Gentry's approach to scientific analysis consists of proposing an idealized model for the phenomenon in question and then performing limited tests on a restricted range of samples. He then uses this limited set of observations to conclude that his model is correct, even if it is in conflict with other lines of evidence. In this way he negates two centuries of geologic investigation worldwide and concludes that the origin of the Earth is as described in Genesis. In his paper, Gentry attempts to show that naturally occurring processes (i.e., radioactive decay) can be used to demonstrate a young age for the Earth. In trying to develop this thesis, however, he rapidly comes into conflict with other lines of evidence and has to fall back on divine intervention, thus making his initial premise pointless. Why not simply state that "God did it" without trying to make a scientific-sounding argument? It is clear that Gentry has not aggressively pursued the scientific principle of trying to falsify one's hypotheses. Comments matched to specific aspects of the referenced paper are given below: