The fails of the ancient astronaut theory

@BigDave -"Even Sceince is flawed and proves itself wrong over time as new Science discovers more." Science does not prove itself wrong. It is not an entity, or anything like that, it is just a way to finding truth; a process, that is all. If a theory or law does not hold through evidence, it is revised or changed completely. The process is not concerned with anything outside the scope it sets for itself. Clear and to the point, although it can seem difficult because with science you cannot cop-out with imaginary or made B.S. and it requires effort (not for the lazy).

@dallas!dallas!......We can just agree to disagree about God being a figment of the imagination....evolution and God are not mutually exclusive ideas.......Science exists to study, observe, examine, catalog and theorize the universe in which we exist....given the possibility of God creating that universe, the findings and discoveries of Science would only then serve to explain His creation....there is nothing in evolutionary theory that automatically discounts or disproves the possibility of God's existence....evolution may then be just as easily understood as the functioning mechanism of biology as God set it into motion....there is still not one unified, foundational explanation or theory for the origin of the first self-sustaining cellular organism beyond a few varied and decidely weak supositions; each of which is very weak and suffers under scrutiny...Ultimately, The greater question is the origin of the universe itself....explaining existence as we experience it, the state of existence before the so-called Big Bang.......I find that a far more interesting question myself. ...and as to "how horrible God must be to create such a nasty universe", the beauty of God's creation far outways the negatives of the 'nasty' realities existing in a universe given the freedom to exist as the natural phenominon He made it to be...Given that it were His universe, His creation, would it not be His to do with as He pleases? I understand where you're coming from and we can go on disagreeing....I welcome the discourse...

@dallas!dallas!......We can just agree to disagree about God being a figment of the imagination....evolution and God are not mutually exclusive ideas.......Science exists to study, observe, examine, catalog and theorize the universe in which we exist....given the possibility of God creating that universe, the findings and discoveries of Science would only then serve to explain His creation....there is nothing in evolutionary theory that automatically discounts or disproves the possibility of God's existence....evolution may then be just as easily understood as the functioning mechanism of biology as God set it into motion....there is still not one unified, foundational explanation or theory for the origin of the first self-sustaining cellular organism beyond a few varied and decidely weak supositions; each of which is very weak and suffers under scrutiny...Ultimately, The greater question is the origin of the universe itself....explaining existence as we experience it, the state of existence before the so-called Big Bang.......I find that a far more interesting question myself. ...and as to "how horrible God must be to create such a nasty universe", the beauty of God's creation far outways the negatives of the 'nasty' realities existing in a universe given the freedom to exist as the natural phenominon He made it to be...Given that it were His universe, His creation, would it not be His to do with as He pleases? I understand where you're coming from and we can go on disagreeing....I welcome the discourse...

If we think of god as the universe which exists in both inner and outer space then no one can deny we were not born from the spark of creation known as the big bang. if you asked the bacteria that exists on the roof of your mouth what it thinks the universe and the concept of god is the answer would be so bizarre you couldn't understand it no matter how hard you tried. Are we any different really ?. Our minds cant even perceive most of what reality consists of its an unanswerable question. Perception is everything and everything perceives the world differently from plants and trees to animals and insects. Our own intellect is merely a way for us to understand the world as we see it, yet a species living in the same environment perceives that world in a totally unique way to. One thing we may have in common with all species of life is energy and that in its raw state could be our essence, like the notion of raw consciousness. Before the flesh the idea that like a new hard drive we exist to be filled with data to help run our programmes of life on earth, and when we die its like that hard drive becomes reformatted to be placed in a new system with new programmes . The microcosm and macrocosm of the world can be seen in areas that we least suspect and the ideas and formulas of our existence are seen around us in parallel perspectives that mirror our existence in ways we are not fully aware of. Or maybe we are a disease on mother earths heart. There is a theory that consciousness exists before the flesh and new born's are the examples of this uncluttered virus free uncorrupted data stream and thats how i see the world we are no where near the truth and the universe is stranger the we can suppose.

