Meteors brought life to Earth

Nope. Life is much hardier than previously thought and has been found near volcanoes and ice. there is research ten years old on this. Incoming organisms from space are as likely to die on impact if not suited to their new environment. What it does show is that the transfer of microbiological life is far from the billion-to-one odds most people mistakenly believed it to be, and is a part of natural processes. there is no such thing as "data of what might be out there", RS says it is walking around what some people believe is what is out there. No data. Not one ickle lickle bit of data.

Nope... Ridley Scott stated that he fell for the the Von Däniken crap... "they came and gave us the pyramids and left us a message" and the like,... Ridiculous unscientific views from one of the worlds greatest charlatans and company. Recomended book: James Randi´s "Flim Flam" where he exposes in detail this ignoramus...

Scientifically it is a possibility, nothing more.

Panspermia to some extent is possible but in that case it opens another can of worms with no possible answers. I hope this thread doesn't turn into religious preaching zone.

I think a lot of non-scientists don't realise what a 'scientific view' really is (including Randi). I'm a physicist, there is very little to be certain about in an absolute sense. What science can do is tell you what is most likely, and under what circumstances, and that's a huge deal. It can also support those findings to a high degree. Is Von Daniken most likely wrong about a lot of what he says, if not all of it. Yes. But the idea that there could have been an outside deliberate influence in the creation of life.......there are people much more knowledgable than Randi who think yes. And research into DNA isn't even all that old, as amazing as what is currently known, the real fruits of that branch of science are in the next 200 years. I think as son as we are able to land on a planet safely, with robots, one of the first things we would do is seed life there.

Or a skeptic preaching zone

After our Alien overlords have laid waste to whatever form of petiful resistance humanity manages to put-up there'll be none left to say otherwise... The end is night. Just kidding... Or am I!! Woooohahahaha!!!

I would rather be in skeptic preaching zone moving forwards than in religious preaching zone moving backwards in medieval age. We're in sci-fi movie forums, not some medieval age popular book forum. So skepticism is natural in science fiction, that can't be said for the religion on this forum.

Science can be just as bad as far as facts goes.. Its like say a Bible that rewrites parts of itself to fill in any holes that get disproved. Maybe yes we could have evolved from simple amino acids and proteins carried to Earth from Space... But as with Evolution or the Big Bang its hard to prove 100% as no one was around back then. We can dig up Dinosaurs that prove some large creatures lived on Earth at some point but i just dont see how we can tie some other things together. As far as the Meteor or Astroid theory goes i guess that would be proven as quite possible if we keep finding the building blocks of life on them. And indeed if in future when we set down on other moons we find simular building blocks. My stance.... its a very plausable posibility

@Windood,... My response was for Markos after his comment "...perhaps this must have given an idea to RS for the Prometheus script.",... RS stated he read and liked Von Dänikens crap, THAT IS the inspiration for the script. As for scientists more knowledgeable than James Randi, I say you need to read his books or visit his page (Randi.org) or watch a lecture, for he goes in detail the countless times scientists have been duped, because they lack his expertise: knowing how people are fooled, and how they fool themselves. And not to mention he has been friends and held in great esteem by some of the most prodigious scientist, I´ll just mention three: Richard Feynman, Carl Sagan, Asimov... Don´t be so puritan,... obviously in science "everything tends to..." and there are not absolutes. And yes,... Däniken IS A CHARLATAN and whoever thinks his views have any merit is deluded or in on the racket. :)

Evolution doesn't explain origin of species, it is in abiogenesis that explains life from amino acids. Evolution explains how species are evolving from the single cell. Big bang explains how the universe was formed and how space time is constructed and how the different elements which are around us are formed over time (with the help of inflation theory). I don't understand how can life on earth origin point can be attached to the evolution. It's not evolutions domain to give answers for abiogenesis. We're talking about science here, not word salad creationism that mixes everything in one theory.

The biggest problem I have with people who buy into the whole "ancient astronaut" thing is that it seems to almost be an insult to humans. We look at the great Pyramid and say "oh, there's no way man could have made that...he's too stupid. It had to be aliens helping us out." It's such a tremendous leap from "how was it done to" "oh, aliens did it." It's no different from creationists who think any unanswered scientific question can be answered with "god did it." There are mysterious things about ancient peoples, especially the civilizations who were performing advanced astronomy and engineering, but it's far more realistic to assume they simply had access to knowledge we're not aware of rather than "they were being helped by aliens." Why the hell would an advanced species capable of space travel come light years from beyond the stars to teach savages (in their eyes) how to built a stone pyramid? It would be like you taking time out of your day to help the ants in your backyard to put together a more efficient ant-hill. If there are massively advanced extra terrestrial beings out there in the galaxy, they would probably view us as those very same ants. Interesting to study and/or watch, but they probably aren't going to be communicating or bothering with us any time soon.

@Every fan here: Your input is amazing my friends. Thank you all. I kept reading and reading all views and opinions and new ideas have already started growing within me. Obviously, RS is a filmmaker...He must pick up an idea that can "write" on the screen...When he chooses a scenario, he has to make sure it will also have a visual impact. Some sort of his signature...After all he is a visual story-teller. So it would be natural to go with something as impactful as a non so scientific story plot. It would have parts of truth within it, but would also be visually strong. Maybe a more religious or scientific approach would lessen the visual impact of the film. I am cool with this. This is a good reason for going to the cinema. RS is doing a fine job out of that. I just hope, that he is also interested in making a new point on these questions. I hope he will maintain a level of quality and a balanced mix of religion, adventure, sci-fi and awe that will amaze us. He certainly won't be making a documentary on what is actually out there or why. He is going to be making a film...Let's hope it is proves to be a game-changer!

I had this idea one day what if an ancient astronaut took a dump in space and this poopcicle floated for eons until one day it landed on a warm wet planet in which bacteria thrive. After some more eons those bacteria evolved into intelligent species that build a time machine to go back an find out whose ass they came from...that might be bad.

Exactly what am i going to gain from reading a book on randi? i've no interest in the whackos he makes a living from preaching hardcore skepticism at. I'd rather read many other things. same goes with dawkins, he's lost the ability to communicate and is nothing but a ranting fool now. would love to see him in a debate with polkinghorne, instead of the little strawmen he postures in front of.

its debatable whether skeptics move forward, i think they're too busy rubbishing any other point of view to move forwards at all, I'm referring to the hardcore skeptics, not the general british public who really couldnt give a monkeys about either POV tbh. Science moves forward, but it seems to have a different brand of skepticism than the randi forums and skeptic.com i used to visit. They were as bad as the religious sites for unfettered ego trips, not much personal growth in those chaps.

Ruhaniya, no wonder there are so many assholes on this planet:O) But seriously folks, the only things we know for sure is that there is a whole lot of shit we don't know. As for the stuff we think we know...well, it is difficult at times to sift through the noise of popular culture and individual bias, not to mentionboth religious and secular zealotry. Great theories explain what we experience and predict new things that may be currently unknown or misunderstood. Darwin and Einstein for example, are the Gold standards for reasonable thought....their theories continue to be vindicated as time passes. Popular theorists like Von Daniken (excuse me if the spelling is off), speculate with a broad brush and minimize any evidence that contradicts their ideas. Mankind has been very ingenious and industrious over the millenia. We can do great things when we put enough effort into something. Of course in the old days there was no entertainment, mostly iron fisted rulers and plenty of slave labor to build and do just about anything the nut jobs who were dominating their peoples decided to do! On religion, the door is still very much open, especially when we consider the ramifications of what modern physics has begun to uncover. We may be Holograms projected on a 2D surface by something or someone located somewhere at a distance or outside our realm of understanding? Now that leaves alot of wiggle room for a divine entity to exist and intercede in our existence...be they good or evil. God is still very much a possibility...we just may not recognize IT when we see IT!!

"is a common belief amongst the scientific society today" No, it is not. Ranks up there with "ancient astronaut theory" as far as being scientifically valid. Have we seen evidence of nucleobases at meteor impact sites?: Yes. Were they the basis for life on Earth? Absolutely not according to mainstream science.

Truth be told only when we humans advance enough and create life ourselves, or rapidly evolve others with genetics, will we ask ourselves seriously if we were created the same way. Since we do not have that capacity, all we can do is speculate. But if we ever achieve it, it will open up serious discussions on our origins. That is hundreds if not a thousand years away from happening.

@Windood... I gave you hard facts after your comment,... and you said nothing and answered like blind faithers: "I don´t wanna see it",... very unscientific of you, dear physicist. With a lecture or a book OF Randi (not ON Randi,... I think you lack comprehensive reading. i´m beginning to think you got your degree in Chopra´s Institute) you will learn of the cases where he educated a whole building full of dumbfounded phd´s, and other such examples. The wackos he makes a living with? Well, the same kind of wackos ran the country (USA) recently for 8 years, and are doing all sorts of things to get us back in the middle ages. It is important to educate people, that is why the MacArthur Foundation gave him an award, It´s only one of the largest private organizations in the US, and the International Astronomical Union named an asteroid after him. BTW, who mentioned Dawkins? Dude, you have issues... :)