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

Wednesday, July 17, 2013

What is THE PROOF needed by skeptics to finally convince them?


Proof, is it abstract? Is it Impersonal? Does proof demand certain things are needed in order to believe that the object discussed really exists? At what point does the providing of proof require belief? Does real proof presented end the debate once and for all?

The answers are, NO! proof is not an abstract concept, it a precise; specific result with no way to misinterpret it's story, otherwise it's not proof. If it changes according to one's personal understanding of the theory in question then it proves nothing but that you have nothing backing up your belief.

 Proof is never an impersonal observation of facts, it will always revive the innermost being of the reason, and intellect taking you on a journey of mind and spirit. The Proof that reveals the evidence of God does just that, it stirs up our faith and challenges our reasoning .

And yes true Proof does DEMAND certain criteria be present, it demands that what you believe centers on a reasonable idea or belief. Proof cannot exist for an imaginary theory of the mind. And if it is real Proof of said theory then the end of the said debate should be at hand BUT alas those who ask for the proof have a litany of excuses why our provided proof isn't acceptable to them.

"Atheists say the darnedest things" 

"Religion's Real Child" Abuse by Richard Dawkins, This argument is the most insult driven of the bad reasoning from Dawkins mind. It is not only that but disproven through studies. 

"Belief in God is part of human nature" - Oxford study 

"10 People Who Give Atheism a Bad Name"

I would state that the real reason Biblical proof's are not accepted is not because they are circular reasoning but simply because skeptics have put a lot on the line concerning real proof of God.....they must accept that not only scripture is true but that their lives are not right with him.

It would make this verse "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16) mean more than all eternity to you!

What if it is true after all...

What if God does really love you? What if Jesus is for real after all? What if he could change your life if you allowed him into your heart? What if you're missing out on the best thing ever?

What does exist for theories that rest upon imagination instead of actual proof? Simple: no proof whatsoever! 

They exist only on misinterpreted facts construed to look like proof. This form of false proof has nothing to hold it together except the imagined facts that those who believe a thing believe, it's really clued together from pieces of random facts.


Whenever a Christian debates an Atheist or otherwise Skeptical minded person, we will hear in some form or another "I need Objective Proof in order to believe in your god, objective evidence must be presented, Proof beyond all doubt or rebuttal!"


Lately I have been listening to these debates with Christian vs. Atheist and I've noticed that the responses to the really good arguments made to prove God's existence are NOT very good responses when compared to the arguments made, but they usually are filled with vague ideas of unproven theoretical science rather than solid observable facts at hand! I was wondering why it is that skeptics seem NOT ABLE to get out of the box of God surrounding them? They assume everything and accept only the reality they create around their minds, in other words they have ALREADY made up their minds BEFORE the debate that the arguments being made are crap and simply fill in with big sounding words.

The problem in their responses is not that some facts are presented but that the facts are not proving anything except that they are set in stone and didn't really want to debate in the first place. I have personally witnessed the fact that certain people are not open to my views but then accuse me of the same thing they themselves practice, but I beg to differ I am open to real solid evidence which has NEVER been put forth.....NEVER!
One such argument we've all heard is this one:   "Can god create a stone so large that he cannot move it? If he cannot create such a stone, he is not omnipotent (all-powerful, able to do anything). If he cannot move the stone, he is not omnipotent."

The paradox of the stone does not disprove god in any respect. The fact that god cannot make 3 + 7 = 25 does not mean that he is not omnipotent, because God can do only what CAN BE DONE LOGICALLY AND RATIONALLY. Therefore to move a stone that God made too big to move is a logical fallacy. God because he is perfect cannot accomplish something imperfect in reasoning what would be the point?


And this one is the dumbest of arguments put forward as proof that there is no God: Because of Historical Events where religion is to blame for evil actions. I personally hate this assertion just on the grounds that Religion is in any way a representation of God, it fails to prove anything outside of the fact that men and women are complete failures falling short of God's requirements which in fact proves God is right and thus must exist!
To blame God who is perfect for the stupid actions of a few moron belief systems in the World is not a very logical thought process, it would be like blaming ALL Atheists because a few were evil in some way. All mankind has the potential to be evil or and given the right conditions WILL BE!
Atheists love to LUMP all religious experience together as a means to getting to the idea that God could not exist because his people are so evil. But fail to understand that evil comes from a person, so they in turn don't disprove God but instead prove that Satan exists, the cause of the evil they ALL blame on God!

God DID NOT create evil contrary to Isa. 45:7 which is not looked at in it's true context, Isa 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. "

What does this really mean? well actually it's really simple if read in it's context God is the cause of bringing peace or great trouble to those he uses in his plans in the earth. Man must be driven to do what God wills unless they are willing, many Nations do not do his will so God brings them to trouble in order to move them into his will in the earth.

This verse and others like it are not teaching that God was the maker of Satan's changed nature into an Evil incarnation, this is completely against God's highly moral character. God has NO SHADOW OF TURNING in his moral framework, he cannot create evil in this form, Evil came into Satan's heart because of his pride both in his place and in his person under God. Think about what God was doing, creating Mankind UNDER GOD responsible for worshipping God with a renewed spirit in the image and likeness of his moral character. This was as a result of what Satan
The only foundation for morality - the character of God


Now the question is not about their rebuttal arguments to our evidence, the real question is how do they define PROOF AND IS IT THE SAME AS WHAT WE KNOW AS PROOF? I think not for many reasons, not the least of which is the fact that they move the playing pieces whenever an argument surfaces that bends their reality a little thus making it impossible to Win IN THEIR MINDS! It's a form of cheating the death of their reasoning! 



According to the Dictionary it is Conclusive evidence: evidence or an argument that serves to establish a fact or the truth of something the test of something: a test or trial of something to establish whether it is true the state of having been proved: the quality or condition of having been proved.



