If the dots form a circle, you don’t have to connect them to say it’s a circle. But do we have enough dots?
Whereas empirical conclusions can only ever be demonstrated to be false (via contrary evidence), rational conclusions can be demonstrated to be true (via rigorous proof). Only rational knowledge is genuine knowledge in a positive sense, and this has been well known by epistemologists from every ancient civilization. The only genuine science is formal science, such as mathematics, whose conclusions can simply be followed through step by step for logical consistency, without the mediation of materialism beyond the stationery on which the proof is written. In this sphere of knowledge, experts really can know the knowledge presented by other experts because it is purely a matter of reiterating the reasoning. (aryanism.net – Rationalism vs. Empiricism)
The Interstellar Earth Hypothesis rests on the assumption that the earth was once in orbit around another star. The Earth, and humanity, could certainly survive losing its star, but how could a star disappear, or what could make a planet leave its primary? That’s the problem with that hypothesis: there’s nothing to explain the basic premise.
As for the Interstellar Human Hypothesis, it rests on the analogy that since today’s technology existed in the past, the technology to colonize the earth did as well. This is logically sound, but short on evidence, so it’s unwise to assume.
As for the unshakable human curiosity in our origins and extraterrestrial life, too much relevant evidence is being suppressed to say for sure. But the fact that such research and evidence is suppressed says a lot…