So what's the deal with the "Galactic Alignment"?

[Musicat]

Originally Posted by garbonzo607

I don't believe this is true. If it were so simple every civilization known to man would be as good astronomers as the Mayans.

The Mayans are set out as the best astronomers of their times.

Maybe you should consider how the ancients knew this without the technology we have today. I believe the Mayans did also.

According to Neil DeGrasse Tyson, (who dislikes being given credit), the Mayans believed the earth was flat, rested on the back of an alligator in a lily pond, and was supported by 5 trees of different colors. That's pretty much the best of the times, you bet.

I have not seen much refutation against the Ancient Alien theory is the problem...But if it's fake, why aren't there more websites saying how fake it is with evidence that it is fake? Comprehensive. And not just a few issues made by a TV show, but the whole evidence all together?

Science is not done by counting how many websites there are claiming the impossible. And the whole evidence isn't good evidence just because there is a lot of it out there. Multiplying bad evidence by 100 doesn't improve the quality in the slightest.

No matter how many websites claim bigfoot exists, until solid evidence arrives, it's just so much fantasy.

There are professionals it seems on BOTH SIDES of this fence!

That's a common misconception. Professionals in the scientific world are not divided on the basic concepts of astronomy or evolution, and are amused by the presumptions of non-scientists, as I am about yours. I've seen it all before, Dude, and it's pretty lame.

[garbonzo607]

Originally Posted by Andy L

Sigh.

1) The round earth was established 2000 years before Columbus.
2) Columbus was not English.

(also The London Underground is not a political movement)

Thank you for playing, but if you're not interested in facts, I'm not interested in discussing this with you. Good day.

Are you kidding me? You point out 1 small error and then you claim I'm not interested in facts? How naive can you be? I meant to say "world" technologies, not "English" it's an obvious mistake. I never even mentioned Columbus or the Underground London or whatever, what are you even talking about? I am seriously confused.

This is similar to someone pointing out a small grammatical mistake and saying their whole argument is invalid because of it and "they are not interested in the facts".

How can you not see this yourself?

[Miller]

Originally Posted by Musicat

According to Neil DeGrasse Tyson, (who dislikes being given credit), the Mayans believed the earth was flat, rested on the back of an alligator in a lily pond, and was supported by 5 trees of different colors.

Psst - post 93.

[Miller]

Originally Posted by garbonzo607

You are strawmanning. I never said the evidences weren't valid! I said they are circumstantial evidence, just like fossils they seem to evolve are circumstantial evidences to Evolution. This is why Evolution is still a theory and not a law if I'm not mistaken. (I'm not a professional scientist here) There may be something that comes a long later that fits the bill but right not Evolution seems valid, and in my eyes, so does the Ancient Alien theory.

Hooboy. Okay.

Fossils are not "circumstantial" evidence in any sense of the word. Evolution is indeed a theory, but "theory" is not some intermediary step on the way to "law." A theory is an explanation for an observed or postulated phenomenon that has not, to date, been shown to have any flaws. A theory represents the highest level of scientific certainty - see, also, the theory of gravity, atomic theory, or germ theory. The fossil record represents extremely strong proof of the correctness of evolutionary theory, although it's hardly alone - there are very few theories in science that are more strongly supported by the evidence than evolution. If evolution were proven to be incorrect, it would call into question our fundamental assumptions in virtually every other branch of science.

You yourself admit some things are unexplained. Why can't you leave it that the theory is possible instead of writing it off and saying it is "discredited"? If it is really discredited, I would want to see the research paper that looks into a lot of things the theory brings up and really does discredit them. Otherwise these unexplained things can easily be Aliens. Of course we don't know for sure. I never claimed to have known for sure.

This is why I say 99%, this is why Evolution is a 99%.

The problem here is that there aren't any "unexplained" things that need Ancient Astronauts to explain them. The Mayans were surprisingly skilled astronomers, given their level of technological sophistication, but nothing they discovered was impossible given what we know about their society. You can make some pretty advanced deductions about astronomy with a good set of eyes, some clear skies, and a bit of math.

I don't believe this is true. If it were so simple every civilization known to man would be as good astronomers as the Mayans.

The Mayans are set out as the best astronomers of their times.

To my knowledge, the only people setting the Mayans forward as the best astronomers of their time are the people trying to pimp the Mayan apocalyptic theories.

The Greeks may have done that, but they couldn't pass that information on to the Mayans. They Mayans did it on their own, so it's irrelevant to say they did it thousand of years before. They had no contact with each other, so time is irrelevant.

The lack of contact between the two cultures is, in fact, what makes the point relevant. If multiple cultures can come up with the same correct observations about the universe independently, that indicates that the observations are not particularly difficult to figure out. If the Greeks could do it without aliens, then there's no need to hypothesize aliens when talking about the Mayans.

A case can be made that it is simple to calculate the circumference of the Earth if even the Greeks, knew, though. But the Greeks were not as good as the Mayans, that is for sure.

What's your basis for this assertion?

European thought was inherited from the Greeks. From around 600 or 400 BC the theory of geocentrism (sun revolves around earth) competed with the theory of heliocentrism (earth revolves around the sun). The Catholic church, dominator of European religion, chose the geocentric view and killed anyone who dared to argue with them. By the 1500s there was enough dissent about the Catholics and the Pope that people could refute their claims and generally live and so we had the Copernican Revolution and the beginning of modern scientific exploration.

This is also not a very accurate description of the heliocentric debate during the Renaissance.

I believe that they did know the Earth went around the sun as did many ancients who were given information from the "Gods".

Read these texts:

What do quotes from Indian texts prove about what the Mayans did or did not know?

Originally Posted by garbonzo607

I put my faith elsewhere because all the evidence I have seen leads me to this conclusion. Why do you put your faith in Big Bang/Evolution vs. Creationism/ID?

Because the people studying evolution are able to make testable predictions about their field, which are later proven to be accurate.

Why did Isaac Newton put his faith in his own theories instead of those popular at the time?

Because he was able to make testable predictions about his field, which he was able to prove to be accurate.

I have not seen much refutation against the Ancient Alien theory is the problem. If someone wants to provide it, I'd love to look at it and see if the counters are conclusive or valid. Maybe if the things I research are fake. I can understand that. I am putting my trust in an authority, I understand that. If they are fake so be it. It's fake. It's all fake, it's all wrong. But if it's fake, why aren't there more websites saying how fake it is with evidence that it is fake? Comprehensive. And not just a few issues made by a TV show, but the whole evidence all together?

