• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why do the godless disproportunately influence USA government and education?

yobarnacle said:
What SHOULD secular mean? I agree public education should not be under control of any religious body.
But to disallow all religious discussion or observance while deliberately teaching/preaching ANTI-GOD lies, .
Click to expand...

What lies would those be?
 
yobarnacle said:
Why do the godless disproportunately influence USA government and education and seems the rest of us don't count?

In 2012 Pew study reported that 23% of Americans who affiliated with a religion were not religious. So there is some ambiguity in the poll figures.
Religious affiliated were 79% of the population, and the unaffiliated were 19.6%, including 6% "atheist" or "agnostic".

So how is it prayer is outlawed in schools? Psuedo-science failed and long disproven theories taught as FACTS! With no rebuttal permitted.
founding principles of the USA like God given rights sneered at?

How did 6% of the population get their agenda preached daily to our kids and the rest of us don't seem to have any say in the matter?
Click to expand...

Not only is prayer not outlawed at school, it would be unconstitutional to do so. Your opinions on what is pseudoscience is based on, at best, ignorance.
 
clownboy said:
Speaking as a believer: because government and public school education should be secular. We are not a nation of Papists.
Click to expand...

But that seems like a fool's hope. There is no clear definition of what is religion and what is secular. The most inclusive Merriam Webster's definition of religion is simply: "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith". Rather broad. Includes Environmentalism, Social Justice, and so many other things. But, yeah, since we are basically a Judeo-Christian nation we all tend, ironically, to lean to the Judeo-Christian definition of religion and believe that it must have a god, belief in afterlife, or whatever. So the main religion, Christianity, tends to be opposed while other "religions" flourish. Any National Park probably has some religious sign like "The Earth is my mother" or other animist beliefs.

And Jesus, Mohammed, and Buddha were real people that had real lives and real teachings. And arguably Jesus was not a Christian, Mohammed was not Moslem, and Buddha was not Buddhist-those religions came later. Yet we can think we are secular and talk about Plato and ignore Jesus. Despite the billions of followers and what to me seems like an obvious need to understand these groups.
 
yobarnacle said:
that depends on the school. But how about teaching of failed pet theories of atheists and materialist philosophers, not even as scientific theories, (which they once were but are no longer valid), but teaching them as established FACTS with no dissent permitted?
Click to expand...

In fact it does not depend on the school. If it is a public school, banning prayer is unconstitutional. Scientific theories are not "atheist" nor "christian". They are simply the best explanation for observed phenomenon. Many theories are in fact, facts. What theories are being taught that are no longer valid? What are you referring to when you say no dissent?
 
digsbe said:
Satan is the prince and power of the air, he has influence over the world and prior to the end times the world will be in widespread wickedness.
Click to expand...

Good. I was bored with the widespread morality we used to have.
 
digsbe said:
It's more so evident in culture and the turning away from God in favor of the flesh. It's very evident in how we've fallen when it comes to the family unit, sexual ethics and the population turning away from God and following flesh. America is becoming more wicked and it appears that the world as a whole is too. That's to be expected though.
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the god of your bible create man and woman in complete nudity, and wasn't it the serpent that instilled embarrassment and fear of nudity and all that goes with it? Wasn't it god that wanted all kinds of begatting and the devil that wanted humans to be embarrassed potentially leading to not begatting? So by putting down and demonizing nudity and all that goes with it, including sexuality, are you not on the side of the serpent?
 
yobarnacle said:
I can source "the LIES" charge.

"John Dewey, remembered for his efforts in establishing America's current educational systems, was one of the chief signers of the 1933 Humanist Manifesto. It seems the Humanists have been interested in America's education system for nearly a century. They have been absolutely successful in teaching children that God is imaginary and contrary to "science." Secular Humanism - Main Tool is Evolutionary Thought Secular Humanism is manifested in Evolutionary Theory. To satisfy the fundamental question of "Where did we come from?" children are taught the doctrine of Evolution. - See more at: Secular Humanism


"Yet Evolution has not been proved. In fact, it seems that the Theory of Evolution is contrary to established science. George Wald, another prominent Evolutionist (a Harvard University biochemist and Nobel Laureate), wrote, "When it comes to the Origin of Life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance!" ("The Origin of Life," Scientific American, 191:48, May 1954). - See more at: Secular Humanism

Louis Pasteur proved spontaneous generation false 5 years after publication of Darwins 'origen of Species' which is predicated on spontaneous generation.
Discovery that the genes passed on hereditary information disproved the 'acquired atributes' notion of Darwin.
The probability of one protein molecule accidentally assembling itself is mathematically demonstrable as 1 in 10 power 164 chance.
The 'BIG BANG' supposedly 15 billion years ago, was only 10 power 16 seconds ago.
Click to expand...

