Two of my coworkers frequently mention shows like "Encounters" or "Ancient apocalypse" or whatever. I'm not the best at debating or forming arguments against these though I do feel strongly that bold claims require better evidence than a blurry photo and an eyewitness account.
How do you all go about this?
Today I clumsily stumbled through conversation and said "I'll need some evidence" and was hit with "there's plenty of evidence in the episode 'Lights over Fukushima'". I didn't have an answer because I haven't watched it. I'm 99% sure that if I watch it it's gonna be dramatized, designed to scare/freak you out a little and consist of eyewitness accounts and blurry photos set to eerie music. But I'm afraid I just sound like a haughty know-it-all if I do assert this before watching.
These are good people and I want to remain on good terms and not come across as a cynical asshole.
(Sorry if language is too formal or stilted. Not my native tongue)
If the universe is infinite, and there's no reason not to believe that this very well may be the case, then it's almost certain that there is other intelligent life out there. However, just as the vastness of an infinite universe guarantees other intelligent life, it also guarantees that we'll never meet. We may find evidence of them, or they may find evidence of us, but the odds of intelligent life concurrently existing in near enough proximity for our independent geneses, evolution, and advancement to interstellar travel before either people managed to die out is effectively zero. And mere radio communication between interstellar civilizations would literally take generations for a basic conversation at best. Humans may not even last another thousand or even hundred years. Can you imagine history textbooks in 3000 talking about current times the way that we talk about the Norman conquest of England or the first crusade? It's weird to imagine where they'll be to look down upon our ways of life now.