Clickbank Products

Was Jesus invented through ancient myths?


Where in the World?


The Bible bends all natural laws and rules because it is a supernatural book.
It cannot POSSIBLY be understood by a natural mind focused upon natural understanding. That is what Nicodemus discovered when he came to Christ trying to understand, with a natural mind, supernatural events and teachings.

Because scientists being naturally skeptical, have minds trapped in the box of the five physical senses they cannot focus therefore on the supernatural aspects to understand the biblical 'Birdseye view' of God, who sees things from OUTSIDE time and space, the box that we as finite are limited within .

There was a reason why Jesus said you must be born again. It is a SPIRITUAL rebirth [Both of Mind and Spirit] that is needed to release the hidden evidence of things we cannot witness from inside this physical 'BOX' universe.

I KNOW from personal experience that the Bible is true but I cannot convince you, you must find the truth yourself. THAT'S HOW LIFE WORKS!

Spend less time developing your skeptical natural mind and THAT'S WHAT YOUR DOING, and more time focusing on what Christ taught and you will discover as I have, the truth. You can only interpret the Universe through the shaded lens of your own understanding!
There was an error in this gadget

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Missing Links: Still Missing and ALWAYS WILL BE!

 "Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."
Thomas Jefferson

'Missing Links', what are missing links and how does it affect Evolutionary thinking? Why do evolutionist's need to find them in the first place?

There are 'missing Links' in our thinking from all sides of the Natural selection problem, but because of Pride and an inability to SEE facts for what they really are, we accept the lie as is.

If we thought the way we do on this on ALL things, the human Race would all be extinct by now. Good Logic and Common Sense are in very short supply when it comes to the VAST evidence of Creation. Boasting and Pride in our own selfish behavior is in Abundance.

Is this true Logic in action?

Is this Honest intellecual behavior?

Missing Link:
  "A theoretical primate postulated to bridge the evolutionary gap between the anthropoid apes and humans. Something lacking that is needed to complete a series."

If evolution is the truth beyond a doubt, what does the link add to it? If they FINALLY found that one link between modern man and ape man would it matter?

Archaeoraptor Liaoningensis 

"Archaeoraptor" was unveiled at a press conference held by National Geographic magazine in October 1999. At the same press conference, plans were announced to return the fossil to Chinese authorities, as it was illegally exported. 

In November 1999 National Geographic featured the fossil in an article written by art editor Christopher Sloan. The article in general discussed feathered dinosaurs and the origin of birds. 

It claimed the fossil was "a missing link between terrestrial dinosaurs and birds that could actually fly" and informally referred to it as "Archaeoraptor liaoningensis", announcing it would later be formally named as such. This name means "ancient robber of Liaoning".[5] This drew immediate criticism from Storrs L. Olson, Curator of Birds at the National Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C. Writing in Backbone, the newsletter of his museum, he denounced the publication of a scientific name in a popular journal, without peer review, as a "nightmare".[6]

On February 3, 2000, National Geographic issued a press release stating that the fossil could be a composite, and that an internal investigation had begun. 

In that same month Bill Allen, National Geographic editor, told Nature that he was "furious" to learn that the fossil might have been faked. In the March issue, in the forum section, a letter from Dr. Xu Xing pointed out that the tail section probably did not match the upper body. In October 2000 National Geographic published the results of their investigation, in an article written by investigative journalist Lewis M. Simmons. They concluded that the fossil was a composite and that virtually everyone involved in the project had made some mistakes.[7]

This is common with every so-called Missing Link that has been found so far. They are so desperate to find proof that great mistakes are made on a regular basis. 

Dishonest handling of evidence, and ignoring of creationist evidence that better fits the problem is not logical and further creates a divide between real science and Faith.



 The Wall Street Journal reports that scientists believe that the almost mythical missing link has been found. 

The missing link is supposed to prove that Darwin’s theory of evolution is correct, I mean really they've had over 100 years to find just ONE of Millions of Fossils.

 Who's your Momma?

In what could prove to be a landmark discovery, a leading paleontologist said scientists have dug up the 47 million-year-old fossil of an ancient primate whose features suggest it could be the common ancestor of all later monkeys, apes and humans.

Anthropologists have long believed that humans evolved from ancient ape-like ancestors. Some 50 million years ago, two ape-like groups walked the Earth. One is known as the tarsidae, a precursor of the tarsier, a tiny, large-eyed creature that lives in Asia. Another group is known as the adapidae, a precursor of today’s lemurs in Madagascar.

