would suggest giving it a try.

Madison Castelli is one of the main female characters in the book.
She's no Lucky Santangelo that's for sure, but she's a good character.
She's beautiful, of course, so I couldn't understand why she was
hanging on to grief about her ex-lover having walked out on her for
another woman...two years ago.

Madison's best friend, Jamie Nova,
finds out that her perfect husband is cheating on her in the most
devious manner. Rosarita Falcon is the bitchiest character I've come
across in a long time. She is unhappily married to a handsome but
unsuccessful soap opera star, Dexter, whose real name is Dick
Cockranger can you believe it? too funny. Rosarita is having a torrid
affair with Joel Blaine, public sex fanatic and son of billionaire
Leon Blaine. Rosarita asks her father to kill her husband, Dexter,
since she believes her father is in the mob. We never do actually
learn if he is in the mob or not. ...

Not the best of Collins,
but a fun read nonetheless.

Seeking to reprise his earlier success with The Last of the Mohicans, James Fenimore Cooper went on to write several other tales built around his heroic character Natty Bumppo (called "Hawkeye" in Mohicans and "Pathfinder" in the book of THAT name). In this one our hero is known as "Deerslayer" for his facility on the hunt and is shown as the younger incarnation of that paragon of frontier virtue we got to know in the earlier books. In this one, too, we see how he got his most famous appellation: "Hawkeye". But, this time out, our hero comes across as woefully tiresome (perhaps it's because we see too much of him in this book, where he's almost a side character in Mohicans). Yet some of Cooper's writing skills seem sharper here (he no longer avers that Natty is the taciturn type, for instance, while having the fellow forever running off at the mouth). But, while there are some good moments & excitement, this tale really doesn't go all that far...and its rife with cliches already overworked from the earlier books. The worst part is the verbose, simple-minded self-righteousness of our hero, himself, taken to the point of absolute unbelievability. He spurns the love of a beautiful young woman (though he obviously admires her) for the forester's life (as though he couldn't really have both), yet we're expected to believe he's a full-blooded young American male. And he's insufferably "moral", a veritable goody two-shoes of the woodlands. At the same time, the Indians huff & puff a lot on the shore of the lake where Deerslayer finds himself in this tale (in alliance with a settler, his two daughters, a boorish fellow woodsman, and Deerslayer's own erstwhile but loyal Indian companion Chingachgook -- "The Big Sarpent," as Natty translates his name). But the native Americans seem ultimately unable to overwhelm the less numerous settlers who have taken refuge from them in the middle of Lake Glimmerglass (inside a frontier house built of logs and set in the lake bed on stilts). There is much racing around the lake as Deerslayer and the others strive to keep the few canoes in the vicinity from falling into the hands of the tribe of marauding Hurons who have stopped in the nearby woods on their way back up to Canada (fleeing the American colonists and the British at the outbreak of English-French hostilities -- since these Hurons are allied with the French). And there are lots of dramatic encounters, with some deaths, but the Indians seem to take it all with relative equanimity, while trying to find a way to get at the whites who are precariously ensconced out on the lake. (It seems to take them the better part of two days, for instance, to figure out they can build rafts to make up for their lack of canoes -- and why couldn't they just build their own canoes, in any case -- and how is it they don't have any along with them since it's obvious they'll have to cross a number of waterways to successfully make it back to the homeland in Canada?) The settler and the boorish woodsman, for their part, do their stupid best to attack the Indians unnecessarily, getting captured then ransomed in the process, while Deerslayer and Chingachgook contrive to get the loyal Indian's betrothed free from the Hurons (it seems she has been kidnapped by them -- the reason Deerslayer and Chingachgook are in the vicinity in the first place). In the meantime the simple-minded younger daughter of the settler (Cooper seems to like this motif since he used a strong daughter and a simpler sister in Mohicans, as well) wanders in and out of the Indian's encampment without sustaining any hurt on the grounds that the noble red men recognize the "special" nature of this poor afflicted young woman (Cooper used this motif in Mohicans, too). In the end there's lots of sturm und drang but not much of a tale -- at least not one which rings true or touches the right chords for the modern reader. Cooper tried to give us more of Hawkeye in keeping with what he thought his readers wanted but, in this case, more is definately too much. --- Stuart W. Mirsk

"The Deerslayer" is, chronologically, the first of Cooper's Leatherstocking Tales, although the last to be written. It takes place in the early 1740s on the Lake Glimmerglass. Natty Bumppo, called Deerslayer, and his friend Hurry Harry March go to Tom Hutter's "Castle," which is a house built on stilts on a shoal in the middle of the lake, and it is practically impregnable. March intends to get Tom's daughter Judith to marry him. More love is in the air, for Deerslayer plans to meet Chingachgook at a point on the lake in a few days in order to help him rescue his bride-to-be, Wah-ta-Wah, who is a prisoner of the Hurons.

War breaks out, Tom and Harry are captured by Hurons, and the untested Deerslayer must go on his first warpath to rescue them. That sets up the plot, and there follows many twists and turns, ending with a very haunting conclusion. Although the book drags in parts, it's still pretty good.

I would caution you not to expect realism in this book. "It is a myth," D. H. Lawrence writes, "not a realistic tale. Read it as a lovely myth." Yes, Deerslayer is fond of talking, but take his soliloquies the same way as you take Shakespeare's: characters in both men's works meditate and reflect on what they are going through. So toss out your modern preconceptions aside and just enjoy the myth!

Cooper's final Leatherstocking Tale, The Deerslayer, depicts young Natty Bumppo on his first warpath with lifelong friend-to-be, Chingachgook. The story centers around a lake used as the chronologically subsequent setting for Cooper's first Leatherstocking Tale, The Pioneers. Tom Hutter lives on the lake with his daughters and it is here that Deerslayer (Bumppo) intends to meet Chingachgook to rescue Chingachgook's betrothed from a band of roving Iroquois. A desperate battle for control of the lake and it's immediate environs ensues and consumes the remainder of the story.

Throughout this ultimate Leatherstocking Tale, Cooper provides Natty much to postulate upon. Seemingly desiring a comprehensive finality to the philosophy of Bumppo, Cooper has Natty "speechify" in The Deerslayer more so than in any other book, though the character could hardly be considered laconic in any. Though the reason for this is obvious and expected (it is, after all, Cooper's last book of the series), it still detracts a tad from the pace of the story as Natty picks some highly inappropriate moments within the plot to elaborate his position. And, thus, somewhat incongruently, Cooper is forced to award accumulated wisdom to Bummpo at the beginning of his career rather than have him achieve it through chronological accrual.

All things considered, however, The Deerslayer is not remarkably less fun than any other Leatherstalking Tale and deserves a similar rating. Thus, I award The Deerslayer 4+ stars and the entire Leatherstocking Tales series, one of the better examples of historical fiction of the romantic style, the ultimate rating of 5. It was well worth my time.

To put yourself back in time, into the darkest parts of the Progressive era read this book. It is absolutely invalid based upon scientific fact established since in genetics and anthropology, but it gives a picture (pre Great War) of when "civilized (white, dare say WASP) man" had absolute faith in his "science" and how heaven on would be achievable through it. The most frightening part is that there are groups TODAY publishing the book on the internet as if it were as "true" (get the sarcasm?) as it was when it was originally published.

I agree with the reviewers who described this book as racialist, pseudoscientific and biased. At the same time much of it rings true. Multiculturalism is a myth, an attempt to "explain" away racial conflicts in modern (western) society. It doesn't work and it never has. As Jared Taylor has pointed out, we all say and pretend that 'race doesn't matter,' yet we all act as if it does--in our choices: where we live, the friends we have, what we read, etc. Thus, as preposterous as Grant's book may seem, his ideas cannot be so easily dismissed.

so many of our books today, have removed words that are 'delicate' to the races that believe these words are unacceptable to todays readers. This book brings to our eyes those differences between the cultures and races that do exist today. I was amazed to find our dictionarys and other reference books, have removed vital words because they want to be discrete and politically correct. This is a fine book for learning what they and others have tried to get us to forget.

