Ancient Astronaut Theory: The New, Oldest, and Only TRUE Religion

The truth lies somewhere between interpreting everything as proof of ancient spacemen and dismissing everything totally.

Many cultures used decorative head dress masks to imply Gods animated by human spirits. It is all too easy to take something out of context thousands of years later without the full facts, or context of how, or why they were created.

On the other hand the evidence of mitochondrial DNA that we all descend from one Eve about 250,000 years ago is more convincing since fossil evidence for our species stretches back over a million years.

What caused this juncture in human evolution and what existed before this?

It is worth keeping an open mind

I keep reading "where's the evidence", "show me the evidence" and "bla bla"

The evidence is all around you... its literally everywhere... Google "UFO", "ALIEN", "ET" etc etc and you will find literally millions of pieces of evidence in religions, artifacts, youtube video's, news reports, books, mathematics etc etc. Then there are literally hundreds of ex CIA,FBI, NASA officials, Astronauts etc that have claimed that people actually talk about these things behind closed doors and that they have seen ET's, UFO's etc with their own eyes, but oh no wait..."They are all crazy liars" yup (great debunking btw).
The problem isn't the evidence it is the fact that most people live in a box and only accept something as true when they see it with their own eyes! How many reports of UFO are there...literally every single day... but no "EEEEEK!" "thats not evidence...it's probably cgi or something, could even be a flying rabbit... BUT NEVER a UFO oh no never ever"

I know I'm ranting but hell what do you guys want?? UFO's flying into our living rooms?? Aliens going to school with your kids?? Little baby aliens crying on the train??

Originally posted by halfmanhalfamazing
I keep reading "where's the evidence", "show me the evidence" and "bla bla"

Yes, because there's a ton of anecdote and speculation so far in this thread and nothing in the way of factual evidence or critical thinking. The only thing even remotely resembling evidence provided so far was rajaten's list of hoary old favorites from Erich van Daniken, who has parted more money from more fools than I will ever see in my lifetime.

The evidence is all around you... its literally everywhere... Google "UFO", "ALIEN", "ET" etc etc and you will find literally millions of pieces of evidence in religions, artifacts, youtube video's, news reports, books, mathematics etc etc.

I see the exact same argument coming from creationists: "Just look around! The evidence is everywhere!"

Then there are literally hundreds of ex CIA,FBI, NASA officials, Astronauts etc that have claimed that people actually talk about these things behind closed doors and that they have seen ET's, UFO's etc with their own eyes, but oh no wait..."They are all crazy liars" yup (great debunking btw).

And yet none of their claims regarding alien visitation are actually verifiable.

The problem isn't the evidence it is the fact that most people live in a box and only accept something as true when they see it with their own eyes! How many reports of UFO are there...literally every single day... but no "EEEEEK!" "thats not evidence...it's probably cgi or something, could even be a flying rabbit... BUT NEVER a UFO oh no never ever"

What does the first letter in UFO stand for? So unless you have some proof that those are EBEs who visited us in our remote past and played some part in the origin of mankind, they're not proof of the alien astronaut hypothesis.

I know I'm ranting but hell what do you guys want?? UFO's flying into our living rooms?? Aliens going to school with your kids?? Little baby aliens crying on the train??

Again, none of these things, by themselves, would be proof of the alien astronaut hypothesis. They would be proof of aliens among us, which would be awesome, but not of past alien visitors.

reply to post by halfmanhalfamazing

Originally posted by halfmanhalfamazing

I know I'm ranting but hell what do you guys want?? UFO's flying into our living rooms?? Aliens going to school with your kids?? Little baby aliens crying on the train??

Again, none of these things, by themselves, would be proof of the alien astronaut hypothesis. They would be proof of aliens among us, which would be awesome, but not of past alien visitors.

I guess you completely glossed over this part, on Page 3...

_________________


[In answer to, 'what do modern UFO sightings have to do with ancient astronaut theories'...]


Well, scientists did long ago, what even the most pessemistic of people (*cough* Vatican *cough*) have finally come around to in recent years and acknowledged that it "'IS likely that intelligent life does exist, elsewhere in the Universe" (...'and, that such a belief does not necessarily negate a belief in God' [nice 180 and copout])...

You'd be hard-pressed to find a single scientist (or intelligent soul on this planet) that doesn't agree that intelligent life must exist elsewhere in the universe. But, a mere few hundred years ago, ANY kind of life existed NO WHERE else in the universe.

