The fails of the ancient astronaut theory

@Bien I am a painter myself ( no comparison ;) ) and can surely say that in the [i]process of work[/i] your practical experience takes over the technique or concept ( which of course are important) , as in any practical work..( ask an engeneer ) other Renaissance, baroque, romantic painters or even the earliest coptic painters lived of course in a more religious world as we do.( more, componists..remind Bach !!) And none of those painting techniques are really lost, even murals.There is [i]knowledge[/i]. Of course a good professional could copy Mona Lisa. [i]Inventing[/i] is something different ( I mentioned [i]inspiration[/i]). greek or roman architecture is no mystery also..we just wonder how they build megalitic sites.. I think people underestimate the abilities of mankind, I mean we speak of alternative medicine but chinese medicine is 5000 yeaers old ! cheers

@W: I for one, most definitely believe in God. Yes, the biblical one. Do I have proof? Not the kind you can show on paper or in a video clip, but I do for me. It's just a matter of faith. I am not offended by anyone who doesn't, so as long as they don't try and convince me of all the reasons they think I'm wrong- I will leave them alone to their beliefs, so long as they pay me the same respect. I don't mind debate, just do it in a manner respectful of both parties. And I enjoy a good sci-fi movie. As with any other form of entertainment, I can distinguish reality from fantasy. Enjoying something and falling into a deep belief in it are two totally separate things. Are there aliens? I don't know, but if there is no other life in the universe, it seems like an awful waste of space. There is nothing in my beliefs that absolutely says there isn't, so I am open to the possibility. Do I think we are here because little green men made us? No. Am I so rigid that I can't imagine another group of people helping a primitive culture- and only in how they did things, not WHAT they were? I can accept there could be chance of such. As RS has said himself- Regardless of which side of the fence people are on- being religious or scientific, eventually your beliefs hit a wall. That wall forces us to question where we stand, simply because we just don't have all the answers yet. In that respect alone, I am open-minded in my beliefs. I understand I am human, and therefore perfectly capable of being mistaken. I simply prefer to find out for myself. I hope this post has not offended anyone. It was not meant to. It's just discussion from a different point of view.

@ Hicks148 - I agree with every word you said, my friend.

Ok, Its not the "visitation" theories I have a problem grasping, its the concept of a god, I live in a world where in my mind most things can be explained rationally and scientifically. Yes, "visitors" may have appeared as gods to ancient civilisations by due of advanced tech, philosophy, evolution, etc, etc......... but god is i feel a man made concept, and only applies to people with beliefs, which i neither disparage, nor agree with. Simply put, whatever helps you sleep at night.

@Kane77 -I have to agree with you that this "ancient astronaut" theory is just another bunch of after-dinner B.S. (and a bad one at that). I doubt R. Scott would lay his neck on the line for such nonsense as this, but since he is an artist, he probably likes controversy (I am not trying to talk on his behalf of course, just speculation). One thing I could say on behalf of the hypothetical, yet-to-be-seen Prometheus's themes is that one thing is to ask questions and another to come up with answers. I believe the spirit of the movie lies in the former (the Big questions). I also doubt the movie will conclude that the "engineer" alien race that we (humans) come in contact with created us or life for that matter, as some of the movie articles written recently seem to suggest. One last thought, when you suppose something or somebody made life, you have to ask who made them, and after that, who made the ones that made the ones that made them, and so on and on and on.... Not really a good approach it seems to me, you are just pushing the question farther away...

@Biehn_Bandit -"I think we don't give older and/or primitive cultures enough respect for their ingenuity. I mean, we can't even seem to recreate how some old painters constructed their oil paintings, let alone how pyramids were built. And never underestimate our ability to overestimate our so called experts. Our biases and preconceptions often keep us from seeing possibilities, no matter how intelligent or observant we are." -Very good observation, if I understand it right. These fairy tales and fantastic theories most always never give credit to our own human abilities. Can anybody say Alan Turing or Kurt Godel for example, are aliens? These two very smart HUMAN BEINGS are just a couple of the many people who helped paved the way for of our current technological advancements and knowledge. Their contributions to the fields of mathematics and logic seem almost out of this world: How can anybody come up this? seems almost impossible, but they were as Human as you and me. But if you still doubt humans could have come up with a scheme to build a computer for example, just trace back step by step how it came about, from its theoretical beginnings to todays super-computers; it is vey well documented fortunately, no convenient gaps for the fairy-taliers. You could also study the subject and understand how it all works of course... And the funny thing is that there are quite a few of these great minds throughout history who can be accounted for without a doubt that they existed and are Human indeed. -I would find a Human origin for the great achievements (pyramids, and so on..) as better explanations of how they came about rather than fantastic-sounding and complicated theories.

This is why this movie can open up a can of worms, and if it can upset some Atheiest/Scientists what will it do with some of the Religious out there as some can be very fanatical. I think this is the route he movie is taking, but its a movie. There are no such things as Face Huggers in real life, and so i dont see the harm of them going the Asronaught theory. i mean they could base it on us turn up at a planet and find Heaven and the crew meet a Tall Bearded Man in a White Dress.... And thus see God. Then well some could argue thats not realistic because well God dont exist because the Bible is not proof. You cant prove or disprove anything. Even Sceince is flawed and proves itself wrong over time as new Science discovers more. The Bible/Koran has holes, Evolution has holes. The Ancient Astronaught theory kinda joins dots that bind lines between both the above, its a possiblity. When you look before the Abrahamic religions, other beleaves all did share some very simular things. Again all could be coinsidence, The Greek Titans, the Summarian Anunaki and the Egytian Gods all are very simular. But as with the One God/Allah or Christ there really is not 100% Proof that will make all mankind beleaf in any one theory. So much like this movie, NO ONE REALLY KNOWS THE TRUTH. but at least with this movie we shall find out what the Truth is behind this movie. As for reality well we just may never know.

Well i think we can all get along and enjoy talking about this movie than upseting each other in future over differences in what beleaf we have. There are many different beleafs, none has 100% Proof and even if it did others can choose not to beleave and twist things. Demons, Angels could they be real, is there proof? Science can make points to prove not, is that true though we just dont know. For example, Alien Abductions... Christains will say its Demons because accepting Alien Abductions well dont help the validility of their religon. For Science/Athiest both Alien Abduction and Demonic Possesion are causes of the Brain, illucinations, sleep paralysis. But which is true.... thats debate and no one knows for sure, everyone will have and are entiled to their views. Like life after Death, you get some people who have visions of after life, seeing a light, floating from there body. even seeing a Hell, Demons. Some see other bizare things related to Aliens instead. Science seems to state that when we die even for short time our brain does not work like it does normally, when your starved of oxygen you can have hallucinations or near Death experiences. I knew a guy who used to get drunk a lot and take drugs, he was always off his head, sometimes he would see strange things like say imagine a Door talking to him, he would see a Tree change to Snake, even saw fish in his Beer Glass. One time he got so smashed he nearly died. He claimed he saw a Angel and other Stuff and gave up Booze and Drugs and become a Jehovah, he became a recluse, seemed very different always serious. Few years latter i saw him again he was back on booze and stuff, and does not like to talk about being a Jehovah, all he said is doing to many drugs messes your head up. So again who knows, did he really come close to death that he saw heaven or hell and Angels? Or was it a combination of Drugs, Drink and/or nearly dying that effected what his dying brain perseved. We just dont know.

Finally... Proof is in the pudding... No one beleaved there was anything after Portugal, and the World Was Flat, both Science and Religon at that point or should that be mankind. Bit we eventually proved it. Same as with Man benig able to fly in the sky, Man going to Space etc etc. I have seen some evidence of UFOs but then again not enough for me to be 100% not untill i see as clear and as detailed as i see the Prometheus Ship in this movie with my own eyes. or ET lands in my back yard. others may have seen but i have not. Same goes with God, some have spoken to Jesus, God, Angels, Demons what ever. But i have not and untill i do for myself you have for yourself no 100% truth. The Same goes for life after Death, again the only way i will maybe every find proof of that is when i myself Die. I would like to think there is a God, but i find so many conflicts with Religon. I do think there is something to us, as far as Spirit goes, whats its purpose does it really exist, why do we Dream all are maybe Questions that have not had one definate answer that all Mankind will all agree on. The Bottom Line should be the Spirit of Humanity thats the Golden Rule for me. Thats live your life well, to the full, provided doing so does not harm others or cause them distress. Be respectfull, caring, loving honest and kind. Always think of others before yourself. Thats how i live life and not because thats how Religon teaches or how you get your ticket to Heaven (which it wont) But purely because thats how i feel people should treat each other. Its just the right and just way.

