Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucem Ferre
You completely, ironically, and hilariously missed my point and lived out being one of the people I described.
Yes, it's a more plausible and seemingly more satisfying answer in this modern age. But it's still not based in any bit of logic and is just as lazy as making up supernatural creatures. It's not any less of a cop-out. It's just as much of a cop-out. You just like it more because it pretends to be rooted in science. It's not.
|
I believe that there have been numerous highly advanced civilizations that have existed on this planet in the past [Atlantis, Mu, Agartha, Shambhala, Dwarka,
etc.] Perhaps their origins were seeded from extraterrestrial places, perhaps not [we all came from
somewhere different if we go back far enough and extrapolate, but no need to argue semantics]. But they existed, regardless of their origins. They were seen as gods by less evolved species. Elements of history can be studied and classified. You can laugh, but to say that's
"not rooted in science," like that's some sort of badge of honor on your part, is just dismissive and wrong. Historical lineage, if it can be proven and recorded, is a far better way of classifying things than just summating them as a magical sky people. That's what I was getting at. It's the INTENTION that counts. Calling them ET's, advanced beings,
etc. at least ATTEMPTS to integrate them into the framework of our knowledge base, while saying that they are
"supernatural" [i.e. cannot be defined by science] seems more like a cop-out because it doesn't attempt to progress anything.