Comments for Religionandpoliticsgeek's Weblog

Comment on A LIFE HEREAFTER by religionandpoliticsgeek

religionandpoliticsgeek — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 22:36:46 +0000

Thank you for visiting my webpage. I hope you reviewed all my posts.

I briefly looked at your new post, but it is far too long to study in detail. I agree that Jesus turned water into wine, not into grapejuice. One of my posts, BORN AGAIN, touches on some of the issues you presented.

Comment on A LIFE HEREAFTER by Denny

Denny — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 10:52:03 +0000

I have a question for you.
What do you think of my new blog entry?

http://777denny.wordpress.com/

Thank you,
777denny

Comment on PROSPERITY, IS IT DESERVED? by religionandpoliticsgeek

religionandpoliticsgeek — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 21:26:01 +0000

Thanks for visiting my webpage. I hope my posts are of interest to you.

Herschel Hill

Comment on PROSPERITY, IS IT DESERVED? by Tom Humes

Tom Humes — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 21:33:28 +0000

Nice Site layout for your blog. I am looking forward to reading more from you.

Tom Humes

Comment on EVOLUTION vs CREATIONISM by AlexM

AlexM — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 09:50:13 +0000

I found your site on technorati and read a few of your other posts. Keep up the good work. I just added your RSS feed to my Google News Reader. Looking forward to reading more from you down the road!

Comment on EVOLUTION vs CREATIONISM by bud

bud — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 01:02:46 +0000

Please forgive me if i came across as having all the answers. i certainly do not.

There is a website that is a worldwide compilation of scientists studying both creation and evolution. i found their answers quite enlightening. http://www.AnswersInGenesis.org (and 2Tim 3:16.)

The biggest current conflict in science is not between creationism and evolution, but between evolutionists and intelligent designists, since both have in common no belief in God. ID is disproving ‘darwinism’ at a dramatic rate. there is a ‘think tank’ for scientists in washington state called “discovery”. they have found that things like DNA are proof of ID and disprove darwinistic evolution. just thought you might find that interesting, bobcu.

God Bless.

Comment on EVOLUTION vs CREATIONISM by religionandpoliticsgeek

religionandpoliticsgeek — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 21:54:06 +0000

I appreciate your comment and view regarding evolution and creation. I do not have all of the answers, but I do believe in a Creator God, I trust in His Son for the salvation of my soul, I believe His Holy Word (the Bible), I believe the creation account in the Book of Genesis as I understand it, and I believe in valid scientific findings. I do not believe in a literal 24-hour, 6-day creation; the sun and the moon, which determine our 24-hour days, were not created until the fourth “day” of creation. Again I say, the Bible tells us “why” and “who” of creation, and science tells us “when” and “how.” Thank you for your comments, and may God bless you.

Comment on EVOLUTION vs CREATIONISM by bobcu

bobcu — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 03:26:10 +0000

Biological evolution has a lot of religious implications. If a person wants to make evolution and the Bible not contradict each other, he has to really use his imagination to translate Genesis to mean something other than what it says.

What’s the best solution for the religious implications of evolution? The best and most simple solution is throw the Bible, all religious beliefs, and Mr. God Himself, into the garbage can where it all belongs.

It’s really kind of idiotic to continue believing in a supernatural magic man in the 21st century. 500 years from now scientific progress is going to thousands of times greater than today. God has to be thrown out sooner or later. It might as well be now.

Comment on EVOLUTION vs CREATIONISM by bud

bud — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 23:15:53 +0000

Creation vs. evolution:
Creation= Intelligent Designer=all existence is planned.
Evolution=random selection=innumerable atomic and sub-atomic accidents.
Science is not exclusive to either evolutionists or creationists.
Evolution=presently considered by a perceived (since it can not be determined either way) majority as the truth. This change in perception can be attributed, in large part, to the work of Charles Darwin in the mid 19th century, Albert Einstein in the 20th century, and many other scientists past and present. A main tenet of evolutionists is that science and creationism are incompatible.
Creation=with the exception of ancient Greeks who considered science an intellectual exercise, not a practical application, from around 600 B.C., science originated in the 16th-17th century A.D.. A main tenet is that science is a means of identifying the creator. Here are some examples:
Francis Bacon- considered the father of modern science—said “There are two books on which we should read. One was Scripture, the other the book of nature.”
Johannes Kepler- Celestial Mechanics — said scientists are “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.”
Sir Isaac Newton, arguably the greatest scientist of all time,-calculus and dynamics— is quoted as saying…”this most beautiful system of sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being. This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all and account of His Dominion He is wont* to be called Lord God.” And,
“Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance.”
Other creation believing scientists include:
Louis Pasteur- bacteriology.
Lord Kelvin-energetics
Blaise Pascal-hydrostatics
Charles Babbage-computer science
Lord Joseph Lister-antiseptic surgery
Robert Boyle-chemistry
James Simpson-anesthesiology
Samuel Morse-telegraphy
Belief doctrines for the beginning of all existence:
Creationists believe in the formation of all things by The Almighty God, in 6 literal days.
Evolutionists currently believe that nothing exploded nothing else, nowhere, thus the big bang created all that exists. This belief should be left open to change based on future scientific discoveries.

* From Wikipedia, in the list of commonly misused English words:
Won’t is a contraction for “will not”, while wont is a rare, slightly archaic word meaning “accustomed” or “inclined to” (as an adjective) or “habit or custom” (as a noun).

Comment on DILEMMA FOR CHRISTIANS by religionandpoliticsgeek

religionandpoliticsgeek — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 15:39:42 +0000

I appreciate your interest and hope the forthcoming posts will be informative for you.