Rating: Summary: "skeptic" Review: a skiptic's search for god : convincing evidence for for his existence by ralph o.muncasten. this book is about a little boy name ralph seaching for some answers .is god real or not ? so when he gat to college he found some information,and he was trying to see what does evolution,god have in common? this is not trying to make you believe in anything that you don't want to believe its just to help you understand more of you already know. i think the skeptic is a wonderful book to read. when i started reading i did not want to stop reading because it has so many ideas ,and answers. this book inspiree me ,and encourages me to balieve in what ever i want to beliave in .anyone could read it .it will surprise them when they read .this book is an inspiretional book that is why i recocommend it.
Rating: Summary: "skeptic" Review: a skiptic's search for god : convincing evidence for for his existence by ralph o.muncasten. this book is about a little boy name ralph seaching for some answers .is god real or not ? so when he gat to college he found some information,and he was trying to see what does evolution,god have in common? this is not trying to make you believe in anything that you don't want to believe its just to help you understand more of you already know. i think the skeptic is a wonderful book to read. when i started reading i did not want to stop reading because it has so many ideas ,and answers. this book inspiree me ,and encourages me to balieve in what ever i want to beliave in .anyone could read it .it will surprise them when they read .this book is an inspiretional book that is why i recocommend it.
Rating: Summary: Better titled: "A Believer's Search for God" Review: I must agree with the reviwers (iconoclast 666 particularly) that this book contains many scientific inaccuracies, omissions, and selectivly slanted misrepresentations of current scientific knowledge. Not to mention that a vast majority of the "scientific ideas" are really "straw man" arguments that are so watered down (or just plain misrepresented) that they become easy targets to those predisposed to attack them. I can only imagine this book would be persuasive to someone without a background in biological science. Do youself a favor and skip this one. A much better and more thoughtful read can be found elsewhere (I would suggest Richard Dawkins or Carl Sagan of course, but Gary Marcus's new book The Birth of the Mind is also spectacular not only in its new ideas, but in its summary of current biological science---something the "Search for God" sorely needs).
Rating: Summary: ... Review: I personally spent a month researching many of the claims made in this book and found them inaccurate, if not completely dishonest. Many of the claims made about abiogenesis (origin of life), evolution, biblical archaeology/scholarship, prophecy fulfillment, early history of the church and the evidence for fine tuning of the earth for life was completely slanted, or downright dishonest. I am only going to cover some of the problem with his book, because there are so MANY!ABIOGENESIS (Origin of Life) When Muncaster (the author) is talking about the origin of life, and explaining how it is statistically "impossible," he makes a few major blunders: (1) He claims there are certain odds against the first forms of life "assembling themselves," and presents an outrageously high number against it occurring; he leaves out the fact that we don't have COMPLETE knowledge of the first life, or the conditions under which it formed and thus cannot calculate the probability of it forming. (2) He calculates the odds of the first life forming, assuming all LOGICALLY possible combinations of chemicals, thus increasing the odds against such an event; the problem is that chemicals will only combine in certain ways according to the laws of chemistry--even though we can imagine all the possible combinations chemicals could form, there is only a limited number of ways they can ACTUALLY come together, thus lowering Muncaster's probability considerably. (3) Muncaster leaves out a lot of research that has been done by scientists, giving us incredible insights into how life could have formed...don't believe me? Type in "Dr. Sidney Fox" or "the origin of life" in a search engine, to get tons of links to his work on the origin of life! BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY Muncaster cites a few examples of biblical accuracy in an attempt to demonstrate its accuracy. He somehow thinks that this will convince skeptics. There are also a number of problems with biblical accuracy: SILENCE OF EGYPTIAN RECORDS CONCERNING "The Exodus." -- The history of ancient Egypt is well documented, and can be read by scholars with ease. There is only one problem. Moses, and the Exodus from Egypt by the Israelites is not mentioned. The reality is that if a series of plaques had been visited upon Egypt, such as those never seen before, thousands of slaves escape, and the army of the Pharaoh were swallowed into the Red Sea, these events would have been recorded. BUT THEY AREN'T! THE MOABITE STONE -- Muncaster doesn't mention, that sometimes when archaeology confirms some of the Bible, it throws doubt on other parts of the Bible. The Moabite Stone, for example, corroborates the biblical claim that there was a king of Moab named Mesha, but the inscription on the stone gives a different account of the war between Moab and the Israelites recorded in 2 Kings 3. Mesha's inscription on the stone claimed overwhelming victory, but the biblical account claims that the Israelites routed the Moabite forces and withdrew only after they saw Mesha sacrifice his eldest son as a burnt offering on the wall of the city the Moabites had retreated to (2 Kings 3:26-27). So the Moabite Stone, rather than corroborating the accuracy of the biblical record, gives reason to suspect that both accounts are biased. Mesha's inscription gave an account favorable to the Moabites, and the biblical account was slanted to favor the Israelites. The actual truth about the battle will probably never be known! THE DESTRUCTION OF AI -- According to the Old Testament, Joshua 8: 26-28 tells us about the utter destruction of the city of Ai but the Israelites. However, extensive archaeological work at the site of Ai has revealed that the city was destroyed and burned almost a thousand years before the time of Joshua. I am not saying that the Bible is a COMPLETE book of myths, but simply that there are a number of problems with Biblical archaeology. Muncaster doesn't even discuss these! PROPECHY FULFILLMENT Muncaster cites Isaiah 7:14 (allegedly that Jesus would be called Immanuel, and be born of a virgin) as a prophecy that was fulfilled by Jesus. There are a number of problems with this argument: (1) The actual word used in Isaiah 7:14, is almah, which means 'young woman,' not virgin--the word 'bethulah' actually means virgin, and would have been used by the writer, had he meant that. (2) No where in the New Testament does Mary refer to Jesus as Immanuel. (3) The verse was actually taken out of context--if you look back at the seventh chapter of Isaiah, it is obvious that the child in question is to be born as a sign to Ahaz, king of Judah; not Jesus of Nazareth. The other prophecies used to "prove" that Jesus was the Son of God are just as [unacceptable]. Overall, this whole book does nothing but demonstrate the ignorance of those who buy into these arguments, and the amazing amount of [unacceptable material] this book was able to engage in. This book in NOT proof of God's existence. ... ...
