Most Americans Believe Alien Life Is Possible Study Shows.
Since we don't watch much tv in my household, I didn't see the show which prompted this poll. Was it any good?
And of course I'm pleased this is not so ATM anymore.
Order of Kilopi
Most Americans Believe Alien Life Is Possible Study Shows.
Since we don't watch much tv in my household, I didn't see the show which prompted this poll. Was it any good?
And of course I'm pleased this is not so ATM anymore.
Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?
Established Member
Sound reasonable to me "somewhere in the universe" includes quite a lot!early two-thirds of Americans believe that some form of alien life exists somewhere in the universe, according to a new survey.
They will likely not look too like little green people with big eyes however.
Established Member
1/3 of Americans might not understand how immense the universe really is, though. The media probably helped them along.Originally Posted by Kemal
with regards
Established Member
I think ATM is about the mainstream scientific theory, not the mainstream of what the masses believe to be true. Otherwise soon Creationism may become mainstream as well, but I have a feeling it will be ATM here for a long time to come.
Apart from that: why not? If there may be or have been life on Mars, and since we think evolution is a good theory, then why wouldn't there be life anywhere else? I would be surprised if life on Earth was unique to the universe, but I would also be surprised if we found evidence of life outside the solar system anytime soon. It's a bit of a moot discussion (albeit fascinating because of the almost unlimited speculation one can have).
Senior Member
The idea that there are alien intelligences living elsewhere in our Galaxy is not really ATM. It "becomes" ATM when the assumption is made (without any evidence) that those alien intelligences are here.And of course I'm pleased this is not so ATM anymore.
Order of Kilopi
I concur.
And on that note, the idea of "alien life" is rather mainstream within the scientific community since asumptions that it is likely underlie countless scientific endeavors.
I don't know, Creationism has been mainstream for a long time running, no? So much so that earthlings have yet to agree on what it means to be human.Otherwise soon Creationism may become mainstream as well, but I have a feeling it will be ATM here for a long time to come.
I don't find it to be a moot discussion at all, Fram. We ourselves are now ETs. That reality alone, IMHO, lends validity to ongoing speculation.Apart from that: why not? If there may be or have been life on Mars, and since we think evolution is a good theory, then why wouldn't there be life anywhere else? I would be surprised if life on Earth was unique to the universe, but I would also be surprised if we found evidence of life outside the solar system anytime soon. It's a bit of a moot discussion (albeit fascinating because of the almost unlimited speculation one can have).
But let me ask you this: If you allow the ETH and consider it likely, do you consider earthlings as the "apex" of evolutionary advancement?
Whatever the case, I agree with you in that I'd be surprised, too, if life on earth was unique to the universe.
Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?
Order of Kilopi
As we determined long ago, RAF, what you consider evidence differs from what I think. From the time there was Writing, and even before, earthlings have been telling of "those who from heaven to earth came" and how they've assisted, intervened in, or interrupted the affairs of Mankind. In my mind, this is textual evidence.The idea that there are alien intelligences living elsewhere in our Galaxy is not really ATM. It "becomes" ATM when the assumption is made (without any evidence) that those alien intelligences are here.And of course I'm pleased this is not so ATM anymore.
No matter, what confounds me most about your thinking on the ETH, is that you'll allow for them "elsewhere" but not here, not now, not in the past, not ever.
Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?
Established Member
Hmm, I think many earthlings (at least of the human kind) agree on what it means to be human, certainly in a biological sense. I think you mix this up with the discussion about what it means to be intelligent, and if we can be called the only intelligent life on Earth.I don't know, Creationism has been mainstream for a long time running, no? So much so that earthlings have yet to agree on what it means to be human.
I wouldn't call ourselves ET's because twelve men have stood on the Moon. No one is born yet outside the Earth, and noone has really lived there (in a selfsustaining, durable sense). And I don't think that it changes anything in this discussion.I don't find it to be a moot discussion at all, Fram. We ourselves are now ETs. That reality alone, IMHO, lends validity to ongoing speculation.
But let me ask you this: If you allow the ETH and consider it likely, do you consider earthlings as the "apex" of evolutionary advancement?
Whatever the case, I agree with you in that I'd be surprised, too, if life on earth was unique to the universe.
I don't see how your question about evolution follows from the premisse. First of all; i consider it likely that there is extra terrestrial life. I consider it extremely unlikely that there's is seriously developed life in the rest of the solar system though. And I have absolutely no idea if there is any intelligent life apart from us anywhere in our galaxy or in the universe.