The main problem is that there's virtually no evidence for your theory that we can debunk. You've got two things going for you: "Math is hard," and "These guys are wearing hats that kinda-sorta look like space helmets, if you squint right." What is there to debunk, there?

There are professionals it seems on BOTH SIDES of this fence!

There really aren't.

[Musicat]

Originally Posted by Miller

Psst - post 93.

Ah, yes, but you left out the 5 trees of different colors. The alligator is obvious, likewise the lily pond, but the Maya were so far ahead of everyone else that they peeked over the edge to find the middle, 5th tree. How else could they have seen it?

The mind boggles at the wisdom of the ancients. My mother, for instance.

[Anne Neville]

Suppose yourself to be an ancient astronaut. Your ship has just discovered this planet. You've met a few of the locals, and you want to advance their astronomical knowledge.

The most obvious technology to give them would be the telescope. They have mirrors, so why not teach them to make a Newtonian telescope?

The printing press would be another good choice of technologies to give them. One problem with ancient civilizations is, they don't have the printing press, so books remain rare. That means fewer people can come across whatever ideas you are trying to advance. It also means there's a better chance of your ideas being lost to history. Say someone were to decide to destroy all the books. Without the printing press, they have a decent shot at doing this. With the printing press, books can be so cheap that there are just too many books containing one particular idea to destroy them all. Imagine trying to destroy all the textbooks after you had conquered the modern US. You would literally have to search house to house (I'm not the only one who still has boxes of old college textbooks, am I?).

But why would you give your help and advice to only one civilization on the planet you've just discovered? Why wouldn't you also visit the Romans and the Chinese, and give them your astronomical knowledge, too? The Chinese have astronomers, too. You've just discovered this planet, you probably don't have much reason to favor one civilization over another. If you can travel here from another star system, you shouldn't have much trouble getting between Mexico and China. The more people you give your knowledge to, the less chance it has of being lost to history.

[Andy L]

Originally Posted by garbonzo607

Are you kidding me? You point out 1 small error and then you claim I'm not interested in facts? How naive can you be? I meant to say "world" technologies, not "English" it's an obvious mistake. I never even mentioned Columbus or the Underground London or whatever, what are you even talking about? I am seriously confused.

This is similar to someone pointing out a small grammatical mistake and saying their whole argument is invalid because of it and "they are not interested in the facts".

How can you not see this yourself?

You connected that the fact that the Earth is round, a fact that was established in 500 BC, to the discovery of America some 2000 years later. This is a major blunder, not a small grammatical error. How can you not see that yourself?

[Yumblie]

Originally Posted by garbonzo607

I don't believe this is true. If it were so simple every civilization known to man would be as good astronomers as the Mayans.

The Mayans are set out as the best astronomers of their times.

Let me ask you something. Have you ever done astronomy before? Astronomy without a telescope is actually really simple. It just takes diligence and careful note taking.

What, exactly, did the Mayans do that no other culture at the time did? What specific discoveries did they make that were ahead of their time?

Maybe you should consider how the ancients knew this without the technology we have today. I believe the Mayans did also.

I'm not sure why you make statements without backing them up.

I've done some preliminary research on astronomy in the Rigveda, and have found nothing other than mention of eclipses and attempts to date the manuscript using star positions listed in it. If the manuscript did indeed claim all those things you said it did, that would be quite remarkable. Do you have a cite for all that? One of those "quotes" is a little confusing, being that it mentions 9 planets but fails to mention the Kuiper Belt. I guess these ancient aliens were fond of Pluto too, huh?

[Bytegeist]

Originally Posted by Anne Neville

Suppose yourself to be an ancient astronaut. Your ship has just discovered this planet. You've met a few of the locals ...

The printing press would be another good choice of technologies to give them.

Also, gunpowder.

The pre-Columbian Mesoamericans could sure use some gunpowder.

[Anne Neville]

Originally Posted by Bytegeist

Also, gunpowder.

The pre-Columbian Mesoamericans could sure use some gunpowder.

They could use iron and steel working, too. I really doubt that interstellar ships would be made exclusively of copper, silver, gold, and stone, so the aliens presumably would have metallurgical knowledge that the Mayans didn't. Even if the aliens didn't have such knowledge, it should be pretty simple for them to abduct some people from Europe, Asia, or Africa who did.

Originally Posted by Yumblie

One of those "quotes" is a little confusing, being that it mentions 9 planets but fails to mention the Kuiper Belt. I guess these ancient aliens were fond of Pluto too, huh?

Remember, some ancient civilizations classified the sun and moon as planets. Indian astronomers were also aware of the moon's nodes (the points where the orbit of the moon crosses the ecliptic, significant because they are where eclipses can happen), and counted them as planets, too. They called them Rahu and Ketu. They wouldn't have counted the earth as a planet. Just because they came up with the same total of planets that modern astronomers did for much of the 20th century doesn't necessarily mean they were counting the same things. There are two cats and two humans in my household, but that doesn't mean that cats and humans are the same thing (the cats would be quite insulted by anyone not acknowledging their superiority like that).

[garbonzo607]

Originally Posted by Musicat

According to Neil DeGrasse Tyson, (who dislikes being given credit), the Mayans believed the earth was flat, rested on the back of an alligator in a lily pond, and was supported by 5 trees of different colors. That's pretty much the best of the times, you bet.

Okay, maybe they did at one time. We don't know if this was always at the centerfold of their culture. It may have been lost in time and antiquity and the culture could have forgotten it.

If you want to talk about DeGrasse, here is DeGrasse on Aliens:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RExQFZzHXQ#t=29m42s

So if you want to appeal to our most famous and smart scientists, there you have it. As I've said before Dr. Michio Kaku believes there may be some truth to Alien UFOs. Look it up, or I can look it up for you maybe.

Science is not done by counting how many websites there are claiming the impossible. And the whole evidence isn't good evidence just because there is a lot of it out there. Multiplying bad evidence by 100 doesn't improve the quality in the slightest.

No matter how many websites claim bigfoot exists, until solid evidence arrives, it's just so much fantasy.That's a common misconception. Professionals in the scientific world are not divided on the basic concepts of astronomy or evolution, and are amused by the presumptions of non-scientists, as I am about yours. I've seen it all before, Dude, and it's pretty lame.

