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

Friday, October 18, 2013

Has God "Cut Off" The Prayers Of Amputees Or Are Atheists Just Grasping At Straw Men???

There's a lot being made about a group of individuals among us called Amputees, a group that has suffered a lot just as ALL SICK PEOPLE SUFFER with their problems. The real issue here is NOT the question being asked by Atheists though, the under the surface issue is the fact Atheists are building a "Straw man" thesis on a subject they have no clue about in the first place, and that subject is how God deals with us on an individual basis.

What I mean is, everyone has internal mental issues which make our external and internal       physical issues unique to us even though we are within a group of people who share the same physical problems. The point being that no two people are alike in how they process pain and suffering, so it is with unfeeling ranker that Atheists lump all into a class that God hates.

This is as I say later a ploy to marginalize God as a bully with great power to heal but he won't heal! The major fallacy in that line of reasoning is clearly a lack of understanding of scripture and it's clear teaching in regards to Faith and HOW it is to be used and lived by, without a proper view of the laws that faith operates under one will no doubt get a wrong conclusion of God's intent for one's life. The Atheist definition of Faith is a fallacy itself because if you define your enemies main understanding of God as a weak and indecisive possession then you own their arguments in the minds of other unbelievers and believers who don't know any better!

This is how Atheists see our stand BEFORE we open our mouths to speak, it is an unfair and false definition of our Faith but this is the nonsense we must overcome.
Hebrews 11:1

"Now (Present Tense) faith is the substance of things hoped for (It substantiates promises of God which we hope for, as future in fulfillment, making them present realities to us.) , the evidence ("demonstration": convincing proof to the believer: the soul thereby seeing what the eye cannot see.) of things not seen".


True biblical faith CONTAINS what Atheists SAY they need to believe {Evidence, Proof, Confidence of Conviction in the Spiritual, THE KEYS TO UNLOCK THESE THINGS IS WITHIN TRUE BELIEVING FAITH}, so that explains the reason why they try so hard to redefine Christian Faith with DISHONEST LIES AND MANIPULATIONS of meanings in the bible. Remember RELIGION is NOT representative of the Bible and should NOT be used to rule on defining biblical words.

WHY DO I SAY THAT? Simple, religion is merely MAN TRYING TO REACH GOD ON MAN'S TERMS while the Bible teaches that GOD HIMSELF CAME TO US ON HIS TERMS providing everything for man, including the ability to believe in him by God giving man HIS PERSONAL FAITH.  



The area of God's sovereignty and how he accomplishes his will in the earth has no place in the hands of novice unbelievers, the subject is much wider and deeper than an Atheist "brain fart". The main point being that even if an Atheist SAW WITH HIS OWN EYES A MISSING LEG OR ARM REPLACED they would NOT believe it was an act of God but would instead turn to a natural reason it occurred, no matter how silly or unlikely it would be. This whole frenzy is nothing more than a diversion from the real point.
And What Is That Point?

"If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father.  But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause" (John 15:24,25). 

The above verse describes just how dark those who witness miracles are when confronted with the reality of God in the natural world when they do not intend change. When Jesus healed everyone who presented their faith to him, those who did not believe HATED HIM and by extension HIS FATHER . So the whole Atheist thesis here is useless banter meant only to deter those of weak faith. The Atheist has NO INTENTION of looking at the evidence with an open mind, they will always abuse the facts as presented because if you don't know the purpose for something you will abuse it. Atheists DO NOT understand the purposes of God so they in turn abuse his intents! 

What they should be asking is:






DOESN'T THAT SAY THAT THEY ARE AS CRAZY AS THEY SAY THOSE WHO WORSHIP THAT GOD ARE? IT SEEMS OVERLY PATHETIC TO ME! If they had the slightest inkling of proof or reason they would present it aside from the bible and end all discussion of said unbelief, BUT no such irrefutable evidence exists so they engage in smokescreens and straw- man building.

It would seem that Atheists are putting themselves in a circular argument using God's own word the bible against him, and while that would seem wise on the outside it is in fact revealing as to their true intent. Mixing contexts, misinterpreting passages and otherwise destroying scripture that would otherwise prove our point! Atheists do not intend to get real answers to any question asked, what they really want is to mock, ridicule and downplay the God of scripture rather than try and stand toe to toe because in doing that they lose hands down.

Atheists cannot defeat God by arguing with him directly because God laughs at such attempts as he did in the book of Job when Job's friends spoke untruth against his sovereign will. If you don't believe me, just allow an argument to go deeper than their willing to listen and watch the side show begin,......insults, mocking, demeaning and otherwise low class behavior will commence. This is NOT THE BEHAVIOR OF PEOPLE WHO KNOW TRUTH, IT IS THE BEHAVIOR OF THOSE WHO ARE AFRAID OF BEING WRONG AND THE CONSEQUENCES THAT FOLLOW!

Job 38:1- 39:30

" Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,

Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?

Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.

Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;

When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb?

When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it,

And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors,

And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?

Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the dayspring to know his place;

That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?

