> I would say that the main objection to 'alien'
> intervention is that it devalues the skills and
> technical abilities of our ancient ancestors.
> It suggests that they were too stupid or too inept
> to produce anything of value themselves, and had
> to rely on beings from on high to help them. The
> implication of this sort of thinking is that
> because we don't fully understand
> how they constructed their sites, they couldn't
> have done it without help.
> > Is that really a fair way to look at the legacy of
> the Ancients?
Yes, I think it's a fair way to look at the ancients, depending on whether the ancients really did develop through one or more technology cycles through the millennia. For that matter, you could use your argument against the existence of God, claiming life is smart enough to evolve itself from primordial ooze to humans.
Look, either way, even if you think humans did create those ancient structures like G1, Serapeum boxes, the Baalbek liths, and the bizarre formations in the Peruvian andesite, the truth is that mankind obviously at some point had no idea how to do most of that stuff, at least for a few millennia after those things were created, and the tools and methods had to be completely discovered all over again, so what's the difference, other than one scenario allows for other intelligent life forms in the universe which makes at least as much logical sense as 'humans did it'. In fact, mankind still has not figured out how to do that stuff, so we actually are not that smart yet.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01-Apr-16 23:13 by Origyptian.