Of course I am not appealing to numbers as my argument! I am saying there is good evidence for this theory, but it is circumstantial evidence, like a lot of other evidence. To me, circumstantial just means it's not 100% solid proof, but it explains which is unexplained.

I never said the professionals in science are divided on evolution, etc.

I said there are divided on THIS theory. Not divided in half of course, and not even close to a quarter, but there are still respected professionals that do believe this. If not this, even Dr. Michio Kaku somewhat believes in Alien UFOs, which I keep saying. IF you want to appeal to authority.

[Miller]

Originally Posted by garbonzo607

Okay, maybe they did at one time. We don't know if this was always at the centerfold of their culture. It may have been lost in time and antiquity and the culture could have forgotten it.

If you want to talk about DeGrasse, here is DeGrasse on Aliens:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RExQFZzHXQ#t=29m42s

There is a huuuuuge difference between believing that there is life on other planets, and believing that life on other planets has ever been to this planet. Tyson believes in the former, but I'll eat my hat if he believes in the latter.

Of course I am not appealing to numbers as my argument! I am saying there is good evidence for this theory, but it is circumstantial evidence, like a lot of other evidence. To me, circumstantial just means it's not 100% solid proof, but it explains which is unexplained.

That's not what the word "circumstantial" means to anyone else.

[garbonzo607]

Originally Posted by Miller

Hooboy. Okay.

Fossils are not "circumstantial" evidence in any sense of the word. Evolution is indeed a theory, but "theory" is not some intermediary step on the way to "law." A theory is an explanation for an observed or postulated phenomenon that has not, to date, been shown to have any flaws. A theory represents the highest level of scientific certainty - see, also, the theory of gravity, atomic theory, or germ theory. The fossil record represents extremely strong proof of the correctness of evolutionary theory, although it's hardly alone - there are very few theories in science that are more strongly supported by the evidence than evolution. If evolution were proven to be incorrect, it would call into question our fundamental assumptions in virtually every other branch of science.

I see you like Wikipedia links.

Originally Posted by Miller

The problem here is that there aren't any "unexplained" things that need Ancient Astronauts to explain them. The Mayans were surprisingly skilled astronomers, given their level of technological sophistication, but nothing they discovered was impossible given what we know about their society. You can make some pretty advanced deductions about astronomy with a good set of eyes, some clear skies, and a bit of math.

You show ignorance of the Ancient Alien/Astronaut theory. I cannot trust you know anything about it with this remark, so please educate yourself on everything there is to know about the theory and then come back to me and counter those points before implying that all there is to the theory are the Mayans.

Originally Posted by Miller

To my knowledge, the only people setting the Mayans forward as the best astronomers of their time are the people trying to pimp the Mayan apocalyptic theories.

Well who was better than? I didn't know this, so please educate me on my misinformation. =(

Originally Posted by Miller

The lack of contact between the two cultures is, in fact, what makes the point relevant. If multiple cultures can come up with the same correct observations about the universe independently, that indicates that the observations are not particularly difficult to figure out. If the Greeks could do it without aliens, then there's no need to hypothesize aliens when talking about the Mayans.

Well I was basing this on the above quote, so if you can show me what civilization had better astronomical observations and a better calender than the Mayans at the time, then show me, and I'll retract. The Mayans are not the only evidence supporting the theory, of course. Those ancient texts show that the Ancient Indians (?) knew the Earth revolved around the sun, and other observations that is peculiar for their time. Also explain Pumapunku?

Originally Posted by Miller

What's your basis for this assertion?

The same as above.

Originally Posted by Miller

This is also not a very accurate description of the heliocentric debate during the Renaissance.

Funny. I got it from the Wikipedia website you so much like to quote. Maybe I was trying to prove something?

Originally Posted by Miller

What do quotes from Indian texts prove about what the Mayans did or did not know?

The theory is that "Gods" aka ETs gave it to them.

Originally Posted by Miller

Because the people studying evolution are able to make testable predictions about their field, which are later proven to be accurate.

How can you test anything but micro-evolution? Do you have a time accelerator?

Originally Posted by Miller

Because he was able to make testable predictions about his field, which he was able to prove to be accurate.

Noted. As per above, some theories cannot be tested.

Originally Posted by Miller

The main problem is that there's virtually no evidence for your theory that we can debunk. You've got two things going for you: "Math is hard," and "These guys are wearing hats that kinda-sorta look like space helmets, if you squint right." What is there to debunk, there?



There really aren't.

Again, as per above, you just need to educate yourself more on the theory. Watch some documentaries, and although I do not like to say Ancient Aliens, as it is made a mockery of because of all the speculation and sensationalism, there are some good points made in the series. Just debunk those. You can be the first.

What the fuck other hat looks like THAT? LOL Especially in Mayan environment.

[garbonzo607]

Originally Posted by Miller

There is a huuuuuge difference between believing that there is life on other planets, and believing that life on other planets has ever been to this planet. Tyson believes in the former, but I'll eat my hat if he believes in the latter.

There is not a huge difference. And I'll eat my hat even he says definitively 100% that there hasn't been life on other planets has ever been to this planet like you seem to be saying. How the fuck would you know for sure? Are you God?

That's not what the word "circumstantial" means to anyone else.

I'm not sure what the word for it is.

In a court case circumstantial evidence can be anything that isn't 100% solid evidence. Like if a picture taken somewhat looks like the suspect, but can't be proven to be true.

[garbonzo607]

Originally Posted by Anne Neville

Suppose yourself to be an ancient astronaut. Your ship has just discovered this planet. You've met a few of the locals, and you want to advance their astronomical knowledge.

The most obvious technology to give them would be the telescope. They have mirrors, so why not teach them to make a Newtonian telescope?

The printing press would be another good choice of technologies to give them. One problem with ancient civilizations is, they don't have the printing press, so books remain rare. That means fewer people can come across whatever ideas you are trying to advance. It also means there's a better chance of your ideas being lost to history. Say someone were to decide to destroy all the books. Without the printing press, they have a decent shot at doing this. With the printing press, books can be so cheap that there are just too many books containing one particular idea to destroy them all. Imagine trying to destroy all the textbooks after you had conquered the modern US. You would literally have to search house to house (I'm not the only one who still has boxes of old college textbooks, am I?).