Rating: Summary: Great read not be taken lightly ... Review: If you are an evolutionist, then this book might spring some questions about evolution to your mind. It brings up some good points about the chances of life springing from nothing. However, after reading (The Blind Watchmaker), or any other evolution book, you will realize how dishonest, and misunderstood the points made in this book are. The idea in the blind watchmaker are that their was no specific aim, or idea for life, and that it just happened. This tears down the idea that there is some 1 in two trillion chance or so of life taking form. It also fails to throughly get into the fossil records, and purposely glides past any strong evidence for evolution. It seems this book just picks out the small flaws in evolution and skeptic beliefs, and fails to reveal all of the many flaws in religious belief. This book is quite deceptive as written by another reviewer.
Rating: Summary: Brings one question to mind Review: If you are an evolutionist, then this book might spring some questions about evolution to your mind. It brings up some good points about the chances of life springing from nothing. However, after reading (The Blind Watchmaker), or any other evolution book, you will realize how dishonest, and misunderstood the points made in this book are. The idea in the blind watchmaker are that their was no specific aim, or idea for life, and that it just happened. This tears down the idea that there is some 1 in two trillion chance or so of life taking form. It also fails to throughly get into the fossil records, and purposely glides past any strong evidence for evolution. It seems this book just picks out the small flaws in evolution and skeptic beliefs, and fails to reveal all of the many flaws in religious belief. This book is quite deceptive as written by another reviewer.
Rating: Summary: At last, an honest skeptic. Review: Ralph Muncaster shares with us his spiritual and intellectual journey to understanding God. I say that he is an "honest" skeptic because he not only took up the challenge to examine the evidence for God, but he also chose to change his ideas when presented with truth. All skeptics would say that they love the truth, but many choose to just comfort themselves with pet arguments that agree with their "side". Get with it guys. God is real and he doen't ask for blind faith. Muncaster's book is a good starting point for your journey.
Rating: Summary: The evidence of God is obvious Review: Spectacular use of facts and evidence. The author started out as an atheist and came to the conclusion that the scientific evidence leads only to the conclusion that God exists. Contrary to another review on this site, the scientific evidence is beyond compelling. I find it humorous that the evolutionist critic didn't even finish the book. That's like a movie critic watching half a movie and commenting on it. Silly. Read the facts for yourself. If you wish to remain an atheist and a supporter of evolution, then don't read this book.
Rating: Summary: A disappointing fabrication Review: The author must have gone to great length to ignore current evolutionary theory and come up this book. Its typical straw man arguments, intentionally misleading, miss the point. His diatribe on chirality speaks volumes on the authors ability to mislead and ignore. Don't believe me. Use a web search engine and search for "chirality and evolution" this will give you a good idea of just how pale his arguments are. I must admit I only read the first half of the book; however, by then I was just disgusted with his blatant dishonesty and gave it up. He has another agenda and he does us all a great disservice by serving this up as an honest work. I would have given it no star if that was available.
Rating: Summary: A little dry for my taste Review: This book presents some good information, but is a bit tedious in its approach. I would agree that the young earth creation scientists have this subject much better organized. I suggest Phillip Johnson's books as well as 'Icons of evolution' by Wells, 'Bones of Contention' by Lubenow, and 'Darwins Black Box' by Behe.
These writers approach the debate from a scientific as opposed to a biblical standpoint.
I took the advice of 'Iconclast 666' in his review and typed in Dr. Sidney Fox to see if there was any merit to his work. Under the heading,"Delayed fate of the dade debate" ,I was amused although not surprised that Dr. Fox pulled out of a scheduled debate to argue the scientific merits of evolution that would have had national television coverage.
When push comes to shove, evolutionists know that their belief is not science, its simply religious faith. It's not that there is a missing link. After 150 years of searching, the whole chain is missing. The 'small little problems' that creationists point out are glaring holes and half-truths in the evolutionists strongest so-called evidence as put forth in almost every biology textbook in the country.
That is why these so-called evidences are called Icons of Evolution. It is the best they can offer. They have all been disproven and falsified. Some were found fraudulent over 50 years ago and yet are still presented as scientific evidence to the children of America. Their days are numbered, and they know it!
|