An Intelligent Debate on Ancient Alien Theory

[EuroCanuck]

50 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

Aliens didn't drop calculus on us. Isaac Newton did. 

 

Yes the Babylonians were smart, they could observe things, record them, wonder about them. Learn new things over time. No aliens needed.

 

You keep talking about an "open mind" and that I'm ignoring you, but nothing you've said proves the existence - or more importantly the need - for aliens. We have the capability to do it all ourselves. 

 

Also, you claim knowledge of this alien culture that you couldn't possibly know anything about. We know that people have invented all kinds of mathematical concepts not provided by aliens. So tell me, how could you tell our and theirs apart when you have no idea what these aliens were like or what they contributed? 

 

How did "they" figure it out? the same way we did. You desperately want there to be an origin theory apart from ourselves, your whole premise for this thread is BS. You want some sort of theology that sets us apart, when there are mountains of evidence that we did it all on our own. 

 

Having an open mind means looking at all the available evidence, you refuse to do that. 

 

 

Lol love the semantic arguments “Isaac newton” - dude it was a hypothetical point. By the way the sumerians had extremely advanced mathematics - Isaac Newton wasn’t around and again, you completely miss the ENTIRE POINT OF THAT POST.  

 

Read about the fallacy of your suggestion that the scientific method would suggest that the things we can’t  explain were made or developed  by humans without help. The anthropological record, if you followed scientific method would actually suggest mankind didn’t, as there is no record or proof they had the ability to do so. 

 

If I come home, and my 4 year old is sitting there with a fully baked cake for instance, and no one else is around. Do I assume he made the cake? Or do I say there’s no way he made that cake as he doesn’t have the ability nor is there any evidence to suggest he even put the cake together or learned this ability over time. Or do I say, well the cake is there, no one else is so he must have made it? This is effectively the argument positived by conventional science sir. 

 

 

[Hugor Hill]

6 minutes ago, Toews said:

Proof that Alf is a critical thinker except when he conveniently chooses not to be. I don't mean this as criticism. 

Exceptionally strong proof. I was impressed.

[Hobble]

3 minutes ago, EuroCanuck said:

That’s the point - fish feet. Evolution. Don’t need, doesn’t evolve.

 

thanks 

Either you are being intentionally argumentative, or are purposefully ignorant in the support of your topic's premise.

 

Just because the appendix doesn't have a purpose now, doesn't mean it never did.

 

Does the human tail bone, wisdom teeth, or goose bumps also keep you up at night with thoughts of interstellar beings/origins? Those all had previous purposes in ancient Homo species and primates that have now become useless/lost with human evolution.

 

[Alflives]

9 minutes ago, Primal Optimist said:

I know a few things cuz I have seen a few things.

 

First of all: There will never be time travel in the sense that you can hop in a machine and go back in time, hop out of it there and exist in that time. How do i know this? We are sort of incompetent as a species when it comes to details and individual accountability. Our successes have happened when we embrace hive mentality. ANd so I present my theory that if at any time in the future story of humanity we create such a machine: from that moment forth there will be ever more machines going back in time. Eventually someone is going to muff that up and somehow or other a time machine will be left behind, found, discovered, or otherwise figured out by the historical us, even though future us will try to not let that happen. In all of the future time imaginable that is a LOT of cover up to try to keep from being found in all of past time. Eventually  we will have found a time machine in the past and therefore have it in the present if we discover the ability at any point in the future. THerefore, we don't have it now so we never will have it. THank you, that is my summary on the issue of time travel back in time. 

 

Secondly, it is roughly known that there were and are some 250 thousand 'gods' known in all the history of mankind. You dear reader may be a christian because you were born in a western nation to good sturdy christian parents, however by the pure coincidence of birth you may have been just as easily a Hindu or a Muslim or a Jewish person, or a non religious secular humanist. Random chance of being born to a person of faith is the largest contributing factor to your belief in your particular god. All the rest are make believe in your opinion dear reader and so I suspect that you may agree a little bit that if 229 thousand gods are pure fiction and created by the imaginations of humans to explain what we didn't understand, and in your life only your "god" is real....then it is safe to say in the macro broad general sweep of all of life on earth that all 'gods' are equally made up. We believe what we believe because of pure indoctrination, usually from birth into the cult of our parents choosing.

