Comment: I don't know any credible

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: I have no doubt (see in situ)

I don't know any credible

scientists who would take a positive position on the theory of ancient aliens. If you do a small amount of research, most if not all of the theories can be explained by human ability. Archaeological discoveries prove time and again that humans have gone through many changes.

There are many factors such as the availability of animals for domestication, and land barriers for trade that could have had a large impact on how much knowledge, and thus intelligence, they could attain and how fast. It is not something you are born with; it is something you acquire.

Are we to accept only the science that fits with our world view even if it cannot hold water? Or would it be better to accept provable science that research can actually build and learn from? The point about science is that it tries to search for truths about reality.

A problem exists that is fundamental to actually understanding reality. We can only know a great truth if we happen to think of it or if we learn it from someone else. Scientists did not make many great leaps until the past few hundred years simply because a thought about electricity or steam or relativity had not yet crossed anyones mind. So science cannot be perfect, but it is one of the best ways to understand our reality and hopefully make things convenient and entertaining.

About the comment stating humans had more intelligence 10,000 years ago.. I'm not sure by what measure or definition of intelligence you are referring to. I would say they probably had the same potential. I have yet to see any evidence of computer usage or even electricity. Could you point me to a credible source?

-Matthew Good