It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Ancient Astronauts Theory True?

page: 4
4
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 08:44 AM

There is no such thing as a "mathematical certainty." The Drake Equation simply uses statistics and odds to make a prediction. Problem is Drake didn't even have all of the data necessary to make an accurate position. He simply made suppositions and inserted them into an equation, which got him his number. However, the equation makes the assumption that there are other intelligent species out there, yet until we come across one the Drake Equation is useless. Before we can begin to predict how many other intelligent species are in the universe, we first need to prove that there is at least one other.

posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 10:49 AM

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
yet until we come across one the Drake Equation is useless. Before we can begin to predict how many other intelligent species are in the universe, we first need to prove that there is at least one other.

To do what? The odds of intelligent life already existing in the universe is 1. You're merely saying you need additional proof (proof no less! Despite the fact that science does not deal in proofs) that it can happen again. I guess you believe we are an obscurity. So unless we find another intelligent species, the odds are what exactly according to you?

Finding another species would not necessarily give us (much) additional information that allows us to predict "how many other intelligent species are in the universe" for such a prediction would still be based on commonalities.

Say we find another solar system which is remarkably like ours and there's intelligent life in that system too. Will the Drake equation now spill out a different number? Indeed, not necessarily so, for these commonalities are already accounted for.

Further research and evidence will merely solidify/narrow the parameters down.

Either way, you don't need "proof" of another species before one is allowed to make a prediction using the Drake equation. You simply made that up. In fact, that's the whole point of the equation in the first place. To make an educated estimate. The estimate will be adjusted when better data comes along.

posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 11:24 AM

The problem with the Drake Equation is that many of the parameters used were partially or entirely based on conjecture with no evidence backing those choices. It is simply an estimate of the probability of ET intelligence based on Drake's own beliefs. If somebody else had come up with the equation the estimate would be different as those people would have different beliefs. Yet, people wave the Drake Equation around like it's some absolute proof that ET intelligence exists. As T.J. Nelson has stated

The Drake equation consists of a large number of probabilities multiplied together. Since each factor is guaranteed to be somewhere between 0 and 1, the result is also guaranteed to be a reasonable-looking number between 0 and 1. Unfortunately, all the probabilities are completely unknown, making the result worse than useless.

The Drake Equation is proof of nothing and has been grossly misused over the years. It is only the estimate of one man based on his beliefs and suppositions. Therefore it is not mathematical proof of anything. Seeing as how such things as the fraction of planets that develop life, the fraction of those planets that go on to develop intelligent life, and the fraction of those that release detectable signals into space, cannot be known until we actually start discovering civilizations such as these, the Drake Equation is worthless.

posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 02:55 PM
What is the point of this debate? One would have to be very unintelligent to not assume with a high degree of certainty that there is other intelligent life in the universe. This is just common sense. Talking in circles about it and arguing semantics is pointless. The universe is infinitely huge with an extremely enormous number of stars and planets. Of course there is other intelligent life out there. This debate is stupid.

A more sensible debate is if ETs have visited earth yet. IMO, they have.

posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 03:08 PM

You'll find most ATSers reckon there's intelligent life out there. The only conflict here is your 'certainty' stance. It's a fine line, but it's the difference between a statement of fact and expectation.

posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 03:34 PM

Originally posted by Viper2
What is the point of this debate? One would have to be very unintelligent to not assume with a high degree of certainty that there is other intelligent life in the universe. This is just common sense. Talking in circles about it and arguing semantics is pointless. The universe is infinitely huge with an extremely enormous number of stars and planets. Of course there is other intelligent life out there.

It is very, very far from certain that intelligent life exists elsewhere.

That is not to say that it didn't exist elsewhere in the past, nor that it won't exist sometime in the futrure.

After all, intelligent life has only existed here for a few hundred thousand years - out of almost 5 billion years the Earth has existed.

Given the (approximate) age of the Universe at around 15 billion years, the Earth has taken almost one-third of the age of the universe to develop what we think of as "intelligent" life.

If you stop and consider the likely makeup of the universe in it's first 5 billion years or so, it's propensity for life (at least the kind we know about) was considerably less then - back when the first generations of stars were burning.

Additionally, while my personal opinion is that life certainly exists elsewhere, I do not believe that the "natural" direction life takes is necessarily toward intelligence. There's no reason to believe this, anyway.

It's entirely possible that we are the first intelligent species to arise in the entire universe - at least of the type of carbon-based life we are aware of here.

Harte

posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 03:35 PM

Originally posted by Kandinsky

You'll find most ATSers reckon there's intelligent life out there. The only conflict here is your 'certainty' stance. It's a fine line, but it's the difference between a statement of fact and expectation.

