That's a cute guess. And guesses aren't bad things. But for your guesses to amount to knowledge, you have to devise an experiment and get a lot more concrete about things.
These guys are getting really concrete:
http://www.iqpr.asia/en/technology/index.htmlThat link wasn't working in my browser.
However, I also want to say that while:
1. I don't believe in any God and
2. I think that the canonical conceptualization of God is not relevant for science (ie, by definition God is unobservable, not natural, etc)
I don't actually agree with Vod that we should expect science to explain everything. As far as I can tell, there should be plenty of things which are simply not relevant to scientific investigation.
Oh yah, for those that are saying that the Bible is 2000 yrs old, I think that's a simplification. Some of the texts seem to go back at least 3000 years, and are probably dervied in part from other ancient texts (Gilgamesh, for example) others weren't written until hundreds of years after Christ's death. Then again, depending on how your philosophy handles linguistic translations and retranslations of those translations, you might say that the English Christian Bible was written as recently as a few hundred years ago.
Paired with the fact that religious cannon is always selected to match the favor of the organized religion it supports, hence the book of enoch is not included in the bible.
Like an ant on a balloon who only sees the balloon as a flat surface to walk on - we will always be limited in perspective through our nanosecond of history on the geological timescale and limits on interplanetary travel, how could we expect to know what to observe elsewhere. I think that if humans started seeing other planets and alien cultures, they would use those observations to adjust their own attitudes and perspectives on 'supernatural' and 'religion'