Why is the Ancient Alien Theory difficult to accept?

reply to post by autowrench


You pic shows red sandstone blocks, not andesite.

Some andesite was carved at Tiwanaku/PumaPunku, but the large stones are sandstone.

Harte

It's a theory, why do we have to "accept" it? It's only theory until proven otherwise. Relax, dude.

ok i going to say this once we r not alone we have never been alone and will never will b alone there r races that r so far ahead of us it make ur head expoled they was here a long time ago but after we look up at them as GODS they left so we could do growing up they wanna come back but r afraid that we will repeated history agian as we do sooo many time before. so take as it is

Most people think God is an old man with a grey beard! Most people still live in their own special cave.

Its quite simple. To me the reason why it is hard to accept is because of how many deny the fact that aliens exist so when you apply aliens to this theory rather then just stating that out of this "world" influences effected events through history. When i say out of this world i mean physical world for the mental isnt necessarily physical and the events that took place were cause by very intelligent thinkers and the people who recorded these events could only describe up to the point of there understanding. Due to the scribes of ancient times not understanding there descriptions of events that took place can only be translated in modern times to something outlandish because the roots of prior understanding couldnt explain what was seen for they never saw such things prior too.

Originally posted by DJW001
There are several objections to "Ancient Alien" theory:

1. Lack of professional competence among the researchers. They do not have the necessary understanding of linguistics, philology, historiography, scientific archaeology or astro-archaeology to engage the subject matter.

2. The absence of any evidence that cannot be better explained by conventional interpretations.

3. The propensity of its proponents to create hoaxes, or accept hoaxes at face value.

4. The statistical unlikelyhood that extraterrestrials would single out Earth for their attention, and, having discovered a promising species, abandon it.

5. Formally, AAT collapses into religion, with all its shortcomings. Religious dogma puts an end to inquiry by positing a predetermined dogmatic answer. "Why is the sky blue?" "Because God(s) created it that way, QED." Similarly, AAT puts an end to potentially fruitful investigation. "What were the logistics involved in building the pyramids?" "Aliens did it, QED."

6. Because it collapses into religion, it minimizes human achievement. Aliens didn't build Stonehenge, your great-great-great-(etc)- grandparents did. Take some pride in that.

edit on 15-5-2012 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)

Huh???? Are you serious with some of those???

1. Uhh most of the AA theorists like Von Daniken and Childress have more linguistic skills and experience in archeology than probably 99% of humans.

2. The absence of evidence is a form of evidence. Megaliths.... they're still a mystery.

3. Hoaxes are everywhere in every field.... not sure what your point is with that.

4. Statistical unlikelihood? There are infinite amount of reason why ET's would want to be here. Just cause you can't think of any doesn't make a statistic worth anything.

5. If you actually followed the AAT then you would know that it stays away from dogma and is always and ever evolving.... you know.... that's why we call it a theory.

6. Of course us humans take pride in what our ancestors did. That doesn't mean we blindly accept that they were the only ones here 10 thousand or more years ago. And yes, it matters when we modern day humans still can't explain or reproduce what they have done.

reply to post by CloonBerg


Evolution exists.

Just not in the case of humans.

I'd rather poke myself in the eye with ten sharp sticks than talk about Ancient Alien theory with anyone on ATS. Well, most people on ATS. Trying to discuss anything rationally with ultra-religious people is an exercise in futility. However, I would like to say that I think Ancient Alien Theory is the best explanation I've heard for how we got here. We certainly didn't "evolve" from apes in a few thousand years. I do believe the theory of evolution, however it cannot explain our current state of being. Until I hear a better theory this is the one I'll subscribe to.

I do not agree with your classifications of The Religious and The Atheists, but I agree with several of your points. I also think people who do not subscribe to AAT can fall into more categories than that.

Because not everyone's gonna have the same opinion. There are a variety of different beliefs on our ancient "visitors." And different people have different reasons for their take on it, whether the belief be aliens or demons or just "interdimensional beings". It's as simple as that. But I suppose I'm where you are on the religious/atheist spectrum. Except for the science and technology being everything part. I'm of the opinion that it's good sometimes to follow your intuition as well as the evidence. But that's another matter altogether. Whatever they are though, I definitely don't believe that these beings are the conventional view of aliens that we've been given in the MSM all of our lives. I think there's a reason they want us to view them in a certain way but once again, that's another matter altogether. Whatever they are, I believe that us (the common man) can postulate all we want, but in the end we have no idea what these things are whatsoever. I think that this rabbit hole goes deeper than any of us can really fathom at this point.

reply to post by ButterCookie


Any evidence for that? We have a clear, uninterrupted, fossil record going from Homo sapiens sapiens back millions of years to at least Australopithecus africanus. Then once humans come onto the scene we have a clear progression of technology and society.

