It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by nv4711
Originally posted by DaveNorris
reply to post by nv4711
i agree that it is very similar to a religion, but it is more likely than any religion
Dave, the probabilities might be just as bleak as they are for a given religion. In general, the probability goes down, the more qualifiers you add to a given problem. Probability and statistics are the favorite subject of creationists, as it seemingly allows them to challenge evolution. Perhaps you’ve heard Fred Hoyle’s “Tornado in the junk yard, assembling a Jumbo jet” comparison, which by the way is a specious sound bite.
Anyways, if you want to get an idea of the probability that the AA Hypothesis is true, highly likely, somewhat likely or, in comparison more likely than i.e. a given religion you can, without even using a calculator get an idea by looking at all the qualifiers you have to bring in. Now, of course, the important part is, you have to be as neutral as you can to come to a reasonably correct result.
For example, if you wanted to calculate the probs of “God exists” you've got 50% (Because the only other option is God does not exist) As soon as you introduce “God exist and he is omnipotent” the probs go down. Next, "God exist, he is omnipotent and he created Man”…add ."and he parted the red sea”… and so on, the probs go way down.
Now look at the AA theory. The probs of life in the Universe are very high, perhaps close to 100% (Note that it's not 50% like the God example, because we have much more information and for the very fact that we exist). Now you need higher life forms, intelligent life, intelligent life that explores space, intelligent life exploring space and being able to cross the universe… and picked Earth to visit (out of billions of other options)….and built the pyramids…and gave Pre-columbians little golden air plane models…and changed the DNA of early man…and…and…and..
I guess you see where this is going. Will your result be Zero? No, I guess not, but it will be incredibly small… but now compare your probability to “The Egyptian people had skilled mathematicians, architects and builders, and built the pyramids”…
So, I’m not sure how the probs for AA vs. religion stack up, but I have a good idea how the probs of AA vs. Humans are.
Originally posted by bigpoppa
In my view, AAT represents a curious instance of a not unreasonable position held by idiots. The supporters of AAT are its greatest hindrance (yes, you, David Childress/Giorgio). Their main problem is trying to throw as much s*** against the wall as possible and hoping that some of it will stick, which leaves them wide open to criticism that discredits their more salient points.
As I see it:
1. Religious stories exist to which an almost desperate level of significance has been assigned. As I lifelong atheist, I generally assumed these stories to be myths. However, the importance attached to these tales by our ancestors and bits of anecdotal evidence (prehistoric flooding at the end of the last ice age --> the tale of Noah's Ark) have led me to believe that there could be some truth to these stories. However, my atheism leads me to seek alternative explanations for these "acts of God." We have documented cases of people misinterpreting other groups as Gods (the Aztecs with Cortes). That, coupled with the mathematical impossibility that we are alone in the universe (and that we live in a relatively new solar system), demonstrates—to me, at least—that AAT is not an irrational belief. At the very least, Occam's razor suggests that it is more reasonable to posit advanced beings as an explanation for these phenomena than to posit spiritual gods.
2. Ancient megalithic structures demonstrate that the mainstream scientific view of history is flawed. Unfortunately, the dogmatism of academia prevents an unbiased assessment of these sites. I certainly believe that the Egyptians COULD have built the pyramids, as that project was more about manpower than technology. But the precision with which other sites (I don't feel like listing them here, but they have all been in Ancient Aliens) were built is far beyond mainstream science's understanding of ancient cultures.
3. Mainstream science cannot account for the quantum leap from hunter-gatherers to the relatively advanced society that we have now, over just a few thousand years.
Where does that leave us? It is certainly possible that aliens had a role in shaping early Man. Unfortunately, AAT proponents see "aliens" everywhere they look—to disregard AAT just because of these charlatans seems unreasonable to me. I'll keep an open mind for now, but I feel that we can only be certain that sophisticated cultures have existed on Earth for longer than previously thought.
Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by nv4711
4711....I agree with all you post except the issue of how our ancient ancestors were able to perform certain feats of engineering especially at KARNAK and PUMA PUNKU. Some of the stone work here is done with such precision and carved into stone that is close to hardness of diamond as a stone can get....that modern stone workers have said....for them to do the work....not only would it take years but....to get the acuracy....3 to 8 one thousandanths of an inch....a computer controlled robotic Diamond Tipped Lathe would HAVE TO BE USED.