Clickbank Products

Was Jesus invented through ancient myths?

THINK THIS ARGUMENT WORKS? WELL..NOT REALLY!!

Where in the World?

PROOF OF THE REAL MOUNT SINAI IN ARABIA!

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

Human Judgment CONCERNING GOD! Are you Worthy to Judge God?

AN ATHEIST BUILDS MORE STRAW-MEN TO KNOCK DOWN.
“One of the criticisms most frequently leveled at me when presenting any of the above arguments has been that I have no right to judge God. A pretty feeble grasp at the straws.
Christians proclaim that God is the definition of good. All morality proceeds downwards from him, so it makes no sense to apply moral standards to him.
But I must interject. God allowed my ancestors Adam and Eve to eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge.
Thus, allowing us “to be like gods, and know the difference between good and evil”.
This very biblical verse, written in the first book of Genesis, conflicts with the same argument these Christians attempt to use.
If we as humans are now capable of knowing good and evil LIKE THE GODS why can’t we use our judgment?
How can it be lower then God’s if God is the one who claimed that we are like him?”

{ IN THE FIRST PLACE, KNOWING ABOUT GOOD AND EVIL FROM EXPERIENCE AS WE NOW DO AND “KNOWING HOW SIN DESTROYS AND LEVELS ONES LIFE FOR THE WORST ARE TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF KNOWLEDGE.
IT WOULD BE LIKE KNOWING ABOUT NATURAL SELECTION FROM EXPERIENCE AND READING ABOUT IT IN A BOOK.
IT WOULD BE GOOD TO KNOW THAT THIS STATEMENT CAME FROM SATAN NOT GOD BUT IT STILL HAS SOME VALUE AS A QUESTION! }
“Let’s say for the sake of argument that I should not judge God. Well then, would it be fair to hold him up to his own standards?”
{ REMEMBER THAT GOD IS PERFECTION IN JUDGMENT, HE JUDGES FROM A PERSPECTIVE OF KNOWING THE END FROM THE BEGINNING-
SO HE UNLIKE US CAN DEAL OUT THAT JUDGMENT FAIR AND BALANCED WITHOUT PRECONCEIVED IDEAS, IF YOU CAN MEASURE UP TO THAT GO RIGHT AHEAD!
BUT AS TO GOD’S OWN STANDARDS- YES WE CAN! BECAUSE THE “STANDARDS”OF GOD AND JUDGMENT BY HUMAN IDEALS ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS! }
“Please consult :
Matthew 25:41-46
We hear Jesus say:”
“Go away from me with your curse upon you, to the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you never gave me food; I was thirsty and you never gave me anything to drink; I was a stranger and you never made me welcome, naked and you never clothed me, sick and in prison and you never visited me. . . And they will go away to eternal punishment, and the virtuous to eternal life.”
“Now, I have never personally seen Jesus feed the hungry nor, have I seen him give drink to those who thirst.”
{ OF COURSE NOT IF YOU DENY HIS HISTORICAL EXISTENCE IN THE FIRST PLACE, BUT A PROPER INTERPRETATION OF THIS IS TO BE EXPECTED HERE-
AS JESUS IS REFERRING TO THE “JUDGMENT”AT THE END OF TIME WHEN ALL WILL STAND BEFORE HIM AND BE JUDGED ACCORDING TO THEIR WORKS.
And ALL those who SAY I’M A BELIEVER AND REALLY ARE NOT WILL BE FOUND OUT FOR WHO THEY REALLY ARE-
ATHEIST’S SHOULD LIKE THAT-
JESUS IN THE BELIEVER KNOWS WHO IS HIS AND WHAT THEY DID AND DID NOT DO, SO HERE HE STATES THAT CASE AT OUR JUDGMENT-
SO THE CONTEXT REFUTES HER USE OF THIS TEXT }
“But, I do personally see thousands of people die of starvation.”
{ I DON’T THINK SHE MEANS THIS THE WAY IT SOUNDS, SHE PERSONALLY “ALLOWS” THOUSANDS TO DIE OF STARVATION, If God’s “Seeing” is Allowing then so is her’s….right?}
“I do not recall Jesus dispensing clothes. He has never made me feel welcome, let alone acknowledged.”
{ WELL..ALLOW ME TO APOLOGIZE FOR ANY BELIEVER WHO DID NOT DO WHAT THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO DO-
BUT LET ME ASK YOU HAVE YOU TAKEN A BREATH BETWEEN INSULTS OF MY GOD LONG ENOUGH TO EVEN SEEK SUCH THINGS?
OR HAS THAT HATRED BLINDED YOU SO MUCH THAT YOU ONLY SEE THE EVIL SIDE OF LIFE? }
