ChatterBank1 min ago
Ancient Alien Astronaughts
155 Answers
After reading Theland's thread below (who or what created the universe) and the debate that developed between Naomi and others regarding ancient aliens visiting Earth, I thought that it may deserve a thread of its own.
I read von Daniken's books as a teenager and later found out that much of what he wrote was fabricated. *BUT* there have been other authors who have had the same ideas without Danikens fancies.
Myself, I'm open minded about it all, but still a fascinating subject to discuss.
I read von Daniken's books as a teenager and later found out that much of what he wrote was fabricated. *BUT* there have been other authors who have had the same ideas without Danikens fancies.
Myself, I'm open minded about it all, but still a fascinating subject to discuss.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by nailit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.Aren't the Nazca Lines often brought up as one piece of possible evidence for aliens having visited Earth at some point?
I'd readily accept that, on its own, refuting a possible link (or at any rate seriously calling it into question) between Nazca and alien astronauts would leave the overall question still open. But still, it seems relevant all the same -- If nothing else because proving things the other way round, ie that it was impossible for the Nazca lines to have any other origin or inspiration than real alien visitors, would be decisive all on its own.
But anyway. I tend to believe that (a) there is almost certainly life out there*, but (b) it's unlikely that we'll prove this any time soon. Not in my lifetime. I'd love to be wrong about this!**
We'll see. Doesn't hurt to keep believing, as long as you do so with due scepticism.
*But maybe not intelligent life of the form you'd require for alien visitors. It's a huge research question in itself whether complex life is a remarkable stroke of luck, or the inevitable result of chemistry.
**An often-lost aspect of actual scientific work is that a great many scientists actively spend their time doing research that they seriously want to be wrong. It would be boring if they were right all the time, anyway. But mainly science progresses by recognising where it's deficient rather a lot better than by where it's successful.
I'd readily accept that, on its own, refuting a possible link (or at any rate seriously calling it into question) between Nazca and alien astronauts would leave the overall question still open. But still, it seems relevant all the same -- If nothing else because proving things the other way round, ie that it was impossible for the Nazca lines to have any other origin or inspiration than real alien visitors, would be decisive all on its own.
But anyway. I tend to believe that (a) there is almost certainly life out there*, but (b) it's unlikely that we'll prove this any time soon. Not in my lifetime. I'd love to be wrong about this!**
We'll see. Doesn't hurt to keep believing, as long as you do so with due scepticism.
*But maybe not intelligent life of the form you'd require for alien visitors. It's a huge research question in itself whether complex life is a remarkable stroke of luck, or the inevitable result of chemistry.
**An often-lost aspect of actual scientific work is that a great many scientists actively spend their time doing research that they seriously want to be wrong. It would be boring if they were right all the time, anyway. But mainly science progresses by recognising where it's deficient rather a lot better than by where it's successful.
Jim, the lines are potentially relevant to the theory, but an on-going discussion on scale is utterly superfluous.
//Doesn't hurt to keep believing, as long as you do so with due scepticism.//
‘Believing’ isn’t the issue. Looking for and examining potential evidence is.
//But mainly science progresses by recognising where it's deficient//
Personally I think science is utterly deficient in this area – but it's yet to recognise that.
//Doesn't hurt to keep believing, as long as you do so with due scepticism.//
‘Believing’ isn’t the issue. Looking for and examining potential evidence is.
//But mainly science progresses by recognising where it's deficient//
Personally I think science is utterly deficient in this area – but it's yet to recognise that.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.