Henry Morris makes a number of valid points in this book - but then again, Jack T. Chick makes a lot of valid points in his viotrolic fundamentalist cartoon tracks. The real question is: is it worthwhile to shift the wheat from the chaffe in Morris's work?

The answer is no. Henry Morris's "flood geology" or "young earth creationism" has been rejected by every - read that again, literally - EVERY Christian who has seriously studied science with an open mind. (If you think that I - a card-carrying, evangelical Southern Baptist - am implying that all young earth creationists are deluded, YOU'RE RIGHT!) The Biblical evidence and the scientific evidence simply isn't there to support the assertion that the earth is merely 6,000 years old. If Morris had simply made a mistake in handling the Word, he could be forgiven. But Morris has been a vociferious advocate of the Young Earth position for more than 50 years! He continues to use arguments, such as the moon's dust or the earth's magnetic field, that sound good to laypeople, but which have been definitively rebuked by scientists. This is BEARING FALSE WITNESS, people! To make matters worse, Morris and his disciples have been at the forefront of slandering true scientists with a heart for God (e.g., Hugh Ross, who has probably endured more unjust slander from so-called "Christians" than any man since Luther).

Morris has good points to make about evolution, but none about the age of the earth. Consider this: Darwinian evolution is such a sham that even growing numbers of non-Christian scientists from every discipline from biochemistry to neuroscience (e.g., Michael Behe, Robert Jastrow, John Polkinghorne, and Jeffrey M. Schwartz) have denied Darwinism's validity. But NO SCIENTIST, NONE, EVER has EVER EVER EVER EVER disputed the ancient age of the earth based on scientific data alone. And if the Bible is so clear that the earth is 6,000 years old, why do so many arch-conservative Christian leaders (e.g., Norman Geisler, James Dobson, Gleason Archer, Chuck Colson, to name but a few) believe that the earth is old?

Morris is bad news. The good things he has to say are overwhelmed by the falsehoods and misconceptions.

Morris' book is arranged in a reverse chronology, discussing the role/effects of evolutionary thought from the present into the past. Morris does make some good points, and at least presents some of the currently fashionable ideas in the world. The book is fairly well-documented and reasonably thorough, but has some problems. Having read a fair amount of modern creation literature over the past year, I've noticed that the key arguments in favor of the position tend to be trumpeted ad nauseum. That is not to say they're wrong, but personally, I'm suspicious of anything recited in a manner resembling a slogan. I say all this because the many contra-evolution arguments made by Morris are approaching slogan status. He's not alone, because many proponents of evolution state their views in a similar manner. The problem in both cases, is that the points of issue become analyzed and discussed in a decreasingly thorough and critical way. The result is an "I'm right...no, I'M right..." dialogue that is both wearisome and unhelpful. At any rate, here are my problems with the book: #1 (closely related to my previous point) The scientific points interspersed within the book are stated in a very "now of course you know this as obvious" manner. As I discussed earlier, this isn't helpful. These points must be covered in more depth. If the publisher won't allow another 100 pages, then don't publish it. #2 Despite the thoroughness with which Morris discusses the more recent socio-political roles of evolutionary thought, the book becomes progressively more speculative. The further into the past Morris travels, the more elucidation of brain children we find. We all speculate. We take things for granted and make assumptions all the time, rarely giving them much thought. However, speculating on the quality of hamburger McDonald's is going to sell you is a far cry from speculating on the primeval, Satanic conjuration of the idea of evolution. This leads right to #3...In addition to Morris' speculation noted above, he has a certain fondness for numerology and the "gospel in the stars" idea. Biblical support for these ideas is ambiguous at best (fully lacking at worst), yielding interpretation that's inconclusive. More recently, I've been getting my feet wet in genuine biblical scholarship: original languages, literary-cultural-historical context, etc. Though a profound neophyte in this area, I've become very suspicious of SOME, not all, of the exegesis performed by the writers of creation literature. What biblical research is performed by these writers seems very narrow, focusing almost solely on creation support. That borders on eisegesis, i.e. reading INTO the text your own ideas. This is not to suggest the bible doesn't indicate creation. That actually IS fairly obvious. However, there appears to be a tendency to strengthen the creation argument by seeking to impose creationary support on biblical passages that have nothing to do with creation. The bible is a collection of 66 books written (**with a specific intent**) by many men over many miles over many years, and within many literary, cultural, and historical contexts. In light of that, the interpretational method employed by many of the creation writers is highly questionable. Are they wrong? I don't know (yet - smile), but given the magnitude of the bible's implications (if true), surely greater care in it's study is warranted. Morris is almost deified in some Christian/creation circles. Though his prolonged vocal stance on this issue is admirable, I've grown to mistrust him. To Morris' disciples who may be preparing an effigy for me now - I'm being honest, and as fair as possible. The truth is no small matter, and that's what I seek. This book is not recommended.