And, here's the problem with all of that [and modern day UFO sightings]...

Most scientists also agree that it is highly IMprobable that we would ever make contact with such life simply because the vastness of space between us and another communicable civilization. And the miniscule possibility that we would even be detected by another as we've only been emitting radio waves for such a short time (relatively speaking) that the odds of another intelligent lifeform doing so would be astronomically (pun intended) small.

Unless... The Advanced Civs that are (may) be here, now, would likely only be doing so because they knew we were here! Why? Because they had already been here, before! (as, IMHO, they were (likely) the ones that seeded us here, to begin with).

Therefor, in conclusion, modern sightings of UFOs, all but automatically imply ancient visitation, by default.


And, for a list of just how extensive a list of accounts we're talking about, you need look no further than right here on ATS: The ATS UFO/Alien Chronological Thread Directory

reply to post by SquirrelNutz



Yes, I'm replying to myself. For the people that keep screaming 'anecdotal evidence', 'speculation', 'no tangible proof', 'so and so has been debunked', etc...

Yes, this is a theory.. based on history, archeological evidence, scripture/legend, recorded accounts, AND, most importanlty.... logic and reason.

Originally posted by SquirrelNutz
reply to post by SquirrelNutz

 

Yes, I'm replying to myself. For the people that keep screaming 'anecdotal evidence', 'speculation', 'no tangible proof', 'so and so has been debunked', etc...

Yes, this is a theory.. based on history, archeological evidence, scripture/legend, recorded accounts, AND, most importanlty.... logic and reason.

Ancient alien hypothesis is certainly not a scientific theory. It's at most an interesting idea, though certainly not supported by any real evidence. I think that anyone taking an objective view of the A.A. claims (and I used to believe in A.A. hypothesis) will find that what's purported to be evidence falls far short of any acceptable standard. If you believe in it it's because you want to, not because of any confirmatory facts.

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


With respect, we begin.

I'm pretty sure professional scientists grasp what science is and how it works and I've never seen a single legitimate scientist claim that ancient astronaut "theory" is credible or compelling on any level. In fact I've seen quite the opposite from the scientific community.

This is not necessarily the case. It is perfectly possible for a scientist to participate in the institution of science without understanding the broader nature of what it is she is doing. The key notion here is self-awareness. A scientist can do science without reflecting on the implications of the assumptions within the institution that guides her work.

Science is not a set of theories, its a method and that method has very strict guidelines on what is admissible as evidence.

I know that this is what they taught you in school, but it is false. In fact, if you ask a scientist what the Scientific Method is, you're likely to get a different answer from each scientist. Why? Because practical use demonstrates that it's much more complex and ad hoc than the textbooks suggest.

Science is a collaborative institution (though it is often driven hierarchically by Big Business and Big Government interests) which has (1) enforced conformity within its ranks by insisting upon the Scientific Method (nebulous though it can at times be) and upon -- as you say -- "very strict guidelines on what is admissible as evidence"; (2) encouraged the generation of diverse possibilities through experimentation and theorization; (3) judged the worth of differing theories based on many factors, including: experimental evidence, practical value, and internal coherence; (4) shifted resources to theories that are stronger (according to those standards of judgment) by numerous means including: damaging the reputation of marginalized scientists, and reducing or eliminating funding; and (5) encouraged intergroup tournaments by supporting the generation of multiple theories which explain the same phenomena and then pitting these refined theories against each other to see which is left standing.

Science is far more than just the Method used. It is an institution whose purpose is to develop useful theories. The Scientific Method is just the means of getting from an idea to a theory.

None of the things claimed as evidence by ancient astronaut "theorists" are actually evidence of aliens. Pyramids, myths, monuments, etc, they ARE all evidence of human creativity and ingenuity though.

This is where your vision of science as a Method runs into trouble. Why does science have such strict guidelines for what is admissible as evidence?

Rigor, right?

Wrong. Bias is the reason.

Scientists have adopted a vision of the world in which only material and material events count as evidence. In short, scientists have assumed that the world has one level and one level only: the level of the material. This is why "creativity and ingenuity" (whether human or not) is not admissible as evidence: these are non-material phenomena. In fact, until the institution of science discovers that it has made this assumption (which is categorically false -- witness, for example, the intricacies of language itself), then it will be doomed to continue blundering about within its own false assumptions, attempting to explain a multi-dimensional Universe in terms of its material aspect alone. And scientists who do not realize this assumption will be doomed to doing science without self-awareness of what it is they are doing.

