where do you sit on ancient astronaut theory?

[carlthegroover]

If anything, I believe that this issue is just a big unknown. Just like the possibility of fairly advanced human civilizations (a-la Atlantis) that existed in the far past and were wiped out by some catastrophe (or just moved out of Earth because it was too wasted at the time).

What is the possibility and probability of both events occurring? Who really knows or holds those answers? I'd like to think that technology as we know it is not exclusive of the "present" or the "future". Why wouldn't it exist (even more advanced than today) before OUR written history? Maybe there were no cavemen, or the cavemen existed millions of years ago and somewhere down the line of human evolution, technologically-advanced ancient civilizations existed (Egyptians or Mayans, anyone?) and perished. And our current civilizations had to start all over again.

What history tells us can't be too accurate. It only tells us the info that exists, and the info that exists is always one-sided.

Just some food for thought. And just as likely as alien civilizations existing alongside our own ancient ones.

 

[Batmensch]

Well, that sheds some light on the level of understanding we're dealing with here. Why don't you look up "theory" in the dictionary? Well, here. I'll do it for you.

the·o·ry   /ˈθiəri, ˈθɪəri/ [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] plural the·o·ries.
1. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.

I'm grateful for the theory of gravity because it keeps me stuck to the earth, even though it's not a fact.

And that, Munji, is the primary problem. It seems a lot of people don't have a grasp on what the word "theory" actually means. I get the impression they all think it means "guess", which is about as far from the truth as it gets. When someone says it's "just" a theory and not a fact, that's a huge red flag that they don't really understand what theory and science are actually about.

 

[onosson]

And that, Munji, is the primary problem. It seems a lot of people don't have a grasp on what the word "theory" actually means. I get the impression they all think it means "guess", which is about as far from the truth as it gets. When someone says it's "just" a theory and not a fact, that's a huge red flag that they don't really understand what theory and science are actually about.

Precisely.

A fact is just a fact - it doesn't explain ANYthing!

 

[96tbird]

Too true, the hypothesis is the "guess" (educated) the resulting theory is the fruit of the experiment(s) and data gathered.

 

[96tbird]

hdrobert696 said in his post that he used the link that YOU posted to find the information he reported. Why would he need to paste the same link again?

Matticus, to answer your question: the fact is, as his posts below show, he cited a lot of knowledge, and HE didn't back it up other than saying he has expertise as an historian. I provided links to him. He just goes on at length with nothing to back his `facts` up.

These quotes are chronologically listed. His first post:

Ergot is hardly better than aliens as a theory. Ancient people were not growing crops "loaded with ergot." It's not THAT common. You can't go explaining everything that's a little different from modern sensibilities by saying they were all on drugs. Just surviving was a lot harder in the ancient world than it is in the modern and whole populations "wandering around in constant dream states" were not likely even to survive, let alone build civilizations. In any case, ergot poisoning doesn't work like an LSD trip. You hallucinate, yes, but there are particular patterns - all misperceptions of the self; thinking that you're flying is one, and thinking that you're growing fur all over your body is another. You don't visualize imaginary creatures in front of you. At least, that's what I understand, it's out of my own expertise.

No citations. Anywhere. Next post he says Ergot infests Rye ONLY. It simply is not true. I next provided a link as proof and he eschewed it.

I'm not sure what culture's "ruling class" you're referring to as being "into hallucinogens." If you mean the Incas, sure, though that would have been the coca leaf, which I don't believe is properly hallucinogenic (again, not my area of expertise). One wonders about ancient Indian brahmins and Soma but unfortunately no one actually knows what soma was. The medieval aristocracy drank, to be sure, as did the Romans, but we often forget that they watered their wine and were not taking in any more actual alcohol on a daily basis than anyone does today. If the use of narcotic or hallucinogenic substances was accepted, you'd expect them to have written about it more, and if it wasn't, you'd expect more moralists (every civilization had them) to have written condemning their consumption. I CAN say within my expertise as an historian that these substances are not very evident in the sources, so there's no evidence for deliberate widespread consumption until the modern era.

