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

Sunday, April 13, 2014

Using LOGIC to dismantle Atheistic thought: WOW! What a debate!

You've heard the nonsense coming from the mouths of skeptics who do not like to reason, or answer questions of faith......they avoid this in a postmodern world by this type of reasoning, we live in a postmodern condition, we create our own reality based upon our own internalized preconceptions. So why then is it that I must prove anything to you if that's true, you should just take it at face value since it's my reality, aren't all realities valid in the world? If not why not?

And that being the case there is no longer one objective truth, we are free to create our own personal truth. There's no absolute right or absolute wrong in society any more just an infinite number of equally valid stories, of course that would never include biblical truth would it?

Why does the Law of Logic exist at all if any set of values are equal? Is it really logical to believe all views at once? How can anything be true in a lasting sense if nothing is grounded in something and doesn't that force Atheistic thought aside as no more valid than any other thought?


Logic is a proper or reasonable way of thinking about or understanding something , a particular way of thinking about something , the science that studies the formal processes used in thinking and reasoning.

The law of identity

Everything that exists has a specific nature. Each entity exists as something in particular and it has characteristics that are a part of what it is.

The law of non-contradiction

There are arguably three versions of the principle of non-contradiction to be found in Aristotle: an ontological, a doxastic and a semantic version. The first version is about things that exist in the world, the second is about what we can believe, and the third relates to assertion and truth. 

The law of the excluded middle

According to this law, every quality either belongs, or does not belong, to a given nature. There is no logical compromise, or exception, and no middle alternative. It is this law which accounts for Aristotelian logic's hierarchical nature. For if there is a single nature for every class, that which has more of that essential quality will be judged superior to that which possesses less. Based on the law of excluded middle, the concept of the hierarchy of values is established.

This law states that not only is X, X, and that X is not non-X, it adds that X is X and nothing in between. 

Study of inference and argument. Inferences are rule-governed steps from one or more propositions, known as premises, to another proposition, called the conclusion.

A deductive inference is one that is intended to be valid, where a valid inference is one in which the conclusion must be true if the premises are true.

All other inferences are called inductive.

The basic laws of logic govern all reality and thought and are known to be true for at least two reasons: 

(1) They are intuitively obvious and self-evident. Once one understands a basic law of logic, one can see that it is true. God made all things using these laws as their base and denying it only makes you look pathetic and uninformed!

(2) Those who deny them (Atheist's) use these principles in their denial of them, demonstrating that those laws are unavoidable no matter what you believe and that it is self-refuting to deny them.

This debate above is a masterful use of these laws of logic which only make sense under the christian worldview and must be borrowed by the atheist or the evolutionist in order to argue their worldview, proof that Romans 1:20-23 is absolutely true.

 Those who claim to believe in logic have to understand that they are using the very proof that God exists to argue he doesn't. Circular reasoning and begging the question are the usual fair whenever you borrow from one beliefs proof's to even have a reason for your own argument to exist because reason and logic are not existent in a naturalistic worldview.

Without God nothing can be proven since chemical accidents by chance have no logical conformity, nature has conformity to certain laws it was not nor could it be that way by pure gamble, a roll of the dice no matter how many billions of decades you roll, the statistical monstrosity is to large an edifice to surmount. There is absolutely nothing logical for instance about random DNA growing into present day DNA since DNA must be fully formed from the beginning, that is scientific fact, how could some DNA form then the rest over millions of years, how would we see, hear, have a heart beat, walk or crawl without FULLY formed DNA to begin with. 

Nature has proven Darwin wrong so often it's actually humorous to watch people defend him. Nature is irreducibly complex even at the smallest level, the universe as well is so well designed that we would not exist if even one thing were out of order at any time. The earth is finely tuned to the Nth degree something macro evolution would completely undo in seconds from inception if not sooner! 

The laws of logic are immaterial not material and therefore only sensible when used by a mind which is also immaterial , ie God, his created minds in us. We use logic because we were created in the image of an immaterial being, who is timeless, space-less and all powerful thus we have an immaterial soul and spirit confined within a material body. 

Even the atheist was made with this basic creative process, speaking from a bible point of view, therefore they are using what God gave them (LOGIC AND REASON) to rule against his existence which is kind of like using your brain to reason against the fact that you think and therefore you do not exist in reality.

A materialistic universe based in naturalism does not work from logic, but rather from primal instinct, a "mind" which is non-material must use non-material logic to cause us to reason, using logic to prove how things work, without logic there would be no science or evidence because the material can only be understood by the immaterial mind. In order to use logic one must use reasoning and in order to use reason one must have a material container and that is your brain.

The human BRAIN is merely the vessel which contains the immaterial soul where reasoning and logic are thought through and realized. There is absolutely no way this ability came about by random chance, in effect I could ask why do we think like this rather than by simple 

How can use "moral arguments" against God, morals are immaterial and therefore cannot be used by someone who believes that our entire nature is made up of chemicals that randomly fell into place over billions of years. 

How could reason and logic have developed by complete accident and even amount to anything at all?  They cannot account for logic from a Darwinian standpoint since logic is conformity to basic ideas of moral assent not accidental thoughts that fire and misfire without control whatsoever. 

Did the first life on earth use logical thought or did logical thought evolve? If it evolved how did the primitive beginning life ever survive? If it did how did it evolve being immaterial in nature, existing in our soul contained within our brain container? 

Naturalism can only explain physical natural existence not immaterial soul and spirit, so it evades logic to even attempt to use logic since the immaterial has no place within a naturally explained world by their own rules.



 The natural world through macro-evolutionary processes does not use nor need logic so where did it originate? It is evident that micro-evolution or rather the true variation within God's "kinds" from which all species developed is the only splinter of truth with which logic works. But even with this simple example of fact the skeptic must fight logic extending this beyond any reasonable scientific basis to macro-evolution which has NO basis in science!

"The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."


How could a 'distinct system' of immaterial understanding and logic develop THROUGH a process so limited to natural solutions for life?


Where in the world did our "brains" develop immaterial (soul) powers like thinking, reasoning and problem solving if we came up from lesser life forms that manifest none of these? 


Why is it that Mankind and God are the only beings that utilize such a thing as logic, reason, and moral foundations? And that being true, how is it that man can utilize the very gift of God's logic to deny his existence?


Why is it that Atheists must resort to BORROWING from "immaterial logical thinking" in order to try and explain why the "immaterial world" spirit and soul doesn't exist, when the clear rule of logic is non-contradiction?


Seems like the Atheist's Catch 22 to me, damned if they use it and damned if they don't!

No comments:

Post a Comment

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

Popular Posts

About Me

My photo

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

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

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

Overall rating

It Stands Unrefuted by Scientists ANYWHERE!

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

Reports Dealing with Radiohalos

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

Reports Dealing with Helium and Lead Retention in Zircons

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

Reports Dealing with Astronomy and Cosmology

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

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

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

1987 Challenge to the National Academy of Sciences

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Watch a real debate about God right here!

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