Rigor can be found in levels of existence beyond the merely physical, as some rogue (and thus marginalized) scientists have already done. It has also been done by mystics, if you care to research such things as the Kabbalah and eastern (i.e. not pop) Tai Chi. Of course, these two fields command a kind of rigor which is unfamiliar to science, so there is still much work to be done to connect the two to the institution of science.

Remove this unnecessary bias and you will discover that the purpose of science is only to explain the phenomena as they are experienced, as is the purpose of any theoretical venture.

By the way I'd also like to take the time to point out that ancient astronaut "theory" is not a theory at all, it is merely a hypothesis.

Again, this is a textbook response. Linguistically speaking, there isn't very much difference between a hypothesis and a theory. Even the textbooks will tell you that the difference is the amount of evidence supporting the hypothesis. If you reject all of the evidence that supports AAT as evidence, then you reject it as a theory. Fine. But that very rejection demonstrates that you accept the false assumption of science without question.

Ancient man is perfectly capable of coming up with the concept of gods and to them, as it is today, the sky was likely a source of awe and wonder, the sort of place supernatural beings might descend from. They are also perfectly capable of building monuments and incredible feats of engineering as well. We have no evidence, no alien spacecraft, no alien technology, no alien bodies, no alien languages - nothing suggests ancient aliens except to those who WANT to believe and who will interpret ANYTHING they think can bolster their bias.

We're not talking about divine intervention here. You can build strawmen all you want, but AAT theory is about intelligent beings (like us) who came to Earth and sharply affected both the culture and the technology of humankind within a very short period of time. A good theory will account for all of the evidence, and that includes the evidence that is absent.

Your entire worldview is built up around theories which serve to explain the phenomena. Christians, for example, often refuse to consider any other worldview because their theory of reality is sufficient to explain many of their experiences. Because these Christians have been taught to be closed-minded, they ignore the ways in which their worldview fails them. This tendency applies to any worldview which harbors assumptions that are not to be questioned. The institution of science is no different.

Everything you experience is evidence, if only you are capable of establishing what kind of evidence it is and how it fits into your worldview (i.e. your own personal theory of everything).

Originally posted by iterationzero
Because Aziroth has absolutely zero proof of what he's asserting.

Then the question is whether you believe his story. We live in a world where proof is impossible. Everyone has zero proof. There are assumptions and there are consequences of those assumptions. You name to me one thing that has been proven throughout all of history, and I will show you how the conclusion of that proof is entirely dependent upon the assumptions with which it began.

I think it's your concept of what science is that's a little bit lacking. Scientific theories are intended to accurately explain and predict features of the natural world. Those theories are drawn from hypotheses which are verified or falsified through the gathering of empirical and measurable evidence. So, for AAT to stand up to the rigors of being a scientific theory, it has to make predictions which can then be tested.

I agree. Your description is the narrow view of science -- the view science has of itself. My description is the broad view of science -- the category of institutions in which science falls. I have a habit of hyperbole, so forgive me for allowing myself to fall into that habit. ATSers like you will greatly assist me in becoming more skilled at writing and less knee-jerk in my responses. Thank you.

Perhaps what I ought to have said is that science, insofar as it is useful to the average human being, is as I have described it. And what is more important for theorization the usefulness?

However, following what was stated earlier, I do not see any significant merit in AAT being considered a scientific theory because it is impossible for it to be so. The institution of science does not have the tools to mathematically describe any interactions except physical ones. This is why science so desperately seeks to explain human action and interaction by physical means: this is the only tool science has for explaining human action (although the so-called "social sciences" may disagree).

Nevertheless, AAT, regardless of how you want to define the words, is a hypothesis/theory which has a large body of evidence. That this theory is not yet predictive has much to do with the kind of theory that it is. Suppose you come home from work to find your front door kicked in, your shelves and dressers emptied onto the floor, and your laptop missing. You would theorize that your house was broken into and your laptop stolen. This theory has very little predictive power due to the nature of the theory. You might be able to predict fingerprints on your furniture which do no belong to anyone you know. You might be able to predict that there is also some jewelry missing. But even if these predictions did not materialize, you would still feel confident that someone broke into your house and stole your laptop.