@ craigamore I think that the problem with the argument for God is that it lacks substance as it is debated now. For Aristotle, God is simply that First Cause, and for both Plato and Aristotle it boils down to a principle of life that can only be spoken of in metaphor. At some point you have to get off the bus and say it starts and stops here, as both did. Whereas the "gods" were another kind of metaphor for internal and external natural forces. This seems to be one step beyond the literal gods inherent in everything that tribal nations believe(d). I mention them with maybe too much length because their methodical approach to God is helpful for discussing what is beyond our typical knowledge. When we get into God as personal then I can't say it doesn't exist and neither can science. But science says Nothing, absolutely nothing, with absolute certainty. As another poster said, it is right until it is proven wrong. However, science can point to what is most likely. Now when a theist argues for a personal God, not only that but, and this is the most important part for me, one who has the qualities of love and mercy and kindness and concern for individuals, it is not up to science to disprove this being, it is up to the theist to prove it, or at least show the evidence is clearly in its favor. But God is such a loose term, I don't even know if that is what theists/believers are arguing anymore. Is God in us or are we in God? Is the God of the Bible what we are talking about or the God of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams and John Locke? Hence my point of agreement with Dawkins that all of us are atheists in some way. Now, I personally find it fascinating to contemplate the source of everything, its continuing presence as a bringer of order into chaos and as the principle of cause and life. Whatever chaos is inherent on a sub-atomic level, some action is taking place that allows Newton to exist alongside Einstein alongside quantum mechanics. Rationality exists outside of us, not just in our brains. But more than that, what can anyone say with certainty? Nothing. I differ greatly with the "hip atheists" who argue that nothing in the Bible or Koran or Tao Te Ching is any worth. And anyone who argues the Christian world of the 9th to 12th centuries along with the Islamic world of roughly the same period did not contribute greatly to civilization is just plain ignorant of history. But it still comes down to what one is saying when one says "God" and I just don't know anymore. But hey, even John Lennon couldn't decide if he was an atheist, a pantheist or plain old theist. So I am in good company (in my opinion, anyway). And replacing God with aliens is not really doing anything at all, for me. Nothing about the nature of the universe changes.

I think that the problem with the argument for God is that it lacks substance as it is debated now. For Aristotle, God is simply that First Cause, and for both Plato and Aristotle it boils down to a principle of life that can only be spoken of in metaphor. At some point you have to get off the bus and say it starts and stops here, as both did, whereas the "gods" were another kind of metaphor for internal and external natural forces. This seems to be one step beyond the literal gods inherent in everything that tribal nations believe(d). I mention them with maybe too much space because their clear and distinct method approaching God is helpful and in no way exclusive. When we get into God as personal then I can't say it doesn't exist and neither can science. But science says Nothing, absolutely nothing with absolute certainty. As another poster said, it is right until it is proven wrong. However, science can point to what is most likely. And when a theist argues for a personal God, not only that but, and this is the most important part for me, one who has the qualities of love and mercy and kindness and concern for individuals, it is not up to science to disprove this being, it is up to the theist to prove it, or at least show the evidence is clearly in its favor. But God is such a loose term, I don't even know if that is what theists/believers are arguing anymore. Is God in us or are we in God? Is the God of the Bible what we are talking about or the God of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams and John Locke? Hence my point agreement with Dawkins that all of us are atheists in some way. I find it fascinating to contemplate the source of everything, the bringer of order into a chaotic universe. Whatever one believes, rationality exists internally and externally. We would have never gotten this far if it weren't so. No matter what happens on the sub-atomic level. There is a pattern that allows Newton to exist alongside Einstein alongside Quantum Physics. But more than that what can we say? Nothing. I differ greatly with those "hip" atheists who think all of the Bible or the Koran or the Tao Te Ching is just silliness of no worth. And anyone who denies the Christian and Islamic contributions to civilization in the 9-12 centuries is just plain ignorant of history. But in the end it comes down to saying something specific when one says God. And I just don't know anymore what most people are saying when they use the term. Hence my agreement with Dawkins on the point of everyone being an atheist on some level. And switching from God to ancient aliens doesn't change anything about the nature of the universe. Finally, I will get a little acidic and say many theists must stop using Einstein as some evidence of a scientist believing in God. At the end of his life, Einstein was no longer a believer in anything except a kind of deistic first mover, which is very, very different from the God some want Einstein to believe in.