 

So no gods and no time travel to the past.

 

This brings me to my third epiphany as taken from my lifetime of knowing a thing or two because I have seen a thing or two.

 

While I readily admit that there is a very good chance that some other star has some other planet going around it with some other form of life on it, and probably more than one other place in the entire universe....I am also sure that those other life forms would not or could not travel by intelligent choice to our pale blue dot navigating an orbit around our star, and upon arrival here, they manage to only be seen or heard from by our anal probing obsessed trailer trash and poor videographers with inferior equipment to capture a scientifically verifiable movie or image. Jus sayin, if life exists off this rock, they are not coming here to poke you in the butt and therefore they didn't come here to set up shop and quietly guide life on earth from afar while only occasionally poking the odd yokel in the anus.

Can’t go back in time; can only go forward - theoretically.  

[Scottish⑦Canuck]

 

2 minutes ago, EuroCanuck said:

Cool you done with your rants?

 

You believe in conventional science just “accepts” humans did it. Go read my long post on that above. You’ll realize (if logic is something you possess) the logical fallacy of that argument.

 

Good luck! 

That isn't a rant. In fact, Jimmy has replied to all of your posts in the respectful and intelligent way you requested from the outset. How is that a rant?

 

With regards to stars and planets, an understanding of the difference didn't materialise overnight. Early astronomers studied the sky in great detail over a long time. While stars are displayed in a fixed pattern planets followed a different trajectory. The word planet is derived from Ancient Greek. "Wandering star".

[Alflives]

11 minutes ago, Toews said:

Proof that Alf is a critical thinker except when he conveniently chooses not to be. I don't mean this as criticism. 

It’s not critical thinking; it’s good medication!  

[EuroCanuck]

2 minutes ago, Scottish⑦Canuck said:

 

That isn't a rant. In fact, Jimmy has replied to all of your posts in the respectful and intelligent way you requested from the outset. How is that a rant?

 

With regards to stars and planets, an understanding of the difference didn't materialise overnight. Early astronomers studied the sky in great detail over a long time. While stars are displayed in a fixed pattern planets followed a different trajectory. The word planet is derived from Ancient Greek. "Wandering star".

Please read my post on the scientific method rather than only one response.

 

 

[Alflives]

8 minutes ago, EuroCanuck said:

Lol love the semantic arguments “Isaac newton” - dude it was a hypothetical point. By the way the sumerians had extremely advanced mathematics - Isaac Newton wasn’t around and again, you completely miss the ENTIRE POINT OF THAT POST.  

 

Read about the fallacy of your suggestion that the scientific method would suggest that the things we can’t  explain were made or developed  by humans without help. The anthropological record, if you followed scientific method would actually suggest mankind didn’t, as there is no record or proof they had the ability to do so. 

 

If I come home, and my 4 year old is sitting there with a fully baked cake for instance, and no one else is around. Do I assume he made the cake? Or do I say there’s no way he made that cake as he doesn’t have the ability nor is there any evidence to suggest he even put the cake together or learned this ability over time. Or do I say, well the cake is there, no one else is so he must have made it? This is effectively the argument positived by conventional science sir. 

 

 

Wouldn’t your theory of alien intervention, applied to your four year old’s cake, suggest you would first postulate said cake was cooked by a time travelling alien (Julia Child?) with superior culinary skills?  

[EuroCanuck]

10 minutes ago, Hobble said:

Either you are being intentionally argumentative, or are purposefully ignorant in the support of your topic's premise.

 

Just because the appendix doesn't have a purpose now, doesn't mean it never did.

 

Does the human tail bone, wisdom teeth, or goose bumps also keep you up at night with thoughts of interstellar beings/origins? Those all had previous purposes in ancient Homo species and primates that have now become useless/lost with human evolution.

 

Cool again, perhaps go read that whole thread and the POINT I MADE ABOUT IT.

 

It was one small example. It does not negate the argument, you choose to believe in your magic book from some dude in Bethlehem. Others choose to Believe the odds of imaginary beings is not as high as actual beings being part of our existence and development .

 

I don’t believe man can come back to life. Billions of people are waiting for that day on this planet - I wonder what’s more plausible? That there is life in this universe that was here before us and helped because their civilization could be billions of years older than ours? or some magical being in the Sky and Man coming back to life?

 

Funny how people here are so quick to condemn something much more plausible scientifically than the existence of “god” as per our religious texts.

 

step back and think about that logic 

[EuroCanuck]

1 minute ago, Alflives said:

Wouldn’t your theory of alien intervention, applied to your four year old’s cake, suggest you would first postulate said cake was cooked by a time travelling alien (Julia Child?) with superior culinary skills?  

Please read the title of the thread. If you cannot participate at that level move along. 

[Alflives]

4 minutes ago, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

Not to mention that the atmosphere wasn't as polluted as it is now.  In a way, it's like trying to look through a cataract - all that stuff we've pumped into the sky since the days of the Industrial Revolution has somewhat obscured our ability to view the night sky as clearly as it was when the ancients were around to document all this.

 

And on the topic of documentation, I'm curious to see what will happen to humanity when a cataclysm hits and sets us back a few millennia.  These days, we're all about packing supercomputers in our pockets and purses, and servers upon servers of digitally-recorded data and information to help us build upon.  However, if we suddenly lose the capacity to maintain those records, keep electricity running, prevent that information from being corrupted - if we suddenly find ourselves unable to access those reference documents - if libraries become exposed to the elements... we could find that the only remaining representations of our collective knowledge are physical artifacts such as the Rosetta Stone, or what scraps of paper / parchment / organic material that survives the elements.  

 

How would language change over the course of a few millennia?  Would they still be able to decipher our chicken scratches like we have the Egyptian hieroglyphs? How would they figure out to unlock the information held in servers around the world that have not had electricity supplied to them, and/or have had their read/write heads damaged?  Even if they figured out how to supply electricity, would they know how to operate the servers?  And would they figure out how to supply the right voltage and amperage?

 

I can't help but wonder if we're actually on a second (or fiftieth) iteration of civilization on Earth, where we've had a cataclysmic event that nearly wiped out our amassed knowledge (and associated technologies), and all we've been left with have been these physical artifacts from millennia ago.

Read, The Mote In God’s Eye.  It’s about your collapse and resurrection of civilization theory. 

[HerrDrFunk]

Just now, EuroCanuck said:

Please read the title of the thread. If you cannot participate at that level move along. 

That's rich coming from the guy who stomps his feet and pouts when someone brings up a point he can't refute. 

[JM_]

12 minutes ago, EuroCanuck said:

Lol love the semantic arguments “Isaac newton” - dude it was a hypothetical point. By the way the sumerians had extremely advanced mathematics - Isaac Newton wasn’t around and again, you completely miss the ENTIRE POINT OF THAT POST.  

 

Read about the fallacy of your suggestion that the scientific method would suggest that the things we can’t  explain were made or developed  by humans without help. The anthropological record, if you followed scientific method would actually suggest mankind didn’t, as there is no record or proof they had the ability to do so. 

 

If I come home, and my 4 year old is sitting there with a fully baked cake for instance, and no one else is around. Do I assume he made the cake? Or do I say there’s no way he made that cake as he doesn’t have the ability nor is there any evidence to suggest he even put the cake together or learned this ability over time. Or do I say, well the cake is there, no one else is so he must have made it? This is effectively the argument positived by conventional science sir. 

 

 

Your analogy is wrong. Thats not how ancient people developed technology. Cool story but it doesn't reflect the archaeological record at all -  you are completely wrong in that statement. It shows many progressions in learning and tech in cultures all over the world. 

 

Nothing you've said disproves that the Sumerians didn't figure out the math on their own. 

[Scottish⑦Canuck]

6 minutes ago, EuroCanuck said:

Please read my post on the scientific method rather than only one response.

 

 

I did and I still don't know what you're getting at. You appear to be intentionally dismissing our ability as a species to learn and think independently to support your narrative.

[Hobble]

8 hours ago, EuroCanuck said:

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.

 

So because there are no tablets or cave paintings with fractions or algebra, you postulate these discoveries couldn't happen? I'm fairly certain that our current findings in human archaeology suggest that modern humans have been around for 100,000s of years. While they probably weren't doing quantum mechanics, they could probably do abstract thoughts and mathematics just fine.

 

Imagine that from your perspective in 2100, all of human archaeological evidence was boiled down to a single graduate student in 2018. His written thesis on quantum mechanics is all that is left from human records from 2018 (for whatever reason), and you being in the future were to find his thesis and read it. Would you assume that he had had no prior knowledge of math and physics before writing that thesis? You haven't seen any evidence of his elementary workbooks with lessons for addition/subtraction, trigonometry, algebra, calculus, going up through the years, so aliens must have visited and given him this knowledge. In your "future time", quantum mechanics probably seems rudimentary and has blossomed into who knows what type of understanding in the universe, so his thesis work seems "ancient", but just because you are missing the "building blocks" that led to his writing doesn't mean those smaller historical scientific steps weren't taken.

 

Nevermind that forms of writing and record keeping have evolved differently in human history, and a lot of history was based on word of mouth, which wouldn't show up in the historical records.

[JM_]

23 minutes ago, EuroCanuck said:

Cool you done with your rants?

 

You believe in conventional science just “accepts” humans did it. Go read my long post on that above. You’ll realize (if logic is something you possess) the logical fallacy of that argument.

 

Good luck! 

who's ranting? 

 

I don't have to "believe" in science, thats the great thing about it. There's actual evidence of human learning, there's no evidence of aliens and there's simply no need for aliens. 

 

You haven't actually presented a logical argument yet btw. 

[EuroCanuck]

 

1 minute ago, Jimmy McGill said:

Your analogy is wrong. Thats not how ancient people developed technology. Cool story but it doesn't reflect the archaeological record at all -  you are completely wrong in that statement. It shows many progressions in learning and tech in cultures all over the world. 

 

Nothing you've said disproves that the Sumerians didn't figure out the math on their own. 

Actually nothing in the anthropological record shows how they got there.

 

again the logic is spelled out for you step by step.

 

moreover if this topic makes you angry perhaps you should just move on: 

 

the reality is, the hypothesis posited here, has much higher plausibility than the existence of god (scientifically) than what is in the major religious texts 

 

I wonder do you object to the views of religions as strongly? I doubt it

 

ask yourself - why is it “acceptable” to believe in magic fairies and angry red man underground, a utopia in the sky, and an imaginary being vs beleiving that given the vastness and age of the universe, others exist and may have helped us along the way?

 

my view is actually more common sense and less fictional sir, as it at least “could” happen. The idea of imaginary fairies and demons well....

[Down by the River]

27 minutes ago, Toews said:

Proof that Alf is a critical thinker except when he conveniently chooses not to be. I don't mean this as criticism. 

There is nobody on this board that, all within the span of a few minutes, makes me shake my head in disbelief and then laugh my ass off in agreement, than Alf. 

[EuroCanuck]

4 minutes ago, Scottish⑦Canuck said:

I did and I still don't know what you're getting at. You appear to be intentionally dismissing our ability as a species to learn and think independently to support your narrative.

No I’m not lol. I clearly stated the point about science and the anthropological record. I explained about the building blocks of knowledge. It seems that explanation is too challenging.

 

take care

[JM_]

Just now, EuroCanuck said:

 

Actually nothing in the anthropological record shows how they got there.

 

again the logic is spelled out for you step by step.

 

moreover if this topic makes you angry perhaps you should just move on: 

 

the reality is, the hypothesis posited here, has much higher plausibility than the existence of god (scientifically) than what is in the major religious texts 

 

I wonder do you object to the views of religions as strongly? I doubt it

 

ask yourself - why is it “acceptable” to believe in magic fairies and angry red man underground, a utopia in the sky, and an imaginary being vs beleiving that given the vastness and age of the universe, others exist and may have helped us along the way?

 

my view is actually more common sense and less fictional sir, as it at least “could” happen. The idea of imaginary fairies and demons well....

I'm not angry, I'm entertained. And I'm not religious at all. 

 

Who the heck is talking about fairies? 

 

I can tell you really don't have any understanding of archaeology (I know, I have a degree in it). Your "logic" is built on a false premise, thats the part you seem to be missing.