The evidence that AAT uses is surely archeological and anthropological in nature. However, the major reason that we cannot predict new evidence for AAT is because the evidence we already have is still not very well understood. This evidence is far more complex than evidence that scientific theories typically use, and in order to really make use of it, one must understand human beings better. Interestingly enough, science does not have the tools to understand human beings very well because it seems to think that only the physical level counts, so it relies on anthropology and archeology to do all the understanding.

In short, scientifically speaking, AAT is still a "hypothesis". Again, not that this matters because science (as it is now) is incapable of making any statements about AAT. However, the very context of this thread suggests that science is not really what is at stake here. Religion is. The OP wanted to explain how AAT is sufficiently robust to explain much of what religion has previously served to explain. (If you think that religion exists in spite of science, then I ask you to reconsider. Religion exists to explore the realms that science is incapable of exploring, crude though religion's methods are.) The very fact that we can even mention science and AAT in the same sentence as if the two might one day be in agreement is, I think, a testament to the power of AAT.

So is AAT not a more believable, more rational alternative to religion, with more evidence to boot? Who cares if the evidence fits within the strict parameters of the institution of science? This institution does not reflect on the usefulness of its parameters anyway.

If you really believe that the Big Bang Theory doesn't make predictions, you need to go back and reacquaint yourself with what a theory is in general and the Big Bang Theory specifically. Cosmic microwave background radiation was predicted by the BBT in 1948 by Alpher and Herman. That background radiation was discovered in 1964 by Penzias and Wilson. So please explain how the BBT is not a predictive tool.

You're right again. I sometimes generate examples too quickly for my own good. My mind races forward, glossing over things that seem relatively unimportant. You and your ilk shall teach me rigor in communication. I knew in using BBT as an example that I was probably wrong about that one, so I retract the suggestion that prediction is not necessary for a theory to be scientific. In retrospect, this issue is unimportant to the conversation at hand. Forgive me for mentioning it at all.

Originally posted by PriamsPride
So is AAT not a more believable, more rational alternative to religion, with more evidence to boot?

No, it's the same old religious creation stories modified with new characters. It has approximately the same amount of evidence as any other religion: zero.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by SquirrelNutz
reply to post by SquirrelNutz

 

Yes, I'm replying to myself. For the people that keep screaming 'anecdotal evidence', 'speculation', 'no tangible proof', 'so and so has been debunked', etc...

Yes, this is a theory.. based on history, archeological evidence, scripture/legend, recorded accounts, AND, most importanlty.... logic and reason.

Ancient alien hypothesis is certainly not a scientific theory. It's at most an interesting idea, though certainly not supported by any real evidence. I think that anyone taking an objective view of the A.A. claims (and I used to believe in A.A. hypothesis) will find that what's purported to be evidence falls far short of any acceptable standard. If you believe in it it's because you want to, not because of any confirmatory facts.

Scientific evidence can be sneaky the way it presents itself.

Can I PROVE that Aliens came down and built the magnificent structures like The Great Pyramid (and chambers in front), or what's left of the ruins at Puma Punku, etc...?

Absoultely NOT.

But... It CAN be proven that it was not done by humans - not in our ancient past, and not even with the technology and ingenuity of today!

That goes a long way.

(and, I'm gonna need more evidence of anit-grav or sonic technology other than ONE Guy (Coral Castle) or a ping pong ball in a chamber)

Originally posted by SquirrelNutz
reply to post by SquirrelNutz

 

I guess you completely glossed over this part, on Page 3...

Nope, didn't gloss over it at all. What I see there is lots of "possible", "probable", "likely"... i.e. speculation. Sorry, but science demands positive proof of something before you can go from it being a hypothesis to a theory.

Yes, I'm replying to myself. For the people that keep screaming 'anecdotal evidence', 'speculation', 'no tangible proof', 'so and so has been debunked', etc...

Yes, this is a theory.. based on history, archeological evidence, scripture/legend, recorded accounts, AND, most importanlty.... logic and reason.

No, it's a hypothesis based on conjecture and shoehorning information into an answer at which you've already arrived. Logic and reason can also get you to "if she weighs the same as a duck, she must be made out of wood, and is therefore a witch" if you want it to. Science carries a higher burden of proof than that.