@BIGDAVE good points.. alien abduction is reported as [i]extraterrestial[/i] but in the last years there were researchers who pointed out that the very special way UFOs and greys are [i]appearing[/i] ( go through walls, appear/dissapear, mindreading, transforming/ morphing) points more to demonism. This is meant not in a [i]religious[/i] but phenomenologic and psychological way. Another hint is [i]channeling[/i], when that the allegedley [i]alien[/i] beeings appear and obviously are telling lies. There is very disturbing and much more behind and dont mean necessarily [i]alien[/i] at all, even its REAL. Proofing angels and archangels..well..how can you count or grab, a non-physical beeing? You also cant see or smell radioactivity, magnetism or warmth, can you? It can be measured, ok, and there is much work done to proove out-of-body-experience etc. This debates date back to the beginnings of science in the 19th century, when science began to develop from religion as an own category..It still is all about the dis/advantages of [i]materialism[/i] in science. Its quite popular to point to astrophysics like Hawking or even the pope and say ´hey, even these say we are not alone´. Yeah , maybe. In addition to that there are mankinds old friends..call it demons, Ahriman, Luzifer, amgels, archangels..god maybe ´´[i]just[/i] ´´a special higher spirit of the earth ..JHWH..hey.... there are people who know much about this than we do. cheers

alien abductions, there are researchers who pointed out that UFO´s, greys and abductions are of demonic character rather than jumping to a speculation as extraterrestial. The way they appear/ dissapear, mind reading, going through walls, morphing/shapeshifting are [i]criteria[/i] of [i]demonism[/i]. That isnt meant in a [i]religious[/i] but strictly [i]phenomenologic[/i] and [i]psychologic[/i] way. This stuff is REAL, very disturbing and for the affected people no game. Its very disregarding and unpolite to claim these are [i]extraterrestial[/i]. its difficult to prove, that means count, grab, dissipate non-physical beeings, right. Neither can you see, smell radioactivity, warmth or magnetism. ok, you can measure it, but can you measure feelings, which are also absoluteley real and no ´hallicunations´ or ´made up by the brain´as materialistic thinkers tend to say easily. man, this discussion goes back to the beginnings of science in the 18th century when science did evolve from religion the first time..its all about [i]materialism[/i], basically. cheers

The knowledge of the hierarchy is an old one, and there are people who are experts on that..you name it angels, archangels, archai, Ahriman, Luzifer..so, god aka JHWE maybe ´´[i]just[/i]´´ a special, very high developed earth spirit that guides as there are even higer ones , as anthroposophy for example reflects..and that in a very precise way. As a fact there are only very few researchers who work in that fields and their work give a [i]possible[/i] explanation for both, science and spirituality. I only know [i]Rudolf Steiner[/i] that got very deep into that. I [i]bet[/i] in the next years there will be scientific proof of the power of thought, which can be measured. That would throw a nice light to the [i]Heisenberg uncertainty principle[/i] for example.