It is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment.

And from the wicked their light is withholden, and the high arm shall be broken.

Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth?

Have the gates of death been opened unto thee? or hast thou seen the doors of the shadow of death?

Hast thou perceived the breadth of the earth? declare if thou knowest it all.

Where is the way where light dwelleth? and as for darkness, where is the place thereof,

That thou shouldest take it to the bound thereof, and that thou shouldest know the paths to the house thereof?

Knowest thou it, because thou wast then born? or because the number of thy days is great?

Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail,

Which I have reserved against the time of trouble, against the day of battle and war?

By what way is the light parted, which scattereth the east wind upon the earth?

Who hath divided a watercourse for the overflowing of waters, or a way for the lightning of thunder;

To cause it to rain on the earth, where no man is; on the wilderness, wherein there is no man;

To satisfy the desolate and waste ground; and to cause the bud of the tender herb to spring forth?

Hath the rain a father? or who hath begotten the drops of dew?

Out of whose womb came the ice? and the hoary frost of heaven, who hath gendered it?

The waters are hid as with a stone, and the face of the deep is frozen.

Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?

Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons?

Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth?

Canst thou lift up thy voice to the clouds, that abundance of waters may cover thee?

Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go, and say unto thee, Here we are?

Who hath put wisdom in the inward parts? or who hath given understanding to the heart?

Who can number the clouds in wisdom? or who can stay the bottles of heaven,

When the dust groweth into hardness, and the clods cleave fast together?

Wilt thou hunt the prey for the lion? or fill the appetite of the young lions,

When they couch in their dens, and abide in the covert to lie in wait?

Who provideth for the raven his food? when his young ones cry unto God, they wander for lack of meat.

Job 39:1-30  
Knowest thou the time when the wild goats of the rock bring forth? or canst thou mark when the hinds do calve?

Canst thou number the months that they fulfil? or knowest thou the time when they bring forth?

They bow themselves, they bring forth their young ones, they cast out their sorrows.

Their young ones are in good liking, they grow up with corn; they go forth, and return not unto them.

Who hath sent out the wild ass free? or who hath loosed the bands of the wild ass?

Whose house I have made the wilderness, and the barren land his dwellings.

He scorneth the multitude of the city, neither regardeth he the crying of the driver.

The range of the mountains is his pasture, and he searcheth after every green thing. Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?

Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?

Wilt thou trust him, because his strength is great? or wilt thou leave thy labour to him?

Wilt thou believe him, that he will bring home thy seed, and gather it into thy barn?

Gavest thou the goodly wings unto the peacocks? or wings and feathers unto the ostrich? Which leaveth her eggs in the earth, and warmeth them in dust,

And forgetteth that the foot may crush them, or that the wild beast may break them.

She is hardened against her young ones, as though they were not hers: her labour is in vain without fear;

Because God hath deprived her of wisdom, neither hath he imparted to her understanding.

What time she lifteth up herself on high, she scorneth the horse and his rider.

Hast thou given the horse strength? hast thou clothed his neck with thunder?

Canst thou make him afraid as a grasshopper? the glory of his nostrils is terrible.

He paweth in the valley, and rejoiceth in his strength: he goeth on to meet the armed men.

He mocketh at fear, and is not affrighted; neither turneth he back from the sword.

The quiver rattleth against him, the glittering spear and the shield.

He swalloweth the ground with fierceness and rage: neither believeth he that it is the sound of the trumpet.

He saith among the trumpets, Ha, ha; and he smelleth the battle afar off, the thunder of the captains, and the shouting.

Doth the hawk fly by thy wisdom, and stretch her wings toward the south?

Doth the eagle mount up at thy command, and make her nest on high?

She dwelleth and abideth on the rock, upon the crag of the rock, and the strong place.

From thence she seeketh the prey, and her eyes behold afar off.

Her young ones also suck up blood: and where the slain are, there is she."

Job 40:1-4

" Moreover the LORD answered Job, and said,

Shall he that contendeth with the Almighty instruct him? he that reproveth God, let him answer it.
Then Job answered the LORD, and said,

Behold, I am vile; what shall I answer thee? I will lay mine hand upon my mouth."
 All would do well to observe this countering of man's pride in the book of Job as a warning to all unbelievers to put up or shut up in regards to questioning God's rule without proper knowledge of the subject at hand. Not a single Atheist mindset has proper definition, proper knowledge or proper understanding of God's mind on ANY SUBJECT they deal against,so taking their word against God puts you in their place and in their judgment as well.


It can also be argued with much validity that all prayers prayed in faith on earth now will one day all be answered as requested. All will be healed of any and all illness and crippling, disabling things, that is just a basic follow in Logic from the doctrine of Heaven and it's eternal realm. No sin or consequence of sin will be allowed in Heaven or in the New Earth during Christ's 1000 year reign here. So all prayers are answered eventually there is nothing that says when prayers are answered just that they are.

