Science and Faith

[Freeman]

This is a quote by honest swindler scientist:

"There are only two possible explanations as to how life arose. Spontaneous generation arising to evolution or a supernatural creative act of God. . . . There is no other possibility. Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others, but that just leaves us with only one other possibility. . . that life came as a supernatural act of creation by God, but I can’t accept that philosophy because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation leading to evolution."-G. Wald, Frontiers of Modern Biology on Theories of Origin of Life, New York, Houghton Mifflin-Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 1996.

I let you comment this statement.

 

[konradv]

Got a cite for that "proof"? I would think, if it's worth its salt, you'd provide it. It's very telling that you didn't. You're playing with words. The spontaneous generation Pasteur talked about is totally different from that believed to have started life on earth.

 

[G.T.]

Have you ever watched "The Universe?"

Spontaneous Generation has already been proven in a Laboratory.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Have you ever watched "The Universe?"

Spontaneous Generation has already been proven in a Laboratory.

No it has not. Some of the underlying processes believed to lead to life have been proven, but the process has not.

 

[G.T.]

Have you ever watched "The Universe?"

Spontaneous Generation has already been proven in a Laboratory.

No it has not. Some of the underlying processes believed to lead to life have been proven, but the process has not.

Yes, it has. I'll fish the net for you if you're not willing to do it on your own accord. I saw the episode.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

 

[Montrovant]

I wonder what led the person quoted to believe they know the only two possibilities for the beginning of life?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Have you ever watched "The Universe?"

Spontaneous Generation has already been proven in a Laboratory.

No it has not. Some of the underlying processes believed to lead to life have been proven, but the process has not.

Yes, it has. I'll fish the net for you if you're not willing to do it on your own accord. I saw the episode.

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You do realize that History channel also has shows about UFOs, ancient astronauts, and ghost, don't you? Just because you saw something on a show does not make it true.

I do not know what you saw on that TV episode, but your own link proves me right.

The question "How do simple organic molecules form a protocell?" is largely unanswered but there are many hypotheses. Some of these postulate the early appearance of nucleic acids ("genes-first") whereas others postulate the evolution of biochemical reactions and pathways first ("metabolism-first"). Recently, trends are emerging to create hybrid models that combine aspects of both.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I wonder what led the person quoted to believe they know the only two possibilities for the beginning of life?

What would be a third explanation? Either it started spontaneously, or something made it happen, I can't think of a third possibility.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Have you ever watched "The Universe?"

Spontaneous Generation has already been proven in a Laboratory.

No it has not. Some of the underlying processes believed to lead to life have been proven, but the process has not.

Yes, it has. I'll fish the net for you if you're not willing to do it on your own accord. I saw the episode.

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ooo! looks like he pwned you with the mighty "Wikipedia" Windbag!

 

[Robert_Stephens]

The postulation for life start at the atomic and molecular level began in the animo acids in a primordial pool, pond, swamp, whereby the spark that began cell division was instituted by electrical arcing of two cells into one, thus, beginning the repetition of division. There are three theories on this topic, all with the same hypothesis.

Thus, the beginning as we understand it requires; warmth, water, O2, organic matter, electrical energy (lightning), and the condition for all to interact, at least twice, and away it goes.......

Robert

 

[Freeman]

Have you ever watched "The Universe?"

Spontaneous Generation has already been proven in a Laboratory.

scientists can't even reviving a dead fly!

 

[Wingsofwind]

The postulation for life start at the atomic and molecular level began in the animo acids in a primordial pool, pond, swamp, whereby the spark that began cell division was instituted by electrical arcing of two cells into one, thus, beginning the repetition of division. There are three theories on this topic, all with the same hypothesis.

Thus, the beginning as we understand it requires; warmth, water, O2, organic matter, electrical energy (lightning), and the condition for all to interact, at least twice, and away it goes.......

Robert

Okay, then where did the warmth, water, O2, organic matter, and electrical energy come from?

Science has shown, or has tried to show, how life starts. However, it has failed to explain where all the components that are required come from in the first place.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Science and Faith

This is a quote by honest swindler scientist:

"There are only two possible explanations as to how life arose. Spontaneous generation arising to evolution or a supernatural creative act of God. . . . There is no other possibility. Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others, but that just leaves us with only one other possibility. . . that life came as a supernatural act of creation by God, but I can’t accept that philosophy because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation leading to evolution."-G. Wald, Frontiers of Modern Biology on Theories of Origin of Life, New York, Houghton Mifflin-Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 1996.