“I see the faithful
{ FAITHFUL WHO? ATHEISTS? Funny that Christians are deluded in all things but she calls us FAITHFUL. }
sicken and die on a daily basis.
In light of this Jesus himself is the worst of all sinners; if there is no double standard he will be at the head of the line into eternal punishment. He is guilty of every crime of which he accuses the damned.”
{ REALLY, SENSE YOU HAVEN’T PRESENTED ANY EVIDENCE OF THIS THEN THAT’S QUITE THE STATEMENT-
BECAUSE BLAMING GOD FOR “NATURAL SELECTIONS “FAULTS IS HYPOCRITICAL AT BEST! }
As if these statements are not enough to curl the toenails of God she makes a last ditch comment directed at God and Christian alike:
“I do not believe in the reality of God, except as a psychological phenomenon, but if I did believe I would not worship that horror.
It violates my morality to worship a hypocritical, judgmental, self righteous murderer. In punishment, it {God } could send me to the hell it’s made for those it dislikes, and if there was no other choice but worshiping it {God }, I would walk in proudly.”
Can’t add to much to this statement, it about says it all for an Atheist who’s LOUD & PROUD!
I do have to give credit where credit is due, SHE SURE CAN BUILD A GREAT “STRAWMAN “TO KNOCK OVER AND LOOK GOOD TO HER ATHEIST FRIENDS, BUT UNFORTUNATELY-
NO STRAWMEN AT THE JUDGMENT, JUST YOU AND YOUR WORKS…..PERIOD!!!
If God does not exist, then life is futile?
If the God of the Bible does exist, then life is meaningful?
Only the second of these two alternatives enables us to live happily and consistently?
Therefore, it seems to me that even if the evidence for these two options were absolutely equal, a rational person ought to choose biblical Christianity?
It seems to me positively irrational to prefer death, futility, and destruction to life, meaningfulness, and happiness?
God has given us strong data/evidence for trusting Jesus Christ. And, once we have ‘validated’ Him, we then have access to all the data about ‘other things’ that He brings with Him.
Hebrews 11:1 says
“Faith is the SUBSTANCE (“hupostasis”) of what we hope for, the TESTABLE, INSPECTABLE, CONTROLLABLE, CRITIQUEABLE EVIDENCE
(“eleghos”; also found in John 16:16; 2 Tim. 4:2)
of what we do not SEE
(hence the importance of reason, hence Thomas’s lack of faith being not due to reason but rather due to empiricism -
why touch the scars of someone who has already walked through a solid door and whose presence is seen by all those present, and who died three days before?)
Isn’t this why we read “HOPE…” [NOT "faith"]
“…that is seen is no hope at all; for who hopes for what he already has?”
In other words, while eternal life has to commence after death if I am to HOPE for it, don’t I need to KNOW the truth-
of the value of the claims concerning it in order to not doubt for what I hope for
(for what I hope for to have IS A “SUBSTANCE”?)
IS TRUTH JUST RELATIVE TO WHAT WE WANT TO BELIEVE?
Friedrich Nietzsche said:
“You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist,”
Relativism is the position that all points of view are as valid and as any other points of view and that the individual is the measure of what is true for that person.
I see a big problem with this.
The following is an illustration to demonstrate it.

The setting:
A thief is casing a jewelry store so he can rob it. He has entered it to check out any visible alarm settings, locks, layout, etc.
In the process, he has unexpectedly gotten involved in a discussion with the owner of the jewelry store whose hobby is the study of philosophy and believes that truth and morals are relative.
“So,” says the owner, “everything is relative. That is why I believe that all morals are not absolute and that right and wrong is up to the individual to determine within the confines of society. But there is no absolute right and wrong.”