I have to go with Richard Dawkins on this one but only to a point. We are all atheists when it comes God or gods. Even if we believe in a certain one, the others Clearly do not exist in our specific opinions. Great. But when Dawkins (and the late C Hitchens and others) say just how horrible God must be to create such a nasty universe (agreed) or that the God of the Bible is an arrogant childish tyrant and murderer (also agreed), denouncing any positive value some of these religious figures/traditions have, it seems to be unscientific and emotional. What really gets me is the ancient astronaut theory. Dawkins loves it. But these ancient astronauts are just as cruel, wicked, demented as Yahweh. I mean, these super advanced beings stick us here (if you buy them as out creators) in a world full of disasters, diseases, disorders and dismay --i'm in a d mood--but help create pyramids so ain't they just grand? Dawkins' aliens are just as twisted and worthy of hate as any God is. And just as much a figure of imagination, if not more so. I'm sure this movie has a chance of being great not because Scott knows his science, he doesn't-- his statement that mainstream science is of the opinion that there must have been something or someone that created us is, the odds of life starting and thriving in the universe on its own are just too small, no Ridley that is not current scientific opinion--but because Scott really does believe in the ancient astronuts to a certain extent. Horrible for science, but great for fiction!

@BigDave -"Even Sceince is flawed and proves itself wrong over time as new Science discovers more." Science does not prove itself wrong. It is not an entity, or anything like that, it is just a way to finding truth; a process, that is all. If a theory or law does not hold through evidence, it is revised or changed completely. The process is not concerned with anything outside the scope it sets for itself. Clear and to the point, although it can seem difficult because with science you cannot cop-out with imaginary or made B.S. and it requires effort (not for the lazy).

@dallas!dallas!......We can just agree to disagree about God being a figment of the imagination....evolution and God are not mutually exclusive ideas.......Science exists to study, observe, examine, catalog and theorize the universe in which we exist....given the possibility of God creating that universe, the findings and discoveries of Science would only then serve to explain His creation....there is nothing in evolutionary theory that automatically discounts or disproves the possibility of God's existence....evolution may then be just as easily understood as the functioning mechanism of biology as God set it into motion....there is still not one unified, foundational explanation or theory for the origin of the first self-sustaining cellular organism beyond a few varied and decidely weak supositions; each of which is very weak and suffers under scrutiny...Ultimately, The greater question is the origin of the universe itself....explaining existence as we experience it, the state of existence before the so-called Big Bang.......I find that a far more interesting question myself. ...and as to "how horrible God must be to create such a nasty universe", the beauty of God's creation far outways the negatives of the 'nasty' realities existing in a universe given the freedom to exist as the natural phenominon He made it to be...Given that it were His universe, His creation, would it not be His to do with as He pleases? I understand where you're coming from and we can go on disagreeing....I welcome the discourse...

@dallas!dallas!......We can just agree to disagree about God being a figment of the imagination....evolution and God are not mutually exclusive ideas.......Science exists to study, observe, examine, catalog and theorize the universe in which we exist....given the possibility of God creating that universe, the findings and discoveries of Science would only then serve to explain His creation....there is nothing in evolutionary theory that automatically discounts or disproves the possibility of God's existence....evolution may then be just as easily understood as the functioning mechanism of biology as God set it into motion....there is still not one unified, foundational explanation or theory for the origin of the first self-sustaining cellular organism beyond a few varied and decidely weak supositions; each of which is very weak and suffers under scrutiny...Ultimately, The greater question is the origin of the universe itself....explaining existence as we experience it, the state of existence before the so-called Big Bang.......I find that a far more interesting question myself. ...and as to "how horrible God must be to create such a nasty universe", the beauty of God's creation far outways the negatives of the 'nasty' realities existing in a universe given the freedom to exist as the natural phenominon He made it to be...Given that it were His universe, His creation, would it not be His to do with as He pleases? I understand where you're coming from and we can go on disagreeing....I welcome the discourse...