Don't you mean it's just something to nitpick and argue about?

Good, so most people on here think there is other intelligent life in the universe. That is logical and rational. Now how about we discuss whether ETs have actually visited earth?

Here is some more evidence that makes me think they have: www.alien-ufo-pictures.com...

posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 05:52 AM

Originally posted by ChemBreather

Well, what our 'experts' say, is that intelligent life as we know it can only exist on an Earth like planet, and if you have payed any attention, they have found atleast 4 earth like planets, so , there should be profe of life out there just by that statement alone...

yeah...not according to JPL
they have found almost 500 planets, but earthlike = Zeroooo
planetquest.jpl.nasa.gov...
weird...cause i also thought they have found EL planets already

posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 12:40 AM

Nice link, I agree as well. I think if we just look back at the evidence throughout history it is easy to determine from those drawings that we were being visited.

posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 01:09 AM

Originally posted by Viper2

Originally posted by Kandinsky

You'll find most ATSers reckon there's intelligent life out there. The only conflict here is your 'certainty' stance. It's a fine line, but it's the difference between a statement of fact and expectation.

Don't you mean it's just something to nitpick and argue about?

Good, so most people on here think there is other intelligent life in the universe. That is logical and rational. Now how about we discuss whether ETs have actually visited earth?

Here is some more evidence that makes me think they have: www.alien-ufo-pictures.com...

I notice you've gone from 'certainty' to 'think.' That's a good thing, the point I was making is that we don't 'know' we can only wonder and speculate. We 'know' UFOs are in our skies...we don't know if they are ET. They could be ours or they could come from other dimensions. They could even be a psychological phenomena...not an idea I like much.

The rock art and paintings get pulled up all the time. Early modern man was as capable of abstract thoughts as we are now...same brain. We doodle on paper. We draw strange shapes and squiggles. Some of my favourite artists are expressionists. One of my very favourites (impressionist) is Edvard Munch although his most famous painting isn't his best...here. If that figure was on a cave wall from 10000 years ago, it'd be on a UFO website.

We can only see on the rocks what we know. We don't know exactly what the guys were trying to express or that sometimes they weren't just doodling. An anthropologist will see these figures as shamanic or renditions of spirits. A UFO fan sees aliens. Even some favourite researchers use these cave images as evidence of aliens. I think it's equivalent to chasing their own tails...pointless.

Ignore the distant past and focus on the good evidence from recent years. A good site is Ufologie. No hoaxes, all good researched cases with as many documents as are available. If you feel brave enough Flying Saucery is the toughest UFO site out there. Dave Clarke is a badass.

posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 01:28 AM

I understand your line of thinking, I personally like to use my imagination for these kinds of questions, keeps my life a little more interesting and not so mundane.

posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 01:39 AM

Originally posted by taccj9903

I understand your line of thinking, I personally like to use my imagination for these kinds of questions, keeps my life a little more interesting and not so mundane.

They might not admit it...the biggest skeptics (I'm just a mild one) on ATS are here for the same reasons. That's a little secret many members haven't noticed

posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 01:44 AM

Unfortunately, I see too many skeptics as debunkers not true skeptics. Wish they would make up their mind.

posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 02:34 AM
I really enjoy the Ancient Astronaut Theory. However lets talk about a snake. A snake is very powerful being.

Snake - Wiki

Can you imagine a planet that evolved a humanoid...SNAKE??? A HUMANOID SNAKE.

I think in ancient times, when humans didn't have tv's; humans were closer with animals. They were closer with nature. I think pictures that depict a 1/2 human 1/2 animal are just their imagination. Their imagination inspired by respect for life, animals, the sun, ocean.

The anomalies with this however are the geographical alignment with scared locations and the stars/constellations in the sky.

Also advanced mathematics, astronomy, horticulture, and architecture.

posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 05:09 AM
reply to post by game over man

I'm not really following you on the half man half animal part. What does that have to do with ancient astronaut theory?

posted on May, 24 2010 @ 04:56 PM
This whole debate is rather interesting in my opinion. Intelligent life definitly exists in the universe, and probably is quite common. As far as them having visited Earth in the ancient past(and present for that matter), it is entirely possible as well. The ancient people of this world possessed some type of knowledge that has been lost to time. Did this knowledge come from visitors from another planet, maybe. But if not then that means that human civilization is much older than we realize, and has probably advanced many times before, only to be destroyed by cataclysm, disease etc. There are too many unanswered questions from our collective past to just assume we know exactly how we came to be. Also the universe is a very large place, as our technology advances we will begin to find more and more earth-like planets, to date I have only read of a few being found. But one thing we may have to change is our definition of life, life may have developed in a entirely different manner elsewhere in the universe than it has here.

top topics

4