Luke 6:20-23 

“And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said, Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are ye that hunger now: for ye shall be filled. Blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh. Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man’s sake. Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward is great in heaven: for in the like manner did their fathers unto the prophets.”

Romans 8:28

“And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.”

When the word of God says ALL it means all, and those things that cause the things we suffer on earth will one day be eradicated from our existence. BUT let me also say that I whole heartily believe that God CAN AND WILL HEAL ANY ISSUE WE HAVE NO MATTER HOW BAD IT IS. God has no limitations even though we as finite beings do, so it is of great stupidity and arrogance that man even begins to question God's will which is plainly revealed in his word.

2 Corinthians 4:4

 “In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.”

Much of what Atheists blame on the true God of scripture is carried out by the enemies of God the fallen angels and demonic spirits who do their bidding throughout scripture. They conveniently leave them out of all attacks against God preferring rather to blame him totally for all evil they can dream up!

These are the questions or doubts they have!

Most Christians I have spoken with claim that God can do anything. They make claims that he brings people back from the dead or that he miraculously heals someone from a deadly form of cancer. But curiously, we don't ever see a person who loses a limb have it regrown through a miracle from God. Why would God heal people of incurable cancer, but never have an amputated limb regrow?

Who is this person fooling with this profound ignorance of God, really? this rates interest?
The idea here is to blame God of UNFAIRNESS in dealing with his creation, but why is it that these same sentiments are never used to implore as to why "Natural Selection" is so unfair and cruel? And it doesn't matter if you think nature is not meant to fair or kind but simply the nature of things as they are. The point is the blame game can work both ways so it is important we understand WHO to blame rather than playing the "Shotgun blame game" with our eternal destinies.


An answer to the above question on "Let's Talk Bible: Christian Forum"

I’ll answer this question. I’ve answered you four other times in other threads and you haven’t responded. But that’s OK. You don’t have to.

I’ve talked to people like you for decades. Before I answer the question, let me say this. From reading all of your posts (and I’ve read most of them), you do not give the appearance of one who is honestly searching for the truth. You give the appearance of one who is desperately trying to prove that God does not exist and if you can ask us enough questions that we cannot answer or will not give you the answer you want, then ergo, you must be right – God doesn’t exist. Do you believe that to be a fair and intellectual type of reasoning?

Why doesn’t God heal amputees? Some of this comes from me, some from others. All of the following is not originally mine.

1. – Why do you assume that God is required to heal everyone of everything that ails them. He is not. This world is cursed because of man and God provides an escape from the curse. We are all going to die. And part of dying includes suffering. Mercifully- He doesn’t leave us in this sinful state and state of despair. We can be redeemed. But our physical bodies many times bear the brunt of the curse of this world. I have
epilepsy. I take more medication for that than the average person could take and still be conscious. I cannot endure high altitudes or excessive heat or bright lights or loud noises without being susceptible to a seizure. The medications – for which I am grateful – will more than likely kill me someday. The liver damage from the meds is a constant dread. But I have never once asked God “why won’t you take this away from me”. I’ve never said, “Well, God must not exist because if He is so good and wonderful, than my life would be all rainbows and unicorns.” It’s never dawned on me that God is required to heal me to prove (a) His existence or (b) His love, grace, and/or mercy to me. What is a constant source of joy to me is that He loves me and that His Son died for me.

2. – Why do you assume that amputees and people with other physical misfortunes are not whole in who they are as a person? What an insult to people who aren’t physically perfect. Physically limited people can be just as whole in their spirit and lifestyle as anyone else. I taught a student once who was born without a right arm. He was the best ball player on his team. He could do with one arm what the rest of his team couldn’t do with two. Stephen Hawking – confined to a wheelchair and a shell of a body has such profound mind. Joni Ericson Tada paints the most beautiful paintings with her mouth and a paint brush. She is a quadriplegic.

3. – Why do you assume that God’s nature has to meet with your approval or my approval. God didn’t present His plan for the redemption of mankind TO mankind for us to approve. He doesn’t call us and ask us what time would we like the sun to come up and if we can pencil in some time to endure a hail storm. Do we understand all of God’s nature? Of course not. We “see” with such limited vision.Your version of God is so limited, Tirapu. You want Him to govern the universe according to your rules. To be fair, some Christians do the same thing.

Why won’t God heal amputees?
How do you know He hasn’t? Why does He have to in order to meet your approval? Why do you believe that physically limited persons are not as happy or not as productive as the rest?

Bravo, fine Christian lady, Bravo!

It all boils down to "empirical evidence" and if they can't hold you hostage to that idea then you will always win. Some things just no obvious evidence to see, until biblical faith and reception of that faith is released NO empirical evidence will manifest. So Atheists find themselves riding the fence of science


Isa 53:1-12
 (God's Word Translation)
 "Who has believed our message? To whom has the LORD'S power been revealed?
Isa 53:2
  He grew up in his presence like a young tree, like a root out of dry ground. He had no form or majesty that would make us look at him. He had nothing in his appearance that would make us desire him.