Based on previously limited fossil evidence, one big debate had been whether the tarsidae or adapidae group gave rise to monkeys, apes and humans. The latest discovery bolsters the less common position that our ancient ape-like ancestor was an adapid, the believed precursor of lemurs. Evolution has CONSTANT CHANGES to coincide with new finds, that is how science works, BUT why make such emphatic statements of certainty about a theory that like the waves of the sea is in constant flux?

In real science your theory should be made more solid with every find, but with evolutionary theory it seems to be made more fluid with every new find and idea added to it! With every new find in science today, Creation Research is solidified as pure Science the more we find out about just how complex our Earth and universe are. This cannot be ignored forever because at some point Creation will stop being theory and become like gravity, ignore it and you'll fall flat.

This find will be found another fake or misread just as the others, as their record proves only one thing, dishonest dealings in science studies! Creation has a case, A GREAT CASE, but we must be heard before that matters. Those who know the truth are deliberate in their SILENCING of our side of the debate with childish school yard behavior.


They find a Monkey bone, its dated by faulty dating methods and because all Monkeys are necessarily related and by extension because they think man is related to monkeys thereby this monkey is our ancestor, what kind of proof is that, it sounds like 'Circular Reasoning' to me! 



So why is it that Evolutionist's cannot call a leap in logic exactly what it is - FAITH..... They are trying to PLAY connect the dots without really having the complete underlying scientific support for doing so, if they had their ducks in row to start with, these so-called new discoveries of missing links would make perfect sense THEN we could take them seriously. Evolution is FILLED with scandal after scandal, so what makes anything they say true when they have a History of lies and cover-ups to their credit?

See the Piltdown Hoax:CLICK HERE
Low Down on Piltdown

The Neanderthal Dating issue: CLICK HERE

The following links are to Debates concerning the said links, enjoy Apologetic at its best!
Biblical Ideas Concerning Killing and Murder are Not Contradictory Kyle Butt, M.A.
A Coherent Definition of a God Kyle Butt, M.A.
Darwin, Evolution, and Racism Eric Lyons, M.Min. and Kyle Butt M.A.
Defending the Bible’s Position on Slavery Kyle Butt, M.A.
Did God Order the Killing of Babies? Dave Miller, Ph.D.
Did Jesus Come to Bring Peace—or Turmoil? Caleb Colley, M.L.A.
Do Children Inherit the Sin of Their Parents? Kyle Butt, M.A.
Does God Accept Human Sacrifice? Kyle Butt, M.A.
Does God “Create” Evil? Wayne Jackson, M.A.
Does God Dwell in Light or Darkness? Eric Lyons, M.Min.
Does God REALLY Know Everything? Eric Lyons, M.Min.
Does God Tempt People? Eric Lyons, M.Min.
Does the God of the Bible Exist? Kyle Butt and Dan Barker
Does God’s Existence Rest Upon Human Consensus? Kyle Butt, M.A.
The FANG Argument: A Refutation Kyle Butt, M.A.
Geography as the Most Important Predictor of Religion? Kyle Butt, M.A.
The Goodness of God and an Eternal Hell Wayne Jackson, M.A.
The Immutability of God Caleb Colley, M.L.A.
Is God Immoral for Killing Innocent Children? Kyle Butt, M.A.
The Problem of Evil Kyle Butt, M.A. and Dave Miller, Ph.D.
Seeing God “Face to Face” Eric Lyons, M.Min.
Was Eve Created Perfect? Kyle Butt, M.A.
Was Jesus’ Witness “True” or “Not True”? Eric Lyons, M.Min.
Were the Iron Chariots Too Powerful? Kyle Butt, M.A.

We have now the remarkable spectacle that just when many scientific men are agreed that there is no part of the Darwinian system that is of any good influence, and that, as a whole, the theory is not only unproven, but impossible, the ignorant, half-educated masses have acquired the idea that it is to be accepted as scientific fact. 

Dr. Thomas Dwight of Harvard (Died 1911)
 They will say that since he died in 1911, that his knowledge of science is now outdated, more is known now than when he made this statement. Well, while more is known, and not to support evolution by the way, but to support Creation than ever before it doesn't change one bit what he said, it still applies!

The point he made was clear, Evolution like sex...SELLS, the masses buy it up like candy without one single bit of SOLID PROOF available, its built upon a stack of circumstantial facts that could be interpreted many ways if allowed. These dishonest men and women hide behind these shallow facts that remain unchanged even after the scandals are long gone! 

And we don't need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity in Creation, this is the trouble Evolutionists face and seem to never be able to answer. 
The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin's day, seems to be a reverse of the above argument only in this case their science was non-existent YET!
 Evolution would be plausible IF the very smallest of creation were NOT SO COMPLEX, but that my friend is God's big joke on man. He made his creation more complex as you descend into its make-up, the exact opposite of how evolution really works.
We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level.

 Darwin confessed
"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
Evolution is in an IRREDUCIBLE free fall,  the more we learn about how nature functions the smaller evolution becomes!


No comments:

Post a Comment

Please, if you are a skeptic, DO NOT swear or name call, if you cannot be civil then your comment will not be seen. If your evidence is that weak, then my point is made before you comment!

Popular Posts

About Me

My photo

Before you look at the links below know this about me, I do not know everything about anything, I know only what God has revealed to me.

Proving God exists CANNOT be done for the person who is not open to hearing and seeing the evidence as God sees it. Faith is the KEY to releasing all the evidence contained in creation, in man's heart and his mind. Without FAITH no one can ever please God so to throw away faith as unimportant destroys our receptivity to the evidence!

I was a hypocrite, a sinner and a fool, sometimes even as a believer but as long as God is in control I'm forgiven and healed of every form of human shortcoming. Nothing can stand before the evidence contained in Faith.....NOTHING!

Overall rating

It Stands Unrefuted by Scientists ANYWHERE!

The following reports are in one of three formats. To view the ones in PDF format, use
Adobe Acrobat Reader. To view the ones in RTF format, you may use MS Word.

Reports Dealing with Radiohalos

  1. Gentry, R.V. 1968. "Fossil Alpha-Recoil Analysis of Certain Variant Radioactive Halos." Science 160, 1228. HTML PDF
  2. Gentry, R.V. 1970. "Giant Radioactive Halos: Indicators of Unknown Alpha-Radioactivity?" Science 169, 670. HTML PDF
  3. Gentry, R.V. 1971. "Radiohalos: Some Unique Pb Isotope Ratios and Unknown Alpha Radioactivity." Science 173, 727. PDF
  4. Gentry, R.V. 1973. "Radioactive Halos." Annual Review of Nuclear Science 23, 347. PDF
  5. Gentry, R.V. 1974. "Radiohalos in Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective." Science 184, 62. HTML PDF
  6. Gentry, R.V. 1975. Response to J.H. Fremlin's Comments on "Spectacle Halos." Nature 258, 269.
  7. Gentry, R.V. 1977. "Mystery of the Radiohalos." Research Communications NETWORK, Breakthrough Report, February 10, 1977. HTML PDF
  8. Gentry, R.V. 1978a. "Are Any Unusual Radiohalos Evidence for SHE?" International Symposium on Superheavy Elements, Lubbock, Texas. New York: Pergamon Press. PDF
  9. Gentry, R.V. 1978b. "Implications on Unknown Radioactivity of Giant and Dwarf Haloes in Scandinavian Rocks." Nature 274, 457. HTML PDF
  10. Gentry, R.V. 1978c. "Reinvestigation of the α Activity of Conway Granite." Nature 273, 217. HTML PDF
  11. Gentry, R.V. 1979. "Time: Measured Responses." EOS Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 60, 474. PDF RTF
  12. Gentry, R.V. 1980. "Polonium Halos." EOS Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 61, 514. HTML PDF
  13. Gentry, R.V. 1982. Letters. Physics Today 35, No. 10, 13.
  14. Gentry, R.V. 1983a. Letters. Physics Today 36, No. 4, 3.
  15. Gentry, R.V. 1983b. Letters. Physics Today 36, No. 11, 124.
  16. Gentry, R.V. 1984a. "Radioactive Halos in a Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective." Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Pacific Division, American Association for the Advancement of Science 1, 38. HTML PDF
  17. Gentry, R.V. 1984c. Letters. Physics Today 37, No. 4, 108.
  18. Gentry, R.V. 1984d. Letters. Physics Today 37, No. 12, 92.
  19. Gentry, R.V. 1987a. "Radioactive Halos: Implications for Creation." Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism, Vol. II, 89. HTML
  20. Gentry, R.V. 1998. "Fingerprints of Creation." Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 12, 287. HTML
  21. Gentry, R.V. et al. 1973. "Ion Microprobe Confirmation of Pb Isotope Ratios and Search for Isomer Precursors in Polonium Radiohalos." Nature 244, 282. HTML PDF
  22. Gentry, R.V. et al. 1974. "'Spectacle' Array of Po-210 Halo Radiocentres in Biotite: A Nuclear Geophysical Enigma." Nature 252, 564. HTML PDF
  23. Gentry, R.V. et al. 1976a. "Radiohalos and Coalified Wood: New Evidence Relating to the Time of Uranium Introduction and Coalification." Science 194, 315. HTML PDF

Reports Dealing with Helium and Lead Retention in Zircons

  1. Gentry, R.V. 1984b. "Lead Retention in Zircons" (Technical Comment). Science 223, 835.
  2. Gentry, R.V. et al. 1982a. "Differential Lead Retention in Zircons: Implications for Nuclear Waste Containment." Science 216, 296. HTML PDF
  3. Gentry, R.V. et al. 1982b. "Differential Helium Retention in Zircons: Implications for Nuclear Waste Containment." Geophysical Research Letters 9, 1129. HTML PDF

Reports Dealing with Astronomy and Cosmology

  1. Gentry, R. V. 1997. "A New Redshift Interpretation." Modern Physics Letters A, Vol. 12, No. 37, 2919. (This paper was also posted in 1998 on the Los Alamos National Laboratory E-Print arXive: astro-ph/9806280.) HTML PDF
  2. Gentry, R. V. 1998. "The Genuine Cosmic Rosetta." This paper was posted on what was then the Los Alamos National Laboratory E-Print arXive: gr-gc/9806061. HTML PDF
  3. Gentry, R. V. 1998. "The New Redshift Interpretation Affirmed." This paper was posted on what was then the Los Alamos National Laboratory E-Print arXive: physics/9810051. HTML PDF
  4. Gentry, R. V. 2003. "Discovery of a Major Contradiction in Big Bang Cosmology Points to the New Cosmic Center Universe Model." CERN Preprint, Ext-2003-021. HTML PDF
  5. Gentry, R. V. 2003. "New Cosmic Center Universe Model Matches Eight of Big Bang's Major Predictions Without the F-L Paradigm." CERN Preprint, Ext-2003-022. PDF
  6. Gentry, R. V. 2004. "Collapse of Big Bang Cosmology and the Emergence of the New Cosmic Center Model of the Universe." Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 56, 4. HTML PDF

The first three astronomy and cosmology papers may also be obtained by going to the the web sites of either Los Alamos National Laboratory or is currently adminstered by Cornell University.

NOTE: For more information about the Big Bang's fatal flaws and "The Great 21st Century Scientific Watergate," please check out our sister site,

1987 Challenge to the National Academy of Sciences

  • Our open letter of March 24, 1987, to Dr. Frank Press, president of the National Academy of Sciences. Dr. Press claimed that "evidence for creationism" has been scientifically invalidated, though he well knew this has not been the case for the polonium-halo evidence. Our letter once again requests him and other evolutionists to publicly explain how the polonium-halo evidence for creation has indeed been invalidated, this time on April 13 at the University of Tennessee. We suggest that Dr. Stephen Gould be the first one to speak on behalf of the academy, given his strong language denouncing the term, "creation science." HTML GIF

  • Our Knoxville Sentinel ad on April 12, 1987, announcing our presentation on the evening of the 13th at the University of Tennessee. Included in the ad was a copy of the above open letter to Dr. Press. HTML GIF

  • A press release from the Society for Creation Science, announcing the reading of Dr. Press's written reply that evening, April 13, 1987, at the University of Tennessee. HTML GIF

Year 2000 Challenge to the National Academy of Sciences
  • Our letter of March 22, 2000, to Dr. Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of Sciences. Dr. Alberts claimed that evidence for special creation has been experimentally falsified.

  • This letter requests the Academy to publicly explain at Wichita State University on March 30, 2000, why it has chosen to reject the published evidence for the Genesis creation, evidence which after more than twenty-five years still stands unrefuted in the open scientific literature. HTML

Did you know that scientific evidence abounds to support the biblical accounts of creation and the flood?

Were you aware that reports outlining this evidence passed peer review, and were published in the open scientific literature?

Have you heard that, decades later, this evidence still stands unrefuted by the scientific community?

Watch a real debate about God right here!

Professors Richard Dawkins and John Lennox go head-to-head once again for another remarkable match of intellect.
This time, the same two Oxford Professors who debated in Birmingham's 'God Delusion' Debate are at it again on their home turf at the site of the famed 1860 Evolution debate between Huxley and Wilberforce.