Now correct me if I'm wrong but once proof is presented in a fully scientific manner isn't it established fact and not theory? Can you actually move the line in the sand to suit your own belief system, that's what they do on a regular basis. Instead of letting the evidence lead them to the truth they instead protect their preconceived belief system in the face of the proof.


They say there is NO evidence for God, and use the small g instead of the Capital G, is this out of fear or insult? Do they not know the Difference between God and god? You cannot find evidence for god because none exists because any god is a mental image in our minds that leads into false worship but God has many proofs built into creation before their eyes so mention of God the big G isn't optional.

They say there is no clear or coherent definition of god with the small g because they are described differently. This is one of the most deceptive arguments put forth by Atheists because there is ONLY ONE DEFINITION given of God with the Big G and that is fully defined in his word VERY CLEARLY as:
  1. God is eternal.
    (Deuteronomy 33:27; Jeremiah 10:10; Psalm 90:2)

  2. God is infinite.
    (1 Kings 8:22-27; Jeremiah 23:24; Psalm 102:25-27; Revelation 22:13)
  3. God is self-sufficient and self-existent.
    (Exodus 3:13-14; Psalm 50:10-12; Colossians 1:16)
  4. God is omnipresent (present everywhere).
    (Psalm 139:7-12)
  5. God is omnipotent (all powerful).
    (Genesis 18:14; Luke 18:27; Revelation 19:6)
  6. God is omniscient (all knowing).
    (Psalm 139:2-6; Isaiah 40:13-14)
  7. God is unchanging or immutable.
    (Psalm 102:25-27; Hebrews 1:10-12; 13:8)
  8. God is sovereign.
    (2 Samuel 7:22; Isaiah 46:9-11)
  9. God is wise.
    (Proverbs 3:19; Romans 16:26-27; 1 Timothy 1:17)
  10. God is holy.
    (Leviticus 19:2; 1 Peter 1:15)
  11. God is righteous and just.
    (Deuteronomy 32:4; Psalm 11:7; Psalm 119:137)
  12. God is faithful.
    (Deuteronomy 7:9; Psalm 89:1-8)
  13. God is true and truth.
    (Psalm 31:5; John 14:6; John 17:3; Titus 1:1-2)
  14. God is good.
    (Psalm 25:8; Psalm 34:8; Mark 10:18)
  15. God is merciful.
    (Deuteronomy 4:31; Psalm 103:8-17; Daniel 9:9; Hebrews 2:17)
  16. God is gracious.
    (Exodus 34:6; Psalm 103:8; 1 Peter 5:10)
  17. God is love.
    (John 3:16; Romans 5:8; 1 John 4:8)
  18. God is spirit.
    (John 4:24)
  19. God is light, meaning that God's essence is like that of Light which is a transverse, electromagnetic wave that can be seen by humans and like all electromagnetic waves, light can travel through a vacuum. Darkness cannot hide light because Light

(James 1:17; 1 John 1:5)

20.    God is triune or trinity, meaning that what makes God, God is manifest in Three Persons; The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit.

This concept is not as hard to understand as they might let on that it is, as the nature of the universe has revealed through scientific investigation. The common phenomena of universal experience are always related to just three—and only three—physical entities.  The perspective of modern science is clearly that of the universe as a time-space-matter continuum, with each of the three entities essentially indistinguishable from and coterminous with the other two, they like God are THREE AGREEING AS ONE.

The Principles of Cause and Effect
(Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14) 

ALL THESE ATTRIBUTES DESCRIBE GOD VERY CLEARLY, NO OTHER god INVENTED BY MEN CAN COME CLOSE TO THIS DEFINITION. There is no excuse for not understanding God after proper reading of the Bibles definition of the creator. So much for that excuse,....but I must admit that ALL other manmade gods are as described by the Atheist so they have proved ONE thing beyond any doubt that there are NO gods with a small g!


Atheists accuse us of having NO agreement about the Nature and Moral standard of our God but as with the other argument this is untrue. They mix up all gods and throw in the God of the bible in order to confuse the issue. The only way to understand God is to NOT mix him with non-existent gods!

Here is a great Lecture by Charles Finney on Moral Attributes

Here's an Article on the relationship of God's Morality and His Character:

What most of the arguing amounts to between Atheists and Theists isn't as much on the existence of God but on the skeptical mind coming to terms with the concept of God. It is very hard for a naturally skeptical mind to stop doubting something that doesn't live up to THEIR RULES, but once you realize that they don't have a stitch of evidence to DISPROVE GOD the mystery is solved!

Atheists SAY we have the job of proving that God exists, well I think that has been done over and over again by smarter people than me but as usual during debates where the believer lays out the case better than the opponent, the double talk, the insults, the demeaning begins (usually what happens when you argument is loosing ground!) Even when it isn't, to resort to this form of personal attacking is simply a losers way of crying wolf and we all remember where crying wolf left the crier?

It would seem to me that God has more descriptive definition than any person on earth has to prove his or her existence. The Argument against God's character does not hold water, he has provided everything we need to believe in his existence. As for the churches issue with obedience to his leading, that is not God's fault, that is strictly a matter of disobedience to the plain plan of God set forth in his word.

So the essence of Proof is not grounded upon these silly arguments that sometime just confuse where it began. The argument against the Church and it's LACK of living up to the Biblical demand is not lost on me. But it does not prove that God doesn't exist just that the church is stubborn and hardheaded proving that God's love is much bigger than any Atheist could conceive!



Maybe, just maybe the church should get with God's program and start BEING THE PROOF she was meant to be? Go to YouTube to get the series if your interested they will blow your doctrinal minds away. The church has believed herself into DISBELIEF of the very evidence that originally changed the world for Jesus!


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.