Isa 53:3 
He was despised and rejected by people. He was a man of sorrows, familiar with suffering. He was despised like one from whom people turn their faces, and we didn't consider him to be worth anything.

Isa 53:4
  He certainly has taken upon himself our suffering and carried our sorrows, but we thought that God had wounded him, beat him, and punished him.
Isa 53:5 
He was wounded for our rebellious acts. He was crushed for our sins. He was punished so that we could have peace, and we received healing from his wounds.
Isa 53:6 
We have all strayed like sheep. Each one of us has turned to go his own way, and the LORD has laid all our sins on him.

Isa 53:7
  He was abused and punished, but he didn't open his mouth. He was led like a lamb to the slaughter. He was like a sheep that is silent when its wool is cut off. He didn't open his mouth.

Isa 53:8
  He was arrested, taken away, and judged. Who would have thought that he would be removed from the world? He was killed because of my people's rebellion.
Isa 53:9
  He was placed in a tomb with the wicked. He was put there with the rich when he died, although he had done nothing violent and had never spoken a lie.

Isa 53:10
  Yet, it was the LORD'S will to crush him with suffering. When the LORD has made his life a sacrifice for our wrongdoings, he will see his descendants for many days. The will of the LORD will succeed through him.

Isa 53:11
  He will see and be satisfied because of his suffering. My righteous servant will acquit many people because of what he has learned through suffering. He will carry their sins as a burden.
Isa 53:12 
So I will give him a share among the mighty, and he will divide the prize with the strong, because he poured out his life in death and he was counted with sinners. He carried the sins of many. He intercedes for those who are rebellious."
Jesus paid a high price to purchase our bodily and spiritual healing so the answer to the question is YES a million times over YES!


Saturday, October 12, 2013

The Kalam Cosmological Argument: Irrefutable reason that proves that God is POSSIBLE and therefore COULD Exist!

This is what Atheists think about the Kalam Argument, watch as they mischaracterize and set up Straw Men to knock over so they can look justified not believing in God!

Watch the above video just to be fair to their opposition to God, but only to learn HOW they reason their ideas out. Do not be fooled by their conviction or confidence because an Atheist is only confident in Natural explanations of a clearly spiritual nature, which by their own admission cannot be done.
The spiritual Mind behind Creation that is a part all living things that God created cannot be proven by just looking from a natural viewpoint, that view must be tempered with the clear evidence from faith and reason combined.

 The Natural World isn't equipped to uncover the other side of existence without first opening the spiritual light of Creation, to shed illumination upon why we exist at all! 


The arguments above that purport to "TAKE DOWN the Cosmological Argument" once and for all is RIDDLED with ILLOGICAL Conclusions and false assumptions they cannot prove (But it sounds scientific so who cares....right?)

 Look, these attacks don't prove anything more than the world is afraid of this truth getting through to those who really think deeply about how things began. 


No argument that a Christian can present NO MATTER how much solid science or historical value it has, will
ultimately prove God to a person that WILL NOT believe, even though they ask for that evidence.

 This argument, despite the attacks.... is the top reasonable argument that answers ALL the questions Atheists raise! It fits the science available, it fits the physics we know of and it fits the fossil record perfectly. This evidence presented here cuts at the heart of the evolutionists thinking about HOW things began only because it doesn't fit into THEIR THEORY of life coming from nothing.

"How to defend the kalam cosmological argument just like William Lane Craig


You see, Atheists talk of sharing ideas and understanding on the one hand but fail to do it on the other. They insult and laugh, instead of actually digging into the evidence as true science demands of them, the reasoning behind this obviously cowardly approach is expected, if not understood by the Christian.

Trust me, as one to whom this approach has been used many times after presenting a reasonable response to an Atheist claim. This is an act of diversion on their part rather than an act of confidence in their stand on the beginning of life. The Atheist does not have a good position to argue from, that's why they always say it's OUR job to prove it not theirs. They don't have ANY PROOF on their part so it's the easy thing to do to defer the argument back to us, well here goes.......  

Does God exist?
 For once we can say yes, simply because
this argument leaves no loose ends, it covers all bases
including the Multi-verse excuse. Atheists are left holding the bag with nothing in it, something they should be quite familiar with.
Another question is then answered, is the material universe
all that is, or ever was, or ever will be? Is the universe ETERNAL? 
Science's conclusion is absolutely not! So if the universe hasn't been here FOREVER then the time limit to it's energy use (Entropy) is an important question to ask.

Definition of ENTROPY

:  a measure of the unavailable energy in a closed thermodynamic system that is also usually considered to be a measure of the system's disorder, that is a property of the system's state, and that varies directly with any reversible change in heat in the system and inversely with the temperature of the system; broadly :  the degree of disorder or uncertainty in a system

a :  the degradation of the matter and energy in the universe to an ultimate state of inert uniformity
b :  a process of degradation or running down or a trend to disorder

If the universe was an eternally self-existent thing then it's energy source would have to be also, otherwise it would run down as the Law of thermodynamics indicates. 