George Wald was a neurobiologist. He was not an "evolutionist", he studied the biology of the eye,
 
Redress said:
George Wald was a neurobiologist. He was not an "evolutionist", he studied the biology of the eye,
Click to expand...

Also, Wald was speaking of creation vs. abiogenesis, not evolution.
 
I would guess that it's because of the first amendment, which prevents the government from endorsing any religious beliefs. This includes using public funds, such as school money, from supporting any religious positions. Also it has a little bit to do with the fact that religious beliefs are wrong and promote pretty heinously evil ideas. But only a little. That's why we hold sway over society. Government and education is because of the first amendment.
 
Eric7216 said:
But that seems like a fool's hope. There is no clear definition of what is religion and what is secular. The most inclusive Merriam Webster's definition of religion is simply: "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith". Rather broad. Includes Environmentalism, Social Justice, and so many other things. But, yeah, since we are basically a Judeo-Christian nation we all tend, ironically, to lean to the Judeo-Christian definition of religion and believe that it must have a god, belief in afterlife, or whatever. So the main religion, Christianity, tends to be opposed while other "religions" flourish. Any National Park probably has some religious sign like "The Earth is my mother" or other animist beliefs.

And Jesus, Mohammed, and Buddha were real people that had real lives and real teachings. And arguably Jesus was not a Christian, Mohammed was not Moslem, and Buddha was not Buddhist-those religions came later. Yet we can think we are secular and talk about Plato and ignore Jesus. Despite the billions of followers and what to me seems like an obvious need to understand these groups.
Click to expand...

Understood, but there's a large gulf between teaching about those people and what they believed and prayer or worship of those folks. Nothing at all wrong with religious studies in public school. You worship in your church, or your heart. You study in school.
 
Redress said:
George Wald was a neurobiologist. He was not an "evolutionist", he studied the biology of the eye,
Click to expand...

You confuse evolution as a science. it's a philosophy, a discredited philosophy. George Wald was a scientist and his philosophy was evolution.

George Wald - Conservapedia

George Wald (Nov 18, 1906 - April 12, 1997) was an American scientist and 1967 Nobel Prize winner.

Various forms of spontaneous generation quote

"When it comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation (evolution). There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion: that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds (personal reasons); therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance." George Wald, winner of the 1967 Nobel Peace Prize in Science, in Lindsay, Dennis, "The Dinosaur Dilemma," Christ for the Nations, Vol. 35, No. 8, November 1982, pp. 4-5, 14. [1]

"When it comes to the origin of life, we have only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility...Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved one hundred years ago by Louis Pasteur, Spellanzani, Reddy and others. That leads us scientifically to only one possible conclusion -- that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God...I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution." - Scientific American, August, 1954.

George Wald, an evolutionist, states, "When it comes to the origin of life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance!" ("The Origin of Life," Scientific American, 191:48. May 1954). [2]

References
George Wald - Biographical
George Wald Winner of the 1967 Nobel Prize in Medicine
 
yobarnacle said:
You confuse evolution as a science. it's a philosophy, a discredited philosophy. George Wald was a scientist and his philosophy was evolution.

George Wald - Conservapedia

George Wald (Nov 18, 1906 - April 12, 1997) was an American scientist and 1967 Nobel Prize winner.

Various forms of spontaneous generation quote

"When it comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation (evolution). There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion: that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds (personal reasons); therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance." George Wald, winner of the 1967 Nobel Peace Prize in Science, in Lindsay, Dennis, "The Dinosaur Dilemma," Christ for the Nations, Vol. 35, No. 8, November 1982, pp. 4-5, 14. [1]

"When it comes to the origin of life, we have only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility...Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved one hundred years ago by Louis Pasteur, Spellanzani, Reddy and others. That leads us scientifically to only one possible conclusion -- that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God...I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution." - Scientific American, August, 1954.

