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.
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.
Because it looks as if the sun revolves around the Earth.
This just shows your ignorance (and again, I do not mean that in a pejorative sense) on the theory.
Okay. I copied from a rogue Wikipedia subject. Seems it is deleted now. Such is Wikipedia.
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.
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)?
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.
Because it’s too much for me. We all appeal to authority. See above my proposition.
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?
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
I always love this thought process. Hmmmm there’s 2 ways this could have happened…
Clever humans find a way to do something --> it gets done
or
Clever aliens become technological
2a. Clever aliens become spacefaring
2b. Clever aliens manage to transverse galactic distances
2c. Clever aliens manage to arrive when clever humans exist
2d. Clever aliens instruct clever humans how to do something
2e. Clever human do something --> it gets done
Obviously the preponderance of evidence and likelihood resides with 2
Well, aside from the fact that it would be illegal, yeah, that’s a great idea.
Yes, it does look like that. But you can figure out that it doesn’t actually revolve around the sun with nothing more than keen observation, and some hard math. It’s not easy, sure, but all it takes is one really smart person with enough time on their hands to figure it out. “This would be really hard to do!” is not evidence for space aliens.
It’s not that I’m ignorant on the subject, it’s just that there are so many crack-pot theories floating around out there that you’re going to need to be more specific about which specific crack-pot theory you’re advocating before I can tell you why you’re wrong. What part of that ruin is evidence for alien contact?
As another poster pointed out, the Big Bang theory makes predictions about what sort of evidence we can expect to find once we know where and how to look for it, and those predictions that we have been able to test, have mostly been borne out. It’s not a flawless theory, there’s still a lot of parts of it we can’t test yet, but we haven’t yet found anything that flatly contradicts it.
The first image I linked to is a Roman helmet with a wolf pelt attached to it, which is pretty similar to the images you linked to. But the point of the links was to show that many cultures developed all sorts of unusual headgear, and the Mayan statues you linked to, while having characteristics unique to the Mayan culture, are not particularly out the ordinary, either for ancient cultures, or more modern ones.
Perhaps, “Evidence that counters things I want to be true?”
Oh, aye, I know the reference. Good one, from a good book. But the deal is, invisible isn’t enough. The dragon also has to be able to hide from someone who is stumbling around in your garage. If he’s solid, then I’d bump into him. So he also has to be small, or intangible, or possess some other faculty of deceit.
This is, of course, all obvious; I was only making a dumb quip. The serious issue is that such “shy” phenomena continue to elude detection, no matter how many new ways we develop to approach the search. The soul doesn’t show up in X-Rays; prayer is not statistically useful in promoting health or wealth; the top of Mount Olympus is just a bare rocky spot; no one has ever succeeded in demonstrating ESP, in all the many duplications of the famous J.B. Rhine tests at Duke University. (Must be embarrassing for them!)
So…your dragon is not only invisible and intangible, he’s remarkably unsociable!
So, these aliens are psychic now? Or did you not bother to actually read my post? Because no amount of astronomical knowledge is going to let you predict the birth of specific, culturally significant individuals centuries in advance. If you view that as “great” evidence, you’re not only ignoring mainstream scientific thought, you’re engaging in outright pulp-paperback fantasy.
The Gregorian calendar was instituted at the direct order of the Pope himself. He was the religious state in the area.
And you’re wrong. Your position isn’t just implausible, it is, in many parts, flatly contradictory of some of our most basic and well-established scientific principles. And yes, while there’s always a chance those principles might be wrong, you need a better reason to overturn them than, “Duuuude, aliens!”
“Plausible” and “possible” are not the same thing. Two things can both be possible, but one can be much more likely than the other.
Take the cork trivet that I found in my fridge Tuesday morning. There are two possible theories as to how it got there:
Mr. Neville put it there.
Someone else broke into my house and put it there, but left no other evidence that they had been there.
Those theories are both possible. One is much more likely than the other, so I conclude that Mr. Neville probably put the trivet in the fridge.
