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

Monday, January 10, 2011

Faith: The Proof your looking for and so much more!

When people ask for evidence of God or of Creation they fail to take the most important step to receive it in the first place, as I've said many times Concerning Skeptics of the Truth:

"Until a person accepts Jesus BY FAITH as the bible instructs them too NO PROOF is ever known by them as true, they will COUNTER every evidence presented with counter evidence, they will get mad and curse, they will demand BETTER evidence, they will walk away, BUT they can't see what is in front of them. WHY?

Because FAITH as described in scripture is NOT the same faith as defined by those who fight God or that religion abuses, they are not one and the same.

True biblical Faith is defined in Hebrews 11:1,  is where ALL the questions of God and about God are answered completely, where PROOF is found. Faith CONTAINS the proof, First acceptance then the proof not the other way around.
To many times I have seen definitions of Faith from Atheist web pages that are outright FALSEHOODS, distortions of fact that bring their minds rest in the short term but bring NOTHING to the table of debate. It is dishonest to FALSELY-DEFINE your enemies intentions to win a false argument for a short time!


Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

Now let's see it from the Amplified bible

"NOW FAITH is the assurance (the confirmation, [a]the title deed) of the things [we] hope for, being the proof of things [we] do not see and the conviction of their reality [faith perceiving as real fact what is not revealed to the senses]."

If Atheists are going to get their facts right they must first stop defining Faith like this:

"Faith means believing something without proper evidence to support it."

This is the kind of dishonest debate that Atheists practice openly without the least bit of remorse. 

Shady word play and outright lie's define their tactics, now I would ask one simple question here, IF your stand upon your evidence is that shaky and unfounded that you must lie about the enemy you face, then I think you've already lost!  

This is simply an unfair and inaccurate definition of faith on which to base your denial, it causes you to come to a wrong conclusion concerning God and the evidence before you start.

This may seem like "circular reasoning" to you but it is a fact, its how the system was set up by God, you FIRST ACCEPT his word on faith, by faith and through faith THEN the faith God gives you releases the PROOF of the evidence your seeking.

When I came to this faith I didn't believe anything in the bible was true but once I came to the end of myself and let him deliver me the BLINDERS were removed and I could see the truth.

We can see this principle in regular every day life as well, have you ever looked hard for something, looked in every place it could be and couldn't find it, then decided it wasn't there and got a new one at the store, brought it home and THEN found the old one right where you looked for it at? 

I sure have, and its frustrating at best, but just because I couldn't find it didn't mean it wasn't there!

You had the same eyes before that you had later yet you could not see it, its a matter of perspective, being in hurry, or being angry when you first looked plus we all have internalized presuppositions as to the outcomes and understandings we've grown up with which determine how we look at the world.

Does the statement "I'll believe it when I see it, apply, well I hope not because IT WAS THERE even though I didn't see it and got another one, wasted my money and time, sometimes we CAN'T believe our eyes, they can be very unreliable, as all our human emotions are without being grounded in something greater.

The concept of God is no different, and no matter how long or how hard we seek God after our ways and means the pure and holy means of FAITH is the final frontier of proof!

That something greater is FAITH!

Faith takes over where our emotions leave us high and dry, something Christians sometimes get backwards, trusting in emotions can be very dangerous as they are moving as the waves of the ocean. But solid belief that is grounded in an absolute cannot be shaken because you know the source of your belief and trust it.

This may be simplistic but it follows the same premise as God revealing himself in all his glory to you once you follow his plan to get the evidence to reveal the proof.

Religion does not have this absolute source, it mimics it in name only, but is actually only based in what men say God says instead of the source, the Bible.

BOTH sides have evidence that's true, but that evidence must be supported by ALL the facts involved, all the Laws of physics and Science must be obeyed by that evidence or it is not true evidence. 

The Second Laws of Thermodynamics is a LAW, if your evidence breaks this Law then your conclusions on your evidence are wrong plain and simple, no way around it. Evolution breaks the Law outright, "The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy, a measure of randomness, cannot decrease in a isolated system. Our planet is not a isolated system." This is the study of heat power; a branch of physics which studies the efficiency of energy transfer and exchange.

Evolutionism claims that over billions of years everything is basically developing UPWARD, becoming more orderly and complex. However, this basic law of science (2nd Law of Thermodynamics) says the opposite. The pressure is DOWNWARD, toward simplification and disorder.

Simply watch the News and you'll see that this is not true, life degenerates into decay and disorder every day but Naturalistic Evolutionism requires that physical laws and atoms organize themselves into increasingly complex and beneficial, ordered arrangements.

Thus, over eons of time, billions of things are supposed to have developed upward, becoming more orderly and complex.

A number of scientists believe the 2nd Law, when truly understood, is enough to refute the theory of Evolution. In fact, it is one of the most important reasons why various Evolutionists have dropped their theory in favor of Creationism.

The distinguished scientist and origins expert, Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith, puts it this way:

"What is the difference then between a stick, which is dead, and an orchid which is alive? The difference is that the orchid has teleonomy in it. It is a machine which is capturing energy to increase order. Where you have life, you have teleonomy, and then the Sun's energy can be taken and make the thing grow - increasing its order" [temporarily].

Teleonomy: Information stored within a living thing. Teleonomy involves the concept of something having a design and purpose. Non-teleonomy is “directionlessness,” having no project. The teleonomy of a living thing is somehow stored within its genes. 

Teleonomy can use energy and matter to produce order and complexity.

Where did the teleonomy of living things originate? 

It is important to note that the teleonomy (the ordering principle, the know-how) does not reside in matter itself. Matter, itself, is not creative.

Dr. Wilder-Smith:


"The pure chemistry of a cell is not enough to explain the working of a cell, although the workings are chemical. The chemical workings of a cell are controlled by information which does not reside in the atoms and molecules."

Creationists believe cells build themselves from carefully designed and coded information which has been passed from one life to the next since their original inception.

It is evidence like this that should give pause at the very least, each piece of evidence (This is just one) adds up to proof once Faith completes the circle of evidence. But I know that you will not see it this way as yet, I'm only explaining how I see it. Thank you for your time and I hope to talk more soon!

You are absolutely RIGHT if you say:

"I don't believe any Christian can show proof that God exists or doesn't exist; so until any of you can do that, this whole topic is nothing more than personal opinion, or FAITH in what you believe to be truth, but in no way makes any of it absolute."

But you would be totally wrong about one thing I WON'T CONDEMN YOU AT ALL!

I mean that, you have every right to feel that way about religion, IT IS A TOTAL FAILURE in representing God, always has been and always will be because it is owned and operated by Human Beings. What Christians need to learn when talking about this subject is that NO ONE can come to the conclusion of PROOF until it goes from external Talking to internalized FAITH.

Until a person accepts Jesus BY FAITH as the bible instructs them too NO PROOF is ever known by them as true, they will COUNTER every evidence presented with counter evidence, they will get mad and curse, they will demand BETTER evidence, they will walk away, BUT they can't see what is in front of them. 


Because FAITH as described in scripture is NOT in any way the same as the faith defined by those who fight God or that religion abuses, they are not one and the same.

True biblical Faith is defined in Hebrews 11:1, this is where ALL the questions of God are answered completely, where PROOF is found. Faith CONTAINS the proof, First acceptance then the proof not the other way around.
It is no different than on your Job, your employer requires that you FIRST WORK, then he'll Pays you for the work you've DONE, your employer will not give you the reward first or most would take the money and run.

God is no different, he requires FIRST faith, then the rewards of proof are released by and through that faith.

TRUTH must be absolute or its pointless to even make any statement at all, if Truth is not an absolute then NOTHING anyone says means anything at all, going the way of the NON-Absolute make conversation silly at best there must be a rock solid stating place or its "sinking sand beliefs" of men, as soon as a point is made a counter point is made and NO evidence can stand on ether side of any issue. 

Its not that they don't have good points to make, its that they will not admit being wrong when they are wrong, this is just plain childish behavior. I admit if I'm wrong without fail, because then I can learn a new approach that works better, most FAILURES in reasoning produce a more rounded argument when we are stretched and challenged with our beliefs.