George Wald, an evolutionist, states, "When it comes to the origin of life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance!" ("The Origin of Life," Scientific American, 191:48. May 1954). [2]

References
George Wald - Biographical
George Wald Winner of the 1967 Nobel Prize in Medicine
Click to expand...
And the earth is flat, and the sun revolves around the earth, and dinosaurs roamed with humanoids. :roll:
 
clownboy said:
Understood, but there's a large gulf between teaching about those people and what they believed and prayer or worship of those folks. Nothing at all wrong with religious studies in public school. You worship in your church, or your heart. You study in school.
Click to expand...
No problem with that. Despite being a life-long agnostic after seeing 2 children flounder in public school I wised up and sent the 3rd to a Catholic school that required 4 years of religious studies. They made it clear that they taught religious studies and did not proselytize and they kept their word. And my son got some morality in addition to an education that public schools did not provide.
 
Kobie said:
Also, Wald was speaking of creation vs. abiogenesis, not evolution.
Click to expand...

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

"The concept of evolution proposed by Charles Darwin put an end to these metaphysical theologies. In a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker on 1 February 1871,[48] Charles Darwin addressed the question, suggesting that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes".

Chance of 1 in 10 with 164 zeros after it.
 
yobarnacle said:
Why do the godless disproportunately influence USA government and education and seems the rest of us don't count?

In 2012 Pew study reported that 23% of Americans who affiliated with a religion were not religious. So there is some ambiguity in the poll figures.
Religious affiliated were 79% of the population, and the unaffiliated were 19.6%, including 6% "atheist" or "agnostic".

So how is it prayer is outlawed in schools? Psuedo-science failed and long disproven theories taught as FACTS! With no rebuttal permitted.
founding principles of the USA like God given rights sneered at?

How did 6% of the population get their agenda preached daily to our kids and the rest of us don't seem to have any say in the matter?
Click to expand...

Maybe it is God's will. He might have even forsaken you all for worshipping false idols. All I know is that the rest of us are the better for it.
 
iguanaman said:
Maybe it is God's will. He might have even forsaken you all for worshipping false idols. All I know is that the rest of us are the better for it.
Click to expand...

My point is how did a tiny minority philosophy with wrong disproved "science" gain power over our children and education.
 
Summerwind said:
And the earth is flat, and the sun revolves around the earth, and dinosaurs roamed with humanoids. :roll:
Click to expand...

Unfortunately some Christian conservatives have a disdain for science. On the other hand, two of arguably the most important discoveries of the 20th century was made by religious individuals, Quantum Physics and the Big Bang. And Bill Bryson tells about all the significant scientific discoveries made by 19th century English pastors who had little to do and tinkered in science.

Meanwhile, Christian liberals seem to have bizarre thoughts about economics and the social sciences and believe in the Biblical ideals of the rich going to hell while the meek inherit the earth and the fisherman gives up 50% of his catch to the poor rather than use it to invest in a bigger boat or research.
 
Eric7216 said:
Unfortunately some Christian conservatives have a disdain for science. On the other hand, two of arguably the most important discoveries of the 20th century was made by religious individuals, Quantum Physics and the Big Bang. And Bill Bryson tells about all the significant scientific discoveries made by 19th century English pastors who had little to do and tinkered in science.

Meanwhile, Christian liberals seem to have bizarre thoughts about economics and the social sciences and believe in the Biblical ideals of the rich going to hell while the meek inherit the earth and the fisherman gives up 50% of his catch rather than use it to invest in a bigger boat.
Click to expand...

During those time periods and based on where they lived, I wouldn't bet a thing on their religious beliefs. It was imminently safer and more profitable to feign religion back then whether you had it for real or not.
 
yobarnacle said:
You confuse evolution as a science. it's a philosophy, a discredited philosophy. George Wald was a scientist and his philosophy was evolution.

George Wald - Conservapedia

George Wald (Nov 18, 1906 - April 12, 1997) was an American scientist and 1967 Nobel Prize winner.

Various forms of spontaneous generation quote

"When it comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation (evolution). There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion: that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds (personal reasons); therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance." George Wald, winner of the 1967 Nobel Peace Prize in Science, in Lindsay, Dennis, "The Dinosaur Dilemma," Christ for the Nations, Vol. 35, No. 8, November 1982, pp. 4-5, 14. [1]

"When it comes to the origin of life, we have only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility...Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved one hundred years ago by Louis Pasteur, Spellanzani, Reddy and others. That leads us scientifically to only one possible conclusion -- that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God...I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution." - Scientific American, August, 1954.

George Wald, an evolutionist, states, "When it comes to the origin of life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance!" ("The Origin of Life," Scientific American, 191:48. May 1954). [2]

References
George Wald - Biographical
George Wald Winner of the 1967 Nobel Prize in Medicine
Click to expand...