But why would you give your help and advice to only one civilization on the planet you've just discovered? Why wouldn't you also visit the Romans and the Chinese, and give them your astronomical knowledge, too? The Chinese have astronomers, too. You've just discovered this planet, you probably don't have much reason to favor one civilization over another. If you can travel here from another star system, you shouldn't have much trouble getting between Mexico and China. The more people you give your knowledge to, the less chance it has of being lost to history.

Exactly. This is why there are examples and evidences supporting the theory throughout the world in different civilizations. Does the I-Ching end in 2012 or is it a myth? Let's do some myth busting.

Also, the Aliens may not have wanted to intentionally give the Mayans knowledge or want it to last to history. This may not be their intent. But the Mayans uncovered some knowledge to help them in their astronomy.

[garbonzo607]

Originally Posted by Andy L

You connected that the fact that the Earth is round, a fact that was established in 500 BC, to the discovery of America some 2000 years later. This is a major blunder, not a small grammatical error. How can you not see that yourself?

I connected it? How CAN you see that yourself? LOL

ie. How so?

[garbonzo607]

Originally Posted by Yumblie

Let me ask you something. Have you ever done astronomy before? Astronomy without a telescope is actually really simple. It just takes diligence and careful note taking.

What, exactly, did the Mayans do that no other culture at the time did? What specific discoveries did they make that were ahead of their time?




I've done some preliminary research on astronomy in the Rigveda, and have found nothing other than mention of eclipses and attempts to date the manuscript using star positions listed in it. If the manuscript did indeed claim all those things you said it did, that would be quite remarkable. Do you have a cite for all that? One of those "quotes" is a little confusing, being that it mentions 9 planets but fails to mention the Kuiper Belt. I guess these ancient aliens were fond of Pluto too, huh?

The Kuiper (if you are referring to the asteroid-) Belt was the 9th planet.

[garbonzo607]

That was a joke if it wasn't clear. Above.

[garbonzo607]

Originally Posted by garbonzo607

The Kuiper (if you are referring to the asteroid-) Belt was the 9th planet.

Originally Posted by Anne Neville

There are lots of holidays in different cultures that have no astronomical significance. We just had one in the US on Monday. Our New Year's Day has no particular astronomical significance. The year 2000 in the Gregorian (not Georgian, btw) calendar had no particular astronomical significance. The Jewish New Year happens when we first see a waxing crescent moon in a certain month (or at least at one time it did, now it happens when Google says it does, as God intended ). The Islamic calendar works similarly. Nothing happens, astronomically speaking, when the Jewish or Islamic calendar begins a new year that doesn't happen every month.

The Gregorian, Jewish, and Islamic calendars used today date their year 1 to some supposed historic event (the birth of Jesus, the creation of the world, and the emigration of Mohammed from Mecca to Medina, respectively). The year 2000 in the Gregorian calendar was a date that happened to fall 2000 years after the people who compiled the calendar believed Jesus was born. How do you know that the date 13.0.0.0.0 in the Mayan calendar isn't just a day that happens to fall a certain number of days after the ancient Maya believed some event of historic significance happened? That's what the year 2000 in the Gregorian calendar, the year 5000 in the Jewish calendar, and the year 1000 in the Islamic calendar were. There are certainly cultures that have used the Gregorian and Islamic calendars that are or were quite advanced in astronomy. It doesn't follow from that that every significant date in their calendars is correlated to some astronomical event.

Yes, but we know why these celebrations exist. We don't know what the fuck the Mayans are celebrating on that date. Or why. And frankly, I doubt the Mayans who will be doing their dance on that day know why anymore either.

[garbonzo607]

Originally Posted by JohnT

I will say I was a bit depressed when the recent 9/11 thread, "Orbs attacked the WTC!" was half-deleted by the mods... depressed, because that sort of crazy just doesn't show up every day.

But now we got the Galactic Aligners to keep us amused, so times are good again.

Bless you, Garbonzo. Post 61, when you link GA-deniers with Holocaust-deniers, is an instant classic. I really appreciate it.

Yes, the conspiracy theorists for the WTC are crazy.

But you misrepresent me when you say I link the GA-deniers with the Holocaust-deniers. I link the alien-deniers with the Holocaust-deniers.

[garbonzo607]

Originally Posted by Miller

*NB: Those aren't statues of astronauts in the pictures you linked to. They're just statues of guys in funny hats, following an apparently universal human drive to put absolutely ridiculous things on top of your head.

Are you serious? Which ass did you pull this out of? No one wore hats like that in the Mayan civilization. I can't say that isn't what it is for sure, but it is much unlikely. This is what I mean by circumstantial evidence.

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by garbonzo607

Are you serious? Which ass did you pull this out of? No one wore hats like that in the Mayan civilization. I can't say that isn't what it is for sure, but it is much unlikely. This is what I mean by circumstantial evidence.

Funny hats are unlikely, but spacesuits are likely?

[Ludovic]

Originally Posted by Anne Neville

Remember, some ancient civilizations classified the sun and moon as planets.
...
Just because they came up with the same total of planets that modern astronomers did for much of the 20th century doesn't necessarily mean they were counting the same things.

I'm confused, I know that some ancients did count the sun and moon as planets, but try as I might I can't come up with 9. Even counting unlikely Uranus I only come up with 8 when you discount Neptune, Pluto, and the Earth, and add in the Sun and Moon. Did they add in imaginary planets? I'm sure I could find that out on my own but I'm not up to slogging through the woo.

[Anne Neville]

Originally Posted by Ludovic

I'm confused, I know that some ancients did count the sun and moon as planets, but try as I might I can't come up with 9. Even counting unlikely Uranus I only come up with 8 when you discount Neptune, Pluto, and the Earth, and add in the Sun and Moon. Did they add in imaginary planets? I'm sure I could find that out on my own but I'm not up to slogging through the woo.

1. Sun
2. Moon
3. Mercury
4. Venus
5. Mars
6. Jupiter
7. Saturn
8. Rahu (moon's ascending node)
9. Ketu (moon's descending node)

Originally Posted by garbonzo607

Yes, but we know why these celebrations exist. We don't know what the fuck the Mayans are celebrating on that date. Or why. And frankly, I doubt the Mayans who will be doing their dance on that day know why anymore either.

Actually, I doubt a lot of Americans could tell you what Memorial Day originally celebrated.

And just because we don't know what's being celebrated on a particular date doesn't mean it has astronomical significance, or was instituted by ancient astronauts.

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by Anne Neville

And just because we don't know what's being celebrated on a particular date doesn't mean it has astronomical significance, or was instituted by ancient astronauts.

Let's not be too hasty on rejecting his "don't know->therefore Aliens" logic. It could explain the "Easter Bunny/eggs" conundrum.

[Anne Neville]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

Let's not be too hasty on rejecting his "don't know->therefore Aliens" logic. It could explain the "Easter Bunny/eggs" conundrum.

I suppose it could explain the recent spate of inappropriate objects in fridges, too.

[Nunzio Tavulari]

Well, whatever the deal is, I'm safe. I did the whole Harmonic Convergence thing, which gave me immunity.

[AndrewL]

Originally Posted by garbonzo607

How can you test anything but micro-evolution? Do you have a time accelerator?

Evolution can make testable predictions about what evidence may be discovered in the future. For example, when Darwin was first writing about evolution, the mechanism for inheritance was not known. At the time it was assumed that the traits of the parents would be blended together evenly in the offspring through some unknown means. Darwin determined that for the theory of evolution to work, there must be some mechanism by which traits can be passed down as discrete units and not diluted with each generation. At the time there was no evidence of this or known mechanism, but it was a necessary prediction of the theory. Unknown to Darwin, at about the same time Gregor Mendel was conducting experiments with breeding plants that showed that in fact inherited traits could be passed down as discrete units. And of course, much later the actual mechanism of inheritance through DNA was determined.

Another example would be the discovery of the fossils of Tiktaalik. Based on patterns of known fossils of amphibian-like-fish and fish-like-amphibians, paleontologists were able to predict that an unknown intermediate creature must have existed. They were even able to predict roughly how long ago it lived and in what part of the world. Tiktaalik was discovered based on those predictions, right when and where it was supposed to be.

The theory of evolution makes many predictions, even if you can't sit around long enough to wait for it to happen.

[Anne Neville]

Originally Posted by Nunzio Tavulari

Well, whatever the deal is, I'm safe. I did the whole Harmonic Convergence thing, which gave me immunity.

Dave Barry said that involved picking at your straitjacket straps with your teeth.

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by Anne Neville

Dave Barry said that involved picking at your straitjacket straps with your teeth.

Ah, yes-mental floss.

[Anne Neville]

Originally Posted by garbonzo607

The Kuiper (if you are referring to the asteroid-) Belt was the 9th planet.

The Kuiper belt and the asteroid belt are two totally different things. The Kuiper belt is outside the orbit of Neptune, and contains a lot of icy objects.

The asteroid belt was never a planet. The total mass of the asteroids in the belt is about 4% of the mass of our moon. There's an old theory that the asteroids are the remnants of a planet, but astronomers today think that perturbations by Jupiter's gravity prevented the material there from coalescing into a planet (and threw a fair amount of it in toward the sun or out of the solar system, which is why there isn't much total mass there now). Jupiter continues to perturb the orbits of asteroids, and some of the asteroids pushed out of the belt by Jupiter approach or even collide with Earth.

[Miller]

Originally Posted by garbonzo607

I see you like Wikipedia links.

And your point here is what, exactly?

You show ignorance of the Ancient Alien/Astronaut theory. I cannot trust you know anything about it with this remark, so please educate yourself on everything there is to know about the theory and then come back to me and counter those points before implying that all there is to the theory are the Mayans.

I have, in fact, studied the concept in reasonable detail. I've used it as the backdrop for some science fiction I've written. There is, however, absolutely no evidence to support it that cannot be better explained with mundane answers.

If you disagree with me, feel free to present your arguments here, and I'll do my best to debunk them.

Well I was basing this on the above quote, so if you can show me what civilization had better astronomical observations and a better calender than the Mayans at the time, then show me, and I'll retract. The Mayans are not the only evidence supporting the theory, of course. Those ancient texts show that the Ancient Indians (?) knew the Earth revolved around the sun, and other observations that is peculiar for their time.

Why is the observation that the Earth revolved around the sun peculiar? What evidence do you have that these cultures could not have made this discovery on their own?

Also explain Pumapunku?

It's a large temple complex in South America. What, particularly, do you think needs explaining?

Funny. I got it from the Wikipedia website you so much like to quote. Maybe I was trying to prove something?

The Wikipedia entry on Copernicus does not support your claims about the reaction of the Catholic church to his theories.

The theory is that "Gods" aka ETs gave it to them.

Yeah, I know the theory. I'm not asking for the theory, I'm asking for the evidence.

How can you test anything but micro-evolution? Do you have a time accelerator?

The predictive qualities of evolution have already been covered by other posters, so I'll just point out that there's no such thing as "micro-"evolution as distinct from evolution in general. It's all one things. "Micro-evolution" is a creationist dodge to wave away directly observable evidence of evolution.

Noted. As per above, some theories cannot be tested.

Theories that cannot be tested are not proper scientific theories. This is the primary difference between evolution and intelligent design.

Again, as per above, you just need to educate yourself more on the theory. Watch some documentaries, and although I do not like to say Ancient Aliens, as it is made a mockery of because of all the speculation and sensationalism, there are some good points made in the series. Just debunk those. You can be the first.

Why don't you present this evidence yourself, instead of handing out homework assignments?

What the fuck other hat looks like THAT? LOL Especially in Mayan environment.

What, a big animal head as a hat? It's a pretty common motif in a variety of societies, and not just pre-modern ones.

There is not a huge difference. And I'll eat my hat even he says definitively 100% that there hasn't been life on other planets has ever been to this planet like you seem to be saying. How the fuck would you know for sure? Are you God?

Yes, in fact, there is a mountain of difference between the two. We know that life exists because we exist. It's not a stretch to assume that the conditions that led to life here could exist somewhere else. The concept of interstellar travel, however, has no scientific basis: there's no evidence that such a thing exists, and everything we know about physics indicates that faster than light travel is flatly impossible. That's not the same as saying that it's 100% impossible. No one with any understanding of science ever says that something is 100% impossible, and no one in this thread has said otherwise. But if you want to overthrow established scientific theory, you need to have some awfully persuasive evidence. You have none at all.

I'm not sure what the word for it is.