But if there is extraterrestrial life, then there is not just 'evolutionary advancement' (which in itself is a misnomer, as evolution isn't necessarily advancing), but there are many independent 'evolutions', each on their own planet or so. So while you can discuss if we are the best animals to have evolved yet on Earth (and I don't think you can make that judgment on all accounts at the same time: some animals live longer, some have better capacities for reproducing, running, seeing, ..., some are better build to survive catastrophies, etcetera), you cannot say anything about us in light of the ETH (which I assume you mean to be the hypothesis that there is extraterrestrial life somewhere).
Anyway, I certainly don't consider us the apex of evolution on earth, as apex implies a finality, a conclusion, and evolution isn't finished.
Order of Kilopi
Not really, because half the world's population think Mankind was created in "god's image," whether it is Allah, JHVH, or whomever. The other half think we evolved purely from primates and are merely biological machines.Hmm, I think many earthlings (at least of the human kind) agree on what it means to be human, certainly in a biological sense. I think you mix this up with the discussion about what it means to be intelligent, and if we can be called the only intelligent life on Earth.I don't know, Creationism has been mainstream for a long time running, no? So much so that earthlings have yet to agree on what it means to be human.
Well, the mere fact that either earthlings or their robots have and are visiting other planets qualifies us as ETs. Sure, a fledgling space faring species, but ETs nonetheless.I wouldn't call ourselves ET's because twelve men have stood on the Moon. No one is born yet outside the Earth, and noone has really lived there (in a selfsustaining, durable sense). And I don't think that it changes anything in this discussion.I don't find it to be a moot discussion at all, Fram. We ourselves are now ETs. That reality alone, IMHO, lends validity to ongoing speculation.
But let me ask you this: If you allow the ETH and consider it likely, do you consider earthlings as the "apex" of evolutionary advancement?
Whatever the case, I agree with you in that I'd be surprised, too, if life on earth was unique to the universe.
Yes, the ETH is the "extraterrestrial hypothesis."I don't see how your question about evolution follows from the premisse. First of all; i consider it likely that there is extra terrestrial life. I consider it extremely unlikely that there's is seriously developed life in the rest of the solar system though. And I have absolutely no idea if there is any intelligent life apart from us anywhere in our galaxy or in the universe.
But if there is extraterrestrial life, then there is not just 'evolutionary advancement' (which in itself is a misnomer, as evolution isn't necessarily advancing), but there are many independent 'evolutions', each on their own planet or so. So while you can discuss if we are the best animals to have evolved yet on Earth (and I don't think you can make that judgment on all accounts at the same time: some animals live longer, some have better capacities for reproducing, running, seeing, ..., some are better build to survive catastrophies, etcetera), you cannot say anything about us in light of the ETH (which I assume you mean to be the hypothesis that there is extraterrestrial life somewhere).
But what you appear to missing is the notion of intelligence behind the ETH. You know, the "are we alone" question?
Whether you'll admit it or not, homo sapiens sapiens, or "thinkg man," is an evolutionary anomolie. You yourself point out some solid examples of "better" evolutionary progress in other animals. So again, it is the "intelligence factor" within the ETH we're considering and "thinking man" is the only observation of a space faring, aka. ET, species we have.
I agree, and because of this, I have difficulty restricting the ETH with modern understanding and/or technology, like so many others do.Anyway, I certainly don't consider us the apex of evolution on earth, as apex implies a finality, a conclusion, and evolution isn't finished.
Case in point: "Skeptics" can agree the ETH is possible or even likely, but because we earthlings haven't figured out interstellar travel, they restrict the hypothetical ETs' ability to visit earth. They impose our limitiations on the ETH and dismiss the ancient textual evidence and carvings/depictions, the eyewitness accounts (both ancient and modern), the pics and vids, and more, as absolutely mundane imaginings, misidentifications or what have you.
Befuddling, to say the least.
Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?
Established Member
It is called critical thinking.
If you claim something as extra-ordinary as aliens meddling in human
affairs I want evidence. REAL, tactile evidence, like an artifact, or
better still, the mummified corps of one.
Senior Member
This is true...what you consider "evidence" is not in any way convincing.