You used Conservapedia! :lamo

Here is the actual quote from Wald:

Let me cite an example. Throughout our history we have entertained two kinds of views of the origin of life: one that life was created supernaturally, the other that it arose "spontaneously" from nonliving material. In the 17th to 19th centuries those opinions provided the ground of a great and bitter controversy. There came a curious point, toward the end of the 18th century, when each side of the controversy was represented by a Roman Catholic priest. The principle opponent of the theory of the spontaneous generation was then the Abbe Lazzaro Spallanzani, an Italian priest; and its principal champion was John Turberville Needham, an English Jesuit.

Since the only alternative to some form of spontaneous generation is a belief in supernatural creation, and since the latter view seems firmly implanted in the Judeo-Christian theology, I wondered for a time how a priest could support the theory of spontaneous generation. Needham tells one plainly. The opening paragraphs of the Book of Genesis can in fact be reconciled with either view. In its first account of Creation, it says not quite that God made living things, but He commanded the earth and waters to produce them. The language used is: "let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life.... Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind." In the second version of creation the language is different and suggests a direct creative act: "And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air...." In both accounts man himself--and woman--are made by God's direct intervention. The myth itself therefore offers justification for either view. Needham took the position that the earth and waters, having once been ordered to bring forth life, remained ever after free to do so; and this is what we mean by spontaneous generation.

This great controversy ended in the mid-19th century with the experiments of Louis Pasteur, which seemed to dispose finally of the possibility of spontaneous generation. For almost a century afterward biologists proudly taught their students this history and the firm conclusion that spontaneous generation had been scientifically refuted and could not possibly occur. Does this mean that they accepted the alternative view, a supernatural creation of life? Not at all. They had no theory of the origin of life, and if pressed were likely to explain that questions involving such unique events as origins and endings have no place in science.

(Wald, George, "Innovation and Biology," Scientific American, Vol. 199, Sept. 1958, p. 100)
Click to expand...

Source: Quote Mine Project: "Miscellaneous"
 
But Darwin was not so dogmatic. He described his theory as an inference grounded chiefly on analogy. And he praised the author of one review foreseeing "that the change of species cannot be directly proved and that the doctrine must sink or swim according as it groups and explains phenomena " (Darwin 1899, 2:155). In an 1863 letter, he amplified by pointing out that evolution by natural selection was "grounded entirely on general considerations" such as the difference between contemporary organisms and fossil organisms. "When we descend to details," he wrote, "we can prove that no one species has changed [i.e., the cannot prove that a single species has changed]; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory. Nor can we explain why some species have changed and others have not" (Darwin 1899, 2:210). In other words, Darwin was aware that the scientific evidence was short of compelling. Pearcey (MC) Page 77

Even Charles Darwin thought his own theory was "grievously hypothetical" and gave emotional content to his doubts when he said, "The eye to this day gives me a cold shudder." To think the eye had evolved by natural selection, Darwin said, "seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." But he thought of the same about something as simple as a peacock's feather, which, he said, "makes me sick. " Of course, anyone who has knowledge of the intricacies of the human eye and other living structures immediately realizes the problem Darwin sensed. How could an organ of such an intricate magnificence ever have a originated via random chance? Oller and Omdahl (CH) Page 274


If anyone was chasing a phantom or retreating from empiricism it was surely Darwin, who himself freely admitted that he had absolutely no hard empirical evidence that any of the major evolutionary transformations proposed had ever actually occurred. It was Darwin, the evolutionist, who admitted in his letter to Asa Gray, that one's "imagination must fill up the very wide blanks.'' Denton (ETC) Page 117


Darwin's Doubts About His Theory on Biological Evolution and Origin of Species
 
yobarnacle said:
What SHOULD secular mean? I agree public education should not be under control of any religious body.
But to disallow all religious discussion or observance while deliberately teaching/preaching ANTI-GOD lies, is not objective or open minded.
Apparently secular has been perverted and come to mean the "random materialistic universe philosophy" indoctrination.
Click to expand...

Conspiracy theory.

yobarnacle said:
that depends on the school. But how about teaching of failed pet theories of atheists and materialist philosophers, not even as scientific theories, (which they once were but are no longer valid), but teaching them as established FACTS with no dissent permitted?
Click to expand...

Theories like what? Evolution? Gravity? General Relativity? Germ theory? Quantum mechanics? I hate to break it to you, scientific investigation does not deal in facts but, rather, theories. You should look that up - it might help in your 'discussion.'

digsbe said:
Satan is the prince and power of the air, he has influence over the world and prior to the end times the world will be in widespread wickedness.
Click to expand...