 What this means is that evolution CAN NOT have the unlimited time and energy to complete NATURAL SELECTION as Macro-Evolution must have.


One approach to answering this question is
the Cosmological Argument.

It goes like this…
"Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause."
Is the first premise true? Let's consider…
Believing that something can pop into existence without a cause is more of a stretch than believing in magic. At least with magic you've got a hat and a magician.
And if something can come into being from nothing, then why don't we see this happening all the time?
No… Everyday experience and scientific evidence confirm our first premise—If something begins to exist, it must have a cause.
But what about our second premise? Did the universe begin or has it always existed? Atheists have typically said that the universe has been here forever-"The universe is just there, and that's all."
First, let's consider the second law of thermodynamics. It tells us the universe is slowly running out of usable energy… and that's the point. If the universe had been here forever, it would have run out of usable energy by now. The second law points us to a universe that has a definite beginning.
This is further confirmed by a series of remarkable scientific discoveries…THAT PROVE that the Universe is NOT eternal into the past but has an END approaching it.
In 1915, Albert Einstein presented his General Theory of Relativity. This allowed us, for the first time, to talk meaningfully about the past history of the universe, this wasn't what Einstein wanted to find out but at least he was an HONEST SCIENTIST unlike most Atheists who claim science as their aim.
Next, Alexander Friedmann and Georges Lemaître, each working with Einstein's equations, predicted that the universe is expanding from a beginning point in the past.
Then, in 1929, Edwin Hubble measured the red shift in light from distant galaxies. This empirical evidence confirmed not only that the universe is expanding, but that it sprang into being from a single point in the finite past. It was a monumental discovery—almost beyond comprehension.

However, not everyone is fond of a finite universe… So, it wasn't long before alternative models popped into existence. But, one by one, these models failed to stand the test of time.

More recently, three leading cosmologists—Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin—proved that "any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be eternal in the past, but must have an absolute beginning." Why is that? It's simple physics, it would run out of gas a long, long time ago. (That's Entropy for the dummies out there, and there is NO WAY around this....Like it or Lump it!)
This even applies to the multiverse, if there is such a thing.
This means that scientists "can no longer hide behind a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning." Any adequate model must have a beginning, just like the standard model, so you see no matter how many rabbit trails you come up with "Entropy" is your Kryptonite.

It's quite plausible, then that both premises of the argument are true. This means that the conclusion is also true—the universe has a cause.

And since the universe can't cause itself, its cause must be beyond the space-time universe. It must be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, uncaused, and unimaginably powerful. Much like… God. Unless you can prove that "Natural Selection" is somehow supernatural and fits these criteria to a tee, your out of 'Cosmological Luck'!

The Cosmological Argument shows that, in fact, it is quite reasonable to believe that God does exist, the problem as always is the fact that Atheists refuse to look at the evidence objectively because it doesn't lead where they want it to go. This is wholly unscientific and completely unreasonable on their part!

Fallacies in Arguments

Here are some examples of fallacies you may encounter when making an argument: of course they will accuse you of these same Fallacies no matter what you say.

Appeal to Ignorance - An appeal to ignorance occurs when one person uses another person’s lack of knowledge on a particular subject as evidence that their own argument is correct. This is a favorite tool to use against believers who don't see it coming. But just remember just because you don't know the details of WHY doesn't mean your argument is invalid.

But it is important to know that Knowledge is power when dealing with Atheists or Skeptics on issues of the spiritual.

We do not start from ignorance so we cannot infer it to prove any point we make. We believe scripture and what it says happened, happened the way it says...we start from knowledge not ignorance. 

On the other hand science, true science, hasn't given even a hint of proof to infer Macro-Evolution, not in the Fossil record, not in the Micro-biological realm, not in the Archaeological realm. SO WHO IS SQUIRMING IN IGNORANCE?

Appeal to Authority - This type of fallacy is also referred to as Argumentum ad Verecundia (argument from modesty). In this case, rather than focusing on the merits of an argument, the arguer will try to attach their argument to a person of authority in an attempt to give credence to their argument.

But let's face the facts here, if your theory was crap before a Ph.D.. handled it what makes you think it will fair better in their hands? Smart people can't make dumb things true they can only divert attention away from the problems using big words and lying really well about the rest. 

This is common among Atheists and Skeptics who sight a vast amount of Scientists and learned academia to prove their illogical assumptions. Simply because the Learned adopt unlearned assumptions as their own only proves to beleaguer the point and push the lie further ahead logic.

Since Creationism hasn't changed it's stand from the beginning, but only waited on science to catch up, our points and inferences still remain strong as the day we believed them. Science which was STARTED by a vast amount of Theists in the past to whom we owe our modern understandings has yet to even infer Evolution as far as MACRO is concerned!


Appeal to Popular Opinion - This type of appeal is when someone claims that an idea or belief is true simply because it is what most people believe. 

Creationists cannot use this argument since we are in the minority in both science and popular opinion....MOST BELIEVE THAT NOTHING PRODUCED NOTHING IN THE BIG BANG. So this is a purely Evolutionary fallacy and a very weak one at best.