@DallasDallas [i]I think that the problem with the argument for God is that it lacks substance as it is debated now. For Aristotle, God is simply that First Cause, and for both Plato and Aristotle it boils down to a principle of life that can only be spoken of in metaphor. At some point you have to get off the bus and say it starts and stops here, as both did, whereas the "gods" were another kind of metaphor for internal and external natural forces. This seems to be one step beyond the literal gods inherent in everything that tribal nations believe(d).[/i] right, that was their contribution at their time and reflects their standards of thinking at their time. [i]I mention them with maybe too much space because their clear and distinct method approaching God is helpful and in no way exclusive. When we get into God as personal then I can't say it doesn't exist and neither can science. But science says Nothing, absolutely nothing with absolute certainty. As another poster said, it is right until it is proven wrong. However, science can point to what is most likely. And when a theist argues for a personal God, not only that but, and this is the most important part for me, one who has the qualities of love and mercy and kindness and concern for individuals, it is not up to science to disprove this being, it is up to the theist to prove it, or at least show the evidence is clearly in its favor.[/i] So a real delighted one is proof to himself and others. Like the Christ or Buddha. But God is such a loose term, I don't even know if that is what theists/believers are arguing [i]anymore. Is God in us or are we in God? Is the God of the Bible what we are talking about or the God of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams and John Locke? Hence my point agreement with Dawkins that all of us are atheists in some way.[/i] Yeah, the final questions are a problem. In what [i]form[/i] can they be answered? [i]I find it fascinating to contemplate the source of everything, the bringer of order into a chaotic universe. Whatever one believes, rationality exists internally and externally. We would have never gotten this far if it weren't so. No matter what happens on the sub-atomic level. There is a pattern that allows Newton to exist alongside Einstein alongside Quantum Physics. But more than that what can we say? Nothing. I differ greatly with those "hip" atheists who think all of the Bible or the Koran or the Tao Te Ching is just silliness of no worth. And anyone who denies the Christian and Islamic contributions to civilization in the 9-12 centuries is just plain ignorant of history. But in the end it comes down to saying something specific when one says God. And I just don't know anymore what most people are saying when they use the term. Hence my agreement with Dawkins on the point of everyone being an atheist on some level.[/i] Its not contradictionary to be a scientist and still believe. [i]And switching from God to ancient aliens doesn't change anything about the nature of the universe.[/i] ;)...its just an excuse, right. [i]Finally, I will get a little acidic and say many theists must stop using Einstein as some evidence of a scientist believing in God. At the end of his life, Einstein was no longer a believer in anything except a kind of deistic first mover, which is very, very different from the God some want Einstein to believe in.[/i] So, why is that a problem, wasnt Darwin a believer, too? Its a [i]personal[/i] thing of these people, when they get inspiration, the better. Thats how I would put it.

@Kane77 -"Its not contradictionary to be a scientist and still believe." This sounds like nonsense. Elaborate please.

@Macs....what Kane77 is getting at with "Its not contradictionary to be a scientist and still believe." is that, as I said earlier, evolution and God are not mutually exclusive ideas and one does not dsiprove the other....As Kane77 said, Darwin himself was a believer....it even states in his 'Origin of Species' that a Creator was present to set the mechanism of evolutional biology into motin (I'm paraphrasing there, but you get the idea.)....One can look at the world with a scientific mind and still see God in creation... Thank you dallas!dallas! for your elaboration and Kane77 for the points you made.

@craigamore -" evolution and God are not mutually exclusive ideas and one does not dsiprove the other..." You are basically just repeating the statement here. you need to explain how this happens. -"As Kane77 said, Darwin himself was a believer" This says nothing to your argument. I don't know if Darwin was or not a believer (I do know he caught hell from religious groups (and still does amazingly)). What pertains to natural selection and evolution has nothing to do with God, it is just a description of a process. Darwin did struggle with the accepted notion of a benevolent God and how cruel and indifferent some events in nature were. He also seemed to bow to pressure of religious groups of his time to somehow put God there somewhere in the picture (this makes more sense to me as to why he made some mentions of God in his work, seems a more reasonable argument to me) -".One can look at the world with a scientific mind and still see God in creation..." Define God in a scientific manner, if you can't it is not compatible with science.

@craigamore -"is that, as I said earlier, evolution and God are not mutually exclusive ideas and one does not dsiprove the other" You are just repeating the same argument basically. You have to explain what you mean. -"One can look at the world with a scientific mind and still see God in creation..." Define God scientifically. If you can't, it is not compatible with science. Whatever you personally believe outside of this has nothing to do with science in my view. It seems crazy to mix the two to me, it is like saying you could walk through walls just by belief God for example.

@craigamore -"is that, as I said earlier, evolution and God are not mutually exclusive ideas and one does not dsiprove the other" You are just repeating the same argument basically. You have to explain what you mean. -"One can look at the world with a scientific mind and still see God in creation..." Define God scientifically. If you can't, it is not compatible with science. Whatever you personally believe outside of this has nothing to do with science in my view. It seems crazy to mix the two to me, it is like saying you could walk through walls just by belief God for example.