...and that simply isn't good enough. Your "belief" is irrelevent..."old stories" are not evidence unless they can be corroborated.From the time there was Writing, and even before, earthlings have been telling of "those who from heaven to earth came" and how they've assisted, intervened in, or interrupted the affairs of Mankind. In my mind, this is textual evidence.
Why should that "confound" you? You know my position. I see no reason why there can't be intelligent life "out there". I just don't see any evidence that they are/were here.No matter, what confounds me most about your thinking on the ETH, is that you'll allow for them "elsewhere" but not here, not now, not in the past, not ever.
You assume that we will figure out interstellar travel...do you base that assumption on the science involved?...or do you base it on "wishing" it were so??Case in point: "Skeptics" can agree the ETH is possible or even likely, but because we earthlings haven't figured out interstellar travel, they restrict the hypothetical ETs' ability to visit earth.
Established Member
This is again the mix of mainstream science and what the masses believe. I'm talking about mainstream science.Not really, because half the world's population think Mankind was created in "god's image," whether it is Allah, JHVH, or whomever. The other half think we evolved purely from primates and are merely biological machines.Hmm, I think many earthlings (at least of the human kind) agree on what it means to be human, certainly in a biological sense. I think you mix this up with the discussion about what it means to be intelligent, and if we can be called the only intelligent life on Earth.I don't know, Creationism has been mainstream for a long time running, no? So much so that earthlings have yet to agree on what it means to be human.
Then you and I have a different definition of an ET.Well, the mere fact that either earthlings or their robots have and are visiting other planets qualifies us as ETs. Sure, a fledgling space faring species, but ETs nonetheless.I wouldn't call ourselves ET's because twelve men have stood on the Moon. No one is born yet outside the Earth, and noone has really lived there (in a selfsustaining, durable sense). And I don't think that it changes anything in this discussion.I don't find it to be a moot discussion at all, Fram. We ourselves are now ETs. That reality alone, IMHO, lends validity to ongoing speculation.
But let me ask you this: If you allow the ETH and consider it likely, do you consider earthlings as the "apex" of evolutionary advancement?
Whatever the case, I agree with you in that I'd be surprised, too, if life on earth was unique to the universe.
Why are we an evolutionary anomaly? All I see is a normal evolutionary line from some primates over early homo until sapiens sapiens.Yes, the ETH is the "extraterrestrial hypothesis."
But what you appear to missing is the notion of intelligence behind the ETH. You know, the "are we alone" question?
Whether you'll admit it or not, homo sapiens sapiens, or "thinkg man," is an evolutionary anomolie. You yourself point out some solid examples of "better" evolutionary progress in other animals. So again, it is the "intelligence factor" within the ETH we're considering and "thinking man" is the only observation of a space faring, aka. ET, species we have.
I agree, and because of this, I have difficulty restricting the ETH with modern understanding and/or technology, like so many others do.Anyway, I certainly don't consider us the apex of evolution on earth, as apex implies a finality, a conclusion, and evolution isn't finished.
Case in point: "Skeptics" can agree the ETH is possible or even likely, but because we earthlings haven't figured out interstellar travel, they restrict the hypothetical ETs' ability to visit earth. They impose our limitiations on the ETH and dismiss the ancient textual evidence and carvings/depictions, the eyewitness accounts (both ancient and modern), the pics and vids, and more, as absolutely mundane imaginings, misidentifications or what have you.
Befuddling, to say the least.
If the notion of intelligence is necessary for the ETH, then this is not the same thing as I was talking about. The original question was if there is ET life, not if there is ET intelligence. Space faring and ET are not the same in my view, and in the normally used definition.
Finally, about the skeptics. The dismissals, as you call them, are detailed descriptions of what happened in reality, in many cases. Can you show any modern pic, vid or eyewitness account that you think is believable?
And what do you mean by ancient eye witness accounts? The Enuma Elish? I would be surprised if there were eye witnesses of the battle that pulled the moon loose from the Earth, as you suppose is described in it.
Order of Kilopi
Given examples like the following...:
(Source)Several years ago, in a survey of US adults, the National Science Foundation found that only 27 per cent of respondents could acceptably describe the nature of scientific inquiry and explain what an experiment or a hypothesis is. In other words, most Americans do not grasp how science works, or what separates science from pseudoscience, or from charlatanism.
... I place painfully little credence in what most Americans believe.
Order of Kilopi
I understand; I'd like "REAL" evidence too to end this debate.