“That is a very interesting perspective,” says the thief. “I was brought up believing that there was a God and that there was right and wrong.
But I abandoned all of that and I agree with you that there is no absolute right and wrong and that we are free to do what we want.”

The thief leaves the store and returns that evening and breaks in. He has disabled all the alarms and locks and is in the process of robbing the store.
That is when the owner of the store enters through a side door.

The thief pulls out a gun. The owner cannot see the man’s face because he is wearing a ski mask.
“Don’t shoot me,” says the owner.
“Please take whatever you want and leave me alone.”
“That is exactly what I plan to do,” says the thief.

“Wait a minute. I know you.
You are the man that was in the store earlier today.
I recognize your voice.”

“That is very unfortunate for you,” says the thief. “Because now you also know what I look like. And since I do not want to go to jail I am forced to kill you.”

“You cannot do that,” says the owner.

“Why not?”

“Because it is not right,” pleads the desperate man.

“But did you not tell me today that there is no right and wrong?”

“Yes, but I have a family, children, that need me, and a wife.”

“So?
I am sure that you are insured and that they will get a lot of money. But since there is no right and wrong it makes no difference whether or not I kill you.
And since if I let you live you will turn me in and I will go to prison. Sorry , but that will not do.”

“But it is a crime against society to kill me. It is wrong because society says so.”

“As you can see, I don’t recognize society’s claim to impose morals on me. It’s all relative. Remember?”

“Please do not shoot me. I beg you. I promise not to tell anyone what you look like. I swear it!”

“I do not believe you and I cannot take that chance.”

“But it is true!” I swear I’ll tell no one.”

“Sorry, but it cannot be true because there is no absolute truth, no right and wrong, no error, remember?
If I let you live and then I left, you will break your so-called promise because it is all relative.
There is no way I could trust you. Our conversation this morning convinced me that you believe everything is relative.
Because of that, I cannot believe you will keep your word. I cannot trust you.

“But it is wrong to kill me. It isn’t right!”

“It is neither right or wrong for me to kill you. Since truth is relative to the individual, if I kill you, that is my truth.
And, it is obviously true that if I let you live I will go to prison. Sorry, but you have killed yourself.”