Creationism is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. To be Christian you cannot at all be an evolutionist, despite what some people say. To say that you are a Christian and a believer in evolution is to just spit in the face of Christ as He was crucified and as He rose from the dead. To say that you are a Christian and a believer in evolution is to spit in the face of God the Father, Son, Holy Ghost because you are believing in something that says there is no need for salvation, that there is no personal relationship with God from the beginning. You cannot be both, like a man riding on two horses...one foot on each...sooner or later you will have to choose which horse you'll ride on...and usually believers in evolution and Christianity usually turn into unbelievers in the end...

Time and time again, Creationism shows that the apostles behind evolution created this "scientific religion of evolution" to try to destroy Christianity. These apostles of evolution themselves say there is no firm facts or reliability behind evolution, but they cannot believe in creationism because...for one thing...that means they would have to face their sins before the judgment of the holy loving God.

Henry Morris' book shows the terrible impact and war between the truth of Creationism and the satanic lies of evolution. The more Christians don't stand up to the evils of the world (like evolutionists) the less holiness and love and hope in the world. I directly blame the taking away of Christianity's morality and truths in our governments, in our schools, to school shootings date rapes and drugs in our children's hands.

Like Henry Morris' book shows, we as Christians must stand up to the evils of the world, fight back with Christian facts and truths. It is all a part of the great commision the Lord Jesus gave to us who believes that He and only He (as the Son of God the Creator, the Sustainer, and the Soulwinner) is the way, the truth, and the light.

Christianity also opposed at one time the concept that the Sun is at the center of the solar system - who among religious fanatics want to argue THAT cause these days? Give it up - if your religion can not tolerate accepting truths such as the fact that the Earth is billions of years old, or the fact that organisms evolve, then your religion is as doomed as the dinosaurs and the dodo.

A classic! Friends and foes of Biblical truth both agree that this seminal book was largely responsible for triggering the modern revival of interest in creationism.

Even though most of its scientific content has been superceded by more recent creation science, it still provides a useful framework for understanding Flood Geology. The theological portion of this book is invaluable for showing the incorrectness of compromising evangelicals who try to twist Scripture to make it fit a local flood instead of the indisputably global Noachian Deluge. A must read!

Had you asked me a year ago, I would have said that the Biblical story of Noah could not possibly be taken literally. Now I have been forced to reconsider my position.

The authors did what I have never seen or heard before: used the scientific evidence rather than ignoring it. One question I would like to pose for the casual reader: how is it possible we have massive fossil deposits of extinct animals (dinosaurs, et cetera) from millions of years ago, yet no fossil deposits of modern animals? That is a question that made me wonder why I hadn't heard it before.

Despite the statements of some reviewers, who based on their reviews didn't seem to have read the book in depth, the authors do use scientific evidence to back up their position. It isn't the usual assertion that we must believe the Bible because the Bible says so.

I would recommend this book to everyone; and I plan to present these arguments to geologists and challenge them to refute them.

Of course, you should read this for yourself before you decide.