In a court case circumstantial evidence can be anything that isn't 100% solid evidence. Like if a picture taken somewhat looks like the suspect, but can't be proven to be true.

That's not circumstantial evidence, either.

Are you serious? Which ass did you pull this out of? No one wore hats like that in the Mayan civilization. I can't say that isn't what it is for sure, but it is much unlikely. This is what I mean by circumstantial evidence.

Of course they wore hats like that in the Mayan civilization. You know how we know? They left statues and frescoes of themselves wearing those hats. I mean, seriously: is this guy's headgear evidence of extraterrestrial presence in 17th century Holland, or is it evidence that people in Holland in the 17th century liked to wear big poofy hats?

[garbonzo607]

Okay. So is this not true:

The Mayan calendar, based upon the stars, is as accurate as ours is today.

[garbonzo607]

Okay. So is this not true:

The Mayan calendar, based upon the stars, is as accurate as ours is today.

Wasn't the Mayans have a more advanced calender than anyone of their times? This is what I mean. If it was so simple than other civs would have the same thing. The Mayans would not be so special. But apparently they are. Or is this a lie?

I believe the date of 12.21.12 is in and of itself evidence. Most do agree that the Mayan calender ends on this date on the Gregorian calender. The Mayans could have no natural knowledge of the Gregorian calender. The chances of the date being palindromic in any date format is astronomical. NOW. Did the Mayans know this somehow? Maybe. Who knows. But maybe the Gregorian calender was made this way BECAUSE of the Mayan cycle. Whoever did this knew that it can not be palindromic in EVERY date format that they may have in the future. He/they picked one and stuck with it. Maybe it was the easiest one for them to work with.

Now maybe it is just superstition on the part of whoever put the Gregorian calender together? Maybe they are making it out to be more than it is?

We won't know until the date, but that in and of itself tells me the date is significant.

[Miller]

Originally Posted by garbonzo607

Okay. So is this not true:

The Mayan calendar, based upon the stars, is as accurate as ours is today.

True, although you've stated it in a somewhat misleading manner, as the calendar we use today was formulated in the sixteenth century, using naked-eye observations of the movement of stars and planets, careful record keeping, and some difficult math. In short, nothing that would not have been available to classical Mayan civilization, and nothing that suggests (far less requires) extraterrestrial intervention.

[garbonzo607]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

Funny hats are unlikely, but spacesuits are likely?

With this theory, yes they are! You are looking at it from inside the box and not outside. It is being closed-minded.

I understand your view. Guys in spacesuits are such a silly notion when we are talking about a stone age society here. I understand that. But at least educate yourself on how this can be possible.

[garbonzo607]

Originally Posted by Anne Neville

Actually, I doubt a lot of Americans could tell you what Memorial Day originally celebrated.

And just because we don't know what's being celebrated on a particular date doesn't mean it has astronomical significance, or was instituted by ancient astronauts.

You kind of went off on an irrelevant tangent. I myself have said that the Mayan descendants today who will be celebrating on 12.21.12 will most likely not even know why they are celebrating it. But it has an origin. Just like Memorial Day has an origin. I didn't insinuate everyone knows the origin of every celebration they celebrate. Many Christians celebrate Christmas without knowing it's pagan origins. This is evident because I then went on to relate how even today's Mayans might not know. But it does have an origin.

No celebration is enacted without cause is and was always my point.

No it doesn't mean it has any significance for us today. I admit this myself. But this adds to the information we can collect that makes us think so.

[garbonzo607]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

Let's not be too hasty on rejecting his "don't know->therefore Aliens" logic. It could explain the "Easter Bunny/eggs" conundrum.

Is there no origin for the Easter Bunny/eggs? When you try to fit something into a theory it has to make sense within the universe of the theory, though. What would ETs benefit by introducing these things? This is questions that need to be answered before you introduce it this speculation.

So your mocking doesn't even make sense.

Can I say ≠?

[garbonzo607]

Originally Posted by AndrewL

Evolution can make testable predictions about what evidence may be discovered in the future. For example, when Darwin was first writing about evolution, the mechanism for inheritance was not known. At the time it was assumed that the traits of the parents would be blended together evenly in the offspring through some unknown means. Darwin determined that for the theory of evolution to work, there must be some mechanism by which traits can be passed down as discrete units and not diluted with each generation. At the time there was no evidence of this or known mechanism, but it was a necessary prediction of the theory. Unknown to Darwin, at about the same time Gregor Mendel was conducting experiments with breeding plants that showed that in fact inherited traits could be passed down as discrete units. And of course, much later the actual mechanism of inheritance through DNA was determined.

Another example would be the discovery of the fossils of Tiktaalik. Based on patterns of known fossils of amphibian-like-fish and fish-like-amphibians, paleontologists were able to predict that an unknown intermediate creature must have existed. They were even able to predict roughly how long ago it lived and in what part of the world. Tiktaalik was discovered based on those predictions, right when and where it was supposed to be.

The theory of evolution makes many predictions, even if you can't sit around long enough to wait for it to happen.

What if it's a theory about the past and not the future?

How about the Big Bang Theory maybe? Does that work?

Thanks for explaining.

[garbonzo607]

Originally Posted by Anne Neville

The Kuiper belt and the asteroid belt are two totally different things. The Kuiper belt is outside the orbit of Neptune, and contains a lot of icy objects.

The asteroid belt was never a planet. The total mass of the asteroids in the belt is about 4% of the mass of our moon. There's an old theory that the asteroids are the remnants of a planet, but astronomers today think that perturbations by Jupiter's gravity prevented the material there from coalescing into a planet (and threw a fair amount of it in toward the sun or out of the solar system, which is why there isn't much total mass there now). Jupiter continues to perturb the orbits of asteroids, and some of the asteroids pushed out of the belt by Jupiter approach or even collide with Earth.

Yes it was a joke. The question was already answered anyway.

[Miller]

Originally Posted by garbonzo607

I believe the date of 12.21.12 is in and of itself evidence. Most do agree that the Mayan calender ends on this date on the Gregorian calender. The Mayans could have no natural knowledge of the Gregorian calender. The chances of the date being palindromic in any date format is astronomical. NOW. Did the Mayans know this somehow? Maybe. Who knows. But maybe the Gregorian calender was made this way BECAUSE of the Mayan cycle. Whoever did this knew that it can not be palindromic in EVERY date format that they may have in the future. He/they picked one and stuck with it. Maybe it was the easiest one for them to work with.

