An Intelligent Debate on Ancient Alien Theory

[Agoork]

There are so many religions out there and most of them do have some sort of "god" or "gods" that come down from the heavens - often in a flaming chariot or flying vehicle of some kind.  With "man" being so spread out back in ancient times, with no way of communicating with other people all over the world, there's too much in common in the different religions for it to just be a coincidence.  I would say it is just as plausible that these "gods" were actually an alien race visiting Earth and interacting with it's inhabitants.

 

Parts of religion are attempts to explain things that the people couldn't rationally explain.  Earthquakes, volcanoes, floods, famine, etc - they didn't understand why these things were happening, so most religions called it the wrath of the gods - with the blame often being themselves not following their society's rules.  So, how would they explain an alien ship or a real alien visitor?  There was no rational explanation for that.  It must be a "god". 

 

With the vastness of space, these alien "gods" may have visited the planet in ancient times, but why are they not here now?  Well, heck, we landed on the moon in the 60's, but haven't been back since... and the moon is in Earth's orbit!  It is again plausible that any alien race that visited Earth in ancient times, was simply passing through, and due to the vastness of space, may never be back...

 

Religion is a "faith" or "belief".  I'm not religious in the slightest and don't mean to offend anyone. You can believe whatever you like, but I honestly "believe" it is more plausible that there were anicent aliens visiting the planet, than there being some all mighty being who created it. 

[EuroCanuck]

1 hour ago, Agoork said:

There are so many religions out there and most of them do have some sort of "god" or "gods" that come down from the heavens - often in a flaming chariot or flying vehicle of some kind.  With "man" being so spread out back in ancient times, with no way of communicating with other people all over the world, there's too much in common in the different religions for it to just be a coincidence.  I would say it is just as plausible that these "gods" were actually an alien race visiting Earth and interacting with it's inhabitants.

 

Parts of religion are attempts to explain things that the people couldn't rationally explain.  Earthquakes, volcanoes, floods, famine, etc - they didn't understand why these things were happening, so most religions called it the wrath of the gods - with the blame often being themselves not following their society's rules.  So, how would they explain an alien ship or a real alien visitor?  There was no rational explanation for that.  It must be a "god". 

 

With the vastness of space, these alien "gods" may have visited the planet in ancient times, but why are they not here now?  Well, heck, we landed on the moon in the 60's, but haven't been back since... and the moon is in Earth's orbit!  It is again plausible that any alien race that visited Earth in ancient times, was simply passing through, and due to the vastness of space, may never be back...

 

Religion is a "faith" or "belief".  I'm not religious in the slightest and don't mean to offend anyone. You can believe whatever you like, but I honestly "believe" it is more plausible that there were anicent aliens visiting the planet, than there being some all mighty being who created it. 

Well said, and my point starting this thread was really - the fact is our history is clearly not as we are told. There are too many discrepancies and holes in the historical record and things we just seem to 'accept' because we're told that don't make sense. Ie the list of things at the start, some other points others made. When conventional science cant explain it we are told 'well man must of have figured it out' - this is effectively a faith based argument, when the facts surrounded 'man figuring it out' don't support that man had the basis upon which to 'figure it out'

 

When one accepts that reality, that if the scientific evidence to back up the view that 'man figured it out' is not there, but scientists go against their own scientific method -ie they have no proof that man "could have figured it out" -this is not scientific fact, its a "I have no idea but trust me since i am a scientist". It also prevents them from straying out of the mainstream where they will be vilified. But in the end, the answer they provided is not backed by scientific fact- that's the issue.

 

The person I debated didn't see the fallacies in their arguments or that of conventional science

 

1. Science says I need evidence to suggest a fact.

 

2. They rightly claim there are things as scientists they cannot explain about early man's vast knowledge 

 

3. There are many holes in the historical records of early man relating to the basis of their (early man's) advanced knowledge, ie how they got it or built to it

 

4. Therefore, it follows that the idea that 'they (early man) just figured it out' is not a scientific fact, but rather, its a hypothesis without any scientific proof.

 

5. However, since such an answer is not controversial and  'conventional' its accepted

 

6. Yet that process in and of itself is the antithesis to scientific discovery- there are no facts to support the assertion 'man just figured it out' other than its there. In fact, the scientific method should actually lead to the alternate view, that if the historical record doesn't support man could have built it or there isn't a record of how that knowledge was acquired (built upon step by step), we should look at alternative theories because, the facts don't support that hypothesis. But again, a conventional scientist loses his grants if he goes there. 

 

7. The pyramids are a perfect example. Scientists say they don't know how early man could have built these structures. They have theories but its a theory and an 'assumption that MAN made these structures'. People ignore that the basis of their views is an ASSUMPTION NOT BASED IN ANY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT MAN ACTUALLY COULD HAVE BUILD IT. But you can't say they had help because then you're a crack pot. 

 

I am not sure how people cannot see the logical fallacy in the scientific explanations and the inherent assumptions that are not derived from the scientific method. However, because they are 'there' and since the idea they had help is 'nuts', well we must accept man built it alone, even if the scientific record says they didn't have the capability.

 

Conventional science glosses over these big issues and just suggests this knowledge appeared out of a vacuum. As I stated earlier, knowledge is built over time, step by step, block by block. If sumerians or any early advanced civilizations (as other examples) discovered all this advanced math, science and astronomy on their own, there would be the building blocks of this knowledge in some of these group's historical records. Anthropologists would see how they went from counting sticks, to multiplication, to fractions, to calculus to geometry to astronomy and effectively physics....not "all of  a sudden" knowing advanced math and astronomy and no trail of how they got there.

 

But they (scientists) don't know 'how they (early civilizations) got there' , just that they did. This is the big leap that scientists and the mainstream ignore. Scientists and anthropologists are surprised at the level of sophistication and advanced knowledge of early civilizations, but after searching for how these groups came to this knowledge and not finding the historical record of how they built to it, the answer became "well its there so they figured it out'.

 

To me this is not acceptable science. There is no scientific basis upon which to say these groups could have figured out much of their knowledge alone based on the evidence (ie no trail of how they built their knowledge over time). The scientific record actually points to the opposite conclusion, that these groups didn't have ability (based on the anthropological evidence) to have come up with that knowledge on their own. This is the big issue that mainstream scientists are too scared to admit.

 

Just as we have einstein to thank for the theory of relativity and those who's science he built on (and our historical record, the crumbs someone from the future could follow to trace how we got our knowledge), they would have records (some at least) of how their science grew and advanced over time. It wouldn't just appear as 'advanced'.

 

These holes are major issues some of the objectors don't either want to discuss or don't understand....

 

[Master 112]

3 hours ago, EuroCanuck said:

evolution would remove the need for it...that's the whole theory of evolution. you cannot argue evolution then say it picks and chooses 

Why does a removal of the need for an organ entail the disappearance of that organ from our genetic code? It may be unecessary, but if it's not actively harming that organism's reproductive success, why would it just go away?

 

I don't understand your last sentence.

[EuroCanuck]

Just now, Two one one said:

Why does a removal of the need for an organ entail the disappearance of that organ from our genetic code? It may be unecessary, but if it's not actively harming that organism's reproductive success, why would it just go away?

 

I don't understand your second sentence.

if man's body had no need for an appendix, evolution would suggest that over time (this is centuries obviously), the body would evolve. Why was it even there if we evolved on this planet? perhaps thats the better question? that being said it is not the basis of any argument here. there are much stronger points i have made, see my last post.

[Master 112]

35 minutes ago, EuroCanuck said:

if man's body had no need for an appendix, evolution would suggest that over time (this is centuries obviously), the body would evolve. Why was it even there if we evolved on this planet? perhaps thats the better question? that being said it is not the basis of any argument here. there are much stronger points i have made, see my last post.

Evolution is not a process the 'body' consciously or intentionally undergoes. The body does not have the liberty of choosing which of its organs its children inherit and which organs they do not.

[EuroCanuck]

33 minutes ago, Two one one said:

Evolution is not a process the 'body' consciously or intentionally undergoes. The body does not have the liberty of choosing which of its organs its children inherit and which organs they do not.

yes and no one suggested evolution is - but evolution is the idea that the body optimizes itself for its environment. If our bodies were built for this environment, we should never have even had appendixes- does a fish have feet? it doesn't need feet, its environment was water, it never developed feet did it?

Again, you may want to focus on one point, it was a minor point in a much larger position, again, i suggest you read my last post.

 

thanks!

[Master 112]

20 minutes ago, EuroCanuck said:

yes and no one suggested evolution is - but evolution is the idea that the body optimizes itself for its environment. If our bodies were built for this environment, we should never have even had appendixes

Again, you may want to focus on one point, it was a minor point in a much larger position, again, i suggest you read my last post, again, i suggest you read my last post, again, i suggest you read my last post to comprehend the point here.

 

thanks!

The body doesn't optimize itself, though- organisms are shaped by their environments. You seem to think that the body can somehow intelligently discern what components of it are not necessary for its proper function or survival in a given environment, and then choose to discriminate against passing those characteristics down when reproducing. But this isn't true.

 

Again- appendixes are a part of our immune systems. They are not without function.

[EuroCanuck]

9 minutes ago, Two one one said:

The body doesn't optimize itself, though- organisms are shaped by their environments. You seem to think that the body can somehow intelligently discern what components of it are necessary for its proper function or survival in a given environment, and then choose to discriminate against passing those characteristics down when reproducing. But this isn't true.

 

Again- appendixes are a part of our immune systems. They are not without function.

actually that's not at all what i think

 

it seems you want to argue a point that i didn't make - also we clearly can live a healthy life without an appendix, so its not an essential organ by any means. You are also straying from the entire topic of this thread to focus on minutia and missing the POINT. But the theory of evolution includes the idea of 'adaptation' I would suggest reading about that!

 

take care

[Master 112]

1 minute ago, EuroCanuck said:

actually that's not at all what i said

 

it seems you want to argue a point that i didn't make

 

take care

You literally just said that the body optimizes itself.

[EuroCanuck]

Just now, Two one one said:

You literally just said that the body optimizes itself.

cool- cant fix your lack of comprehension! have a nice night

 

[Master 112]

1 minute ago, EuroCanuck said:

cool- cant fix your lack of comprehension! have a nice night

 

Big talk from the guy who doesn't realize our ancestors lived in different environments than we do.

[Master 112]

New thread topic: Why does everyone who asks for intelligent discussion on the internet suffer from a profound inability to articulate thoughts?

[Jägermeister]

I am of the belief that there are aliens out there somewhere, it would be nieve to think otherwise.  The universe is far to vast to completely dismiss that notion.  There have been some absolutely fantastical things done in our human history that would be easily be explained by the idea that aliens helped us to achieve those feat.

However, I just don't see any real evidence as of yet that could convince me that any other life has visited our planet, let alone influenced it.  

[Master 112]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigiality

[189lb enforcers?]

2 hours ago, Two one one said:

The body doesn't optimize itself, though- organisms are shaped by their environments. You seem to think that the body can somehow intelligently discern what components of it are not necessary for its proper function or survival in a given environment, and then choose to discriminate against passing those characteristics down when reproducing. But this isn't true.

 

Again- appendixes are a part of our immune systems. They are not without function.

Our tail bone has a similar story. We’ve all heard those two examples.  

 

What I always found strange was how our bodies can proof read codes in each reproducing cell at a rate which is truely amazing, yet we clamour around the “evolution” construct about our tail bones and recite the science we’ve been told about how, after eons, we just lost our tails because we didn’t need them anymore. Eons? For a tale?

 

What the body does a trillion times a day during cell reproduction is a heck of a lot more interesting and complex than the human tail bone or appendix evolution story. I almost stoped believing in evolution when I took a human biology class as a youth. Fascinating stuff. 

[Hugor Hill]

6 hours ago, Aladeen said:

1. People are smart and if human intelligence can explain away 99% of the technological marvels that existed in the the ancient world that wouldn’t surprise me but look up puma punku or the dropa stones. Those things couldn’t have been made by smart people they needed precise technological equipment such as lasers to have been created.

 

https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4202

 

Most likely just concrete.

[Hugor Hill]

5 hours ago, EuroCanuck said:

7. The pyramids are a perfect example. Scientists say they don't know how early man could have built these structures. They have theories but its a theory and an 'assumption that MAN made these structures'. People ignore that the basis of their views is an ASSUMPTION NOT BASED IN ANY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT MAN ACTUALLY COULD HAVE BUILD IT. But you can't say they had help because then you're a crack pot. 

 

 

 

 

But aliens (gods) is an easier explanation.....

 

[Hugor Hill]

7 hours ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

I’m sure once we are able to play nice in our own little sandbox, we will get an invitation to another. 

 

We’ve only just started with the scientific method. The answers are out there.

 

I think that we have been around much longer than what we are told to believe. I also like to think that NA has been inhabited for a long, long time going back before the last ice age even. Once we explore the 400’ below sea level areas where ancient humans or other primates might have lived, things will get interesting. 

 

Earth is full of crazy, but similar ancient technologies and astonishing artifacts. 

“God did it” it finally no longer the only and final answer to inquiry. 

What you are implying is that science will in the future explain more mysteries, which I agree. 

 

But no, god did not do it, whatever 'it' is.

 

[Hugor Hill]

7 hours ago, Aladeen said:

I won’t respond directly to hugor as I have no desire to get into a forum argument. All you can do is say what you believe and that don’t worry about those who oppose it with anger.

 

Something that I find interesting is that in reality opposition to the ancient alien theory can never be proved to be the case, only the affirmative stance on it. So that alone tells me the odds are that it is true in some shape or form.

 

I will comment on what he says about a bunch of religions not having angels and that is in reality incorrect.

 

Buddhism/Hinduism/Jainism - Devas and Asuras 

Sumerians/Babalonians - Annunaki

Shintos - Kami, Tengu and Oni

Egyptians, Mayans, Aztecs, Incas - Their Many various deities

Taoism - Xian “the immortals” - They rode dragons as an FYI. Also other Chinese religions rooted in Taoism use things like firecrackers to ward of guei or demons.

Sikh - Puri

 

Mormons 

Christians

Judism/Hermetic Qabala

Muslim/Islam 

Baha’i

Jehovah’s Witnesses

Wiccan

Satanic Church

 

This last group all believes in the same angels pretty much.

 

Not to mention smaller localized religions like that of the Dogon tribe and their oral records of their “sky brothers” from Sirius in Orion’s Belt. Interestingly enough their oral tradition says that this is a binary system something we have only realized in the last half century or so.

 

Or the shamanistic religions within the aboriginal peoples of Australia who believe in the “Dreaming Beings” who created life on this planet with different individual dream beings responsible for different people and areas of the planet.

 

Or the First Nations religious beliefs in guardian spirits, tricksters and shape shifters or some believing in the “sky woman” giving birth to the first woman.

 

Religions have created mythological creatures to support their narratives, yes. We shouldn't call them all 'angels'.

 

All these similarities tell us that our ancestors have similar philosophies in respect to human's relationship with each other, life, death, earth, sky, animals, and the various phenomena that they could not explain. And why shouldn't they? They all lived under the same sky and struggled with the same challenges and mysteries in life.

 

You have presented more perspectives than I bothered to in responding to the OP, thanks. But does your own research not tell you that if aliens had taught us religions, wouldn't the religions be more monolithic, not as diverse as this?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Alflives]

“Intelligent Discussion on Ancient Aliens”.  Equals classic oxymoron.  Yes, posters can spew  their beliefs by using intellectually presented writing, but the topic is still “Ancient Aliens”, which (in itself) is not intellectual.  It’s fun to discuss such beliefs, bu certainly not intellectual.  

@EuroCanuck your statement, “ the fact is our history is clearly not as we are told” suggests you believe in a conspiracy theory.  You have strong beliefs.  Those beliefs indicate faith, which implies: that which you wish to discuss rationally cannot be, because it cannot be proven scientifically — Oxymoron.