Because there is 0 evidence for the ancient alien theory

Originally posted by ButterCookie
snip
We broke away from the deep brainwashing of religion and felt that the bible was pure fantasy, then decided we would abandon the bible forever.

We begin to trust in science and view the world with a more logical approach.

We then made the connection between religion and science, perfectly understanding the Ancient Alien Theory. We recognize it to be the most plausible, and have no problem with accepting the fact that the truth lies in the middle of this religion/science spectrum.
What say you?

edit on 14-5-2012 by ButterCookie because: (no reason given)

To me, the above is indicative of cause and effect.

You were indoctrinated to put your faith in man and science, and their theories.
This was the cause of you rejecting the Bible as fantasy.
Yet, that natural wondering that God put into humanity is still ticking over in you, so much so that you've joined a new religious cult called AAT. You think that it's science based, but it's really pulling on that part of you that seeks your Creator. AAT is selling faith to empty hearts that have deliberately been made void of God... It promises the hope of meeting our creator as well as our technological saviour.

You've merged them and you can't recognise why. You reject inspired scripture, solely created to assist in the teaching of the way to Life... Yet you call it fantasy and AAT truth. And you do so because science fiction has such a hold on you that you can't get down on your knees to seek the Creator yourself. Do yourself and your family a huge favour in these last times - humble yourself and approach the throne for saving faith, and ditch this empty faith that is being preached to you by the biggest false teachers and false prophets out there. There is only one saviour to mankind, and the only sign that He's given is the sign of Jonah. The fact that you know exactly who I refer to proves that His sign was clearly heard.

It is hard to accept because the evidence does not support the claims.

Simple as that. Ancient aliens is a theory in search of evidence, as opposed to the other way around.

Originally posted by pierregustavetoutant
There are mountains of evidence for evolution. Millions of years of fossil records for one thing. Active evolution for another. Selective adaptation is very clear in science. Also, there are a huge array of primate fossils showing the evolution from earlier hominids to proto-humans. Never understood the "no evidence of evolution" people. Do they just mentally block out all facts and science?

Humans did not evolve.

All the fish we find are fish, all the birds we find are birds, all the bats we find are bats, all the people we find are people, and single-celled organisms never reproduce into anything except single-celled organisms. There’s no transitional species to be found, and evolution (in the sense of organisms increasing in complexity) is not happening anywhere. In reality, if evolution were true, everything that is or was alive should just be another transitional species, including humans. There would be no point in classifying species, because they all would just be changing into something else continuously. But we find none of that. The evolutionists’ theory suggests that fish grew legs and turned into mammals, and dinosaurs grew wings and turned into birds. If evolution were true, we’d be finding creatures that were:

3% fish, 97% land walking lizard
2% fish, 98% land walking lizard
1% fish, 99% land walking lizard
100% land walking lizard
99% land walking lizard, 1% mammal
98% land walking lizard, 2% mammal
97% land walking lizard, 3% mammal...

and so on, with similar processes for every type of animal that exists

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by ButterCookie

 

Any evidence for that? We have a clear, uninterrupted, fossil record going from Homo sapiens sapiens back millions of years to at least Australopithecus africanus. Then once humans come onto the scene we have a clear progression of technology and society.

Australopithecus did indeed exist in Africa some 2 million years ago. It took another million years to produce 'homo erectus'. Then after another 900,000 years, the first primitive man appeared- aka Neanderthal...

Then inexplicably, some 35,000 years ago, homo sapiens arrive on the scene- aka Cro Magnon man.

The appearance of modern man a mere 700,000 years after homo erectus and some 200,000 years before Neanderthal is absolutely implausible.

- (Sitchin, 1976)

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
It's a theory, why do we have to "accept" it? It's only theory until proven otherwise. Relax, dude.

Just as anything is that existed before recorded history with physical proof, such s pictures or video camera (evolution, intelligent design)...

a theory.

My point is that while the AAT makes the most sense, I wanted to understand the different reasoning why it is on e that sees lots of reluctance toward it.

Yes, the theory is fine, but evidence to support it is nowhere to be found.

IF there are aliens out there, and
IF they are reasonably compatible with our Earth environment, and
IF they managed at some point to visit Earth, and
IF they had a desire to interact with us, and
IF they decided to change us physically, or socially, or mentally, and
IF they vanished at some point without leaving any obvious evidence of their visits...

... THEN the theory could possibly be tested in such a way that it might reveal overlooked evidence.

And of course, by testing, I don't mean, "Oh, there's a big stone. => We don't know how it was moved. => Aliens must have done it!"

