No, there are plenty of stories with just as much "textual evidence" behind them. Until corroborating evidence is found, they are called "epics," "legends," and "myths." Troy was not taken seriously until Heinrich Schleeman undertook an expedition to look for it. It only really showed that a city existed at roughly that spot at the time, not that Achilles was invulnerable. That certainly does not justify the extrapolation that therefore all myths are true, rather it implies that for a myth to be taken seriously, other corroborating evidence must exist, and even then not everything can be taken as fact.


No, an underworld origin worldwide, not just one refernce to the ABZU. The Sumerian culture had little influence on myths in the New World.

http://www.marshall.edu/rst/comparat...tion_myths.htm

It is also interesting to note how many pottery cultures developed a myth of people formed of clay, and how many arboreal cultures developed world-tree myths.

Understanding the context has nothing to do with it. You call us ET's, and I disagree. What's so difficult about that?

**SNIP**
I notice you don't answer why we are according to you an evolutionary anomaly.

They haven't. They have a creation myth, you read that as if it is the truth (ignoring all things that are definitely impossible to interpret as astronomical, but not acknowledging that), and then you claim that what they describe is the truth, and they couldn't possibly know it. Circular reasoning with some serious flaws.

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

What an uncanny ability for stating the obvious!
But do you feel that by italicizing "assumption" you've made some grand point that negates the ETH? Of course "we can't know" the future, RAF, but I refuse to impose humans' limitations on the issue of interstellar travel like so many "skeptics" will when discussing it.

OK.

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

Ah yes, "History becomes Legend, Legend becomes Myth" and we are left sifting through to find the Truth within.

But my point is that "those from heaven to earth came" is not extraordinary at all since throughout recorded history and into our own times people continue to attest to "those from heaven to earth came."

I'm not saying "everything" in Myth can be taken as fact. I'm saying that because much of what was once considered "myth" has been shown to be factual, there may yet be more "truth" within those "myths."

No, an underworld origin worldwide, not just one refernce to the ABZU. The Sumerian culture had little influence on myths in the New World.[/quote]

Please explain the "underworld origin worldwide?"

And by "New World" are you referring to Native American myths, both South and North? If so, there are some curious parallels between "the gods" of the ancient near east and those like Coyote or Quetzlcoatl in North and South America, respectively.

http://www.marshall.edu/rst/comparat...tion_myths.htm

It is also interesting to note how many pottery cultures developed a myth of people formed of clay, and how many arboreal cultures developed world-tree myths.[/quote]


Interesting.

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

I don't need to disprove the ETH...you need to prove it. Just because you "believe" that the ETH isn't an extraordinary claim doesn't change the fact that it is...

My normally used definition of an "ET" is an "Extra-Terrestrial" -like in exactly what the letters "ET" stand for- meaning (a species) "from somewhere else than Earth". Nothing defined about intelligence, so that part is completely open in my "ET".

I'm a BABB'er of course.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

OK, how about contrary then?
I explained rather clearly why humans are ETs, and you just disagree.

Are we not a space-faring species who has either set foot on another planetary body or crashed/landed a robot on another planetary body?

Does that not qualify humans as ETs?


**SNIP**
In a word: our brains.

Have I ever said it is "Truth," Fram? NO.

I've maintained that if read as an astronomical text, removing the human attributes, the Enuma Elish is a plausible description of the formation of our solar system.
Foot fetishes notwithstanding. :wink:

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

So it is difficult, at least for you. Amazing... Read the definition Nicolas has given. You have another definition. I agreed to disagree, but you seem to have a need to have your view as the only correct one.

**SNIP**
Well, then I guess we disagree again.
No, you have never said it is the truth. You have said that it only works if one allows the ETH. By your own logic, this is then no longer an hypothesis, but fact. If it were a hypothesis, then you couldn't say that it only works when you allow it. You could just as well have the one without the other.
I'm impressed that you know which are the human attributes and which aren't. If I remove the human attributes, I'm left with an empty piece of clay.

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

Yeah, I suppose I have some difficulty with contrariness; my kids are the same way.
But I certainly don't think my view is the "only correct one," Fram.
I tried to explain why I consider earthlings as fledgling ETs.
We can agree to disagree, that's fine.

But how about answering my questions?

And Nicolas, what say you to my questions above?

Fine.

[quote]My bolds.

What gives, Fram? You allege such things to make an assertion of "circular reasoning with serious flaws" and here you are now saying, "No you have never said it is the truth?"

I can't claim circular reasoning here but you sure can dance. =D>

My bolds.

Nice sidestep, boogie-woogie, whatever...

Are you really feigning ignorance on what I mean by "remove the human attributes" in order to read it as an astronomical text?
:roll:

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

Alien life is not only possible but probable.

My sentiments exactly, PR, thanks.

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

A.DIM asked me to answer (I think) these questions:
We are a species of which some individuals have sent robots to planets and the like, and some individuals have set foot on the moon. So we are a space fairing species.

But all humans originate from earth. As it is the only place where we can live a self-sustained life, that's our homebase. Even if a child was born in space (say, in the ISS, a shuttle heck even in moon orbit), it still would require earth to survive. So I still see it as originating from earth.

From that point of view and my definition of ET's, we're not ET's. We do originate from Earth, not from some place else (extra-terrestrial).

If their had been life on the moon, they would have to consider humans as extra-lunatrials (or whatever, you get the idea) because we don't originate from the moon.

The only way I see some individuals (small or huge group, doesn't matter) as ET's, would be humans that live a fully sustained life in a place other than earth. A self-sustaining Mars colony, in which humans can live from pre-birth to death (with quite some time in between ) would harbour extra-terrestrial human individuals in my definition. The same goes for a space ship that can harbour generations of humans in a self-sustained manner. The occupants of that space ship would be extra-terrestrials: humans living a self-sustained life cycle in a place other than earth.

People living in the ISS need a ship from Earth every 6 months in order to live. They are not extra-terrestrials. THey just live in a shiny high-tech tower on earth. Not that I don't see the amazing technological feat that is, but it does not make them nor the moon astronauts extra-terrestrials.


As you can see, in my definition of extra-terrestrial it is of importance that the individual at hand -intelligent or not- lives a sustained life cycle in a place other than earth, that is that it does not need and does not use earth to survive.

(if you want to go into details: if a Green Martian would come to visit earth as a tourist, get a heart attack here and be reanimated by humans, it would use and need earth to survive, but that's beyond the scope of this definition. It still would be an ET as in the normal life cylce of that individual it would live ithout needing or using earth for survival. The definition describes general lifestyle.)

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.