35d.gif


digsbe said:
It's more so evident in culture and the turning away from God in favor of the flesh. It's very evident in how we've fallen when it comes to the family unit, sexual ethics and the population turning away from God and following flesh. America is becoming more wicked and it appears that the world as a whole is too. That's to be expected though.
Click to expand...

You make it sound like a bad thing...

digsbe said:
Haha and go where? And why should I leave? God doesn't call us to only live among a majority, on the contrary we are supposed to endure persecution and share the truth of God with others wherever God calls us to live.
Click to expand...

I bet you might enjoy the ME? Saudi Arabia, perhaps? Why should you leave? You seem to have a problem with America and, why would you want to live someplace you don't like? I've got some wood lying around if you wanna get nailed to it like that other guy your so fond of. :lol:

yobarnacle said:
My point is how did a tiny minority philosophy with wrong disproved "science" gain power over our children and education.
Click to expand...

You haven't shown any evidence against the science you so vehemently appear to detest. It sounds like your presuming it's wrong to support your argument. Why wouldn't you want the most highly educated (as a general rule) being in charge of education? Amazingly, I don't want the 'Ken Hams' of the country in charge of education. 'Goddidit' is not a legitimate, scientific, logical answer (unless I missed that journal article).

yobarnacle said:
But Darwin was not so dogmatic. He described his theory as an inference grounded chiefly on analogy. And he praised the author of one review foreseeing "that the change of species cannot be directly proved and that the doctrine must sink or swim according as it groups and explains phenomena " (Darwin 1899, 2:155). In an 1863 letter, he amplified by pointing out that evolution by natural selection was "grounded entirely on general considerations" such as the difference between contemporary organisms and fossil organisms. "When we descend to details," he wrote, "we can prove that no one species has changed [i.e., the cannot prove that a single species has changed]; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory. Nor can we explain why some species have changed and others have not" (Darwin 1899, 2:210). In other words, Darwin was aware that the scientific evidence was short of compelling. Pearcey (MC) Page 77

Even Charles Darwin thought his own theory was "grievously hypothetical" and gave emotional content to his doubts when he said, "The eye to this day gives me a cold shudder." To think the eye had evolved by natural selection, Darwin said, "seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." But he thought of the same about something as simple as a peacock's feather, which, he said, "makes me sick. " Of course, anyone who has knowledge of the intricacies of the human eye and other living structures immediately realizes the problem Darwin sensed. How could an organ of such an intricate magnificence ever have a originated via random chance? Oller and Omdahl (CH) Page 274


If anyone was chasing a phantom or retreating from empiricism it was surely Darwin, who himself freely admitted that he had absolutely no hard empirical evidence that any of the major evolutionary transformations proposed had ever actually occurred. It was Darwin, the evolutionist, who admitted in his letter to Asa Gray, that one's "imagination must fill up the very wide blanks.'' Denton (ETC) Page 117


Darwin's Doubts About His Theory on Biological Evolution and Origin of Species
Click to expand...

Great. Nice appeal to authority. I hate to break it to you, in the last 150+ years since Darwin - we've made great leaps in biology. Those great leaps? Largely based around the Theory of Evolution. We've improved on the theory, made it more clear, shown more evidence to support it and gained a better understanding of it. This allowed scientific understanding (and thus, education) to move forward. It seems like you're a stick in the mud in the Amazon River and, again, I hate to break it to you, the river will keep on flowing with or without you.
 
Summerwind said:
And the earth is flat, and the sun revolves around the earth, and dinosaurs roamed with humanoids. :roll:
Click to expand...


There are only two possibilities as to how life arose.
One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God.
There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others.
That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God.
I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible;
spontaneous generation arising to evolution."
(Wald, George, "Innovation and Biology,"
Scientific American, Vol. 199, Sept. 1958, p. 100)

Are you ridiculing George Wald?
Or me for quoting him?

Seems a indefensible position whatever your intent.
 
yobarnacle said:
There are only two possibilities as to how life arose.
One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God.
There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others.
That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God.
I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible;
spontaneous generation arising to evolution."
(Wald, George, "Innovation and Biology,"
Scientific American, Vol. 199, Sept. 1958, p. 100)

Are you ridiculing George Wald?
Or me for quoting him?

Seems a indefensible position whatever your intent.
Click to expand...

The real quote is above. This quote is bogus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom