There are only two possibilities as to how life a rose: One is Spontanious generation-a rising evolution. The other is a supernatural act of God. There is no other possibility.
Spontaneous generation was scientificlly disproved 120 years ago by Pasteur and others.
This leaves us with only one logical conclusion-- that life arose as a supernatural 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.
George Wald, professor emeritus, Harvard University; Nobel Prize in Medicine 1967
2006-09-13 12:06:19 · 16 answers · asked by creeklops 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I'm a christian and think it's totally crap, the author needs his head examined and a good Bible to read, and a good preacher to preach to him.
2006-09-13 12:58:33 · update #1
I think it's ignorant and rather desperate.
2006-09-13 12:27:18 · answer #1 · answered by Sweetchild Danielle 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Whoa, totally incorrect usage of spontaneous generation, this is very frightening.
There are two different kinds of spontaneous generations, the one about Pasteur and the one about primordial soup. They are completely different!
The first mention of spontaneous generation appeared thousands of years ago. Essentially what this is, is that fully developed organic life can come from non-living things. Key words are fully developed. The people who believed in original spontaneous generation believed that fish can be "born" from water, or maggots from steak. These people (most were highly uneducated) saw water with no fish and steaks with no maggots, and then the next day they saw them both. Naturally, they assumed that the water and steak gave "birth". Pasteur simply demonstrated that if a broth was isolated, microorganisms would not be able to develop and therefore the steak was clean.
Primordial soup is an entirely different matter. Basically, it stated that if given the right conditions, basic organic matter might develop. Note the words "basic" and "might". Unlike the original spontaneous generation which assumed fish simply popped out of the sea, this theory of life only creates the simplest possible life, and only under the most perfect of circumstances, which is incredibly rare. Pasteur was long dead before this theory was even introduced.
George Wald I'm afraid, was comparing apples to oranges.
2006-09-13 12:21:16 · answer #2 · answered by LZ1980 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
you choose to believe in the one that has no meaning, buy yourself a bible read it, are you willing to bet your life on that belief thank about it i'm not trying to push religion on you but give it a try what are you afraid of, go to church study the bible pray to this god which you do not believe in, and then and only then make your decision on fact not just hear say and then you can come on here and write something that comes from both sides not just one, what do you have to lose. may god bless you no matter what your decision is. thank you ,and to those of you that have already posted above me you choose to believe anything but the truth you say there is no god it is a fairy tale i feel sorry for you, i guess it makes alot more sense if we came from apes or just appeared think about it, and when you figure it out i hope it is not to late god bless the unbelievers.
2006-09-13 12:17:45 · answer #3 · answered by bd4arms 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Weird
2006-09-13 12:08:06 · answer #4 · answered by Nessa 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The "logic" of this statement is absurd. What was disproved was the ridiculous theory of "Spontaineous Generation," a silly theory that complex animals arose from pieces of other animals..horse hair from a mane became a "horse hair worm." Duh..not going to happen. But, the slow building of life forms over billions of years is the generally accepted theory as to life's source. Good luck
2006-09-13 12:11:56 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
A third possibility is that Ninja Turtles escaped from the Creator's (Yamster Yahamsterius) butt and then He busted them up fiercely and the resulting fight caused an explosion that created the universe.
2006-09-13 12:15:21 · answer #6 · answered by Nerdly Stud 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
He was a fool is He believed that. That is like saying I know that it is scientifically proven that man cannot breathe under water but I don't want to believe that so I am just going to go and breathe under water. He will drown in such foolish thoughts.
2006-09-13 12:16:54 · answer #7 · answered by malsvb6 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
If you don't know what a "false dichotemy" is, it is easy to get sucked into this ridiculous question.
But I do know two preposterous alternatives and the "requirement" to choose between them and only them to be illogical.
2006-09-13 12:20:36 · answer #8 · answered by urbancoyote 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You are right. There are only two possiblities for life to have arose; two that we thought of. For every solution we have to a problem, there are about an infinite amount we never even thought of. Who can say how we got here? There is no absolute for anything. The only 'true' answer to the dawn of life is 'IWe don't know.'
2006-09-13 12:10:39 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
The logic is flawed, the "facts" stated are lies, and the conclusion is laughable.
Whats "scientifically impossible" is the existance of a god. Thoughts require a brain, and brains dont float around for eternity then say "let there be light" when they get bored. Brains require a body to supply them with glucose, water, oxygen, etc. No body = no brain. No brain = no thoughts, no conciousness, no desire, no jealousy, no love.
All gods are imaginary.
2006-09-13 12:08:49 · answer #10 · answered by Phil S 5 · 3⤊ 4⤋
Spontaneous generation was not disproved. Scientists have been able to create many amino acids by doing the "primordial soup" expirements.
2006-09-13 12:11:14 · answer #11 · answered by Chris J 6 · 2⤊ 3⤋