Does Anybody Watch the Ancient Aliens TV Series on History Channel?

It's this show about how all of the religions in the world were speaking metaphorically about how God/s were actually extraterrestrial beings that have enslaved the human civilization, and have manipulated our genome "in their image". I'm not sure what to make of this... check this out:

http://www.history.com/shows/ancient-aliens/videos/playlists/season...

 

What do you think???

Views: 387

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

"The fact is, though, is that we do not know for a fact how the Egyptian Pyramids were built, why other structures that are extremely similar coincidentally started to appear at the same moment in history, or why so many ancient astronomers were obsessed with Cygnus (the constellation). "

 

We also don't know for a fact how abiogensis works ... or how our brains function at their deepest levels.  


I guess God was involved .. :)

" I have stated in this discussion an enumerable amount of times that, although it is a wacky theory, I think that the idea of aliens helping mankind is plausible. I have not stated that I EXPLICITLY "BELIEVE" (ugh, hate that word) that aliens came to visit us. "

Plausible or Possible?

 

The main reason why I wouldn't accept the idea is that I have also researched possible methods of intergalactic space travel ... and nothing is certain of how an alien race may be able to travel millions upon millions of lightyears across the galaxy ... let alone we actually have any reason to believe intelligent life forms even exist elsewhere in our own universe.  We could very well be the first to be lucky enough to have our neurons evolved in a certain pattern as to produce consciousness.  

 

If they have the technology to do that - again - I don't see what the hell reason they would have to help humans build some structures. 

 

edited to add:  The theory of aliens also does not make predictions - and is also not really even falsifiable.  How to test it?  How to disprove it?  

 

If time travel were possible ... I guess that would be one way.  

Just because we are not yet capable of understanding something, doesn't mean it is not a plausible explanation. I really dunno about this Alien Theory... but, until we find out for certain, it's just another thing we can't explain.

"Ok. I saw the video and I see your point; however, you still haven't disproved anything. You've merely stated that the History channel (or any other form of social media, for that matter) cannot be trusted because of misrepresentation of facts by broadcast media, and that by me claiming something is without explanation, then claiming that I can explain it, I am close-minded. Correct?" 

I'm not sure you do see my point. You are basing a hypothesis on certain interpretations of data, most of which can be explained far more easily by simpler explanations. I am not in the business of trying to "disprove" hypotheses. I was entertaining a discussion by offering my honest opinion. I went so far as to state that the video in question was "not meant to reflect necessarily how I feel about your particular idea of open mindedness".  I am of the opinion that neither the history channel nor the literature upon which this particular hypothesis is based represents an honest presentation of the facts. These tidbits are presented in both mediums to the exclusion of available relevant information that calls these interpretations into question.

 

"you have in no way singled out these ideas from the discussion of whether or not alien life may have existed in our galaxy (or whatever) in some time in the distant past, and whether it could have influenced us."

 

Nor did I have any intention of doing so. There is no reason to believe such an event has occurred. I am, therefore neutral on the issue.

 

"The fact is, though, is that we do not know for a fact how the Egyptian Pyramids were built, why other structures that are extremely similar coincidentally started to appear at the same moment in history, or why so many ancient astronomers were obsessed with Cygnus (the constellation). And while many people think that these are just coincidences, there are also a great deal of people thinking 'outside the box' about these issues."

 

The idea that we can know "for a fact" most things that occurred at times so distant in the realm of arhaeology is naive. This usually doesn't cause scientists to go off concocting all manner or far fetched ideas for need of a quick explanation. Most archaeologists will readily admit ignorance until more data can be brought to bear on the issue before resorting to such claims. I am a big fan of thinking outside the box where the data does not contradict the ideas.

 

"Toby, I mean this in the least offensive way possible, but you remind of how people at the beginning of the 20th century thought that everything that needed to be invented was already invented, and that science would soon unlock the mysteries of the universe. Times have changed, and now we think we have an intimate understanding of our Earth's history. If this is so, then some of the archaeological digs of recent years totally contradict your understanding of our Earth's history. Are you then admitting that your own knowledge of Earth's history is incorrect?"

 

These interpretations of me reach pretty far given the very limited amount of information you have of me. I have not presumed to be quite so knowledgable as you seem to think. I do however understand how science works. I have said nothing to argue that such a hypothesis is impossible. The evidence does not support it being very probable.

 

If there is anything I would "argue" here instead of "discuss" it is that you do, in fact, "believe" that this hypothesis is plausible. Plausiblity exists on a continuum and to call something plausible suggests it has a good deal of evidence to support such a conclusion. I would simply recommend that you do more research. You seem offended by construtive criticism. That is unfortunate.

"The idea that we can know "for a fact" most things that occurred at times so distant in the realm of arhaeology is naive. This usually doesn't cause scientists to go off concocting all manner or far fetched
ideas for need of a quick explanation. Most archaeologists will readily
admit ignorance until more data can be brought to bear on the issue
before resorting to such claims. I am a big fan of thinking outside the
box where the data does not contradict the ideas."

 

....I see your idea, but have to respectfully disagree. Scientists do readily admit ignorance on issues until more data can be found. But in fact much of the data we obtain on ancient fossils is accurate, since most have undergone radiocarbon dating. It may not be accurate to the day, but to the year? yes.

 

"These interpretations of me reach pretty far given the very limited amount of information you have of me. I have not presumed to be quite so knowledgable as you seem to think. I do however understand how science
works. I have said nothing to argue that such a hypothesis is
impossible. The evidence does support it being very probable."

 

"If there is anything I would "argue" here instead of "discuss" it is that you do, in fact, "believe" that this hypothesis is plausible. Plausiblity exists on a continuum and to call something plausible
suggests it has a good deal of evidence to support such a conclusion. I
would simply recommend that you do more research. You seem offended by
construtive criticism. That is unfortunate."

 

mmm, I wouldn't go so far as to say that. plausible? yes. believe? HA. Since plausibility 'exists on a continuum and to call something plausible suggests it has a good deal of evidence to support such a conclusion', it merely suggests that it is probable. That doesn't mean I "believe" it. Belief, according to Plato and others, is 'the psychological state during which an individual holds a premise to be true'. Since I have stated that it is plausible that the Alien Theory could hold, I have not asserted belief/non-belief. How could I simultaneously be skeptical and in belief of something at the same time? I have simply acknowledged the possibility of the existence of something.

 

I was not intending to take things to a personal level (look at your second-to-last paragraph). I was simply adding my own constructive criticism to your last (your first in this discussion, I think) post. Perhaps I'm not the only one that has trouble accepting constructive critique.

 

 

The evidence does support it being very probable

 

This should have read: The evidence does not support it being very probable.

Thank you for pointing that out.

You're quite welcome

Here are a couple of good videos that deal with some of the material mentioned by the ancient astronaut theorists.

 

 

I actually *blushing* love that show.  It's humorous, I saw one where they talked about aliens underground and almost peed myself.  Hey it's better than that Jesse James conspiracy show.

A coworker of mine loves that show and I had to vommit in my mouth through two episodes, he went on and on and on after the one about global warming being a money making fraud. I was literally biting my tongue.  I think it's funny too, but aliens in caves is freaking hilarious!

Maybe they are trying to lead on those who have gods to watch then later question & search for more information on history & religion or they are just trying to get more ratings 

pawn stars FTW!

& am i the only one that finds that very, very tan faced dude hilarious to look at?

I absolutely LOVE this series!  The point to some interesting gaps in scientific knowledge, which often gets me looking into these gaps.  Usually I find that these gaps are just conveniently omissions by the writers of the show, but sometimes there are real gems to be found.  Scientific knowledge, but its very nature, is full of all sorts of gaps because scientists refuse to fill those gaps with fairy tales.  Investigating the real gaps often leads to some really interesting articles about research being done in that area.

 

Sometimes I feel that science is a little too stringent in its requirements of evidence.  For one, I keep hearing that ancient Egyptians (the pyramid builders) didn't even know what a pulley was.  You don't need to make a wheel to get the same mechanical advantage, however.  Simply running a rope around a an anchored, greased pole provides you with a pulley.  Archeology is very good at showing us the tools that people used, but it isn't very good at showing us how they used them.

 

I would like to see a project that would simulate the development of ancient building techniques.  If you hired rather uneducated people to work at quarrying rock and stacking it up, providing them with only very simple tools, you could observe the rate at which the efficiency of their work increased.  At first they would really struggle, but given enough time, say a few years, they would develop their own skills and probably come up with some really creative ways of moving those rocks.

Very much agree!!  I love this series as well!!

 

Please see my earlier (first post) and its good to see others who are able to look at this with an open mind...this theory makes more sense since than god with the magic wand AND evolution from fish, to monkeys to us,

RSS

© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service