Human origins.

[pink_trike]

Within the "legitimate" (research or academic ) institutional sciences, is there a field of inquiry devoted to the research of extraterrestrial involvement in the creation or evolution of the human species? If so, I'd appreciate it if someone could name it and direct me to related sites/sources. If not, I'd be curious to know the reasons, based on these thoughts:

 

- We know that the age of our universe is between 11 and 20 billion years old. Plenty of time for other life forms to exist elsewhere in the universe, especially when considering the time it is believed that it took for life to evolve on planet Earth.

 

- We know that, statistically, it is very likely if not certain, that there are other planets in the universe that could conceivably support intelligent life forms.

 

- We know from our own limited and fairly immature experiences that space travel is possible.

 

- We know that cloning life forms is no longer a whimsy of science fiction.

 

- And lastly, an extraordinary number of detailed, premodern oral and preserved creation stories (which we prefer to call "mythologies") have been documented that make very specific reference to "the men who from space came", or similar descriptions of an intelligent species who came to Earth and mixed it up with primitive humans.

 

In asking the questions in my opening paragraph, I'm not advocating anything about the origins of the human species. I'm specifically interested in whether the possibility of extraterrestrial contact with planet earth is considered a legitimate area of scientific research and discourse in our modern culture, and if not, why not? Meaning, has there been a debate within the scientific community that ultimately determined that this is not an area of inquiry deserving scientific attention? If this is so, are the particulars of this debate available in print? If the debate has not taken place, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts regarding why it hasn't.

 

(I specifically am not interested in UFO theory, Sitchin, Von Daniken, Atlantis, and similarly related topics that exist in what is now being referred to as "popular science").

 

Thanks...

[Sisyphus]

I think if anyone found any legitimate, worthwhile evidence, then it would be seriously investigated. But that just hasn't been the case. There just isn't anything to investigate.

 

You offer the fairly common theme of "men from the sky" in various mythologies, but when you think about it, that's pretty much what you'd expect anyway. The sky is a vast, inaccessible place of brilliant lights and colors. To an ignorant society, it would make perfect sense for strange and powerful beings to live there.

 

Further, though there is certainly life elsewhere in the universe, the chances that there is life enough like us, close by enough, and within the cosmically narrow time frame of human existence for what you describe is extremely small, based on everything we know (which admittedly is not much, but is nonetheless all we have to go on). For example, in the entire billions of years during which there was life on Earth, there has been exactly one species capable of intelligent communication (human beings), and us for only a few millennia - an instant in cosmic time. Now when you consider that all life on Earth had the same origin and have evolved under more or less the same conditions, the prospect of a completely alien being from a completely different origin in a completely different environment being enough like us to communicate with seems extremely unlikely.

[pink_trike]

I think if anyone found any legitimate, worthwhile evidence, then it would be seriously investigated. But that just hasn't been the case. There just isn't anything to[/i'] investigate.

 

I'm curious how legitimate, worthwhile evidence could be found if there hasn't been serious investigation. I'm interested in the process that decided that there was nothing to investigate before it was investigated...if indeed it hasn't been investigated.

 

You offer the fairly common theme of "men from the sky" in various mythologies, but when you think about it, that's pretty much what you'd expect anyway. The sky is a vast, inaccessible place of brilliant lights and colors. To an ignorant society, it would make perfect sense for strange and powerful beings to live there.

 

I wonder about the "perfect sense " of that. Having studied premodern "mythology" and premodern civilization for a couple of decades, I no longer share the general view in our modern society that premodern people were "ignorant". Far from it. Their ability to reason and accurately record the natural world was highly developed. They built complex and orderly societies. They developed complex cosmologies that were scientifically perceptive. In many instances, they had a grasp of mathematics and astronomy that rivals our own. They had sophisticated understandings of the concepts of "right" and "wrong". Also, it begs the question...why would an ignorant people even conceive of "men who from space came" having had no exposure to such an idea, being solely of earth? The idea that intelligent people would look at the sky, and "imagine" intelligent life forms visiting them from out there is, at best, unusual, especially considering the frequency with which it appears to have happened.

 

Further, though there is certainly life elsewhere in the universe, the chances that there is life enough like us, close by enough, and within the cosmically narrow time frame of human existence for what you describe is extremely small, based on everything we know (which admittedly is not much, but is nonetheless all we have to go on).

 

Hm...sorry. Not knowing much is not enough to support the idea that the chance is extremely small. That might be proved correct someday, but as it stands its still wide open and speculative. Its actually probably safer to say something on the order of...if it happened here, it could happen other places...frequency entirely unknown. Its equally likely, given what we know (which isn't much) that the universe could be teeming with intelligent life.

 

For example, in the entire billions of years during which there was life on Earth, there has been exactly one species capable of intelligent communication (human beings), and us for only a few millennia - an instant in cosmic time.

 

 

That is speculation. It might be safer to to say...within what we think we know about life on earth, there has been at least one species capable of intelligent communication, with the understanding that we know very little about what took place on Earth previous to a certain point in time. And, as an aside, we know very little about how other species communicate, intelligently or not. It could even be debated whether our own species communicates intelligently, but that is another subject entirely.

 

Now when you consider that all life on Earth had the same origin

 

Which a very large number of premodern cultural memories (mythologies) disagree with. There is the little matter of the premodern people's contention that humans are a hybrid, comprised of terrestrial and extraterrestrial forms. If indeed there were extraterrestrial forms...we have no idea what their origins might have been.

 

the prospect of a completely alien being from a completely different origin in a completely different environment being enough like us to communicate with seems extremely unlikely.

 

Perhaps no more unlikey than the oddity of human communication, when compared to other life forms on this planet, eh? And we did send a communication disc with at least one of our ventures into space which seems to acknowledge that interplanetary communication might be a possibility...or at least an acknowledgement that we shouldn't rule out such a possibility.

 

These are all very interesting things to consider, but my interest is in the precise reasoning that science has used to decide (if indeed it has made such a conscious decision) that such an investigation isn't warranted, given the things I listed in my first post.

 

And again, I'm not advocating anything about human origins by asking these questions. I'm looking at a set of beliefs that were fairly common among premodern people all over the planet, and wondering what establishment science has to say about this belief given the advances of human thought that have resulted in space travel and the cloning of advanced life forms.

[Sisyphus]

I'm curious how legitimate, worthwhile evidence could be found if there hasn't been serious investigation. I'm interested in the process that decided that there was nothing to investigate before it was investigated...if indeed it hasn't been investigated.

 

You could say the same thing about whatever fanciful nonsense you could come up with. Have we investigated whether leprachauns played a role in the fall of the Roman Empire? No, because there's no evidence of anything of the kind.

 

I wonder about the "perfect sense " of that. Having studied premodern "mythology" and premodern civilization for a couple of decades, I no longer share the general view in our modern society that premodern people were "ignorant". Far from it. Their ability to reason and accurately record the natural world was highly developed. They built complex and orderly societies. They developed complex cosmologies that were scientifically perceptive. In many instances, they had a grasp of mathematics and astronomy that rivals our own. They had sophisticated understandings of the concepts of "right" and "wrong". Also, it begs the question...why would an ignorant people even conceive of "men who from space came" having had no exposure to such an idea, being solely of earth? The idea that intelligent people would look at the sky, and "imagine" intelligent life forms visiting them from out there is, at best, unusual, especially considering the frequency with which it appears to have happened.

 

What's so unusual about that? Throughout history, things that people don't understand have been explained by gods or spirits. Now, where do they live? Well, there's a fantastic and totally inaccessible realm constantly in view. It would be very strange if they didn't have some concept of "men from the sky." And yes, I'm quite familiar with the knowledge of ancient societies. You're talking to someone who has literally spent years obsessing over ancient Egyptian and Greek mathematics and natural philosophy. Fascinating and extremely impressive (although not "rivaling our own"), but utterly irrelevant to the common religious understanding of the times.

 

That is speculation. It might be safer to to say...within what we think we know about life on earth, there has been at least one species capable of intelligent communication, with the understanding that we know very little about what took place on Earth previous to a certain point in time. And, as an aside, we know very little about how other species communicate, intelligently or not. It could even be debated whether our own species communicates intelligently, but that is another subject entirely.

 

Ok, fine. There's exactly one species, out of the millions currently alive, that is capable of intelligent communication. Further, we have not discovered any evidence of any others in the past. It's quite possible that there were others, given that there are a handful of different species (chimps, dolphins, ravens, octopi) which are not too far off, but if there were, it appears they left little trace, and didn't have anything we would call "civilization."

 

Which a very large number of premodern cultural memories (mythologies) disagree with. There is the little matter of the premodern people's contention that humans are a hybrid, comprised of terrestrial and extraterrestrial forms. If indeed there were extraterrestrial forms...we have no idea what their origins might have been.

 

And all modern scientific evidence has all but proven. The DNA evidence alone demonstrates the geneology of humanity, and there's no alien DNA in there. The fact that some premodern societies claim divine origins for humanity is just another demonstration of how common religious themes need not be based on any reality. Why can we talk and build cities when the other animals can't? Maybe we have gods in our ancestry.

 

Perhaps no more unlikey than the oddity of human communication, when compared to other life forms on this planet, eh? And we did send a communication disc with at least one of our ventures into space which seems to acknowledge that interplanetary communication might be a possibility...or at least an acknowledgement that we shouldn't rule out such a possibility.

 

Yes, actually, quite a bit more unlikely. And human communication itself was pretty unlikely in itself. Don't get me wrong: I think SETI is a great project. I've got their programs running on this very computer. I just don't expect to find anything, and certainly not any beings remotely like ourselves.

 

These are all very interesting things to consider, but my interest is in the precise reasoning that science has used to decide (if indeed it has made such a conscious decision) that such an investigation isn't warranted, given the things I listed in my first post.

 

Because such a hypothesis would not explain anything that isn't already explained, and there is no evidence for it. Everything in your first post has a far simpler explanation.

 

And again, I'm not advocating anything about human origins by asking these questions. I'm looking at a set of beliefs that were fairly common among premodern people all over the planet, and wondering what establishment science has to say about this belief given the advances of human thought that have resulted in space travel and the cloning of advanced life forms.

 

I still don't see what cloning has to do with anything. But anyway, if you want to know why that's such a common belief, you should look for answers in how people think, not where they came from.

[pink_trike]

But anyway, if you want to know why that's such a common belief, you should look for answers in how people think, not where they came from.

 

I'll respond to your last statement first because its the most relevant to my interest.

 

I _am_ looking for answers in how people think. As I've stated previously, I'm curious to know if there is any field of establishment science (people) that investigates (thinks about) the possibility of extraterrestrial involvement in the creation or evolution of the human species. I'm specifically interested in whether the possibility is considered a legitimate area of scientific examination, and if not, why not? Has there been a debate within the scientific community that ultimately determined that this is not an area of inquiry deserving scientific attention? If this is so, are the particulars of this debate available in print? If the debate has not taken place, I'd be interested in hearing thoughts regarding why it hasn't.

 

Hm...how can I make this more clear? I'm interested in the thought processes about this subject within establishment science... any interest I have in whether or not there has been ETI contact or human genetic manipulation is secondary and only related to the premodern's assertions.

 

It would seem to me to be a reasonable area of inquiry...not fanciful, as you suggest.

 

- SETI (not exactly a bunch of lightweights) considers the search for extraterrestrial civilizations worthwhile.

 

- Astrobiology considers the theoretically possible social characteristics and developmental tendencies of extraterrestrial civilizations.

 

- Carl Sagan, I.S. Shklovskii, and Hermann Oberth seriously considered the possibility of ETI having had physical contact with Earth in the past.

