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

Thursday, January 26, 2012

PART 3 : Dealing the Death Blow to Evolution!

The Age of the Universe, a question ONLY ANSWERED BY THE BIBLE, but denied by the world. 


It only proves the world is in denial of the facts that the universe reveals NOT that they KNOW anything for sure, it all boils down to what they are not willing to do, REPENT and receive a new mindset!

What good does it do for an Evolutionist to question the bible's age of the Universe and of the earth if they are UNWILLING to take the facts presented to them at ANY VALUE? They simply dismiss any fact that PROVES them wrong, any understanding BUT their own is attacked as 'quack-job science' or worse!

As with Atheists, Evolutionists have nothing in their bag but INSULTS, ATTACKS, AND PERSONAL CONDENSATION.

I cannot understand standing behind an invisible Vail of PROOF that doesn't prove anything but just how stubborn you can be while insulting the intelligence of those who don't agree with you. Its nothing more than school yard BULLING NOT TRUE SCIENTIFIC DIGGING FOR TRUTH.


by  Laurence D Smart   BScAgr, Dip Ed, Grad Dip Ed

3 The Universe

Evolution Says .....

The universe is 20 billion years old, and it is expanding as a result of the Big Bang. The rotating, spiral galaxies were caused by the Big Bang.

The Facts Are .....

(1) The age of the universe under evolutionary theory is not set. Over the seven years to 1987, the various dates for the universe have been 15 billion, 12 billion, 19 billion, 8 billion, 20 billion, and finally 11 billion. The West Australian, July 7, 1987; New Scientist, February 9, 1984; NCSE Reports, Vol. 11, No. 4, 1991 p:17

(2) The work of  Barry Setterfield with the decay of the speed of light has shown from his analysis of the red shift in the light from stars, that the age of the universe is approximately 6,000 years old. Paul D. Ackerman, "It's a Young World After All", Baker Book House: Grand Rapids (Michigan), 1993 p: 73-76

(3) The red shift actually occurs in evenly spaced values or jumps, not in a smooth manner as it would be if the universe was expanding. Scientific American, December, 1992 p:19-20

(4) Plasma physicist, Eric Lerner, is on record as saying that the Big Bang theory is not correct. He has stated that the huge conglomeration of galaxies could not have formed in 20 billion years. Manilla Bulletin, June 5, 1991 p:7; Eric Lerner, "The Big Bang Never Happened", Times Books: New York, 1992 p:295

(5) Many world class astronomers are challenging the Big Bang theory of the origins of the universe. They contend that fresh analysis of the data suggests that the enormous clustering of galaxies, the two Great Walls of Galaxies, are too vast to have been formed from such an explosion. Nature, Vol. 349, No. 6304, January 3, 1991; Science News, November 25, 1989 p:340; Science, Vol. 263, March 25, 1994 p:1684

(6) "The problem of explaining the existence of galaxies has proved to be one of the thorniest in cosmology. By all rights, they just shouldn't be there, yet there they sit. It's hard to convey the depths of frustration that this simple fact induced among scientists." Written by evolutionist James Trefil in "The Dark Side of the Universe", Charles Scribner's Sons: New York, 1988 p:55

(7) The evolutionary time-scale for the 'breakup' or dissipation of cluster galaxies is 2-4 million years, as there are too many cluster galaxies. This means that the universe cannot be 20 billion years old. In fact, exhaustive searches of the universe has failed to find any field galaxies - the independent galaxies that cluster galaxies disperse into. Paul D. Ackerman, "It's a Young World After All", Baker Book House: Grand Rapids (Michigan), 1993 p:68-70

(8) The observed speed of rotating galaxies is so fast that they cannot be more than a few hundred million years old. This is called the 'Winding-up Dilemma' and evolutionists have tried to explain it with the theory of 'density waves'. This wave theory has conceptual problems, and is a hypothesis which has not been confirmed by observation. H. Scheffler & H. Elsasser, "Physics of the Galaxy and Interstellar Matter", Springer Verlag: Berlin, 1987 p:352-353 & 401-413

(9) "We know of no process that can maintain a spiral arm [of a galaxy] for more than two galactic revolutions". Written by Hadley Wood in his book "Unveiling the Universe", American Elsevier Publishing Co: New York, 1968 p:188

(10) "If this theory is true, the universe is young, since it has so many rapidly revolving spirals." Written by C.B. Clason as a logical conclusion to the mechanical fact that galactic spiral arms cannot be maintained for more than 2 revolutions. Expressed in his book "Exploring the Distant Stars", G.P. Putnam's Sons: New York, 1958 p:326

(11) The age of the universe, recently calculated from the Hubble Space Telescope's data, is 8-12 billion years old. However, the objects in the universe are believed to be 16 billion years old. This means that there is a paradox - the objects are older than the universe. Nature, Vol. 371, 1994 p:741-742; Science News, Vol. 146, 1994 p:232-234; Science, Vol. 267, 1995 p:980-983; Nature, Vol. 372, 1994 p:304.

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.