“No. Please do not shoot me. I beg you.”
“Begging makes no difference.”
…. Bang….
If relativism is true, then was it wrong to pull the trigger?
Perhaps someone might say that it is wrong to take another life needlessly.
But why is that wrong, if there is no standard of right or wrong?
Others have said that it is a crime against society.
But, so what?
If what is true for you is simply true, then what is wrong with killing someone to protect yourself after you have robbed him?
If is true for you that to protect yourself you must kill, then who cares what society says?
Why is anyone obligated to conform to social norms?
Doing so is a personal decision.
Though not all relativists will behave in an unethical manner, I see relativism as a contributor to overall anarchy.
Why?
Because it is a justification to do whatever you want.
THE ATHEIST IS AN EXAMPLE OF A RELATIVIST WITHOUT THE OPTION OF HOPE-
A SELF IMPOSED REJECTION OF ALL EVIDENCE THAT EVEN REMOTELY RESEMBLES “ABSOLUTE TRUTH.” 98% OF ALL ATHEIST OBJECTIONS ARE VITRIOL HATRED OF A SO-CALLED NON-EXISTENT GOD BUT ABSOLUTELY NO PURE EVIDENCE IS EVER PRESENTED.
BUT THEY GO TO GREAT EXTREMES TO INSULT AND MOCK- NOW I ASK YOU, IF THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS “GOD.”
WHY WOULD AN ATHEIST SPEND ANY TIME AT ALL FIGHTING HIM AND HIS FOLLOWERS UNLESS THERE IS THAT NAGGING CONVICTION IN THE BACK OF THEIR MINDS THAT THERE MIGHT BE AN OUTSIDE CHANCE THAT HE COULD BE REAL?
IF YOU ARE “CERTAIN BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT” THAT THERE IS NO GOD, THEN YOU SHOULD BE CALM ABOUT THE WHOLE ISSUE.
RESTING IN YOUR KNOWLEDGE, SECURE IN YOUR FACTS -
NOW HERE’S THEIR PROBLEM, I DON’T NEED TO KNOW ANY FACTS CONCERNING MY GOD’S EXISTENCE BECAUSE I HAVE FAITH HE’S THERE.
THEY HAVE NO FAITH AS DEFINED IN HEBREWS 11:1 IN ANYTHING SPIRITUAL AND THEREFORE MUST ATTACK ANY REFERENCE TO THE NON-EXISTENT ONE THEY HATE.
FOR THEY HAVE NO SUPPORT IN THEIR BELIEFS!
HERE IS A SIMPLE REASON I BELIEVE IN GOD:
I the Ministerofblog have seen TONS of my prayers answered–
beyond my ability to manipulate either the ‘ambiguity’ in the request, or the ‘outcome’ itself.
I have seen changes in my character beyond my ability for self-improvement thru ‘positive thinking’ or wish fulfillment or normal maturation and growth processes.
I WAS VERY MUCH AN ATHEIST IN REGARDS TO GOD BUT VERY MUCH A SPIRITUALIST IN REGARDS TO THE WORLD OF THE OCCULT!
I have seen events occur IN MY LIFE that correlate too highly with a pattern of divine protection-
Directing me toward a specific end beyond the reasonable definition of ‘coincidence’ or “fate.”
It is not possible to convince me there is no God, for he has revealed himself personally to me in ways I never thought possible…..
ways beyond those of the occult world I was so familiar with, HE CAME THROUGH ALL THE SIN, THE DRUGS AND THE ALCOHOL- TO A MIND NUMB OF REASON AND A HEART FILLED WITH PAIN AND DOUBT-
TO A MAN WHO HATED HIM AND HE LOVED ME “NONE- THE- LESS.”
IN THE END THE GREATEST PROOF THAT GOD EXISTS IS YOUR PERSONAL TESTIMONY, YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH GOD CANNOT BE REFUTED BY THE SKEPTIC OR THE ATHEIST FOR IT BELONGS TO YOU-
IT IS GOD’S GIFT TO YOU FOREVER PROCLAIMING HIS ENDLESS MERCY AND GRACE!
God’s moral authority

What gives God the right to have total control of the universe?
The real question is, why wouldn’t an omniscient, omnipotent, morally perfect God have the right to do as he sees fit?
We are used to thinking about human rights and what humans should and shouldn’t do, so we are likely to make the mistake of thinking of God as a more powerful (and therefore more corrupt) human.
However, God is not a human who has somehow acquired great power; instead he is Deity, a supernatural being who is far superior to humans and who has a perfect mind and heart.
There are many reasons why mere humans do not have the right to be supreme rulers of the universe:
They might make a disastrous mistake due to ignorance, inexperience, fatigue, etc.

They could have evil intentions and use their power for evil, or they could be fooled by an evil person.

They might be corrupted by flattery and think themselves wiser and greater than they really were.

Even if they wanted to do good, they wouldn’t know for sure what would be best for everyone.

They are likely to show favoritism to some and treat others unfairly.

Yet none of these reasons are applicable to God.
God has perfect knowledge and wisdom; God never gets tired or makes mistakes; and God is perfectly good and just.

What makes it right for God to take human life, when he forbids us to do so?
Humans can take life, but we can’t bring the dead back to life, nor can we control what happens to someone after they die.
A human’s killing another human is a destructive and irresponsible act, for once we kill someone, we can’t undo it or control the harm that results.
God, however, has greater abilities and knowledge than we do, including control over life and death.