 

- We know that interplanetary travel is possible.

 

- We know that hybrid life is possible.

 

Then why not inquire if ETI may have had something to do with the creation or evolution of the oddity we refer to as Human, as so many premodern memories (mythologies) assert? Again, I'm not interested in whether or not this is true...I'm interested in what questions are being asked within establishment society regarding the possibility, or, if none are, what is the scientific rationale for not asking.

 

The human body is fairly unique among all living creatures on Earth. The human mind is unique beyond description among all living creatures on Earth. The human obsession with a creator god (gods/goddesses) is unique among all living creatures on earth. If we're going to look for ETI, and speculate about their social and developmental characteristics, then why not think about the possibility that they've been here, and the possibility that they might be our ancestors, or at least, that they guided us toward advanced civilization?

 

General responses to tangential comments:

 

The DNA evidence alone demonstrates the geneology of humanity, and there's no alien DNA in there

 

 

Which doesn't mean that existing human DNA wasn't manipulated. Again, I'm not advocating that this took place. But I do think its a legitimate area of inquiry. A close look at the human body, compared to all living creatures on the planet, combined with our current level of knowledge concerning DNA and genetic manipulation surely justifies looking at the possibility that humans might be hybrids, or that the DNA was manipulated at some point in our development. And DNA aside, what about the simple idea of being taught the ways of civilization?

 

human communication itself was pretty unlikely in itself.

 

 

Agreed. Human civilization as we know it is pretty unlikey in itself. If we're looking for ETI, then why not consider also the possibility that they've been here and account for some of our unusual features (as our terrestrial ancestors have asserted cross-culturally,repeatedly)? Again, I'm not advocating that this is true...but given that a sizable number of intelligent humans recorded just such an experience, why not research the possibility? Isn't it the job of science to ask questions for which there are no answers...rather than what you seem to be asserting: if there is no evidence then no research is required (which is one of the best descriptions of a closed system I've ever heard). There's seems to be a good bit of arrogance involved in the generally held idea that the scientific accomplishments of the human race could only have been accomplished by terrestrial humans, and that there cannot possibly exist ETI that could/did do the same, and perhaps even far exceed our accomplishments. Perhaps we need to consider that our accomplishments are in their infancy. The vast majority of stars in our galaxy are much older that our sun, many of them millions of years older, making it likely that any civilization on planets revolving around those stars would have risen much earlier than our own, increasing the odds that they would be more technologically sophisticated that our own civilization, which we can currently date at around 10,000 years.

 

Scientifically obtained knowledge isn't static. What we know today is already in the process of changing. The amount of scientifically proven knowledge that has been disproved by science is staggering. We only need to look at the relatively recent shift in scientific "knowns", for example the theory of Pangaea, and, the shift from gradualism toward catastrophism that's transforming all of scientific knowledge (which will continue to color many areas of scientific inquiry for decades to come) to see that the scientific process is dynamic.

 

 

I'm pretty certain that the questions I've put forth are being asked by establishment scientists in a number of fields of scientific inquiry...I'm looking for leads. But if they are not being asked, I'm interested in knowing how this is scientifically rationaized, or if it is simply another taboo area of inquiry (as catastrophism was for several hundred years).

 

I appreciate your comments.

[JohnB]

Pink, I sincerely doubt the idea has been looked at. You are up against two things, Human Psychology and the belief in the supremacy of Human technology.

 

We believe that our "Laws of Physics" are just that, Laws. We believe them to be right. (Be bloody silly holding to them if we believed them to be wrong, wouldn't it?) Personally, i think that a bunch of jumped up apes who have been looking at the Universe for a mere 100 years or so telling the Universe what it can and can't do is presumptuous to say the least. What we call "Laws" will be called "Misguided" in the History classes 1000 years from now.

 

But with our current state of knowledge;

 

For ET to come here from another star (in a reasonable time frame) would require that faster than light travel is possible. So to even entertain the idea requires one to consider that much of what we know about physics to be wrong. "Einstein was wrong" is not a good career move for a scientist. (And to be fair, it's not a good move for the simple reason that his maths seems to work out and has yet to be disproven. You can say he was wrong all you want, but to convince anyone, you have to be able to prove it.)

 

On that basis, Einstein is right and you can't go faster than light. Therefore ET can't have come here. Therefore ET can't have messed with our DNA.

 

For the psychology part. To entertain the idea that ET played God requires you to accept that Humans are not the greatest thing in the Universe, the ultimate creation. You have to accept that we may be one very poor second best. And we are only that because someone else decided to lift us up from the mud.

 

People don't like to feel inferior to someone else. The idea of ET playing God would demonstrate just how inferior we are. Not to mention the effect such an idea has on creativity. (But I will:D )

 

If ET is out there and has been here, why should we do any research? They will have already answered any question we can think of. Why should we try to improve our systems of government and our society? They should have found the perfect systems by now.

 

The stulsifying effect would be profound. We would, as a tearful old Medicine Man told Carl Jung "Cease to dream". And dream we must, or we will die. Then the work of our dreamers, our Scientists, our Mystics, our Philosophers will have been for nothing.

 

But we will dream. And we will go out one day amoungst the stars and meet whoever we find there as equals. We will become richer for this and so will they, for just as we will share their dreams, they will share ours.

[pink_trike]

Thanks for your comments. I found a couple of things that you said very helpful related to my interests.

 

Pink' date=' I sincerely doubt the idea has been looked at. You are up against two things, Human Psychology and the belief in the supremacy of Human technology.

 

We believe that our "Laws of Physics" are just that, Laws.

 

Personally, i think that a bunch of jumped up apes who have been looking at the Universe for a mere 100 years or so telling the Universe what it can and can't do is presumptuous to say the least.[/quote']

Yes, we do take ourselves seriously don't we?

 

For ET to come here from another star (in a reasonable time frame) would require that faster than light travel is possible. So to even entertain the idea requires one to consider that much of what we know about physics to be wrong. "Einstein was wrong" is not a good career move for a scientist.

 

On that basis, Einstein is right and you can't go faster than light.

 

Although there is a small army of FTL scientists seriously trying to figure out how faster-than-light travel could be possible, Einstein be dammed! Interesting... researching warp drive, while simultaneously dismissing the idea that another civilization elsewhere in the universe could have mastered the very thing that they are working on.

 

Therefore ET can't have come here.

Even though we, in our infancy, are reseaching for ways to go there...

 

The idea of ET playing God would demonstrate just how inferior we are.

or at least how young we are.

 

I also find it interesting that as a civilization we (even scientists) can believe in "God", but reject the notion of ETI existing in other parts of the universe. !

 

If ET is out there and has been here' date=' why should we do any research?

They will have already answered any question we can think of. Why should we try to improve our systems of government and our society? They should have found the perfect systems by now.[/quote']

It might cause us to reconsider our relationship to the universe. We would have to reconsider the unconscious belief that we own the universe. And that we own the planet. We suddenly live in a shared universe if we accept the idea that that are other civilizations. It might knock some of militaristic aggression out of us to considering that other civilizations might be able to evaporate us in 2 seconds.

 

Then the work of our dreamers, our Scientists, our Mystics, our Philosophers will have been for nothing.

Or, they would have to be reframed in a larger context, editing out the grandious belief that humans are the supreme form of life in the universe.

 

But we will dream.

We are a dream.

 

I don't believe that establishment scientists have never _considered_ the idea that earth could have been visited by members of a distant civilization. I'm not talking about believing it...I'm talking about _considering_ it. How can you give serious advanced technical thought to going "out there" without wondering if someone "out there" ever came here?