So I've done a little internet checking on ergot, nothing I'd call real research, and here's what I've found. Ergot grows on rye (only), and is fairly common but doesn't seem to have been utterly pervasive. Rye was widely cultivated in the Middle Ages but not the exclusive food supply, it stood alongside of wheat, oats and barley for making bread or porridge. There were periodic regional outbreaks of ergotism in the Middle Ages. Its main effect is not hallucinations, as it turns out (though hallucinogenic drugs can be made from ergot), but either convulsions or gangrene, depending on the variety of ergot. Convulsive ergotism is sometimes accompanied by hallucination. Ergot poisoning was recognized as a disease by medieval people, they called it "Holy Fire" or "St. Anthony's Fire" (though they didn't know the cause).

Ahh, finally the truth.

The only research I looked at was the link you provided. You seem to be upset that I actually read it in detail and brought it to bear on the discussion. I didn't eschew a single claim in your link - I rejected the superficial, overgeneralizing conclusions that you drew from your own link.

 

[KwinS]

So he can't use your link, like he already admitted to? Why? He just interpreted the info differently than you. Should he have to cite you, too?

 

[MatticusMania]

Ahh, finally the truth.

Thats exactly what I said in my last post. He admitted, as you pointed out, that he used the link that you posted to do his own research, in which he then posted his findings.

Funny that two people reading the same link can have such varying takes on things, no?

 

[KwinS]

This "discussion" is chock full 'o froth.

 

[96tbird]

So he can't use your link, like he already admitted to? Why? He just interpreted the info differently than you. Should he have to cite you, too?

Of course he can use it, that`s why I put links up. He just kept on without backing up anything he said BEFORE the links and after I provided links that said otherwise.

 

[KwinS]

Thats exactly what I said in my last post. He admitted, as you pointed out, that he used the link that you posted to do his own research, in which he then posted his findings.

Funny that two people reading the same link can have such varying takes on things, no?

Indeed. This started out as a fun thread, too...

 

[96tbird]

Yes it did start out fun. My initial thoughts on Shaman use of hallucinogens and blue sky that ergot may be a culprit as well got minced. I found that angle of interest to think about. I still do. I just didn't see his responses as valid without showing proof.

Anyway if anyone cares to, here`s some quick essays on the matter of ancient drug use. I have been reading a lot of similar in the last day or two. Lot`s of info on it. Fascinating.

Shamanism and Monsters in the Maya World MONSTERS or aliens, bwahaha

Shamanism.

 

[Bob Lee (QSC)]

And that, Munji, is the primary problem. It seems a lot of people don't have a grasp on what the word "theory" actually means. I get the impression they all think it means "guess", which is about as far from the truth as it gets. When someone says it's "just" a theory and not a fact, that's a huge red flag that they don't really understand what theory and science are actually about.

True.

I often hear someone say something like "I have a theory about …" and then go into something that isn't theory, but a wild flight of fancy.

 

[96tbird]

 

[fdeck]

If anything, I believe that this issue is just a big unknown. Just like the possibility of fairly advanced human civilizations (a-la Atlantis) that existed in the far past and were wiped out by some catastrophe (or just moved out of Earth because it was too wasted at the time).

What is the possibility and probability of both events occurring? Who really knows or holds those answers? I'd like to think that technology as we know it is not exclusive of the "present" or the "future". Why wouldn't it exist (even more advanced than today) before OUR written history? Maybe there were no cavemen, or the cavemen existed millions of years ago and somewhere down the line of human evolution, technologically-advanced ancient civilizations existed (Egyptians or Mayans, anyone?) and perished. And our current civilizations had to start all over again.

What history tells us can't be too accurate. It only tells us the info that exists, and the info that exists is always one-sided.

Just some food for thought. And just as likely as alien civilizations existing alongside our own ancient ones.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

I have no problem with folks speculating about space aliens, cosmic teapots, or the spaghetti monster. Our civilization has thousands of stories that are accepted as factual within their respective cultures, involving things that are possible but somehow inaccessible to naturalistic inquiry. Some of those stories are less than a century or two old, but are earnestly believed by huge numbers of people.