But I don't see it as an extraordinary claim since "those from heaven to earth came" have been attested to since time immemorial.
Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?
Order of Kilopi
Hey, y'all, we know what is scientific mainstream and what isn't.
The part that isn't belongs in the appropriately named:
Against the Mainstream
Established Member
And for millenia Aristotle had people believing that a collection of rocks fell faster than the rocks falling individually.I understand; I'd like "REAL" evidence too to end this debate.
But I don't see it as an extraordinary claim since "those from heaven to earth came" have been attested to since time immemorial.
Your point?
Age makes wine and cheese, not facts.
[edited to add]
Perhaps a more succinct explanation would suffice. As humans, we observe things fall. We also observe them to spring up from the soil. So it is reasonable for us to assume many of our myths would contain either falling or springing up. Why haven't you looked at all of the springing-up from an underworld set - because they don't fit with the idea of aliens?
Established Member
The poll I believe was from the National Geographic Channel's airing of "Extraterrestrial"Since we don't watch much tv in my household, I didn't see the show which prompted this poll. Was it any good?
http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...amp;highlight=
http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...amp;highlight=
For any who saw Discovery Channel's Alien Planet.
http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence...et/splash.html
Or are planning to follow National Geographic's "Extraterrestrial" Series...
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/ch...raterrestrial/I do believe there is life on other planets in the Universe AND in the Galaxy.Question 1 was asked of all respondents:
1. Do you believe that there is life on other planets in the universe besides earth?
60% Yes
32% No
8% Don't Know
Questions 2-15 were asked of those respondents who believe in life on other planets (60% of total):
2. When do you think we will confirm, without a doubt, that there is life on other planets: in the next few years, in the next few decades, in another century or more, or never?
7% Next Few Years
38% Next Few Decades
34% Century or More
14% Never
8% Don't Know
3. If we were to discover, for certain, that there was life on other planets, which of the following best describes how you would most feel: afraid and nervous OR excited and hopeful?
20% Afraid and Nervous
72% Excited and Hopeful
8% Don't Know
4. Thinking of the entire universe, do you think there is life on millions of planets, thousands of planets, hundreds of planets, or only a few planets?
15% Millions of Planets
12% Thousands of Planets
16% Hundreds of Planets
45% Only a Few Planets
11% Don't Know
5. Do you think life would only develop on planets with similar characteristics to earth, or do you think a planet can be very different from earth and still develop life?
18% Can Develop Only on Planets Similar to Earth
77% Can Develop on Planets Very Different From Earth
5% Don't Know
6. Do you think life can develop on a planet if there is no liquid water and no sunlight?
45% Yes
47% No
8% Don't Know
7. In your opinion, how likely is it that some of these life forms on other planets would be similar to single cell or few cell organisms like microbes or bacteria? Would you say it is very likely, somewhat likely or not likely at all?
45% Very Likely
42% Somewhat Likely
8% Not Likely at All
5% Don't Know
8. In your opinion, how likely is it that some life forms on other planets would be similar to plants like trees and flowers?
25% Very Likely
54% Somewhat Likely
17% Not Likely at All
4% Don't Know
9. In your opinion, how likely is it that some life forms on other planets would be similar to animals, like birds, lizards or mammals?
21% Very Likely
48% Somewhat Likely
25% Not likely at All
5% Don't Know
10. In your opinion, how likely is it that there are intelligent life forms on other planets that are similar to humans?
30% Very Likely
46% Somewhat likely
21% Not likely
3% Don't Know
11. In your opinion, how likely is it that there are intelligent life forms on other planets that are more advanced than us?
39% Very likely
41% Somewhat Likely
16% Not Likely at All
3% Don't Know
12. In your opinion, how likely is it that there are life forms on other planets that have the technology to travel through space to visit different solar systems?
34% Very likely
38% Somewhat Likely
24% Not Likely
4% Don't Know
13. In your opinion, how likely is it that there are life forms on other planets that have the technology to communicate across deep space?
29% Very likely
44% Somewhat Likely
22% Not Likely at All
4% Don't Know
14. Suppose we heard communications coming from another planet. Do you think we should communicate back with them?
90% Yes
7% No
3% Don't Know
15. If beings from another planet sent a message to us through deep space, do you think we would be able to figure out what they were saying?
