The fails of the ancient astronaut theory

@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 ..;)