The Gregorian calendar was created with the specific purpose of correcting the gradual drift of Easter celebrations through the year. And, of course, the numbering system for the Gregorian calender starts from the birth of Jesus. It also, of course, is only Palindromic if one uses the Arabic numeral system. So, for the Mayans to have created their calendar with the specific intention that it end on a palindrome in the Gregorian date system, they would have to also predict: The birth of Jesus, the death of Jesus, the amount of time attributed between his death and his supposed resurrection, the rise of Christianity as the dominant religious force in Europe, the invention of the Arabic Numeral system, and it's eventual combination with the European calendar. So, not terribly likely.

Working from the other direction, that the Gregorian calendar was based off the Mayan calendar, is much more plausible, insofar as it's not actually impossible to have happened. Except we have extensive documentation of the political and scientific process behind the formulation and adoption the Gregorian calendar, and there's no indication that any step of the process was influenced by Meso-American astronomy. On top of that, the Mayan calendar wasn't deciphered by Europeans until the late 19th century. And during the period that the Gregorian calendar was being formulated, Europeans were engaged in a campaign to eradicate native cultures from Central and South America because they viewed them as dangerously pagan. Also, not super likely.

[garbonzo607]

Originally Posted by Miller

And your point here is what, exactly?

Does that Wikipedia article pertain to Evolution?

I have, in fact, studied the concept in reasonable detail. I've used it as the backdrop for some science fiction I've written. There is, however, absolutely no evidence to support it that cannot be better explained with mundane answers.

If you disagree with me, feel free to present your arguments here, and I'll do my best to debunk them.

It's too much for me. I have reached the conclusion from skepticism gradually as the evidence adds up. I have a proposition for you. I have fair experience with video editing and web design. The show Ancient Aliens is massively popular. IF you have time on your hands, maybe we can go through the whole series together and you can add your comments. I can edit it in, maybe pay a guy to do a voice over, do the advertising, and we can split the profits? "Debunking Ancient Aliens" How is that? I think it's a great idea.

Why is the observation that the Earth revolved around the sun peculiar? What evidence do you have that these cultures could not have made this discovery on their own?

Because it looks as if the sun revolves around the Earth.

It's a large temple complex in South America. What, particularly, do you think needs explaining?

This just shows your ignorance (and again, I do not mean that in a pejorative sense) on the theory.

The Wikipedia entry on Copernicus does not support your claims about the reaction of the Catholic church to his theories.

Okay. I copied from a rogue Wikipedia subject. Seems it is deleted now. Such is Wikipedia.

Yeah, I know the theory. I'm not asking for the theory, I'm asking for the evidence.

The evidence is separate. If the evidence is true, the theory explains this. If the theory is true, it shows how this happened. Similar to how if the evidence proved the Bible, it would prove a God exists at the same time. But the evidence is separate.

The predictive qualities of evolution have already been covered by other posters, so I'll just point out that there's no such thing as "micro-"evolution as distinct from evolution in general. It's all one things. "Micro-evolution" is a creationist dodge to wave away directly observable evidence of evolution.

I did not know this. It does make sense. I have been hanging around IDers too much, lol.

So for future reference, a good argument to make against IDers is to ask for evidence on what makes micro-evolution different than normal evolution (since there isn't any)?

Theories that cannot be tested are not proper scientific theories. This is the primary difference between evolution and intelligent design.

What about the Big Bang Theory? While some things can be tested in the theory, the only way to accurately test the theory is to actually create a universe, whether contained or not.

Why don't you present this evidence yourself, instead of handing out homework assignments?

Because it's too much for me. We all appeal to authority. See above my proposition.

What, a big animal head as a hat? It's a pretty common motif in a variety of societies, and not just pre-modern ones.

Seriously?

This is your explanation? They look nothing like the statue at all. These are hats, not suits or what do you call them, helmets? The statues look like the head is inside a type of suit or helmet at least. Did the ancient typically wear helmets outside of battle? Did the Mayans even were helmets in battle?

Yes, in fact, there is a mountain of difference between the two. We know that life exists because we exist. It's not a stretch to assume that the conditions that led to life here could exist somewhere else. The concept of interstellar travel, however, has no scientific basis: there's no evidence that such a thing exists, and everything we know about physics indicates that faster than light travel is flatly impossible. That's not the same as saying that it's 100% impossible. No one with any understanding of science ever says that something is 100% impossible, and no one in this thread has said otherwise. But if you want to overthrow established scientific theory, you need to have some awfully persuasive evidence. You have none at all.

Well I was watching some SpaceRip documentaries:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3Kcw0UrIFI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPjXxKpM4DM

And maybe: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGcDed4xVD4

(Haven't watched the last one yet)

That's not circumstantial evidence, either.

Well thanks for clarifying. But now you know what I mean. Is there another word I am looking for?

Of course they wore hats like that in the Mayan civilization. You know how we know? They left statues and frescoes of themselves wearing those hats. I mean, seriously: is this guy's headgear evidence of extraterrestrial presence in 17th century Holland, or is it evidence that people in Holland in the 17th century liked to wear big poofy hats?

Again, looks absolutely nothing like those statues. It really makes me wonder how good your eyesight is.

[garbonzo607]

Originally Posted by Miller

The Gregorian calendar was created with the specific purpose of correcting the gradual drift of Easter celebrations through the year. And, of course, the numbering system for the Gregorian calender starts from the birth of Jesus. It also, of course, is only Palindromic if one uses the Arabic numeral system. So, for the Mayans to have created their calendar with the specific intention that it end on a palindrome in the Gregorian date system, they would have to also predict: The birth of Jesus, the death of Jesus, the amount of time attributed between his death and his supposed resurrection, the rise of Christianity as the dominant religious force in Europe, the invention of the Arabic Numeral system, and it's eventual combination with the European calendar. So, not terribly likely.

Wut? Are you not familiar with the Ancient Alien theory at all? Of course it is likely! This just shows the date being Palindromic is GREAT evidence for the theory!!!

Because of how incredibly unlikely they would have "predicted" this on their own!

