Creation's Tiny Mystery

By Robert V. Gentry

Book Overview

Documents scientific evidence for instantaneous creation of Earth and recounts opposition of scientific community to this discovery.

• Format: Paperback
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0961675330
• ISBN13: 9780961675332
• Release Date: January 1992
• Publisher: Earth Science Associates
• Length: 363 Pages
• Weight: 1.21 lbs.

Customer Reviews

Response to Burrowing Owl's negative comment

Let me first say Creation's Tiny Mystery is a book that demands careful reading. If you just whip through it you'll miss critical detail. This seems to be the case with Burrowing Owl who appears to have skimmed through the book and certainly skimmed the copies of all the published, peer reviewed reports in the appendix. The report writing is dry and quite technical, but at least read it before posting overly negative comments. The only Radon halo that could possibly be confused w/ polonium is Radon 222. Radon 222's halflife is only 3.8 days so this is a moot point .... so the granites solidified in 4 days instead of 3 minutes. This still indicates severe flaws with the account of earth evolution. Inspite of this, Gentry's book thoroughly addresses the radon issue in some detail showing the differences between the two halos. Gentry even did alpha partical penetration experiments at set energies in order to show that known decay energies correspont to measurable penetration into the surrounding crystaline materials. Interesting that the Owl uses some fancy sounding verbal bluster to establish the image of subject "knowledge" then reverts to going off on the stubborn crazy creationists who refuse to allow their work to be checked. I'm a weapons engineer and know verbo-technic smoke & mirrors when I see it. Let me explain... The Owl either didn't read or ignores the fact that Gentry's work WAS repeatedly peer reviewed by fellow scientists as well as being literaly put on trial in 1981. The Owl only talks about "Gentry's book" as if he just sat down one day and decided to write a book to make his claim. It is one thing to write a book, quite another to publish your work in scientific journals. Notice the Owl says Gentry has been corrected hundreds of times, yet gives no names or references to published, peer reviewed articles that refute the data. If Gentry mis-identified the halos - How on earth did his reports (notice plural) make it through scientific peer review multiple times? At the Arkansas trial, why was this gross misidentification of Gentry's never brought up? (Gentry provides copies of the court transcripts) Why did the ACLU's expert witness still admit Gentry's findings were "a tiny mystery"? The Owl then says that the particles moved along pathways in the rock matrix - again ignoring Gentry's explanation and published findings that show halos found in the midst of mica cristals where no pathways exist. On top of this, the book has a whole chapter on Gentry's work with uranium rich coalified wood specimens which allow much higher partical flow rates through pathways than granite. Gentry shows that even under the best possible circumstances with greatly increased partical flow, the decay of polonium 218 and 214 (3min & .164ms respectively) is simply too rapid to form halos. All that results in these pathways is single-halo polonium 210 halos. If anything, this shows Gentry was following scientific methods -allowing th

Devastatingly Awesome!

Gentry's personal integrity and dedication to scientific principles shines through his work for all to see. After more than 2 decades his findings still stand firm and his evolutionist opponents can only obfuscate or ignore the implications of his work since refutation is simply not possible. This is absolutely the BEST creationist book ever written and is a must read for those investigating creationist claims. Evolutionists stumble all over themselves in trying to negate the impact of Gentry's findings and are reduced to personal attacks and viewpoint marginalization rather than engaging in an honest evaluation of the facts. Gentry has truly landed a blow to the very foundation of the evolutionary paradigm. Read it.

A Man's Sacrifice Of Career For Truth

As far as I know, Mr. Gentry (who should have a Ph.D.) was refused the doctorate because his research into radiohalos would "embarass" Georgia Tech. Interesting how peer pressure rules among eggheads. Jesus said "How can ye, that receive honour among yourselves, receive the honor that cometh from God only?"

Give Dr. Gentry the Nobel Prize

After reading his book, I met and later briefly corresponded with Dr. Gentry when he visited Southern California some years ago. I found him to be a serious researcher, methodical scientist, with projects planned years in advance. His weighty results on Polonium halos cannot be so lightly dismissed as those stuck on the old earth paradigm would like to do, nor should they be first, ignored ("they're so tiny, after all"), and then, suppressed ("we'll lose our funding"), as establishment, big science has done.All the criticisms I have seen leveled against Dr. Gentry's findings are beside the point, straw men, or "evidence" of "old age" which has been roundly refuted in many other publications. If you care for the truth, read the book. If you can't handle the vast detail and correspondence reproduced in the book, get his video.Although I had the honor, as a student, to briefly meet the late, great, Drs. Richard Feynman and Fred Hoyle at Caltech, standing beside Dr. Gentry was a bigger honor! I went over everything in the book with a fine-toothed comb. There was no logical flaw. No point of fact I could dispute. The implications of his work are truly profound.

This is not a mystery book.

This book is an interesting nonfiction work based on the experiences of the author (a geologist) after publicly espousing creationism. The scientific work he describes was published in Phys Rev Letters - a highly respected journal of the APS. Gentry claims the work is evidence for a creationist view of the earth. Leaving aside questions of whether any postulated properties of a creator are subject to exploration through the scientific principle, this is a telling story of scientists' prejudices and insecurities, and the unhappy balance between government funds for research and government's desire to maintain a status quo.