I let you comment this statement.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Our origins are unrepeatable and therefore unprovable.

Whether you believe The Book or believe that Evolution is delivering a Sentient World on a random wet rock circling a common star, you gotta have faith.



The religion of my youth was not a complete wast of my time. I learned the value of faith.

 

[editec]

This is a quote by honest swindler scientist:

"There are only two possible explanations as to how life arose. Spontaneous generation arising to evolution or a supernatural creative act of God. . . . There is no other possibility. Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others, but that just leaves us with only one other possibility. . . that life came as a supernatural act of creation by God, but I can’t accept that philosophy because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation leading to evolution."-G. Wald, Frontiers of Modern Biology on Theories of Origin of Life, New York, Houghton Mifflin-Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 1996.

I let you comment this statement.

Spontaneous generation?

That isn't the current scietific theory of the development of life.

That was the scientific theory of the ancient Greeks 2600 years ago! .

 

[konradv]

The postulation for life start at the atomic and molecular level began in the animo acids in a primordial pool, pond, swamp, whereby the spark that began cell division was instituted by electrical arcing of two cells into one, thus, beginning the repetition of division. There are three theories on this topic, all with the same hypothesis.

Thus, the beginning as we understand it requires; warmth, water, O2, organic matter, electrical energy (lightning), and the condition for all to interact, at least twice, and away it goes.......

Robert

Okay, then where did the warmth, water, O2, organic matter, and electrical energy come from?

Science has shown, or has tried to show, how life starts. However, it has failed to explain where all the components that are required come from in the first place.

All those components were present or created by chemical processes on the early earth. Warmth, the sun. Water, part of the coalescing earth from the beginning. Electrical energy, lightning storms. Organic matter, introduced by meteors and comets or created on earth by the action of warmth, electricity and the rules of chemistry. O2, not much on the early earth, created as a waste product by the earliest life, which was anaerobic.

 

[Montrovant]

I wonder what led the person quoted to believe they know the only two possibilities for the beginning of life?

What would be a third explanation? Either it started spontaneously, or something made it happen, I can't think of a third possibility.

I'd be happier with the way you put it than the quote in the OP. That was more specific, spontaneous generation to evolution or god.

There's also the question of if the quote was supposed to be about any life, or life on Earth. If it is specific to Earth, then certainly alien intervention would be another possibility outside of god.

 

[rdean]

In the right wing lexicon, there are only two choices about everything. The one they imagine and "reality". It's why they are so used to being wrong.

 

[Marie888]

This is a quote by honest swindler scientist:

"There are only two possible explanations as to how life arose. Spontaneous generation arising to evolution or a supernatural creative act of God. . . . There is no other possibility. Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others, but that just leaves us with only one other possibility. . . that life came as a supernatural act of creation by God, but I can’t accept that philosophy because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation leading to evolution."-G. Wald, Frontiers of Modern Biology on Theories of Origin of Life, New York, Houghton Mifflin-Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 1996.

I let you comment this statement.

God is Awesome! - is my statement!

Yes, this battle from some atheists will continue, they will to try to "disprove" God. Jesus Christ told us what would happen and as time goes on, it will get worse. (See Matthew 24 in the Bible for a glimpse) Christians will be hated, some even killed (as they are now in some countries) for their faith in Jesus. The love of most will grow cold because of sin. (We first sin against God) Although He made a way, because He loves us. A gift through Jesus Christ our Lord; but that will not be good enough for some, sadly. They want "proof" or some tangible sign - just as the Bible says. They come up with "FSM"- Flying Spagehtti Monster, yet "FSM" was a "creation" in itself. Where does the FSM get it's composition of its "noodley appendages" anyhow? lol.


Here's a wonderful video series. No it doesn't talk about Jesus Christ/His Word, but here are honest scientists who at least open their minds that there is God/Creator.
--- "Unlocking the Mystery of Life" (Part 1 of 12)


Here is their website: Illustra Media - Unlocking the Mystery of Life


Here's one of my personal favorites - A 5 part series from a young man on YouTube who is sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
"Evolution Wants to Make A Monkey Out Of You" (Part 1 of 5)




.

 

[Montrovant]

In the right wing lexicon, there are only two choices about everything. The one they imagine and "reality". It's why they are so used to being wrong.

It seems to me that in the rdean lexicon, there are only two choices about everything. The ones you think are correct and 'right wing'. It's why it is so hard to give you credibility in your posts.