Not necessarily. The technology to do something being provided by aliens is not the only reason why we would not know how something was done in the past. Maybe the people who did it didn’t write down how they did it (maybe they didn’t have writing, or maybe they didn’t think something like that was important enough to write down, or maybe they didn’t want anybody else making anything as awesome as they had), or they did write down how it was built, but the written record of how they did it got lost over the centuries since it was done. Maybe better techniques of accomplishing the same goal have been discovered since, and nobody was interested for a long time in how it was done before we knew those techniques.
Most people now are not interested in learning to use slide rules, now that we have calculators and computers to do what people used to use slide rules to do. If we didn’t have historians who are interested in how people used to do calculations before calculators and computers existed, the technique of using slide rules could be lost. That’s not evidence that slide rules were invented by aliens.
Not every culture has been particularly interested in how things were done in the past, and not every culture has had historians to try to figure those things out. If a culture that doesn’t have historians discovers a new and better technique for doing things, the old way might well be lost to history.
Some cultures have actively tried to destroy historical records. China under Qin Shi Huangdi would be an example of this. Qin Shi Huangdi tried to destroy all histories of times that predated his reign. If that kind of thing happened, it’s not surprising that records of things like how monuments were built could be lost.
We know that some Maya cities were abandoned in the past, because we can go and see those abandoned cities now, overgrown with jungle. When cities get abandoned, the people don’t always take all the books and historical records with them. Abandoned and forgotten books and records don’t always survive. Some Maya cities were conquered by other Maya cities. The new rulers of the city would have an obvious motivation to destroy histories of the city before they ruled it. They would obviously like people in the conquered city to think that they have always been ruled by their new rulers. They might not want the conquered people knowing that their ancestors had once built something that their conquerors can’t build now.
A theory in the scientific sense cannot exist without evidence: it is a testable prediction (a hypothesis) that has been supported by experiment or observation over and over and over to the point at which it is accepted as essentially true. Still, it is a requirement that if further reliable, repeatable, testable evidence comes along that contradicts the theory, the theory must be adjusted to account for the new evidence, or (if that fails) be set aside in favor of a better theory.
And there are very strict standards for the type of evidence that is considered valid: testing a hypothesis, whether by experiment or observation or both, is a tricky, rigorous, exacting thing. A good hypothesis has to be falsifiable (you can clearly state the type of evidence that will disprove it) and it also should be parsimonious, not proposing more entities or forces than are essential to answer the question at hand. (This is where the oft-cited “Occam’s razor” comes in.)
To use your Bible example, the Bible is first of all not a theory but a religious document put together over thousands of years by a multitude of human beings for diverse purposes…so there is no such thing in the large scale of “the evidence proving the Bible”. And even if you can find outside evidence that some of the descriptions in the Bible correspond to historical events (say, a lunar eclipse in 33 AD that might conceivably explain the claim that the “moon turned to blood” at the time of the crucifixion), this is not scientific evidence that God exists, only that the human writer observed an event. It is impossible via scientific hypothesis-testing to falsify the existence of God, and therefore the existence of God is not a scientific theory.
The “ancient astronauts” idea is not a scientific theory, either, and as an attempt at a hypothesis, it sucks pretty badly. If you have an essentially closed system, and two “complete” explanations for a phenomenon occurring within that system-- one which requires inputs from outside the system, and one which can explain the phenomenon completely within the system-- the second explanation is the better one: it’s more parsimonious/assumes less, it’s more statistically likely, and it’s more testable. I have training in archaeology, and I have not seen any aspects of the “ancient astronauts” hogwash that isn’t better and more completely explained by other means. Human beings are amazing and endlessly inventive-- just look around at the society you live in today for some “common-sense” indicators of that.
As am I, but in my case I am curious why AndrewL posted right after** Andy L**. Is this purely coincidental or is Hun Batz, one of the Howler Monkey Gods, messing with us? All monkeys are evil, but Howlers are extra loud, too.
Or, to look at it another way, using a favorite example of James Randi’s: If you are seated near a riding academy and hear approaching hoofbeats, it would be more logical to expect a horse to come around the corner than a zebra.
