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?
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.
- Sun
- Moon
- Mercury
- Venus
- Mars
- Jupiter
- Saturn
- Rahu (moon’s ascending node)
- Ketu (moon’s descending node)
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.
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.
Well, whatever the deal is, I’m safe. I did the whole Harmonic Convergence thing, which gave me immunity.
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.
Dave Barry said that involved picking at your straitjacket straps with your teeth. 
Ah, yes-mental floss.
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.
And your point here is what, exactly?
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.
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?
It’s a large temple complex in South America. What, particularly, do you think needs explaining?
The Wikipedia entry on Copernicus does not support your claims about the reaction of the Catholic church to his theories.
Yeah, I know the theory. I’m not asking for the theory, I’m asking for the evidence.
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.
Theories that cannot be tested are not proper scientific theories. This is the primary difference between evolution and intelligent design.
Why don’t you present this evidence yourself, instead of handing out homework assignments?
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.
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.
That’s not circumstantial evidence, either.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ≠?
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.
Yes it was a joke. The question was already answered anyway.