@craigamore thanks your points are also very good. [i]Darwin himself was a believer....it even states in his 'Origin of Species' that a Creator was present to s[/i]et the mechanism of evolutional biology into motin (I'm paraphrasing there, but you get the idea.). "One can look at the world with a scientific mind and still see God in creation..." good expression. I coudn´t explain better.. @ Macs [i]Define God scientifically.[/i] Thats plain BS, nobody could even [i]define[/i] a man. what [i]method[/i] ?what [i]form[/i]? Its also very different from culture to culture.

@Kane77 -"Thats plain BS, nobody could even define a man. what method ?what form? Its also very different from culture to culture." Exactly, you do understand the problem. And there is even more problems...

@Kane77 [i]right, that was their contribution at their time and reflects their standards of thinking at their time.[/i] And yet Plato in particular would be an enormous influence on the the development of Judeo-Christian cosmology that is still in many ways current. Just how literal we are to take Plato is a question some scoff at but I think is still unanswered. Ultimately, when Plato gets to his prime mover without using very figurative language, he struggles as much as he do today. And Aristotle just would not commit to defining in any way. Much like many agnostics today. [i]So a real delighted one is proof to himself and others. Like the Christ or Buddha[/i] Ah, there is a rub. What does one take literally? The Buddha walking on a the stars? The Christ physically getting out his tomb and literally flying into the sky? And that is the most personal. Even if science were to prove their absolute physical existence as men, their acts are outside of science. [i]Its not contradictionary to be a scientist and still believe. [/i] Correct, of the two men most responsible for the mapping of the genome, one says it proves there is no need of God, the other says it is absolutely is proof of God! But the issue is asking scientists as scientists to believe in something that cannot be shown scientifically in the modern sense except using the syllogistic prime mover method of Aristotle. But in his day Science and Theology and Philosophy were not distinct. What folks have to understand is that they have been distinct for nearly a millennium. Science is best at showing what cannot be, leaving what most likely is easier to find. So when science proves that man cannot have existed alongside dinosaurs and (in this case but I am not singling any one group out), you have a park in Kansas that tries to unite Science and Biblical thought by showing Adam and Eve hanging with a Brontosaurus, one has to wonder if they will ever get the terms of the dialogue. Darwin . . . at one point almost went into the priesthood! But I do hate to be the bad guy: Darwin ended his life as a true agnostic. He in fact did not want to have religious burial as he felt he couldn't in good conscience, but was convinced by his wife, who remained a believer, to keep his membership with his church. Even Einstein died still believing in some kind of impersonal, deist-like god. Darwin was clear he just didn't know and as a scientist would make no comment. Sorry but that is fact on Charles. Ultimately, my God is my God. Whether my opinion bears any resemblance to yours is of little consequence to you or others except in our actions. We all could take a page I think from Kierkegaard or Bonhoeffer!

@Kane77 [i]right, that was their contribution at their time and reflects their standards of thinking at their time.[/i] And yet Plato in particular would be an enormous influence on the the development of Judeo-Christian cosmology that is still in many ways current. Just how literal we are to take Plato is a question some scoff at but I think is still unanswered. Ultimately, when Plato gets to his prime mover without using very figurative language, he struggles as much as we do today. And Aristotle just would not commit to defining in any way. Much like many agnostics today. [i]So a real delighted one is proof to himself and others. Like the Christ or Buddha[/i] Ah, there is a rub. What does one take literally? The Buddha walking on a the stars? The Christ physically getting out his tomb and literally flying into the sky? And that is the most personal. Even if science were to prove their absolute physical existence as men, their acts are outside of science. [i]Its not contradictionary to be a scientist and still believe. [/i] Correct, of the two men most responsible for the mapping of the genome, one says it proves there is no need of God, the other says it is absolutely is proof of God! But the issue is asking scientists as scientists to believe in something that cannot be shown scientifically in the modern sense except using the syllogistic prime mover method of Aristotle. But in his day Science and Theology and Philosophy were not distinct. What folks have to understand is that they have been distinct for nearly a millennium. Science is best at showing what cannot be, leaving what most likely is easier to find. So when science proves that man cannot have existed alongside dinosaurs and (in this case but I am not singling any one group out), you have a park in Kansas that tries to unite Science and Biblical thought by showing Adam and Eve hanging with a Brontosaurus, one has to wonder if they will ever get the terms of the dialogue. Darwin . . . at one point almost went into the priesthood! But I do hate to be the bad guy: Darwin ended his life as a true agnostic. He in fact did not want to have religious burial as he felt he couldn't in good conscience, but was convinced by his wife, who remained a believer, to keep his membership with his church. Even Einstein died still believing in some kind of impersonal, deist-like god. Darwin was clear he just didn't know and as a scientist would make no comment. Sorry but that is fact on Charles. In the end my God is my God. What my opinion is of him is of little consequence to you or the world. Except in action I take. We could take a page for Kierkegaard and Bonhoeffer on that!