It's just not on the radar of science, though it affords us a chance to discuss what science is and isn't.

 

[Munjibunga]

To be fair, it's not the theory of gravity, but gravity itself that keeps you stuck to the earth. It's the theory of gravity that allows you to reasonably assume that gravity will still work the same way tomorrow - so you don't have to worry about tying yourself down to your bed!

But ... but ... gravity's not even a proven fact!

 

[DerHoggz]

No, we've actually repeatedly observed "macro-evolution" - if by "macro-evolution" you mean speciation.

Could you provide some more info please?

 

[Papa Dangerous]

I do not think it matters by what means, but there are somethings in the this world that are perfectly balanced. Whether it be by means of a higher being, aliens, or evolution... there are just some things that cannot be denied. I doubt some things just happened by coincidence. For example, humans breath in oxygen and exhale CO2. Trees "breath" in CO2 and "exhale" oxygen. I doubt humans would exist without the trees; and I doubt the trees would exist humans. This is that balance that I was mentioning. We have the sun, an active energy force that provides us light and we have the moon with provides us passive energy, which is kind of like secondary energy from the sun.

There is no formula for this occurrence. There are no definable reasons, just educated assumptions. I think the two most broad point of views it can be narrowed down to are: a) it happened by complete accident and things turned out the way they did just because they did or b) there are reasons as to why the universe, world etc exist in the state that it does.

I personally think the B option but that is just my opinion. Just like humans have a design (DNA, Circulatory system, etc) I think the same, at least in a relative way, can be seen in nature. Just look at crystals. They are a solid, which means they have a crystal lattice structure and there are different types of these crystal lattice structures giving each crystal its own identity/energy.

If something so small and simple as a stone has energy; it could be possible to believe these energies interact with nature in a certain way. I am sure this is possible with things other than just stones and rocks. Possibly EVERYTHING has its own energy in this world... It's these relations between things that can possibly make up a big part of why life is way the it is as we know it.

 

[12bass]

Trees (and the rest of the ecosystem) would get along just fine without humans, probably thrive, actually, given that we're currently the leading cause of global extinctions.

Further, it is a false dichotomy to contrast complete randomness with teleology. Naturalistic explanations give plenty of reasons why things are the way they are. Physical laws have a way of allowing order to come from disorder through completely unconscious natural processes.

 

[dj150888]

Anyone interested in reading up on ways that life could come about as we know it, without any interference via intelligent design, "God-The Failed Hypothesis" by Victor Stenger makes for an interesting read. Obviously it has its own agenda, and I don't think it quite lives up to its subtitle, "How Science Shows that God Does Not Exist", but it explains very well the physics behind life being the way it is, cuts through the old, "missing link" and "irreducible complexity" myths, as well as a nice little discussion on the physics of the universe, and how its formation doesn't violate any of the laws of physics as we know them.

Now I don't expect anyone to read it and suddenly give up on God, and I think books like these are often written just to make scientific athiests feel intellectually superior, but even someone who fully believes in Intelligent Design could take a lot away from reading it.

 

[madmatt]

Anyone interested in reading up on ways that life could come about as we know it, without any interference via intelligent design, "God-The Failed Hypothesis" by Victor Stenger makes for an interesting read. Obviously it has its own agenda, and I don't think it quite lives up to its subtitle, "How Science Shows that God Does Not Exist", but it explains very well the physics behind life being the way it is, cuts through the old, "missing link" and "irreducible complexity" myths, as well as a nice little discussion on the physics of the universe, and how its formation doesn't violate any of the laws of physics as we know them.

Now I don't expect anyone to read it and suddenly give up on God, and I think books like these are often written just to make scientific athiests feel intellectually superior, but even someone who fully believes in Intelligent Design could take a lot away from reading it.

When asked, it is funny what an atheist thinks God is, usually described as "the little pixie faerie in the sky" or something similar. If atheists feel this is what God is, then I understand why they are atheist.