Originally posted by SquirrelNutz
But... It CAN be proven that it was not done by humans - not in our ancient past, and not even with the technology and ingenuity of today!

That goes a long way.

Unfortunately, it does not. You're falling into a "god of the gaps" argument, only you're substituting "aliens" for "god". Let's assume that you're right, that the pyramids could not have been built by ancient man, which is a pretty spurious assumption. That still does not constitute positive proof of your "alien astronaut" hypothesis. There's still a plurality of other hypotheses that can fill that void.

reply to post by iterationzero

it's based on conjecture and shoehorning information into an answer at which you've already arrived

Back at ya.

Hi, This is my first time posting so bare with me please... It's interesting to see what modern man is now looking for as in answers to our existance and our human history. Myself included, I have researched most of the talk and the discussions on the net and I find I'm asking myself if I'm being swayed by hype and misconceptions or if the evidence is grounded in fact and believability. Is modern man striving to find answers that believes an higher entity is amongst us, or will reveal itself? Are we still striving for the same answers our ancesters asked? Are we all looking for historical, physical, spiritual answers? How are we different from ancient man? We have the same asperations ancient man had...survival and knowledge.. We create, we advance, we inspire. We live in advanced, exciting, creative thought inspiring times.. But our knowledge is only in speed with openess and truth. Like ancient history, only the few knew, the currupt gained power and the people became ignorant. Now we are waiting for a higher entity (advanced inteligence) to become our truth. Is this the truth that was embeded in our DNA? Or is the truth our spirit wants? Who really believes we will find the answers in our lifetime? We are all expectant of enlightement. We all are hungry for the truth. We need it like it's our hour of need. Time is slipping by.. Many people are striving to make truth happen. But is my truth your truth?

Originally posted by SquirrelNutz



Scientific evidence can be sneaky the way it presents itself.

Can I PROVE that Aliens came down and built the magnificent structures like The Great Pyramid (and chambers in front), or what's left of the ruins at Puma Punku, etc...?

Absoultely NOT.

But... It CAN be proven that it was not done by humans - not in our ancient past, and not even with the technology and ingenuity of today!

That goes a long way.

Not knowing how humans constructed something is not proving that it was not constructed by humans. This is a classic fallacy known as the argument from ignorance. And, if if it could be proven somehow that they were not built by humans it would be the same fallacy to attribute it to aliens.

Interesting that you classify A.A. hypothesis as "religion", but I suspect this is you either consciously or unconsciously being honest. This is indeed something that relies solely on faith, rather than evidence or logic, to believe in.

Isn't it fact that we are still all looking towards the heavens for an answer? Alien versus god? Why hasn't the answers after milleniums become known on earth. We all live every breath, every footfall on this earth. We are all born to question our existance. How many billions of brain cells have computed and analized and invested in the answers? Our expectancy is for the answer to fall from the skies.... Remind you of anyone? Remind you of ancient artifacts or monoliths? Paintings on cave walls? New age media is no different from the ancient story telling from the past. Who's theory, fact, visual content do we believe? then or now? We live in a time when we need hope more than ever. For some God has been debunked. For some Government is their enemy. For some life has no answers. What matches from past and present to become fact? None of us look down for our answers, we all look up. There have been humans greater than others. Humans that have ruled and conquered, inspired and devastated. But never a human with the answer. A human with the answer would be a terrible burden to bare. So maybe the answer is, after all the human existances in the history of the earth, why look? Why question? Just exist....

Originally posted by PriamsPride
Then the question is whether you believe his story. We live in a world where proof is impossible. Everyone has zero proof. There are assumptions and there are consequences of those assumptions. You name to me one thing that has been proven throughout all of history, and I will show you how the conclusion of that proof is entirely dependent upon the assumptions with which it began.

I appreciate those points, but you’re moving this discussion out of science, which is where it started with the OP presenting their “proof” of their ancient astronaut hypothesis, into the realm of epistemology, which is a wholly philosophical argument. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a fun argument to have. It’s just irrelevant to this particular conversation because the OP is determined to bring religion into the realm of science with their hypothesis.

Also, don’t forget that assumptions are also impacted by their own consequences, to use your nomenclature. They will either stand or fall based on those consequences… which is how you can move the wholly philosophical argument back to a scientific one.

