Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Robert V. GentryRobert V. Gentry is a nuclear physicist and young Earth creationist and member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church who advocates his ideas of creation science including radiohaloes as evidence for a young Earth.
He has a masters degree in physics from the University of Florida and an honorary doctorate of sciences from Columbia Union College. He has also devised his own creationist cosmology and filed a lawsuit in 2001 against Los Alamos National Laboratory and Cornell University after personnel deleted 10 of his papers about his cosmology from the public preprint server arXiv. On 23 March 2004, Gentry's lawsuit against arXiv was dismissed by a Tennessee court. Gentry has also had strong disagreements with other creationists over details of flood geology.
So basically Robert V. Gentry is more of an authority on physics than you Shakyamunison?
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That doesn't mean he is right. You have quoted a controversial person. It seems that I am not the only person to disagree with him, including many Creationists.
But Richard V. Gentry is still more of an authority on physics than you Shakyamunison correct?
There are many people who disagree with me about Jesus being the only Way to the Father in Heaven, does that make me controversial? Yes? Yes. Is Jesus still the only Way to the Father in Heaven despite this controversy? Yes? Yes. So being controversial is irrelevant and immaterial because it in no way suggests that a person is wrong--right? Right. So I can be controversial and right at the same time right? Right. Hence, Richard V. Gentry is right in spite of alleged controversy.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
But Richard V. Gentry is [b]still more of an authority on physics than you Shakyamunison correct?There are many people who disagree with me about Jesus being the only Way to the Father in Heaven, does that make me controversial? Yes? Yes. Is Jesus still the only Way to the Father in Heaven despite this controversy? Yes? Yes. So being controversial is irrelevant and immaterial because it in no way suggests that a person is wrong--right? Right. So I can be controversial and right at the same time right? Right. Hence, Richard V. Gentry is right in spite of alleged controversy. [/B]
No, controversial has nothing to do with right or wrong. Just because someone is controversial dose not validate false claims, nor negate correct ones. However, he is a Seventh-day Adventist which is a church started by a young girl how had a vision of Jesus. It is obvious that Richard V. Gentry is possessed by demons and is telling the lies of Satan.😐
😆
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No, controversial has nothing to do with right or wrong. Just because someone is controversial dose not validate false claims, nor negate correct ones. However, he is a Seventh-day Adventist which is a church started by a young girl how had a vision of Jesus. It is obvious that Richard V. Gentry is possessed by demons and is telling the lies of Satan.😐😆
No, it is obvious that you are dogging the facts. What does RVG's religious persuasion have to do with his scientific findings?
Why are real scientists persecuted for refusing to believe in evolution?
http://www.freewebs.com/zorobabellegacy/Science
"Many people also wrongly assume that all the scientists
must believe in evolution; or that if they do not, then it
must be because of some religious or emotional reasons and not
because of the facts or logic. This is called "presumptuous"
and "prejudiced". Look, if a professional scientist does not
believe in evolution, you should at least be skeptical of it
yourself and try to find out why a scientist does not believe
in something that supposedly has so much solid, scientific
proof. Also consider the strong probability that many scien-
tists may only claim publicly to believe in evolution, because
of fear of peer pressure. The scientific community is like
some kind of club, and one of the requirements to be a member
these days is to say you believe in evolution. It takes real
courage for a scientist to stand up in defiance of the club
and tell the world that evolutionism is a sham, because he
will run the real risk of being utterly rejected by many other
scientists if he does. There are websites on the internet
that list details of many accounts of just such peer pressure,
persecution, and discrimination systematicly utilized to de-
stroy any scientist or student of science who rejects the lie
of evolution. There is a definite and deliberate vocalized
conspiracy to flunk creationists out of the scientific commu-
nity regardless of the quality and caliber of their work.
We also all know that there is change going on in
nature and that water wears away rocks and that things die
off, etc.; but the evolutionist deceitfully calls all these
little irrelevant facts of everyday life prime examples of
evolution all around us. They think that if they can make
people think that evolution means "change" then there will be
no way to deny that evolution is real. Now, who would even
want to deny that some changes have taken place? No one is
arguing against the idea of change that I know of.
Real scientists have been fighting against all the lies of
evolution from its inception, basing their opposition on long-
proven scientific laws and discoveries and logical reasoning.
The accumulation of evidence over the years has now become so
forceful and powerful as to be overwhelming. The dam to hold
back the Truth is beginning to break in spite of all the money
and lies that the wealthy evolutionists keep stuffing into the
growing cracks.
One honest, famous atheistic evolutionist named Margaret
Meade wrote books teaching evolution to students in schools.
This woman is considered to be one of the foremost authorities
and one of the most well-informed, knowledgeable experts on
evolution by evolutionists themselves. Many of the leading
evolutionists of today learned much of what they believe from
the books of Margaret Meade. Reportedly in the front of many
of her books this statement was found, "Although I am a con-
firmed evolutionist, I must admit as an honest scientist that
there is not one iota of concrete evidence to support the
theory of evolution." "NOT ONE IOTA" of concrete evidence,
she said! Well, she was at least halfway honest. She did ad-
mit to believing in some oddball, whacko theory that has no
proof whatsoever, none. Now, how scientific is that? That's
what evolutionists are calling "science".
(Of course evolutionists don't
use simple words like these; they like to use big, juicy,
hard-to-remember and hard-to-pronounce strange new words like
"pleistocene" and "ramapithecus" to express themselves).
Remember now, Darwin gave us this idea back in the days
when science considered the use of leeches to suck your blood
as a viable, acceptable, realistic method to treat medical
patients. Don't let these evolutionists trick you into the
trap of thinking that their evolutionary ideas are something
modern science has come up with. Evolution is from the day of
the leech.
The evolutionists themselves don't seem to no-
tice that they have not addressed the issues that challenge
evolution but merely replied with challenges of their own. It
is similar to watching two sword-fighters thrusting at one
another with neither of them bothering to parry the other's
lethal thrusts. First you parry, then you thrust. First an-
swer the question or challenge, then make your own challenge
or ask your own question.
Again and again the popular theory of evolution has now
been thoroughly disproven by responsible science, but many
irresponsible, socalled scientists and their misguided disci-
ples support it anyway, finally even asserting evolution to be
no longer a theory, but a proven fact. There is good science,
and there is bad science; real science and fake. Evolution is
extremely bad science. Good scientists are now having a dif-
ficult time overcoming the media-hysteria and setting the
record straight about evolution in the face of fake science
and a well-heeled, worldwide campaign of deception on the part
of evolutionists."