I've yet to read a definitive scientific explanation for the creation of life. The best science can offer is the big bang, cell replication, and dna mapping. Not a direct scientific explanation of the moment of creation. Scientist may shout from amongst their beakers, "It's alive. it's alive." But not the why. Since science has failed to answer mans most pressing question since day one and had several thousands of years to come up with an answer. At least the same amount of time as religion. Science ought to be abandoned as a tool of human exploration and understanding. Science is directly responsible for all of mankind's wars since man sharpened the first stick or chose the best rock. The history there after is just refinement of the art of killing. Gunpowder, atom splitting, is just a sharper stick. The art, the science, it's all ego and needs to be done away with before it brings about the final destruction of all mankind. Science is evil. It's killed more people than it ever helped to assuage it's ego

"Scientist may shout from amongst their beakers, "It's alive. it's alive." But not the why. Since science has failed to answer mans most pressing question since day one and had several thousands of years to come up with an answer." - Aqvarivs

Real science as oppose to developing technology has existed for at best three hundred years.

Life? Current thinking is along the lines that inorganic replicators [like crystals] morphed [give quintillions of interactions over billions of years] into basic replicators, thence, into DNA (Dawkins). It might take Science hundreds of years to fuse the necessay [say geology/biology]. That is why we explore. We test and admit when we are wrong and hold tentative the possibility of truths.

Life? Why? ... Happenstance. Purpose? At the micro level to preserve genes and the macro level the product of the interaction within cultures in response to ecology (Triandis).

[Regarding the Ancient Greek meaning of the word, "Demon"} ...

PHILO:

Philo to Oliver: WRONG!

My reference was Woodhouse (1910) [Like Fowler is to English]. His primary sources were Plato and Xenophon. Moreover, Woodhouse added that his translation was strong in both verse and prose.

Socrates' alleged insanity was put down to his guardian demon.

A quick personal search revealed references to demons [a.k.a. daemons and demones]inhabiting statues too.

Consistent with your posit, Homer secondarily is said to have called a Gods, demons [source didn't say which gods].

I think history will show Koine Greek was translated by Apuleius and in the Latin Church by Thomas Aquinas.

Just the same, thank you for your and detailed reply. But where did it come from? What souces were outside Christian tacts? Name your Greek source documents, thanks.Not little greenk books from Bible College I trust.

Love yer logic, aqvarivs.

>>Since science has failed to answer mans most pressing question since day one and had several thousands of years to come up with an answer. At least the same amount of time as religion. Science ought to be abandoned as a tool of human exploration and understanding.<<

The reason science has "failed" is because it was not designed for the task.

Scientists and religious folk have totally different objectives, job descriptions, and process management techniques.

It is not the task of science to tell us "why". It is the task of science to tell us "how".

And being fair, science has at least been making some forward progress over the years. There are more things we understand in the language of science than we did ten, fifty, a hundred or a thousand years ago.

For those of us who believe that it offers an increasingly comprehensible explanation of the "how" we got here, this is progress. And as such, keeps us interested in making further progress.

Will science ever discover - even accidentally - the "why"?

I very much doubt it.

The reason for this is because the tools they are using, the techniques they employ and the logical structure of their research, is not designed to unearth the reason behind these events, merely their causation.

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Nevertheless, I expect that - being human and by nature curious - we will continue to refine our understanding of the "how" we got here, which after all is a big enough, mind-boggling event in itself.

But I totally reject the concept that because science will never discover the "why", it suddenly becomes axiomatic that religion is able to provide those answers.

That is about as logical as saying because scientists can't tell you why a boat disappears in the Bermuda Triangle, the ufologists must be right to blame it on aliens.

Oliver, reasoning that putting a point on a stick would better pierce the hide of an animal and then fashioning the tools to do that work is the infancy of mans science and technology. Real science? As opposed to the science of the founding principles we use today. All that non-real science that got us up to and including the past 300 years?

Pericles, it's not my logic. I'm merely pointing out to those who claim their non-belief is superior, by using their logic.
The fact is any human endeavour can be attacked using the same logic.
Prove to me God exist. Prove to me the big bang happened. Prove to me time and space is infinite. Prove we're able to discern that split second between one moment and using the very same moment in time as part of a continuous existent. A relentless repetitive series of the exact same moment, On off on off on off on off... We just think something has past.

Prove to me your existence.

There is only a single number and that is one. Every other number is achieved by adding one. So does twelve exist. And why when we add one once again luck becomes a mathematical consideration?

Man is ego therefore all man does is ego.

Mans existence is one homogeneous pie. It's illogical to select any particular slice to use to attempt to defeat any other slice in argument. Good vs. evil. Hot vs. cold. Night vs. day. None exist independent of the other. With out the one there is no other.

In the absents of belief there is no belief in anything. In the absents of faith there is no faith in anything.

The sky is blue and the water is wet, but is it?

I firmly believe that when first man had his first crap he uttered the immortal words, Oh my God. Then turned to find some one to show it to.

Careful. You may wake up to find yourself asleep.

Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world. Albert Einstein

aqvarius,

What is Science and what is Technology? Sharping a stick to use as a spearing tool/weapon would be typically designated "technology"; forecasting before 1919 that Sun's mass would destort the light observed in the 1919 solar elipse is Science. Chinese inventions were often just happened upon" e.g., powder from Alchemy. The discipline that studies the influence of Science ON technology posit theory ON practice. In the middle of the 1700s humankind learned how to learn, allowing amongst other things for disciplines to merge: e.g., biology and chemistry. Intuition is NOT sidelined rather applied to a more fruit [if the past 300 years are typical] methodologies.

I tend to think of myself as an eclective progressive, who can hold several propostions similtaneouly. Herein, the atheist/agnostic tags don't sit well. Rather, I posit that a study of priesthoods, the architecture of godheads and gods, are known to historians and anthropologists: This knowledge degrades the idea the Churches have found god. If the Churches are correct it is a fluke, as churches and priesthool are political constructs. But the evidence, ON BALANCE, is that their accounts/interpretaions are false. So God becomes only a remote [not fully discounted] possibility. But it would seem to the gods of religions are of human origin.

Materialism, without arigid notion of "matter" would describe me. My view is that the Newtonian physical sciences hold strong in space-time in our experience. But, these phenomena do break infinitisal indeterminism(QM)and singularities/phase space (Cosmology)outside more stable 4-D realities.

"A wise man proportions his belief on the evidence." (Hume). Good scientists perpetually live in the "twilight" [Loche] of their fallibility; whereas, devote religionists live in "light" their self-perceived infallibility. A restless search vs. a stagnant posit.

Oliver,

What I see is you equally dependent on someone else's work, someone else's thinking for your opinions and then use them to attempt to defeat someone else and their opinion based on someone else's thinking. All in the question of belief. What you believe vs. what they believe.

Science is no proof of anything if human perception wont allow for that observable reality. Like I said. Water is wet and the sky is blue but, is it really. Science can "prove" to us that water is not actually wet and that the sky is not actually blue. Which reality do we live with?

Should those of us who believe in that scientific reality go around belittling, being contemptuous, and demanding that people change their perceptions. Demand they acknowledge that their perceptions are based on a biological failure to be able to distinguish the true reality?

I think the better question is do you want to live in a world were there is no God. Whether you or I personally believe in God is not as important as demanding no one believes in Gods.

Many of our greatest scientist, mathematicians and philosophers have been believers in a God and no one disputes their work for that inclusion.

Don't place that glass of water on that table. That table is not actually a solid. Well, neither is the glass. And the water is actually gas.
Man are you messed up. Don't you live in reality? :-)

Belief in God is a matter of perception. Those who can not perceive of a God can not see that. :-)

Peace dude.