I agree. Your description is the narrow view of science -- the view science has of itself. My description is the broad view of science -- the category of institutions in which science falls. I have a habit of hyperbole, so forgive me for allowing myself to fall into that habit. ATSers like you will greatly assist me in becoming more skilled at writing and less knee-jerk in my responses. Thank you.

Perhaps what I ought to have said is that science, insofar as it is useful to the average human being, is as I have described it. And what is more important for theorization the usefulness?

Yes, that is a narrow description of science, but I’d say that science is a relatively narrow discipline that has an almost universal impact. Science only concerns itself with phenomena that are, in some way, observable. And I’d take your words a step further – I’d argue that science is mostly useless to the average human being. It’s the application of science via engineering, medicine, etc. that holds usefulness. Theories don’t have to be directly useful, they just have to be accurate. The useful applications of those theories will then follow.

I think improvement in science education, not just particular areas of science but education about the endeavor of science itself, would help people have a more reasonable set of expectations regarding science.

I’m going to take a quote or two of yours out of sequence, just for purposes of clarification. Hope that’s OK.

The institution of science does not have the tools to mathematically describe any interactions except physical ones. This is why science so desperately seeks to explain human action and interaction by physical means: this is the only tool science has for explaining human action (although the so-called "social sciences" may disagree).

Instead of saying “physical interactions”, is it OK if we stick with “observable phenomena”? Not all observable phenomena are strictly physical in nature and I could see some confusion arising over the nomenclature we’re using here.

However, following what was stated earlier, I do not see any significant merit in AAT being considered a scientific theory because it is impossible for it to be so.

Nevertheless, AAT, regardless of how you want to define the words, is a hypothesis/theory which has a large body of evidence. That this theory is not yet predictive has much to do with the kind of theory that it is.

I disagree. It’s far from impossible for it to be a scientific theory, it just has to be verifiable. One of the ways it could do that would be the following: based on this enormous body of evidence which you suggest exists for the hypothesis, it should have some ability to predict features of new archaeological findings i.e. “if ancient astronauts came to Earth and did [thing A], [thing B], and [thing C], I should also find [thing D].

If the ancient astronauts manipulated genetics to create mankind, predict how that would be observably distinct from mankind arising via the mechanisms described in the theory of evolution. If the ancient astronauts built some architectural marvel, predict what features of that would yield positive proof of the involvement of those ancient astronauts. Then take those predictions and verify them. Then it’s at least heading toward being a theory.

Suppose you come home from work to find your front door kicked in, your shelves and dressers emptied onto the floor, and your laptop missing. You would theorize that your house was broken into and your laptop stolen. This theory has very little predictive power due to the nature of the theory. You might be able to predict fingerprints on your furniture which do no belong to anyone you know. You might be able to predict that there is also some jewelry missing. But even if these predictions did not materialize, you would still feel confident that someone broke into your house and stole your laptop.

Fun game, but it’s still not a scientific theory. You're using theory in it's colloquial meaning, which is appropriate for the example you given. I’ve actually seen a better example of this floating around this forum, just substitute that my TV has been knocked to the ground for my dresser being emptied. If my first hypothesis is that someone kicked in my door, robbed me, and knocked my TV over in the course of the robbery, then I can predict that I will find other items missing and fingerprints of someone I don’t know. But if there’s no fingerprints and no other items missing, then I can refine the hypothesis and retest it. Maybe the intruder wore gloves. Maybe they were only interested in my laptop. Or… maybe my cat knocked my TV over, the neighbors heard a loud crash, called the police, the police saw the knocked over TV through my window, were worried that I had been hurt, and kicked in my door. My laptop? I forgot it at work. The point of the new example? A hypothesis based solely on "reason and logic" isn't necessarily right.

The evidence that AAT uses is surely archeological and anthropological in nature. However, the major reason that we cannot predict new evidence for AAT is because the evidence we already have is still not very well understood. This evidence is far more complex than evidence that scientific theories typically use, and in order to really make use of it, one must understand human beings better. Interestingly enough, science does not have the tools to understand human beings very well because it seems to think that only the physical level counts, so it relies on anthropology and archeology to do all the understanding.

I disagree. You’re saying the archaeological or anthropological evidence for ancient astronauts is somehow more complex than the paleontological or anthropological or genetic evidence for evolution? Or more complex than the evidence involved in the theory of quantum mechanics? How so?