Association Fallacy - Sometimes called "guilt by association," this occurs when someone links a specific idea or practice with something or someone negative in order to infer guilt on another person.

 This is done whenever an Atheist associates what those who are uninformed say about me, with what I'm saying is true. Everything I put up is backed by science and legitimate scientists but because I'm associated with something made-up or true they have an excuse to avoid my evidence. 

It is still being done to Kent Hovine ministries because of an UNRELATED LEGAL MISHAP he was involved in, now any time his scientific creationism is presented they appeal to the "Alleged illegal activities" and insult his logic which has absolutely nothing to do with his scientific conclusions.

This a cheap trick that a lot of people in government office do to their opponents. What's happening here is they have no valid response and are left with their usual dirty tricks instead of evidence for their case!

Attacking the Person - Also known as Argumentum ad Hominem (argument against the man), this is quite a common occurrence in debates and refers to a person who substitutes a rebuttal with a personal insult.

 Atheists and Skeptics seem to not know that this form of argumentation is the lowest form of human behavior or maybe they do and are low-life's.... who knows. And ANY creationists who engage in this are equally having a "low-life" experience!

Insulting your opponent only tells everyone listening that you HAVE NO LOGICAL way to answer the points they have made. But the intended reason they do it is that it shuts down the argument by causing anger and defense on the part of the opponant. A prime example is found in politics everyday as both parties use this form of point making INSTEAD OF SOLVING THE ISSUES AT HAND!

Everything (In the physical Universe) that begins to exist has a (First) cause. Why? because only something of higher substance could produce SOMETHING of lower substance, if NOTHING could produced anything it would be NOTHING since there is no energy or substance in a vacuum of nothing .

 The universe OBVIOUSLY began to exist BECAUSE SCIENCE SAYS IT DID, THEREFORE IT FOLLOWS LOGICALLY THAT the universe must have a cause outside of it's space and time, more powerful than the universe itself. And since Atheists have not presented an alternative that makes any sense compared to the true realities of can they reject our logic so easily, simply because it doesn't follow their line of reasoning?

Naturalism has nothing to offer as far as explaining how life began, at every turn it fails to provide sound scientific data that proves that Natural Selection produced the Natural world. Evolution (MACRO) doesn't happen and it never has, Micro Evolution cannot be used to prove MACRO simply because the two do not compare, one explains changes within species while the other HAS YET TO BE FOUND the change FROM one species into a completely different species.


Beg the Question - This type of fallacy is when the conclusion of an argument is assumed in the phrasing of the question itself.


I might ask "What question that any Atheist or Skeptic asks doesn't do this same thing? You are only begging if your logic doesn't connect the question directly to the answer as ours does, IF the universe began and all beginnings have a cause then it follows that the universe had a causality before it's just plain logic!

 The conclusion of this argument is the logical end of a cause and effect. If the universe were ETERNAL and always existed THEN we would be begging the question because our logic would be failed, because we assumed there was a beginning when there wasn't, but that is not the case from scientific reality.

Circular Argument - Also referred to as Circulus in Probando, this fallacy is when an argument takes its proof from a factor within the argument itself, rather than from an external one.

Our argument takes it's conclusion from OUTSIDE the argument itself because the first cause of the universe has to be MORE powerful, must be OUTSIDE of space and BEYOND time itself or that cause could not make what we see, feel, and hear in reality around us.

Correlation Implies Causation Fallacy - Otherwise known as Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc, this is a fallacy in which the person making the argument connects two events which happen sequentially and assumes that one caused the other.


This is only bad if your assumptions are based upon no evidence of said assumptions. For instance Evolution ASSUMES things about the Universe that cannot ever be witnessed by science, science can only observe the here and now not the past or the future it can only assume from evidence left behind what is true.

Has anyone ever seen the 'Big Bang' happen? No but we have evidence it occurred nonetheless!

 Has anyone ever investigated first hand 'Macro Speciation'? No but what they ASSUME is that Microevolution proves Macro is true. How can a minor variation WITHIN a species prove that a species can somehow become ANOTHER SPECIES?

 There is nothing to indicate such a thing could or would happen.

 All changes within a species are to cause it's survival as it is not to change it's species with would in effect go against it's survival by killing it off over time. Evolutionist's have the full burden to prove this nonsense not us! They make the assumption so it's their baby to hold.

False Dilemma/Dichotomy - Sometimes referred to as Bifurcation, this type of fallacy occurs when someone presents their argument in such a way that there are only two possible options.
Actually we think there is only ONE possible option, while evolutionists are always coming up with new options to cover for the old option that hasn't worked out so well, Creationists on the other hand, have always held to ONE option there is no dichotomy.

Non Sequitur - A fallacy wherein someone asserts a conclusion that does not follow from the propositions. Every part of this argument follows throughout it's reasoning without problem, so the only thing you can disagree with is the conclusion in the end. Everything throughout your life follows this argument concerning 'First Cause', you yourself are the first cause of many things in your own life.