If God kills someone, he is able to bring them back to life or to place them in any sort of afterlife he chooses.
God’s use of death is comparable to someone burning a fire in a fireplace:
it can be controlled, lit or extinguished at will, and used for a purpose.
In contrast, humans’ use of death is like setting fire to a dry field: the fire rages out of control, and consequently is dangerous and destructive.
Furthermore, what is death?
Many believe that death is the end of both one’s body and one’s mind/personality/soul.
If so, death is a destructive act for both humans and God. Yet if Christianity is true, one’s soul is not destroyed, but continues to exist in an afterlife. In this case, death is not destruction, but rather a transfer from life on earth to an afterlife of eternal joy or just punishment.
What gives God the right to do things to others without their permission?
God has given people autonomy in a wide range of areas. We make choices every day about how to spend our time and money, whether to do right or wrong and even whether to follow God or not.
God does not force us to do his will, for he wants us to choose to do what is right (2 Cor 9:7, 1 Jn 4:18). Yet God has the right to, and does, change the circumstances of our lives.
If God were required to ask people’s permission before he did anything that affected them, he would be prevented from doing good, including some good which only he is able to do (e.g. miracles).
People might not give permission for God to do some good things because they wouldn’t be able to understand how it would result in good, wouldn’t want to endure short-term suffering to receive a long-term benefit, or even because they wished to harm themselves or others.
Suppose parents had to ask their children’s permission instead of requiring them to do certain things.
There would be a lot of children who would be malnourished and/or sick, ignorant, selfish and unable to care for themselves, for what child willingly consents to receive shots, go to school, do chores, etc.?
While adults have more knowledge and maturity than children, we are still ignorant and immature in comparison with God, and consequently don’t always know what’s best for us.
Also, there are things which we would never realize would make us happy until they were given to us or happened to us.
Many Christians would never have given their consent to the circumstances that led them to become Christians, and probably could not have realized in advance what joy and peace they would have after becoming Christians.
If God had to get their consent beforehand, he wouldn’t have been able to bring them true happiness and fulfillment.
Requiring God to receive the permission of humans before he acts would make him dependent on and controlled by humans.
How can it be good for God, who is omniscient and morally and otherwise perfect, to be controlled by humans, who have limited knowledge and intelligence and often make mistakes or commit outright evil?
What about human rights?
What is a human right?
When we talk about human rights, we generally mean that one human doesn’t have the right to do particular things to another human, like kill them, enslave them, etc.
Why is it wrong for someone to do a certain thing to another? There are several possible reasons:
Humans have an inherent, inalienable right not to have that thing done to them, because it’s always immoral for anyone to do that thing to another.

Humans possess certain characteristics (e.g. the capacity to reason) which makes it immoral for anyone to do that thing to them.

Humans are equals and one equal does not have the right to do that thing to another.

Which human rights are inalienable?
Thanks to Thomas Jefferson, we speak of our “inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
Yet these so-called inalienable rights are alienable.
If someone walks into a school and begins shooting the students and teachers, others have the right to take the shooter’s life to prevent further murders or take away their liberty by incarcerating them for life.

Are there any truly inalienable human rights?
Humans have the right to a fair trial for their crimes and just punishment for the crimes they’ve committed.
There is no case in which a biased trial or undue punishment is morally justifiable, thus these rights are inalienable – and they are respected by God.
If reason (2) applies to any of our rights, which rights are they and which human characteristic grants us those rights?
Animals can feel pain and emotion, and they have conscious minds and the ability to make choices and act on them.
Yet most people believe we have the right to limit their liberty (by keeping cats indoors, keeping dogs on leashes or inside fences, etc.) and cause them some amount of fear and pain (by taking them to the vet) in order to protect them.
Additionally, many people believe we have the right to perform medical research on animals in order to save human lives.
Twelve-year-old children are human, have intelligence and can communicate their desires and even make moral decisions, yet their liberty is restricted by their parents and the government and they are forced to do many things against their will.
Finally, reason (3) applies only to interaction among equals; it applies to human-human interaction, but not human-God interaction. God is not merely our physical superior, but our mental, intellectual and moral superior as well.

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!


LEARN MORE ABOUT ME AND MY MINISTRY HERE!

http://hopefromdispair.blogspot.com/

http://skepticalofskepticism.blogspot.com/

http://truthinprophecy.blogspot.com/

http://affiliatesgoldenchest.blogspot.com/

http://endwashingtonwaste.blogspot.com/

http://alltheusefulidiots.blogspot.com/
WebRep
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 arXiv.org. arXiv.org 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, www.orionfdn.org.

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.