In short, scientifically speaking, AAT is still a "hypothesis". Again, not that this matters because science (as it is now) is incapable of making any statements about AAT. However, the very context of this thread suggests that science is not really what is at stake here. Religion is. The OP wanted to explain how AAT is sufficiently robust to explain much of what religion has previously served to explain. (If you think that religion exists in spite of science, then I ask you to reconsider. Religion exists to explore the realms that science is incapable of exploring, crude though religion's methods are.) The very fact that we can even mention science and AAT in the same sentence as if the two might one day be in agreement is, I think, a testament to the power of AAT.

I agree that it's a hypothesis at this point, but it’s patently untrue that science is incapable of making any statements about this hypothesis. The OP specifically refers to things that are observable, measurable, and testable e.g. megalithic structures and mankind being of the same lineage or a slave race of the ancient astronauts, which puts the discussion pretty squarely in the realm of science. Plus, he goes on to make the point that, in light of this hypothesis, we would have to reclassify mythology (i.e. religion) as historical record.

So is AAT not a more believable, more rational alternative to religion, with more evidence to boot? Who cares if the evidence fits within the strict parameters of the institution of science? This institution does not reflect on the usefulness of its parameters anyway.

No, because as someone else already pointed out in this thread, you’re just substituting one unprovable unknown for another. It's no more or less rational than any other attempt at making mainstream religion align with science. I may as well claim that a giant pink invisible flying unicorn defecated the pyramids block by block. At least religion as such has the good sense to make its claims supernatural in origin so that they can’t be tested. The OP is, in essence, trying to turn religion into scientific fact. There’s an enormous burden of proof that goes along with that and the OP has yet to provide it.

You're right again. I sometimes generate examples too quickly for my own good. My mind races forward, glossing over things that seem relatively unimportant. You and your ilk shall teach me rigor in communication. I knew in using BBT as an example that I was probably wrong about that one, so I retract the suggestion that prediction is not necessary for a theory to be scientific. In retrospect, this issue is unimportant to the conversation at hand. Forgive me for mentioning it at all.

No apologies necessary - I'm enjoying the conversation and I’m here to learn as well.

Originally posted by sussy
Hi, This is my first time posting so bare with me please... It's interesting to see what modern man is now looking for as in answers to our existance and our human history. Myself included, I have researched most of the talk and the discussions on the net and I find I'm asking myself if I'm being swayed by hype and misconceptions or if the evidence is grounded in fact and believability. Is modern man striving to find answers that believes an higher entity is amongst us, or will reveal itself? Are we still striving for the same answers our ancesters asked? Are we all looking for historical, physical, spiritual answers? How are we different from ancient man? We have the same asperations ancient man had...survival and knowledge.. We create, we advance, we inspire. We live in advanced, exciting, creative thought inspiring times.. But our knowledge is only in speed with openess and truth. Like ancient history, only the few knew, the currupt gained power and the people became ignorant. Now we are waiting for a higher entity (advanced inteligence) to become our truth. Is this the truth that was embeded in our DNA? Or is the truth our spirit wants? Who really believes we will find the answers in our lifetime? We are all expectant of enlightement. We all are hungry for the truth. We need it like it's our hour of need. Time is slipping by.. Many people are striving to make truth happen. But is my truth your truth?

We all believe what we want to believe Sussy. That's the truth. None of us really know.

There is a saying inscribed in the door lintel of a monastery in Tibet.

"One mountain. A thousand paths to the top."

In a world of six billion souls there are six billion universes...

Originally posted by sy.gunson

Originally posted by sussy
Hi, This is my first time posting so bare with me please... It's interesting to see what modern man is now looking for as in answers to our existance and our human history. Myself included, I have researched most of the talk and the discussions on the net and I find I'm asking myself if I'm being swayed by hype and misconceptions or if the evidence is grounded in fact and believability. Is modern man striving to find answers that believes an higher entity is amongst us, or will reveal itself? Are we still striving for the same answers our ancesters asked? Are we all looking for historical, physical, spiritual answers? How are we different from ancient man? We have the same asperations ancient man had...survival and knowledge.. We create, we advance, we inspire. We live in advanced, exciting, creative thought inspiring times.. But our knowledge is only in speed with openess and truth. Like ancient history, only the few knew, the currupt gained power and the people became ignorant. Now we are waiting for a higher entity (advanced inteligence) to become our truth. Is this the truth that was embeded in our DNA? Or is the truth our spirit wants? Who really believes we will find the answers in our lifetime? We are all expectant of enlightement. We all are hungry for the truth. We need it like it's our hour of need. Time is slipping by.. Many people are striving to make truth happen. But is my truth your truth?

We all believe what we want to believe Sussy. That's the truth. None of us really know.

There is a saying inscribed in the door lintel of a monastery in Tibet.

"One mountain. A thousand paths to the top."

In a world of six billion souls there are six billion universes...

I like the approach you two are taking on this whole matter.

And - at the risk of derailing my own thread - will point you to some of my thoughts on how this is important in the grand scheme of things.

Regardless of what theory is correct, I have (another) theory [originally posted here]that we are accelerating to our answer. (linked earlier in this thread):
______________________________

The acceleration of [everything] seems to be culminating at right about this time.

- Economic woes seem to be more out of control than ever with the spiraling of the dollar, the realization that America's debt will NEVER be paid off and pretty soon creditors (China) are going to start expecting products instead of worthless paper, and the collapsing of Nations (Greece, Iceland, Spain...)

- Political problems seem to be mounting, and it stems much further than the WWE-esque douche, er... two-party system that we have here in the U.S. We're talking crazy North Korea, we're talking biblical prophecy unfolding with the likely attack of Isreal by Iran.

We could go thru category after category, but I would prefer to think of the grandest of them all - the realization of what it all means and where we all came from - bare with me...

So, For many thousands of years, humanity, with a few notable exceptions, did not recognize the existence of the Solar System. People believed the Earth to be stationary at the center of the universe.

It wasn't until a mere 400 years ago, that someone first openly suggested that the sun, and not the earth, was the center of our system.

We don't even discover Pluto until the 1930s, for crying out loud.

The Hubble telescope goes up in the 90s (only TWENTY Years ago), and we see further away and back in time and more objects than we ever had before. We start to get a clearer picture about the origins of it all. Not just planets and our solar system but ALL of it. Right down to the last nano-second - this is where physics breaks down for the Big Bang Theory (or Collision Theory if you've been keeping up).

NOW, in the last TWO YEARS, up goes Kepler and comes the Vatican shake up:

1) Kepler Telescope is finding 'Earthlike' planets all over the place, even though the sample size is equatable to an 8oz. glass of water in the oceans of our earth.

2) the Vatican makes the startling proclamation - for the first time in its 2,000 year history, the catholic church acknowledged the possibility that intelligent life could exist on other planets, and that a belief in extraterrestrials does not necessarily contradict a belief in God - and have since jumped in the search with telescope purchases of their own (Excuse me? Nice 180'!)

[I realize quite bit happened in between each of those gaps, but you get the idea - these were pretty significant milestones]

_________________________
[since this post was originally made, less than two weeks ago (now (12/3/10), two months ago)]

- UN to appoint Earth contact for aliens
- U.S. Nuclear Weapons Have Been Compromised by Unidentified Aerial Objects

Bottom line: if you could graph our knowledge about the universe and ourselves over time, you would get an exponential curve accelerating into the sky whose asymptote is right about now! (2012 - all those types of discussions start to gain a little more credibility in my book, on this fact alone)


Are we coming to the realization that a destruction, enlightenment (aka realization) or transfomation IS coming? Who knows. But, things are pretty hairy right now. More than they've ever been, imho.



-----

The best explanation I've ever seen of this is here - skip to 2-min mark - this is the other Mayan Calendar, that no one talks much about...

[I do not necessarily subscribe to all of his points and (sub) theories, but he explains the calendar very well]


______________________________








We've only recently, as a global community, come to the painfully obvious truth that we are not alone in this universe.

How long before people realize that we are likely not alone, at all.... here. And, now. ?

reply to post by traditionaldrummer

Interesting that you classify A.A. hypothesis as "religion", but I suspect this is you either consciously or unconsciously being honest. This is indeed something that relies solely on faith, rather than evidence or logic, to believe in.

I will concede this point, if you concede that as far as religions go (the krux of this thread ), this leads the pack. (?)



(and change 'solely' to 'largely')

reply to post by halfmanhalfamazing

What you google isn't evidence. It's just claims.

There is not one shred of evidence for alien visitations in ancient times. Or modern times. Or at any time.

If you disagree, post the evidence here and prepare to defend it.