In article <e052g7$c0h$1@lust.ihug.co.nz>, you@somehost.somedomain.aus says...

In article <M1kVf.17641$814.9334@newsfe5-win.ntli.net>, manic_mandy@hotmail.com says...

In news:e04eds$683$1@lust.ihug.co.nz,
Your Name Here=Harvey <you@somehost.somedomain.aus> typed:

As one's knowledge base grows and grows, it will eventually
incorporate
everything into a cohesive understanding.
Science will eventually incorporate everything else - it has to -
to advance, and change some of it's present ideas to a more correct
form.
Revisions will have to be made, which should be done as a matter of
course.

Like history being rewritten as we gain more and more information, so
shall science do the same.

Well I think in some ways established science has spent a lot of time
reacting against religion and has even developed it's own materialistic
athealogogical precepts of faith to the point of becoming a kind of religion
in itself. I think that's a legacy of the 19th century and early 20 century.
But I don't see any reason why science can't move on from that and entertain
theories based around ID. That said IMO ID has nothing to do with literal
interpretation of the book of Genesis or a affirmation of the Biblical God.
In fact as far as I can see far from being at variance with evolution it
enables one to take on a broader conception of evolution and incorporate
things such as panspermia and ancient astronaut theories, which in terms of
religion are the smoking gun, since if proven true would put and end to some
religious ideas forever.
-- 
Amanda

I'm sorry, I don't know what ID stands for, above...

In theoretical science one can postulate anything one wants to, it only
has to be presented in some reasonable manner, even though we lack the
technology to build what is postulated.
Sometimes it's only a few years away, what is imagined, other times it
never happens because it's so far flung into the future.
Practical science is altogether different - either it works or it
doesn't.

Science is limited today by funding - throw enough money into a project,
and it should be realised? Or shown to be a wild goose chase.
Without results, a project remains theoretical.

To be revolutionary, is to take a daring step in an altogether different
direction. Will we see such inventiveness and ingenuity?
It would have to be into free energy territory, that frees us from
current power generation limitations.
There is a video that shows different inventors with their inventions,
which show only a portion of the various ideas/etc in this area.
One cannot help but wonder - why isn't one of these into production
prototypes by now?
The video is about Zero Point Energy, which is another name for
free energy.


There is an excellent video which puts the case for ancient technology
plainly and simply -

Technology.of.the.Gods.-.
The.Incredible.Sciences.of.the.Ancients.(David.Childress).(2004).avi  329.64 MB

Available from this list
http://forum.sharevirus.com/viewforum.php?f=47&topicdays=0&start=100
Available here...
http://forum.sharevirus.com/viewtopic.php?t=11976

I may not agree with everything he says though - but his presentation about
the huge granite slabs and blocks used by the Ancients is well documented
here and is worthy of taking note of.
He points out that the older blocks, lower ones, which are pre-Inca are
the better cut and fitted, while the later Inca work, is the rubble put
on top, which illustrates how vastly different the technology was.

This is against what established archaeology believes in - yet here is
proof positive in the photographic evidence he summarizes.

Harvey

Just finished watching "The Mystery of the Sphinx" from the same
place as above - the files are not at that site, but a link is there 
which allows you access to the files.

Anyway this other documentary, presents the view that the Sphinx is
much, much older than Egyptologists would have us think, it is.
John Anthony West and Robert Schoch put the case forward. Note:
Schoch is the geologist who provides validation that the Sphinx shows
the obvious signs of weathering by rain, therefore making it that
much older than what Egyptologists would agree to.

Anyway this documentary is certainly worthwhile watching.
It does the sort of thing, you wanted the Sphinx subjected to -
detailed scientific examination in one field and another, to substantiate
exactly what do we know about the Sphinx?

A possible link to the face on Mars is discussed as well...

Harvey