 

I'm interested in the evolution of relationship...we most likely started out as solitary beasts, formed herds, then tribes, then discovered that there were other tribes, and then other countries. Then we discovered the that we are a planetary herd, and now there is the the universe. As a herd, were still growing into planetary relationship, and haven't yet been able to wrap our mind around universal relationship. When it comes to the universe we are back in the tribe mode of consciouness...thinking that we are the only ones.

 

Its a developmental model found in the individual maturation process also...we start life as self-absorbed blobs, then discover mommie, then DADDY, then a small group of siblings and peer children , then progressively larger realms of society, then, with luck, planetary citizenship. Unfortunately, many people get stuck in the early stages emotionally, and look to a "God" to substitute for mommy/DADDY. And growing into planetary citizenship is quite a struggle for a good bit of the world's population. Universal citizenship may take awhile.

[Dak]

The closest thing that i can think of is panspermia theory, which is an alternative to abiogenesis theory -- that meteorites may have crashed into earth carrying alien microbes, which then populated the earth.

 

I believe the theory was designed to explain the sudden and huge boom in bacterial numbers when life first emerged on this planet.

 

I dont think it's given as much credence as abiogenesis theory, but it's still a possibility.

 

as for what you're suggesting... okrams razor: in the absence of any specific evidence to suggest the direct involvment of aliens, abiogenesis is the more acceptable theory; and all of your opening points can be explained by more mundane means that aliens.

 

I suppose if all of the abiogenesis theories get disproven, then it'll come down to a match-off between panspermia and little-green-men.

 

Or, of course, if we find a ruined space ship, or find aliens cheking in on us every now and again, that might lend credence to the theory.

[pink_trike]

as for what you're suggesting... okrams razor:

.

 

Bingo! This is part of what I'm looking for. Thanks!

 

Again, I'm not trying to support the theory of ETI visitations to Earth. I'm trying to determine whether the theory has ever been given any serious consideration as a possible area of research by establishment science, and if so, what thought processes were used, or what "laws" are relied on to arrive at whatever position was taken.

 

- If it has been, or is being given serious thought, I want to know about it.

 

- If it has been given serious thought and rejected as not worthy of further consideration, I want to know about it.

 

- If it hasn't been given any consideration, I want to hear speculations as to why not.

 

My lame speculations as to why this debate should exist have been to try to draw out information.

 

Let me try one more time with different points:

 

If there is ongoing scientific debate regarding an estimate of the number of ET civilizations in our galaxy (the Drake equation, Fermi Paradox) and if there is serious consideration of warp drive technology, then surely the question of whether the Earth has ever been visited by beings from civilizations elsewhere in the galaxy must have come up at some point also. I'm still still looking for that debate...

[Dak]

I think that the answre that you're looking for is that it has undoubtably been concidered, but there was probably insufficient evidence supporting the theory, and/or evidence supporting the theory could be more likely attributed to other phenomena, that the theory was abandoned as unlikely and not worthy of further thought.

 

although, with the amount of conspiracy theorists etc, i've no doubt that there are many people actively thinking about the possibility and tring to develope theories.

[pink_trike]

I think that the answre that you're looking for is that it has undoubtably been concidered, but there was probably insufficient evidence supporting the theory, and/or evidence supporting the theory could be more likely attributed to other phenomena, that the theory was abandoned as unlikely and not worthy of further thought.

 

I agree. I'm hoping that papers were published that document the thought process by which it was determined that there is insufficient evidence, and also what evidence might have been initially considered and then determined that it could be attributed to other phenomena. Keywords anyone?

 

although, with the amount of conspiracy theorists etc, i've no doubt that there are many people actively thinking about the possibility and tring to develope theories.

 

Yes. Graveyard robbers like Sitchen, pillaging and distorting premodern texts for profit.

[gcol]

I have sympathy with your quest, my curiousity having been grabbed by Von Daniken when I was a lad.

 

Much of his "evidence" has proven unreliable or fanciful, but he did unearth things from ancient mythologies which still make me wonder 'how on earth did they know those things all that time ago, before modern science?' Modern science is a hard and impersonal taskmaster. Its initial reaction is always to debunk, rubbish and ridicule. Perhaps that is its strength.......