50% Yes
38% No
11% Don't Know
These results are from a nationally representative telephone survey of 1,000 Americans aged 18+, conducted by the Center for Survey Research and Analysis (CSRA) at the University of Connecticut
I do believe there is life out there that is far beyond our level of technology
as in level 1 and possibly a few level 2 but there are not any level 3 or above civilizations yet. *(There would be evidence).
As for the evidence of other life...Perhaps we don't fully understand what we see yet. We as a civilization are still children. Children often think foolish thoughts and come to the wrong conclusions. Add a half a BILLION years to our own rate of progress and reask the same question. Heck, add 500 years and ask again.
"Hey, Thats a Star! Hey, Thats a Star too because it has the same characteristics as the other one. Wait, Thats not a star, It's a Galaxy!. Wait, Thats not a galaxy, its a black hole, no Its darkmatter, no Its something else... What is THAT!
Oh, so thats what a dyson sphere really looks like...
Established Member
But not in any consistent manner, and many other things have been attested since time immemorial as well without being reality.I understand; I'd like "REAL" evidence too to end this debate.
But I don't see it as an extraordinary claim since "those from heaven to earth came" have been attested to since time immemorial.
Order of Kilopi
If we become extraterrestrials by leaving Earth, then, by your definition, any visting aliens would become terrestrials by being here.Well, the mere fact that either earthlings or their robots have and are visiting other planets qualifies us as ETs. Sure, a fledgling space faring species, but ETs nonetheless.
I think you are playing fast and loose with your definitions.
Order of Kilopi
Unless humans drop to prehistoric level, evolution IS finished with us. Evolution involves survival (and reproduction) of the fittest, and human survival no longer depends on natural factors. Things like eyeglasses and spinal cord operations keep the otherwise unsurvivable genes in the population. Moreover, evolution depends on isolated groups developing distinct identities -- no species ever "evolve" into another species en masse, -- and no human group is isolated any more. All human genotypes continue mixing, which makes arising of a truly new species impossible.
That is not to say human genome will remain forever what it is now -- it could change through genetic engineering, in fact I am certain it will. But that is not the same as evolution.
Order of Kilopi
I agree that genetic engineering will be a major issue in the next century, but you can't assume that conditions that only affect a small part of the total population and have only existed for an eyeblink of time will continue for many thousands of years - probably the minimum time for evolutionary effects to start becoming obvious. Besides, even local conditions would eventually have an effect on the path of evolution if continued long enough. And if we do manage to spread beyond the planet, with the wildly different environments, there probably would be a whole new set of diverging evolutionary pressures.
Established Member
But won't other animals still evolve? Plus you have things like mutations, which when beneficial may still occur and prosper (or with current medical and social situation may even prosper when they are not so beneficial). And then there is the possibility of space colonies, or of disasters waiting to happen.Unless humans drop to prehistoric level, evolution IS finished with us. Evolution involves survival (and reproduction) of the fittest, and human survival no longer depends on natural factors. Things like eyeglasses and spinal cord operations keep the otherwise unsurvivable genes in the population. Moreover, evolution depends on isolated groups developing distinct identities -- no species ever "evolve" into another species en masse, -- and no human group is isolated any more. All human genotypes continue mixing, which makes arising of a truly new species impossible.
That is not to say human genome will remain forever what it is now -- it could change through genetic engineering, in fact I am certain it will. But that is not the same as evolution.
But you are right that the normal impetus of evolution of humans, things like the survival of the fittest and the isolation of small groups, is almost over for the time being.
Honored Member
All depends on the message. If it were something like this15. If beings from another planet sent a message to us through deep space, do you think we would be able to figure out what they were saying?
50% Yes
38% No
11% Don't Know
I would wonder about the sense of replying. Then again, it might be our only hope! After all, "There is another Sky..."Lrrr [on TV]: People of Earth. I am Lrrr of the planet Omicron Persei 8. [He taps the mic and turns to his aides.] Is this thing on? [He blows into it and turns back to the camera.] Now then. We want the one you call "McNeal." Give us McNeal or we will lay waste to your cities with our anti-monument laser. We demand McNeal!
Senior Member
The idea that "ET's" are visiting us (or have visited us in the past) with no evidence to support that contention, is an extraordinary claim...it matters little that you don't "see" it that way...that's the way it is...
...and this thread, IMO, does belong in ATM.
edited to add IMO.