Working from the other direction, that the Gregorian calendar was based off the Mayan calendar, is much more plausible, insofar as it's not actually impossible to have happened. Except we have extensive documentation of the political and scientific process behind the formulation and adoption the Gregorian calendar, and there's no indication that any step of the process was influenced by Meso-American astronomy. On top of that, the Mayan calendar wasn't deciphered by Europeans until the late 19th century. And during the period that the Gregorian calendar was being formulated, Europeans were engaged in a campaign to eradicate native cultures from Central and South America because they viewed them as dangerously pagan. Also, not super likely.

Of course there would be no evidence. If there were evidence they would be admitting they believe in superstitions and Aliens, etc. This is not a good idea politically, especially with the religious state of the area.

Also, dangerously pagan? Maybe there was more to it than just that. Dangerous indeed. The things they may have found out.


I know I am working both sides here, but I am saying both sides are plausible.

[AndrewL]

Originally Posted by garbonzo607

What if it's a theory about the past and not the future?

The theory can always make predictions about evidence that will be uncovered about things that happened in the past. Many such predictions made by the theory of evolution have been found true.

How about the Big Bang Theory maybe? Does that work?

The Big Bang theory predicted that there would be a faint microwave radiation background everywhere in the universe, the afterglow of the initial expansion. At the time this prediction was made, this had not been detected. At about the same time, other researchers developing ultra-sensitive radio telescopes found that there was an annoying microwave background hum present in their equipment, no matter where they pointed the antenna. They thought it was something wrong with their equipment and tried all sorts of things to eliminate every possible source of noise. The noise of course turned out to exactly match the microwave background radiation predicted by the Big Bang theory.

So yes, it is quite possible to make predictions based on theories about things that happened long ago. They're not predictions of things that will happen, but predictions about evidence that you will uncover in the future about what happened in the past.

I have yet to see any predictions made by the Ancient Aliens theory, just suppositions made to connect things we already know. Which means it's more of a hypothesis than a theory.

[garbonzo607]

Originally Posted by AndrewL

The theory can always make predictions about evidence that will be uncovered about things that happened in the past. Many such predictions made by the theory of evolution have been found true.



The Big Bang theory predicted that there would be a faint microwave radiation background everywhere in the universe, the afterglow of the initial expansion. At the time this prediction was made, this had not been detected. At about the same time, other researchers developing ultra-sensitive radio telescopes found that there was an annoying microwave background hum present in their equipment, no matter where they pointed the antenna. They thought it was something wrong with their equipment and tried all sorts of things to eliminate every possible source of noise. The noise of course turned out to exactly match the microwave background radiation predicted by the Big Bang theory.

So yes, it is quite possible to make predictions based on theories about things that happened long ago. They're not predictions of things that will happen, but predictions about evidence that you will uncover in the future about what happened in the past.

I have yet to see any predictions made by the Ancient Aliens theory, just suppositions made to connect things we already know. Which means it's more of a hypothesis than a theory.

Well, maybe it is a hypothesis then. Who really cares.

As for the notion of scientific proof, there doesn't appear to be any conclusive proof either way, so it does come down to belief. However, we do have the physical evidence of, for example, certain ancient structures that engineering experts today still don't know how the materials were transported, carved and placed together. It's not proof of ancient aliens, but that we don't know how to replicate the stuff with our modern technology does provide reasonable fuel to the debate. There is more evidence to suggest they existed than not; and just because there is no irrefutable proof of their existence, does not prove they didn't exist.

[Musicat]

Originally Posted by garbonzo607

Well, maybe it is a hypothesis then. Who really cares.

Those of us who know the difference do.

As for the notion of scientific proof, there doesn't appear to be any conclusive proof either way, so it does come down to belief. However, we do have the physical evidence of, for example, certain ancient structures that engineering experts today still don't know how the materials were transported, carved and placed together.

Such as Stonehenge? Easter Island statues?

It's not proof of ancient aliens, but that we don't know how to replicate the stuff with our modern technology does provide reasonable fuel to the debate. There is more evidence to suggest they existed than not; and just because there is no irrefutable proof of their existence, does not prove they didn't exist.

You can't prove I don't have an invisible dragon in my garage, either.

[Trinopus]

Originally Posted by Musicat

. . . You can't prove I don't have an invisible dragon in my garage, either.

Having recently burglarized your garage, I can say that the dragon is also either intangible, or very, very, very small.

(Or maybe was hidden inside the water heater tank... Hm... Didn't look there...)

(Joking, obviously; I would never burglarize the garage of a Doper!)

[Musicat]

Originally Posted by Trinopus

Having recently burglarized your garage, I can say that the dragon is also either intangible, or very, very, very small.

I already told you my dragon was invisible. And he is very big. Maybe he was sleeping when you came by.

(Just in case you didn't get the reference, please check out Sagan's The Demon Haunted World. That goes for the OP, too.

[AndrewL]

Originally Posted by garbonzo607

However, we do have the physical evidence of, for example, certain ancient structures that engineering experts today still don't know how the materials were transported, carved and placed together. It's not proof of ancient aliens, but that we don't know how to replicate the stuff with our modern technology does provide reasonable fuel to the debate.

Name one ancient structure that we could not reproduce today (provided the money and manpower was provided). The pyramids of Egypt, Stonehenge, the Easter Island statues, these could all be reproduced today. It would take a lot of material and manpower to reproduce the great pyramid, but the Hoover Dam required more material and is built to a higher degree of precision (and has an actual functional engineering purpose, holding back a massive amount of water and generating electricity).

We may not know the exact methods that were used to make them at the time, but plausible ways in which they could have been built using the technology available have been demonstrated.

[Twoflower]

Originally Posted by garbonzo607

Well, maybe it is a hypothesis then. Who really cares.

As for the notion of scientific proof, there doesn't appear to be any conclusive proof either way, so it does come down to belief. However, we do have the physical evidence of, for example, certain ancient structures that engineering experts today still don't know how the materials were transported, carved and placed together. It's not proof of ancient aliens, but that we don't know how to replicate the stuff with our modern technology does provide reasonable fuel to the debate. There is more evidence to suggest they existed than not; and just because there is no irrefutable proof of their existence, does not prove they didn't exist.

You're actually almost understanding us here .... now, instead of assuming there's no proof either way, think about what evidence might have been left behind if there actually were ancient aliens. How would it be different than what we would find if the Mayans simply used building techniques that we're not familiar with? Find that evidence, and you'll start convincing people.

If you look upthread, you'll find several examples of that type of what-if, where the evidence for your theory was found wanting. Find something that supports your theory, and we'll take note.