 

The ideas of out-of the box thinkers of whatever era are always worthy of a second look from time to time. They occasionally contain a grain of truth which was not recognised at the time.

 

BTW, Is there not some new idea/controversy about the geological origins of oil? The new ideas remind me of something Von Daniken wrote. It was not fashionable at the time, but now?

 

And is not Panspermia being considered seriously again? Real human origins from the stars.

[JohnB]

Modern science is a hard and impersonal taskmaster. Its initial reaction is always to debunk, rubbish and ridicule. Perhaps that is its strength.......

I've been wondering about that lately. There is much talk about how fast our knowledge is increasing and how the rate of increase is increasing, but is it?

 

The society changing inventions and ideas came from a 40 odd year period, say 1890 to 1930. This period gave us Radio, Television, Heavier than Air Flight, widespread generation and use of Electricity, basic computers and Nuclear Physics. What have we done since then but refine the old ideas?

 

A Mobile Phone is just a "Radio Telephone", smaller and more refined with a much larger coverage I'll admit, but it's still a Radio Telephone. This is not a new concept.

 

The mindset back then was one of "Why not?" and a sense of wonder at the Universe. Anything, any dream was possible until shown otherwise. The mindset now seems to be that everything is impossible until shown otherwise. And if it's said to be impossible, why should anyone try to find out?

 

In some areas, an idea was accepted years ago without any supporting proof yet any dissenting opinion is immediately deemed "pseudo", silly or ill informed. There was nothing to back the original conclusion and yet it has somehow become Holy Writ and undeniable truth.

 

The argument surrounding the dating of the Sphinx is a good example. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to date the statue to the 4th Dynasty, yet any alternative dating is treated as blasphemy. A good case of a science not upholding the principles it espouses. (I'm not supporting any alternative dating, just saying that all options should be considered and then dismissed as further evidence becomes available.)

[gcol]

I wish I had been smart enough to said it in those terms.

 

BTW, I might be getting Von Daniken and Velikovsky mixed up. Have not looked at their books in so many years. Covered in dust and cobwebs.

 

About the sphinx...a couple of tongue in cheek possibilities for "blasphemies":

 

1. Must not upset the Egyptian tourist industry.

 

2. Lots of Archaeology profs who are as old and set in stone as the Sphinx.

[mattbimbo]

i once read that meteors carry organic matter and that this has been analyzed for the chirality of its amino acids as evidence of life. i seem to recall it was in this book where i read this.

[mattbimbo]

panspermia is the theory you are looking for.

[pink_trike]

I wish I had been smart enough to said it in those terms.

 

BTW' date=' I might be getting Von Daniken and Velikovsky mixed up. Have not looked at their books in so many years. Covered in dust and cobwebs.

[/quote']

 

Velikovsky = regional/global catastrophes that took place when all hell broke loose in our solar system. Fire, floods, massive earthquakes, raining burning stones and a hot sticky black substance that burned like crazy.

 

Von Daniken = extraterrestrials who left traces of their presence everywhere on Earth including buildings built out of 400 ton blocks of stone buckled together with sophisticated metal fittings.

 

The incorporation of catastrophism into geology has stood the field of Archaeology on its head. All those egyptologists are reeling, desperate to preserve theories that are crumbling faster than predynastic papyrus.

[JohnB]

Velikovsky:- A highly intelligent man who was widely read and may have made considerable contributions to science, even if not recognised at the time. For those unaware, Velikovsky put forward an alternative dating system for Pharaohnic Egypt that allows the closing of some gaps and closer integration with the known timelines of then contemporary civilizations. Ruled foolish at the time, his dating system is gaining support among archaeologists.

 

Von Daniken:- An absolute twit who looks for proof that our ancestors were such complete morons that they couldn't develop even the most basic technologies without alien help. He spends his life looking for "proof" that may be misrepresented to back his case.