Religion is NOT where the evidence stands the test, yet that becomes the whole ARENA to them, Jesus Christ himself is quoted in scripture HATING MAN'S RELIGION so its not the issue here, its the Scientific evidence, the Historical facts and Changed Lives that CANNOT be hidden to an HONEST seeker that PROVE God is really there.


At no time have I had a good conversation with a true Atheist, THEY HAVE MADE UP THEIR MINDS before ever listening to your evidence. This is called "Closed Minded Debating"not logical open debate!
I have had better conversations with Agnostics because they at least ARE Honest when presented with REAL evidence they can't explain UNLIKE an Atheist who resorts to insults, and swearing when confronted with something that blows their theory out of the water! 
Why NAME-CALL if your presentation is so right? This goes especially for believers, at NO TIME should we return evil for evil, this is Satan's trick to make us no better than they are.
Remember if there are no absolute truths, then your "No-god" theory is no more valid than my "There is a God" theory, and we are at a crossroad of no point to the whole argument, that is where Satan likes it to stay! 
If there is no such thing as absolute truth, then no-one can really say, "He should do that" or "She shouldn't do that". 
All you can say is, "A lot of people feel that this action would not make people feel good". So you can't say, "Multinational companies should not exploit the poor and destroy the environment".
If relativists are right, a company executive might respond, "That may be true for you, but it is certainly not true for us". 
Do you see the ethical consequences of throwing out the belief in absolute truth? 
 Christians are not calling people to become gullible, or to throw their minds out by taking an unreasonable "leap of faith". 
Our faith is not rooted in mystical sayings that sound profound but actually have no real meaning
It is rooted in historical events, such as the resurrection of Jesus Christ. 
We have good reason to believe all men will die or face the judgment of God when Christ returns. There will be no escape from reality then. 
This is an unpopular idea, and may drive actually drive some away who are not willing to really investigate and consider honestly and deeply, with courage.

To say that"There is no absolute truth" is that absolutely true? 
If it is, then there is something that is absolutely true - that statement itself. 
If it isn't absolutely true, then why insist that we should all believe it?
 It is logically inconsistent to deny the reality of absolute truth. Even if everyone in the world denied its existence, they would all be wrong, as  shown by the arguments above. 

But if logic itself has no ultimate validity, there is no objective basis for communication, rationality and so much that could give meaning to our world. It is certain that we would never have made any scientific or technological progress at all if we had started out with this kind of thinking. 

But if there is ultimate objective truth, what is it? Even if we know it exists, does not imply that any person on earth actually has it. Everything ought to be examined and tested, as even the Bible says (1 Thessalonians 5:21). 

Hence there are "Big Issues" which ought to be considered by all men. 

Questions like, "Is there life after death?", "Am I an accident or a creation of God?", "What should I be doing?" all make sense only if objective truth and reality exist.

This is the real problem, not that there IS NO PROOF but that no evidence can be accepted as proof because I can simply counter with "There are no absolutes, truth is what I make of it and no more!" 

This is the childish reasoning of the school yard "I know you are but what am I" don't be fooled by unreasonable statements about God.

What the world sees as Christian is NOT christian at all it is man made false religion, it is a true case of MISTAKEN IDENTITY. 

Most see the church as Catholic and Protestant, but these are simply man invented FAKE COPY'S of the realities that God instituted through Jesus.

They DO NOT represent his word in any way except in using scripture to justify their crimes against God's commands and Man's understanding, in this we agree I'm sure.

The Babylon Connection? 

True and False Reform in the Church 

Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't 

Behind the Cross: Exposing the Tricks and Schemes of the False Church 

Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse, The: Recognizing and Escaping Spiritual Manipulation and False Spiritual Authority Within the Church 

Removing the Veil of Deception: How to Recognize Lying Signs, False Wonders, and Seducing Spirits 

God's Outlaw: The Story Of William Tyndale 

A brief discovery of the false churches: wherein the rights of the Christian church are further asserted by the Holy Scriptures. ... by Henry Barrow ... 

An Abridgment of the Book of Martyrs: To Which are Prefixed, the Living Testimonies of the Church of God, and Faithful Martyr, in Different Ages of the World; and the Corrupt Fruits of the False Church, in the Time of the Apostancy. To This Work ... 

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.