Those of you that are 'Dad's' are the first cause of your children, now think of this....what if your kid's grow up and decide that you don't exist and cut off all communication with you and move away from you. Would it follow then that you don't exist or would it rather follow that they are simply deceiving themselves for whatever reason into a delusion?

God is the first cause of us and all the denying in the world won't change that fact. Atheists think that if they force all their negative thoughts and actions at a non-existent being, he'll go away somehow.

Now who sounds crazy?

Slippery Slope - Assuming that a very small action will inevitably lead to extreme and often ludicrous outcomes. Evolution is loaded with 'slippery slopes' of illogical assumptions and forced evidence.

As you can see, there are many different types of fallacies that you may encounter. Arguing with someone who uses false logic like this can be a frustrating experience, but now that you know these are examples of fallacies, you can identify what they are doing and spot the lapse in logic right away.

Is this Cosmological argument a fair and reasonable conclusion of the vast evidence available both in natural law and science?

 You decide for yourself, do not allow unreasonable men and women make eternal decisions for you.

Here's an easy way to remember this argument:
F- Stands for Famous Equations: 

In 1915, Albert Einstein presented his General Theory of Relativity. This allowed us, for the first time, to talk meaningfully about the past history of the universe.
Next, Alexander Friedmann and Georges Lemaître, each working with Einstein's equations, predicted that the universe is expanding.

R- Stands for Ripples of Matter & Heat: 

Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin—proved that "any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be eternal in the past, but must have an absolute beginning."
E- Stands for the Expanding Universe: 

1929, Edwin Hubble measured the red shift in light from distant galaxies. This empirical evidence confirmed not only that the universe is expanding, but that it sprang into being from a single point in the finite past. It was a monumental discovery—almost beyond comprehension.
S- Stands for The Second Law of Thermodynamics: 

The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems spontaneously evolve toward thermodynamic equilibrium—the state of maximum entropy.
H- Stands for Heat Eco: 

The cosmic microwave background (CMB) is the thermal radiation left over from the "Big Bang" of cosmology. In older literature, the CMB is also variously known as cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) or "relic radiation." The CMB is a cosmic background radiation that is fundamental to observational cosmology because it is the oldest light in the universe, dating to the epoch of recombination.

With a traditional optical telescope, the space between stars and galaxies (the background) is completely dark. However, a sufficiently sensitive radio telescope shows a faint background glow, almost exactly the same in all directions, that is not associated with any star, galaxy, or other object. This glow is strongest in the microwave region of the radio spectrum. The CMB's serendipitous discovery in 1964 by American radio astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson was the culmination of work initiated in the 1940s, and earned the discoverers the 1978 Nobel Prize.


Monday, July 29, 2013

Cosmological Skepticism: Can it be revearsed? Is the Argument Valid?


Cosmological argument —    an argument for the existence of God, asserting that the contingency of each entity, and of the universe composed wholly of such entities, demands the admission of an adequate external cause, which is God. n philosophy ontological argument Compare teleological argument one of the arguments that purport to prove the existence of God from empirical facts about the universe, esp. the argument to the existence of a first cause.

36 Arguments for the Existence of God: Goldstein on the Cosmological Argument

William Lane Craig


God's DNA that he put in ALL life on this planet stands against all arguments of the skeptical mind. I have heard the roundabout arguments against DNA saying that it is not a CODE but that is crap response and they know it, it is a code much more complex than and computer code ever invented!

Therefore since this factual evidence cannot be refuted by mere denial or rearranging of the facts it will stand as proof that God is creator and Lord! I know this enrages Atheists and inflames the skeptical mindset that is made-up already against us but....quite frankly I don't care. This Evidence is proof and proof is what THEY say must be presented.

Why do people reject the Christian argument of creation and God? The biggest of reasons why people reject it outright are usually the most superficial and based upon caricature's of the argument NOT the actual argument itself.

Atheist's are masters of the counter claim, they love to mix it up claiming to have knowledge about things they most certainly do not have. The most famous argument they like to push at Christians is in saying that "the burden of proof is at the feet of the Christian NOT THE ATHEIST because WE make the claim that God does exist" thereby releasing themselves of having to prove that they CLAIM God does not exist, WHY? Because we claimed first, sounds like a schoolyard game of tag and your it. So instead of having to prove a negative which they cannot do they kick the can to us and the game never ends.

The problem is no matter how much proof is shown they counter it with nonsense argumentation like children not wanting to lose a game not realizing that proof ends the debate in its tracks, DNA is so infinitely complex as to solve the debate with only a little research only a prime, infinite God could have designed our DNA, natural selection couldn't in billion, billion, billion years solve the simple cell it's complex nature let alone the entire universe!


It is obvious to any thinking person that the logic at which they arrive is fatally flawed, because while this puts them in the advantage in any response we make since we start from the defensive side, it proves nothing in the end but for a lack of understanding about God. Atheists have muddied the water about God in the first place, mixing the True God and his word with the plainly stupid and ignorant gods of men's imaginations. This puts the response of Christian behind thousands of years of bad press and imaginary gods that REALLY DON'T EXIST!