@Macs...what I'm getting at is that there is NOTHING in the theory of evolution that proves God's non-existence....Darwin himself believed that a creator set life into motion and that his theory was the functional mechanism of how life, i.e., biology operates. And simply believing God exists does not mean that evolution is nonsense either... Science constantly recognizes an impossible level of detail in the natural world and especially in biology that makes it difficult to argue natural evolution as the sole source of life. DNA reads like a ridiculously expasive novel, billions of lines long, detailing every instruction of biological function and life. Sure, that's what I personally believe, but it is what it is.

Thanks for the added contributions dallas!dallas!...I think we've beaten the bush as much we can here.

@craigamore -"what I'm getting at is that there is NOTHING in the theory of evolution that proves God's non-existence" I never said or implied that Darwin's theories of natural selection and evolution were proof that there is no God. All I said was that Science and religion are not compatible... apples and oranges as they say. -"Science constantly recognizes an impossible level of detail in the natural world and especially in biology that makes it difficult to argue natural evolution as the sole source of life." That claim has never happened, at least not by real scientists (show proof of this if you have it); I'm pretty sure of this, and if something of the sort were to have been said, it was probably in poetic form. In fact, as time goes by our understanding of these processes gets better and rules out any "intelligent" designer. If you don't believe me check out the Dover Area school district law case: [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District]Dover Area School Case[/url] -These claims of science yielding some way to religion are baseless, but somehow people seem to believe they are accepted norm... -Now, proving or disproving whether a God exists or not is a different story. Some philosophers use scientific findings as examples in their arguments against the existence of God, but this is done in philosophy, not science. Up until now, I don't believe anybody has been able to prove or disprove the existence of a God. Just keep in mind though that it is very difficult to disprove a negative... and how would you be able to define and describe a God to begin with (as Kane77 pointed out earlier)???

@DallasDallas [i]And yet Plato in particular would be an enormous influence on the the development of Judeo-Christian cosmology that is still in many ways current. Just how literal we are to take Plato is a question some scoff at but I think is still unanswered. Ultimately, when Plato gets to his prime mover without using very figurative language, he struggles as much as we do today. And Aristotle just would not commit to defining in any way. Much like many agnostics today.[/i] Others, too like early nature philosophists like Epikur or Demokrit who were looking for natural explanations of reality...later Giordano Bruno...Kant-Laplace-theory of course, for a non-god-influenced cosmology, other than Newton. [i]Ah, there is a rub. What does one take literally? The Buddha walking on a the stars? The Christ physically getting out his tomb and literally flying into the sky? And that is the most personal. Even if science were to prove their absolute physical existence as men, their acts are outside of science.[/i] I think that particular forces of Christ can be explained. Healing, mind/ chakra reading or clearvoyance are possible for very high developed person, even today.. [i] [i]But the issue is asking scientists as scientists to believe in something that cannot be shown scientifically in the modern sense except using the syllogistic prime mover method of Aristotle. But in his day Science and Theology and Philosophy were not distinct. What folks have to understand is that they have been distinct for nearly a millennium. Science is best at showing what cannot be, leaving what most likely is easier to find. So when science proves that man cannot have existed alongside dinosaurs and (in this case but I am not singling any one group out), you have a park in Kansas that tries to unite Science and Biblical thought by showing Adam and Eve hanging with a Brontosaurus, one has to wonder if they will ever get the terms of the dialogue.[/i] right, there is no way possible to step [i]behind[/i] proven methods. Lets name it, even the most materialistic thinking scientist will say, That we dont know, BUT THAT we can define. The dino tracks yeah, I think that religious creationists are doing serious harm to people. [i]Darwin . . . at one point almost went into the priesthood! But I do hate to be the bad guy: Darwin ended his life as a true agnostic. He in fact did not want to have religious burial as he felt he couldn't in good conscience, but was convinced by his wife, who remained a believer, to keep his membership with his church. Even Einstein died still believing in some kind of impersonal, deist-like god. Darwin was clear he just didn't know and as a scientist would make no comment. Sorry but that is fact on Charles. In the end my God is my God. What my opinion is of him is of little consequence to you or the world. Except in action I take. We could take a page for Kierkegaard and Bonhoeffer on that![/i] Right, there is only one way, and that is a personal god and my actions to other people. Thats why christian social theory is important, Karma. There simply is no [i]private[/i] science or even arts.

@DallasDallas [i]And yet Plato in particular would be an enormous influence on the the development of Judeo-Christian cosmology that is still in many ways current. Just how literal we are to take Plato is a question some scoff at but I think is still unanswered. Ultimately, when Plato gets to his prime mover without using very figurative language, he struggles as much as we do today. And Aristotle just would not commit to defining in any way. Much like many agnostics today.[/i] Others, too like early nature philosophists like Epikur or Demokrit who were looking for natural explanations of reality...later Giordano Bruno...Kant-Laplace-theory of course, for a non-god-influenced cosmology, other than Newton. [i]Ah, there is a rub. What does one take literally? The Buddha walking on a the stars? The Christ physically getting out his tomb and literally flying into the sky? And that is the most personal. Even if science were to prove their absolute physical existence as men, their acts are outside of science.[/i] I think that particular forces of Christ can be explained. Healing, mind/ chakra reading or clearvoyance are possible for a very high developed person, at that times and today.. [i] [i]But the issue is asking scientists as scientists to believe in something that cannot be shown scientifically in the modern sense except using the syllogistic prime mover method of Aristotle. But in his day Science and Theology and Philosophy were not distinct. What folks have to understand is that they have been distinct for nearly a millennium. Science is best at showing what cannot be, leaving what most likely is easier to find. So when science proves that man cannot have existed alongside dinosaurs and (in this case but I am not singling any one group out), you have a park in Kansas that tries to unite Science and Biblical thought by showing Adam and Eve hanging with a Brontosaurus, one has to wonder if they will ever get the terms of the dialogue.[/i] right, there is no way possible to step [i]behind[/i] proven methods. Lets name it, even the most materialistic thinking scientist will say, That we dont know, BUT THAT we can define. The dino tracks yeah, I think that religious creationists are doing serious harm to people. [i]Darwin . . . at one point almost went into the priesthood! But I do hate to be the bad guy: Darwin ended his life as a true agnostic. He in fact did not want to have religious burial as he felt he couldn't in good conscience, but was convinced by his wife, who remained a believer, to keep his membership with his church. Even Einstein died still believing in some kind of impersonal, deist-like god. Darwin was clear he just didn't know and as a scientist would make no comment. Sorry but that is fact on Charles. In the end my God is my God. What my opinion is of him is of little consequence to you or the world. Except in action I take. We could take a page for Kierkegaard and Bonhoeffer on that![/i] Right, there is only one way, and that is a personal god and my actions to other people. Thats why christian social theory is important, Karma. There simply is no [i]private[/i] science or even arts.

@craigamore [i]Science constantly recognizes an impossible level of detail in the natural world and especially in biology that makes it difficult to argue natural evolution as the sole source of life. DNA reads like a ridiculously expasive novel, billions of lines long, detailing every instruction of biological function and life. Sure, that's what I personally believe, but it is what it is.[/i] right, the more detailed and specified single data I get from selected methods , the more is lost from the reasons/ picture whats behind. That of course is a natural result from the process and its no accident that technically advanced science is looking out of the box already. the big clues from their own theories: what was before the big bang, why are there phenomenons like brown dwarfts that dont fit into modern theories etc

and thanks for your nice input ..;)