I believe it is because it does not fit into any existing paradigm, instead it opposes them all. It is also done in an annoying fashion to please the scientific community, which isn't their audience to begin with. "Could it be that ancient astronauts..", "Is it possible..", "What if..", "Ancient astronaut theorists believe that..", "might further evidence be found...", "might the answer lie..." etc. It is decreasing the watchability.

The religious community obviously want to keep their devote subjects and their power over them. Aliens would question the bible and bring to the surface questions like, are the Elohim, Seraphim etc. actually more advanced Aliens? Did god create them? and other unwanted questions. The pope actually made a public statement that the existence of aliens doesn't conflict with Christianize.. to cover their asses no doubt.

The scientific community label it false without even looking because anyone talking about aliens is still regarded as wacko. Nevermind the crumbling status quo of history that is never changed in accordance to the facts... Just watch a few episodes and realize all the Ancient structures that doesn't fit into our current history.. According to history, people first settled 8000 bc .There are ruins that are 20 000 to 30 000 year old (for instance sea floor close to cuba and close to japan), but it is being covered up. They also had nowhere close to the tools needed for many structures, or buildings were built way too quickly, immensely large stone slabs moved many miles without trace, stone slabs lifted that weights more than modern cranes could lift, vitrification, radiation etc.

TPTB doesn't want this exposed because it would endanger their control over the sheeple. What if there was more to life than materialism? Money and consumption.. going to shool, getting a degree, getting a job, work 9-5, getting married, having children, having grandchildren and death. Their corrupt system might collapse if the sheeple realize that.

The sheeple are doesn't want to know that ALL they "know", and have believed all their lives, is a lie. Their very nature needs positive news and not negative, because then they'll usually become depressed and tired while positive energy is vitalizing and makes them happy. Thus all the evidence is ignored.. and they go back to wonderland, because ignorance is bliss.

Originally posted by ButterCookie
Australopithecus did indeed exist in Africa some 2 million years ago. It took another million years to produce 'homo erectus'. Then after another 900,000 years, the first primitive man appeared- aka Neanderthal...

Then inexplicably, some 35,000 years ago, homo sapiens arrive on the scene- aka Cro Magnon man.

The appearance of modern man a mere 700,000 years after homo erectus and some 200,000 years before Neanderthal is absolutely implausible. - (Sitchin, 1976)

That's because Sitchin doesn't understand how species under the stress of rapid environmental changes tend to rapidly evolve, themselves. And just such a stimulus happened with humanity when the Earth started to experience accelerated fluctuating climate change about 50,000 years ago.

reply to post by dplum517

Huh???? Are you serious with some of those???

1. Uhh most of the AA theorists like Von Daniken and Childress have more linguistic skills and experience in archeology than probably 99% of humans.

Erich von Daniken barely speaks German. I know because I translated for him at a convention once. More fun facts about von Daniken here. As for David Childress:

Childress claims no academic credentials as a professional archaeologist nor in any other scientific field of study, having left the University of Montana after one year to travel the world to personally research the subjects about which he would later write.

en.wikipedia.org...

Don't even get me started on Sitchin. He does read a bit of Hebrew, but his philology is laughable. He knows nothing at all about Ancient Egyptian, Akkadian and particularly Sumerian. The number of people on Earth capable of truly understanding Sumerian could hold their conferences in a large-ish hot tub.

2. The absence of evidence is a form of evidence. Megaliths.... they're still a mystery.

Anyone can float a bluestone down a river on a barge and erect it by shoving pebbles under it. It is labor intensive, but not a mystery.

3. Hoaxes are everywhere in every field.... not sure what your point is with that.

In serious discipline, peer review roots out the bad eggs. Even in UFOlogy, serious researchers will call out the hoaxers. AAT does not do that, or Sitchin would be a dirty word.

4. Statistical unlikelihood? There are infinite amount of reason why ET's would want to be here. Just cause you can't think of any doesn't make a statistic worth anything.

The Earth is 4 1/2 billion years old. The Universe is something like 15 billion years old. Planets could not form until about 11 billion years ago. That is a lot of empty space and empty time. Might an extraterrestrial scout craft have stumbled on Earth? Perhaps, but it was as likely to be three billion years ago as it was three thousand years ago. Big numbers can be overwhelming, I know.

5. If you actually followed the AAT then you would know that it stays away from dogma and is always and ever evolving.... you know.... that's why we call it a theory.

Has any AAT theorist ever concluded that aliens didn't build the pyramids?

6. Of course us humans take pride in what our ancestors did. That doesn't mean we blindly accept that they were the only ones here 10 thousand or more years ago. And yes, it matters when we modern day humans still can't explain or reproduce what they have done.

In some cases, they have. The process of figuring out how they did it is productive; we learn more about the life and beliefs of our ancestors that way. Throwing up your hands and saying "it must be aliens" actually disengages the imagination.