If we think of god as the universe which exists in both inner and outer space then no one can deny we were not born from the spark of creation known as the big bang. if you asked the bacteria that exists on the roof of your mouth what it thinks the universe and the concept of god is the answer would be so bizarre you couldn't understand it no matter how hard you tried. Are we any different really ?. Our minds cant even perceive most of what reality consists of its an unanswerable question. Perception is everything and everything perceives the world differently from plants and trees to animals and insects. Our own intellect is merely a way for us to understand the world as we see it, yet a species living in the same environment perceives that world in a totally unique way to. One thing we may have in common with all species of life is energy and that in its raw state could be our essence, like the notion of raw consciousness. Before the flesh the idea that like a new hard drive we exist to be filled with data to help run our programmes of life on earth, and when we die its like that hard drive becomes reformatted to be placed in a new system with new programmes . The microcosm and macrocosm of the world can be seen in areas that we least suspect and the ideas and formulas of our existence are seen around us in parallel perspectives that mirror our existence in ways we are not fully aware of. Or maybe we are a disease on mother earths heart. There is a theory that consciousness exists before the flesh and new born's are the examples of this uncluttered virus free uncorrupted data stream and thats how i see the world we are no where near the truth and the universe is stranger the we can suppose.

@ craigamore I think that the problem with the argument for God is that it lacks substance as it is debated now. For Aristotle, God is simply that First Cause, and for both Plato and Aristotle it boils down to a principle of life that can only be spoken of in metaphor. At some point you have to get off the bus and say it starts and stops here, as both did. Whereas the "gods" were another kind of metaphor for internal and external natural forces. This seems to be one step beyond the literal gods inherent in everything that tribal nations believe(d). I mention them with maybe too much length because their methodical approach to God is helpful for discussing what is beyond our typical knowledge. When we get into God as personal then I can't say it doesn't exist and neither can science. But science says Nothing, absolutely nothing, with absolute certainty. As another poster said, it is right until it is proven wrong. However, science can point to what is most likely. Now when a theist argues for a personal God, not only that but, and this is the most important part for me, one who has the qualities of love and mercy and kindness and concern for individuals, it is not up to science to disprove this being, it is up to the theist to prove it, or at least show the evidence is clearly in its favor. But God is such a loose term, I don't even know if that is what theists/believers are arguing anymore. Is God in us or are we in God? Is the God of the Bible what we are talking about or the God of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams and John Locke? Hence my point of agreement with Dawkins that all of us are atheists in some way. Now, I personally find it fascinating to contemplate the source of everything, its continuing presence as a bringer of order into chaos and as the principle of cause and life. Whatever chaos is inherent on a sub-atomic level, some action is taking place that allows Newton to exist alongside Einstein alongside quantum mechanics. Rationality exists outside of us, not just in our brains. But more than that, what can anyone say with certainty? Nothing. I differ greatly with the "hip atheists" who argue that nothing in the Bible or Koran or Tao Te Ching is any worth. And anyone who argues the Christian world of the 9th to 12th centuries along with the Islamic world of roughly the same period did not contribute greatly to civilization is just plain ignorant of history. But it still comes down to what one is saying when one says "God" and I just don't know anymore. But hey, even John Lennon couldn't decide if he was an atheist, a pantheist or plain old theist. So I am in good company (in my opinion, anyway). And replacing God with aliens is not really doing anything at all, for me. Nothing about the nature of the universe changes.

I think that the problem with the argument for God is that it lacks substance as it is debated now. For Aristotle, God is simply that First Cause, and for both Plato and Aristotle it boils down to a principle of life that can only be spoken of in metaphor. At some point you have to get off the bus and say it starts and stops here, as both did, whereas the "gods" were another kind of metaphor for internal and external natural forces. This seems to be one step beyond the literal gods inherent in everything that tribal nations believe(d). I mention them with maybe too much space because their clear and distinct method approaching God is helpful and in no way exclusive. When we get into God as personal then I can't say it doesn't exist and neither can science. But science says Nothing, absolutely nothing with absolute certainty. As another poster said, it is right until it is proven wrong. However, science can point to what is most likely. And when a theist argues for a personal God, not only that but, and this is the most important part for me, one who has the qualities of love and mercy and kindness and concern for individuals, it is not up to science to disprove this being, it is up to the theist to prove it, or at least show the evidence is clearly in its favor. But God is such a loose term, I don't even know if that is what theists/believers are arguing anymore. Is God in us or are we in God? Is the God of the Bible what we are talking about or the God of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams and John Locke? Hence my point agreement with Dawkins that all of us are atheists in some way. I find it fascinating to contemplate the source of everything, the bringer of order into a chaotic universe. Whatever one believes, rationality exists internally and externally. We would have never gotten this far if it weren't so. No matter what happens on the sub-atomic level. There is a pattern that allows Newton to exist alongside Einstein alongside Quantum Physics. But more than that what can we say? Nothing. I differ greatly with those "hip" atheists who think all of the Bible or the Koran or the Tao Te Ching is just silliness of no worth. And anyone who denies the Christian and Islamic contributions to civilization in the 9-12 centuries is just plain ignorant of history. But in the end it comes down to saying something specific when one says God. And I just don't know anymore what most people are saying when they use the term. Hence my agreement with Dawkins on the point of everyone being an atheist on some level. And switching from God to ancient aliens doesn't change anything about the nature of the universe. Finally, I will get a little acidic and say many theists must stop using Einstein as some evidence of a scientist believing in God. At the end of his life, Einstein was no longer a believer in anything except a kind of deistic first mover, which is very, very different from the God some want Einstein to believe in.