Having dealt with this argument many times I have resigned myself to the fact that Atheists are completely afraid of the fact that God alludes them in every turn, no amount of word playing, denial, or otherwise mixing points together can rescue them from that basic FACT. God cannot be dis-proven and that alone proves He must exist, logically something that does not exist could easily be dis-proven over time. Just as the flat earth was, just as the earth being the center of the Solar System was, just as most fairy tales will or have been......BUT God has eluded the skeptics arguments for thousands of years and will for thousands more since there is no way to prove otherwise.

What about the Cosmological argument for God's existence? Does it follow logically that there is a universal causation, a first cause of all life and matter? I believe it most certainly does but first let's deal with the illogical statements of Atheists. They say that "the argument must fail on the grounds that it contains not one but two Logical Fallacies:
1.) Special Pleading because it contains a rule that only God is exempt from and is able to break which by the way a God such as ours could do quite expectantly because of who he is described to be from scripture UNLIKE any god of man's creation or mankind itself, who are limited by the fact they are bound within time and space.

God on the other hand is ALL POWERFUL, UNLIMITED AND OUTSIDE SPACE AND TIME so naturally he can MAKE a rule within space and time he himself is not bound too! This most logical and very much in keeping with the biblical standard, so Atheists have a great hurdle to jump over in order to make their argument make any sense. 
Forgive me but no human beings are more guilty of this Fallacy than Evolutionists and Atheists because whenever counter rules of science are presented that defy evolution (The 1st and 2nd Laws of thermal dynamics) and fully prove beyond doubt that evolution cannot be the explanation for life they simply say "That particular Law of real science doesn't apply here because.......!" Isn't that simply a restatement of special pleading when they need it?

The rules of evolutionary science were created by men so it follows that men CANNOT have it both ways, creating the rules of science and then conveniently breaking those very rules to appease their argumentation later!
2.) The Fallacy of Composition because it creates the problem of assuming that because a part of the universe has a reason for its existence then the whole universe must by association have that same reason to exist"

What is missed here is the FACT that scripture TELLS US how the universe was created so there is NO ASSUMPTION on our part concerning our solar system and the whole universe. God stated plainly how it was done for the WHOLE (Universe) just as he did for the PART WE LIVE IN (Earth) so the argument is not valid!
Hmmm, seems to me that that is a perfect example of evolutionary thought, don't they believe that natural selection acts across the universe the same way as it did on earth. That my friends is an ASSUMPTION OF THE HIGHEST ORDER OF COMPOSITION! How can they deny God on the same grounds that they accept their own god of evolution? It's very simple actually, most Christians do not think enough to call them on it, but I will. THEY DO NOT KNOW for a fact anything they believe but the true Christian (NOT the religious fake) KNOWS FOR INTERNAL FACT THAT GOD NOT ONLY EXISTS BUT THAT HE CARES DEEPLY FOR THE ATHEIST AND THE SKEPTIC, not their mindset but their lives and what they decide to do with it.

3.) The False Dilemma - meaning that it says that the universe HAD to either come from God or it wouldn't have existed in the first place. Now let's look closer at this bad debate tactic!

 How can they say this when they turn around and then say that the universe was made by a any one of a number of ways, so what is the difference between us saying it was God as the prime mover and them saying it was "The Quantum Tunneling THEORY" "The Black Hole THEORY" "The Multi verse Hypothesis or Bubble THEORY" "The Oscillating Universe THEORY" "The Ekpyrotic Model" "The Eternal Universe THEORY" that created what we see? The answer is simple there is no difference between their forms of argument and ours except ours fits better what is known of the universe.
Listen to the argument over and over until it's truth sinks in, understanding it as it was meant to be understood frees the mind greatly. Atheists love to say it's OK to NOT KNOW HOW IT ALL BEGAN, but that is not a true scientific thought process for while not knowing is fine for a time the heart and mind of the scientist is ever-reaching for an answer. Once we stop seeking truth we will stop growing and eventually stop caring.
 It is disingenuous at best and just plain deceptive at worst for Atheists to use the very things they say we are doing wrong, using it for their own advantage and all the while calling those same arguments illogical for our use! All of their arguments for the beginning of everything rest upon UNPROVEN THEORIES NOT SOLID SCIENCE, I mean where is the science I keep hearing about, all I've seen is the word "Science" mentioned in connection with theories ABOUT Science-fiction ideas but no real science.

The study of physical world: the study of the physical and natural world and phenomena, especially by using systematic observation and experiment.

A branch of science: a particular area of study or knowledge of the physical world.

A systematic body of knowledge: a systematically organized body of knowledge about a particular subject.

Science is completely limited to the physical world and Universe around it, but acts like it knows more about the other side than we who are spiritual do, while they deny it's very existence in the same breath. Science must start to understand it's limits and stop trying to speak to things far away from it's knowledge!



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.