"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 Pasture 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." (Dr. George Wall professor emeritus of biology at Harvard University. Nobel Prize winner in biology. From an article in Scientific American)
Another quote from the same page I linked to above.
This one appears to be a complete fabrication, too, as (Q) pointed out above.
Are you now going to go back and check that the other quotes you posted are accurate, or do you intend to keep relying on other people to point out your errors and lies?
---
Comments on your own thoughts follow.
Only faith in God is normally based on real people and real events, happening in real places in history, in other words on real history written down by others in the past and present.
Currently you are in dispute as to whether the Exodus account ever happened in reality. How can you make the bald-faced claim that biblical events are "based on real people and real events", in light of your awareness that the reality of a lot of the events in the bible is very much disputed?
The first step is to be honest to yourself. If you can manage that, then you can try being honest when you engage with other people.
If you call yourself a Christian, are these your Christian standards of morality on display here? Is this the best you can do?
Faith in God provides the basis for Science and also for the basis of morality.
No.
Faith in Science alone is limited.
Science isn't based on faith. It is grounded in evidence.
Scientific Naturalism is wonderful as far as it can reach, but it cannot answer all of life’s problems.
Did it ever claim that it could?
Meanwhile, religion hasn't got much to say about the details of how the natural world operates. So what?
Science has little to say about morality and nothing to say about purpose except that there is none revealed in science.
I'm not sure I agree with you about the inapplicability of science to morality, but that's a separate discussion.
What do you mean by "purpose"? Why is purpose important?
Science ultimately provides no hope for mankind, only despair.
Well, that's a big claim that you make, sitting in what I assume is a comfortable house surrounded by modern techological conveniences that would not exist were it not for Science. Looks to me like you're either telling lies again, or else you have a severely restricted vision of your world as it really is. Perhaps you should try taking the religious blinkers off for a minute or two and try looking around yourself.
But Science does not allow for freewill.
Nonsense.