Order of Kilopi
**SNIP***I base my opinion on what I read; "wishing" has nothing to do with it.
Barely a hundred years ago it was thought that traveling to the moon was impossible, so are you saying that with the rate of technological advance discernable today, another hundred years won't produce more viable possibilities?
Considering recent projects like NASA's Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Project and some of the Emerging Possibilities, I remain optimistic that the "science involved" will produce.
Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?
Senior Member
No...what I'm saying is that we can't know the future. Perhaps we will eventually explore the entire Solar System and then just stop because of the vast distances involved in reaching another star. Perhaps we will eventually explore our entire Galaxy. Or perhaps we will send Man to Mars...and that will be it.
The point is that assuming ET's "must" have the capability to travel interstellar distances is just that...an assumption.
That's great...as long as you also remain realistic.I remain optimistic
Order of Kilopi
I see.This is again the mix of mainstream science and what the masses believe. I'm talking about mainstream science.
And that's my point, generally speaking, humans do not agree on what it means to be human. Of course within "mainstream science" nearly everyone will agree; they all think we are strictly biological machines.
**SNIP**
And you can't understand the context in which we're speaking here?Then you and I have a different definition of an ET.Well, the mere fact that either earthlings or their robots have and are visiting other planets qualifies us as ETs. Sure, a fledgling space faring species, but ETs nonetheless.
Sure, microbes and such are "ET" but if they're confirmed, won't that in turn suggest "life" is widespread and increase the likelihood for intelligent life, or "life as we know it?"
**SNIP**
I see.Why are we an evolutionary anomaly? All I see is a normal evolutionary line from some primates over early homo until sapiens sapiens.
If the notion of intelligence is necessary for the ETH, then this is not the same thing as I was talking about. The original question was if there is ET life, not if there is ET intelligence. Space faring and ET are not the same in my view, and in the normally used definition.
In my experience, the "normally used" definition of ET implies an intelligence. I know not one person whom I could ask about ET and he or she'd would first think, "yeah, microbes on asteroids... it's possible."
Excluding a few BABBers, of course.
Actually, that's wrong. Kingu (the moon) is "begotten" by Tiamat before the "celestial battle" and is left lifeless and barren only after the event.Finally, about the skeptics. The dismissals, as you call them, are detailed descriptions of what happened in reality, in many cases.
Can you show any modern pic, vid or eyewitness account that you think is believable?
And what do you mean by ancient eye witness accounts? The Enuma Elish? I would be surprised if there were eye witnesses of the battle that pulled the moon loose from the Earth, as you suppose is described in it.
And that's the kicker, isn't it? How could the sumerians have described such an event as the creation of "heaven and earth?" Well, according to them it was the Anunnaki who told them. But of course, this only works if one allows the ETH.
Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?
Order of Kilopi
I have to agree.
But this begs the question of where the "breakdown" occurred. Has "science" alienated(pun intended) the masses? Is it something within our education system?
Personally, I think a factor, in regards to the ETH, is that so many people have seen something they are certain was an "intelligently controlled" craft, and yet "science" tells them they're "woowoos" and that they don't understand "how science works," that they shouldn't believe their own eyes because a "flock of geese," or Venus is what they might've seen.
Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?
Order of Kilopi
OK, and yet we can find "facts" on History in our textbooks based mainly on textual evidence, some carvings, and corroborating texts, right? This is the same with "those from heaven to earth came;" textual evidence, depictions in stone, corroborating texts.And for millenia Aristotle had people believing that a collection of rocks fell faster than the rocks falling individually.I understand; I'd like "REAL" evidence too to end this debate.
But I don't see it as an extraordinary claim since "those from heaven to earth came" have been attested to since time immemorial.
Your point?
Age makes wine and cheese, not facts.
And still, the idea is "extraordinary."
Actually, the idea of a "netherworld" or an "underworld" stems from the sumerian ABZU, the mines of the fiery "lower world" where the anunnaki placed the "primitive worker" to take over their toil.[edited to add]
Perhaps a more succinct explanation would suffice. As humans, we observe things fall. We also observe them to spring up from the soil. So it is reasonable for us to assume many of our myths would contain either falling or springing up. Why haven't you looked at all of the springing-up from an underworld set - because they don't fit with the idea of aliens?
So you see, this actually works with "the idea of aliens."
Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?
Order of Kilopi
I disagree. My point is that the human species has either landed on another planetary body, being extraterrestrial, or it has sent robots that have landed, or crashed, on other bodies, being extraterrestrial.
Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote