Montana Smith
Active member
Pale Horse said:
Resistance is futile! They have ways of making you talk.
Ancient aliens
- Thread starter time-raider
- Start date
Resistance is futile! They have ways of making you talk.
Gear
New member
WillKill4Food said:
I don't think there's much room for generosity in arrogant pretentiousness.
WillKill4Food said:
I'm not disagreeing with you, but "plausible" is defined by our imagination and resources.
WillKill4Food said:
I'd argue that it depends on how well we could understand the mechanics of gravity, but I may be wrong.
WillKill4Food
New member
If I ever choose to change my screen-name...Montana Smith said:
To my knowledge there is no "theory" that predicts and explains the phenomenon of little greGear said:
(en) men, chiefly because there's no evidence to be found. The theories exist only in the colloquial sense (i.e. "hypothesis"). Imagination, knowledge, and resources. (And mainly the latter two...)Gear said:
Presently, there's no reason to believe that interstellar travel is possible, given the distance and the rather short life-spans of human beings. I don't think a sort of "warp drive" could be created, but centuries ago, people said the same about the moon. I certainly think scientists have a much better grasp on their limitations than our ancestors (and today's fiction writers).Gear said:
Gear
New member
WillKill4Food said:To my knowledge there is no "theory" that predicts and explains the phenomenon of little gre
Not to be snarky, but you've got those terms confused. Still, there definitely are theories abound regarding ancient aliens and "gre
(en) men". There are hypothesis, too. You're splitting hairs.http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypothesis
WillKill4Food said:
There certainly is, just not a harnessed mode for humans, as you suggested. At least not one the public is aware of.
WillKill4Food
New member
On the contrary, to use your own dictionary,Gear said:
Theory: "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena."
Hypothesis: "a proposition ... set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena ... asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation..."
The difference? "Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts" (that is, colloquial) "to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis."
This is why scientists refer to evolutionary theory (not just a theory) and some atheist scientists refer to the "God hypothesis." To my knowledge, there has been no theory set forth to explain alien sightings, and the hypotheses with the most supporting evidence suggest a psychosocial explanation, rather than an extraterrestrial one.
adventure_al
New member
WillKill4Food said:
The only people taking about 'little green men' is you. I think ancient astronauts is merely a thought provoking idea that brings up lots of points to considered. However very few of those who are seriously convinced by the concept would expect little green men like in the movies. Thats just being naive.
I for one didn't say it. Infact whats to say it has to have any form at all? If there is anything at all it might even be beyond our understanding to contemplate.
You seem very 'matter of fact'. The unicorns/dragons/LGM comments you use to detract from other peoples theories comes over as ignorant to fresh ideas, at best.
WillKill4Food
New member
Gray, green: outside of hue, what's the difference? Perhaps you don't believe in them, but plenty of your more catholic ancient astronaut believers do believe in some form of extraterrestrial fellows.
Our ancestors saw dinosaur bones and imagined dragons; today we see architectural marvels and doubt mankind's ability to create such marvelous things. In both cases, the reality is far more interesting than the myth.
A Sagan-esque approach could, perhaps, offer a few ideas worth consideration, but I.S. Shklovski and Carl Sagan (who devoted very little attention to the idea back in the sixties and considered the notion entirely speculative) do not represent the majority of ancient astronaut adherents. It's a fun idea to think about, no doubt, and it's a decent basis for interesting books and good television (though, as we've seen, not so much for a good movie) but there's very little basis for any of the claims.adventure_al said:
At the very least, I think the majority expect humanoids. There's no longer any reason to believe that humans were planted here, and there's certainly no reason to think that aliens gave us our intellectual capacities. If you are "seriously convinced", you ought to be able to provide some reason to believe and some explanation of what it is that you're convinced in, eh?adventure_al said:
Of course. You're not saying anything; that's the safest route.If it has no form at all, then it's, what, spiritual? That sounds much more religious than scientific, and, indeed, that's merely a belief. Most of the ancient astronaut folks I've heard point to ancient depictions of gods and say, "that's not human" or "this looks inspired by ____".adventure_al said:
That's very religious.adventure_al said:
Because what we are discussing is very much a 'matter of fact.' Either ancient aliens aided our ancestors or they did not. It's a matter of fact, not a matter of belief.adventure_al said:
Not ignorant, but skeptical. The Bible and other religious texts do not allude to a vague sort of life force; for the most part they lay out very specific and rigid notions of God, along with stories of dragons and mythical beasts/people. If we say "maybe Moses was inspired by ET," then we have to entertain the notion that perhaps Charles Manson was as well, continuing that process ad infinitum. [We ought also take into account the evidence that Moses never existed.] It seems far more probable that humans are prone to delusion, and we, as a species, explain that which we do not understand in fantastic terms.adventure_al said:
Our ancestors saw dinosaur bones and imagined dragons; today we see architectural marvels and doubt mankind's ability to create such marvelous things. In both cases, the reality is far more interesting than the myth.
adventure_al
New member
Some good points Will.
However we shouldn't pigeon hole ideas based on opinions/theories or anything else that has already been formed in the common domain.
You're bringing it back to ancient astronaut ideas that have already been broadly put forward or tying it in with religion's take on things.
My point was if we take the idea purely on the basis of it raising some interesting points. Then it could indicate there is somesort of greater 'force' out there, be that physical or otherwise. Now you could turn that right round into a God arguement but what is to say the world religions and now various hypothesis and scentific theories are just interpreting the same thing in very different ways over many hundreds of years?
Vague and possibly spiritual? Perhaps. But we should think outside the box. You might call it safe but I don't think we should restrict ourselves by relating it to what we currently understand.
Bringing it full circle and back onto the main topic of the thread, that is a very concept that ancient aliens raises: they call it a dragon or a cloud we might call it a UFO or spaceship.
However we shouldn't pigeon hole ideas based on opinions/theories or anything else that has already been formed in the common domain.
You're bringing it back to ancient astronaut ideas that have already been broadly put forward or tying it in with religion's take on things.
My point was if we take the idea purely on the basis of it raising some interesting points. Then it could indicate there is somesort of greater 'force' out there, be that physical or otherwise. Now you could turn that right round into a God arguement but what is to say the world religions and now various hypothesis and scentific theories are just interpreting the same thing in very different ways over many hundreds of years?
Vague and possibly spiritual? Perhaps. But we should think outside the box. You might call it safe but I don't think we should restrict ourselves by relating it to what we currently understand.
Bringing it full circle and back onto the main topic of the thread, that is a very concept that ancient aliens raises: they call it a dragon or a cloud we might call it a UFO or spaceship.
WillKill4Food
New member
Merely opinions, not theories, and you ought not dodge accusations against like minds when you're defending a common view. Were you to defend the divinity of Christ, I would no doubt identify you as a Christian. The same principle is at work here. If you think the ancient astronauts folks are as crazy as I think they are, then I do not see why you'd adopt any of their claims.adventure_al said:
I see no difference between the ancient astronaut phenomenon and religion. You've offered no reason to look at it through any other lens. No evidence, just faith and feeling.adventure_al said:
Such as what? The only interesting points I see are that modern space helmets appear somewhat similar to their ancient fore-bearers, and man has not been significantly more creative in describing the aliens of "science fiction" than our ancestors were in describing the creatures of fantastic fiction.adventure_al said:
Because there's no reason to believe that it is anything more than fairy-tale.adventure_al said:
You're not; you're in the toolbox of religion, using those tools. Our tool, the correct tool, must be scientific.adventure_al said:
On the contrary, I think it's rather dangerous.adventure_al said:
UFO might be correct, but only if you meant it in the correct sense: unidentified flying object. When my toddler cousin sees a helicopter, she sees a UFO because she doesn't know what it is. Just as a priest sees someone cured and calls it "God's handiwork," the alien-believer sees a UFO and identifies it as a spacecraft. There's no reason to believe that except that you want to, because believing other beings took the time to come help us out assigns humankind some importance that I'm afraid we do not have.adventure_al said:
The only way I see interstellar travel as a possibility would be if the beings were capable of incredibly advanced technology and capable of living for a very long time. They'd require a lifespan far longer than ours, and this presents a great problem: if they lived incredibly long lives, they'd have trouble evolving to the point where their minds were capable of creating this insanely powerful technology. In addition, they'd have to be from a region far older than our own, which would necessitate that they'd have an even farther distance (physical and temporal) to travel. The farther away they lived, the longer they'd need to live, making the possibility increasingly unlikely.
adventure_al
New member
Ok I'm not sure where youre going with this last post. I think your misinterpretting what I've been saying.
I've not stated my beliefs and at this stage its irrelevent. I was playing for lack of a better expression a bit of a devils advocate. I said earlier I see ancient aliens as no more than an interesting topic. In the same way as perhaps bigfoot or an unusual conspiracy theory.
nor did I try too. I merely said it is sensible to remain open minded about all possibilities. (Edit: There would be some pretty big differnces btw. Redemption for one! Seems odd to few it in the same light)
Um... you answered this yourself earlier: "It's a fun idea to think about, no doubt, and it's a decent basis for interesting books and good television". As well as raising alot of interesting debate about ancient building techniques or technologies amongst other things.
Finally that is just opinion. Many would say otherwise and not just religious folks.
Anyway I think we've got a bit lost. I'll leave it to the next poster to take things on a different course.
WillKill4Food said:
I've not stated my beliefs and at this stage its irrelevent. I was playing for lack of a better expression a bit of a devils advocate. I said earlier I see ancient aliens as no more than an interesting topic. In the same way as perhaps bigfoot or an unusual conspiracy theory.
WillKill4Food said:
nor did I try too. I merely said it is sensible to remain open minded about all possibilities. (Edit: There would be some pretty big differnces btw. Redemption for one! Seems odd to few it in the same light)
WillKill4Food said:
Um... you answered this yourself earlier: "It's a fun idea to think about, no doubt, and it's a decent basis for interesting books and good television". As well as raising alot of interesting debate about ancient building techniques or technologies amongst other things.
WillKill4Food said:
Finally that is just opinion. Many would say otherwise and not just religious folks.
Anyway I think we've got a bit lost. I'll leave it to the next poster to take things on a different course.
WillKill4Food
New member
With all the mugwumping, you haven't really said anything. I don't understand the point you're trying to make. I said that the ancient aliens bit makes for good storytelling, but that doesn't mean it has any basis in fact or deserves any serious attention given the lack of evidence at the present. To wit, the claim that the moon landing was a staged hoax is also an interesting idea, but that doesn't mean that anyone who isn't writing fiction should give it the time of day. There's no "interesting point" to be made by examining the ancient astronauts beliefs, and it's futile to take it seriously or defend anyone who does given the dearth of evidence to indicate anything of the sort. If you don't believe in these von Daniken fairytales, good. If you do, then you might as well 'fess up. It appears that you believe in ancient astronauts but do not feel comfortable giving a reason why other than "it sounds cool."adventure_al said:
It is not just an opinion. Psychological studies have, for the large part, explained the alien sighting/abduction phenomenon.adventure_al said:
Montana Smith
Active member
Gabeed said:Oh dear. It hath begun again . . .
Now where are those zebra mussels when you need them?
adventure_al
New member
I'm not going there. There is many interesting points I gave examples earlier. For one there is certainly evidence to suggest some ancient civilisations had at least a basic knowledge or aerodynamics.
However you're asking me to argue over a topic which it appears I largely agree with you on.
However you're asking me to argue over a topic which it appears I largely agree with you on.
WillKill4Food
New member
That topic is certainly interesting, but why do aliens have to be thrown into the mix?adventure_al said:
WillKill4Food
New member
Do you understand natural selection at all? It took our planet around 4.5 billion years to yield a species as intelligent as man; if the aliens are going to be smarter than us and have technology that so greatly surpasses our own, I imagine they'd need to live on an older planet.Sharkey said:
More importantly, any scenario where the beings could survive long enough to make the trip to Earth would require the beings to live longer lives than our own, which would allow for fewer generations and much slower evolution. The more slowly the aliens evolve, the older their planet would need to be, and thus the farther from Earth they'd have to live.
WillKill4Food
New member
Not in suit. For one, I wouldn't expect to find humanoids like us. I think it was Gould who described evolution as more like a bush than a tree: any small change early on would have great impacts later on, and if you were to restart the evolution of life on Earth, there's no guarantee that things would turn out the way they did.Gear said:
However, I see no reason why the mechanism of natural selection would be exclusive to Earth. While the observations are limited to Earth, that is simply because we do not know of life anywhere else. The factors and players would be different on another planet, but (other than design) what other process could life follow? As "change over time," evolution should be universal, and as the process of better adapted forms surviving over less adapted ones, the pattern of natural selection can be applied in unconventional senses to describe change, such as in philosophy and politics.
So while I do assume that the aliens would follow Darwinian processes, this is not at all a baseless assumption. While I can imagine a scenario where the aliens (to make them weird and unearthly, let's say that they are gaseous organisms, balls of energy) would not evolve, I cannot imagine a scenario where the aliens could be as advanced as we are if they did not evolve and change; while I'm sure a ball of gas could traverse the universe, I doubt it would have a lot to tell our ancestors about pyramids and such.
It's probably more likely that the celery monsters have already been hit with extinction events worse than Earth has yet seen, or perhaps the celery monsters lived in solar systems whose stars have already died.Gabeed said:
Last edited: