La6Muerte66:
RE:”While it would be rather interesting to find out that there's some superior race watching us from afar, I find it rather doubtful. It's known beyond a shadow of a doubt that humans evolved from a common ancestor we share with the great apes, so the idea that we were brought here is already irrelevant.”
I must say you hold quite good point, but you also lack of evidence yourself to hold your assumptions, we still have all the missing chains between each species evolution, simply no one have discovered a single animal that shows the transition between both roots, for example the idea that birds came from reptiles, we just have few evidential links between both class but we don’t have the missing link that holds that theory consistent, Yet you also don’t hold evidence that all this spectators where seeing weird things in the skies or mythical creature, so the idea that we brought here is not completely irrelevant, for the fact that you don’t even know how we came to be here as a species in the first place. What scientific facts and experiments? Archeological discoveries? Our science still young to just encase on it, so far the evolution theory could be as much conspiracy theory as this. New findings come along in the path that may destroy past conceptions of creation theory that scientist speculate.
RE: “Many people like to say that because ancient civilizations have accomplished great feats of technology that they MUST have had outside help. That idea is flawed already, as it is pure arrogant assumption to think that just because they didn't have the things we have today, that they were automatically primitive, unintelligent beings. These are the people that gave us the foundations of our modern education system. All the math, astronomy, philosophy, etc. that we take for granted nowadays was being pondered and formulated by these people.”
I disagree, you don’t have anything to prove this wrong either, said again, I think you have more clues that they had some exterior influence than just emergence of knowledge by looking at the sky, if you have a evidence or scientific explanation about how can you discover a planet that wasn’t still discovered aprox 1 decade ago( so called “planet X”) with the technological advancement we have today, how can you say they weren’t primitive in their methods of seeing this things, when there haven’t been found any method of how they know it? Unless you discovered and artifact to know it or any other documented evidence of how they did it, you CAN’T also know. You said it, they gave us the clues for us discover the knowledge for ourselves, but where do they get theirs? can you tell me, do you have the evidence? Or you are just presuming? Are you telling me they watch the skies and saw Pluto? Or they just drew the whole solar system in order because they just made a spaceship never documented and they did it? Reason, not everything can’t be solved by scientific facts when you don’t have the evidence to disapprove them.
RE:”Another point that is commonly brought up is the idea of visitors from space. What is ignored, however, is the fact that every civilization has stories of mysterious races, creatures, etc. These stories most likely came out of man's wonder at the marvelous world in which he lives. Giants, demons, sphynxes, gorgons, and the kraken are all creatures that we pretty much know don't exist. They were still the focus of stories, religions, monuments, etc. worldwide, but they were not based on any sort of reality. The assumption that stories about visitors from the stars must be true is quite the same as assuming any of the Greek, Norse, Roman, Babylonian, Caananite, Arabian, etc. myths were true. It is an assumption based purely on our desire to believe, rather than evidence.”
Again, no one can say that as a definite conclusion, where you in those times? Where you in the head of everyone to know if it’s true or not? Maybe it isn’t, but you can’t rely on science to denied them when you don’t have the documentation, maybe the mythologies are hoax and imagery, but not all of them can be taken as pure imagination, you are trying to auto convince yourself that what cannot be explained has to hold a scientific evidence for your theory acceptation, your ignoring the possibilities and that is what bashes the empiric theorist conclusions. You don’t have the evidence to support it but you just discard the possibility because you already denied it, What if I tell you just to say, there is a place in the ocean in deepest darkest place where all this creatures exists and sometimes come out to the surface to “chill out”. Are you going to tell me is not true because you don’t have evidence is real, can you also show me that is not true? Can you go down there take pictures and prove me that their isn’t such place? I think some natural physical barriers will prevent you from showing me, until you have the tools and technology to prove it you can’t say is absolutely preposterous, if you also don’t have evidence is not real. You only have evidence until our scientific technologies can reach. For example few of the evolutionary theories were discarded when the new scientific breakthrough about the Genetics and microbiologic science emerged, few decades before that all you knew about it was all that for you was real, few years later something came new and all you knew was incredibly incoherent. Science can’t only show you, where science can reach.