@BIGDAVE good points.. alien abduction is reported as [i]extraterrestial[/i] but in the last years there were researchers who pointed out that the very special way UFOs and greys are [i]appearing[/i] ( go through walls, appear/dissapear, mindreading, transforming/ morphing) points more to demonism. This is meant not in a [i]religious[/i] but phenomenologic and psychological way. Another hint is [i]channeling[/i], when that the allegedley [i]alien[/i] beeings appear and obviously are telling lies. There is very disturbing and much more behind and dont mean necessarily [i]alien[/i] at all, even its REAL. Proofing angels and archangels..well..how can you count or grab, a non-physical beeing? You also cant see or smell radioactivity, magnetism or warmth, can you? It can be measured, ok, and there is much work done to proove out-of-body-experience etc. This debates date back to the beginnings of science in the 19th century, when science began to develop from religion as an own category..It still is all about the dis/advantages of [i]materialism[/i] in science. Its quite popular to point to astrophysics like Hawking or even the pope and say ´hey, even these say we are not alone´. Yeah , maybe. In addition to that there are mankinds old friends..call it demons, Ahriman, Luzifer, amgels, archangels..god maybe ´´[i]just[/i] ´´a special higher spirit of the earth ..JHWH..hey.... there are people who know much about this than we do. cheers

alien abductions, there are researchers who pointed out that UFO´s, greys and abductions are of demonic character rather than jumping to a speculation as extraterrestial. The way they appear/ dissapear, mind reading, going through walls, morphing/shapeshifting are [i]criteria[/i] of [i]demonism[/i]. That isnt meant in a [i]religious[/i] but strictly [i]phenomenologic[/i] and [i]psychologic[/i] way. This stuff is REAL, very disturbing and for the affected people no game. Its very disregarding and unpolite to claim these are [i]extraterrestial[/i]. its difficult to prove, that means count, grab, dissipate non-physical beeings, right. Neither can you see, smell radioactivity, warmth or magnetism. ok, you can measure it, but can you measure feelings, which are also absoluteley real and no ´hallicunations´ or ´made up by the brain´as materialistic thinkers tend to say easily. man, this discussion goes back to the beginnings of science in the 18th century when science did evolve from religion the first time..its all about [i]materialism[/i], basically. cheers

The knowledge of the hierarchy is an old one, and there are people who are experts on that..you name it angels, archangels, archai, Ahriman, Luzifer..so, god aka JHWE maybe ´´[i]just[/i]´´ a special, very high developed earth spirit that guides as there are even higer ones , as anthroposophy for example reflects..and that in a very precise way. As a fact there are only very few researchers who work in that fields and their work give a [i]possible[/i] explanation for both, science and spirituality. I only know [i]Rudolf Steiner[/i] that got very deep into that. I [i]bet[/i] in the next years there will be scientific proof of the power of thought, which can be measured. That would throw a nice light to the [i]Heisenberg uncertainty principle[/i] for example.

@DallasDallas [i]I think that the problem with the argument for God is that it lacks substance as it is debated now. For Aristotle, God is simply that First Cause, and for both Plato and Aristotle it boils down to a principle of life that can only be spoken of in metaphor. At some point you have to get off the bus and say it starts and stops here, as both did, whereas the "gods" were another kind of metaphor for internal and external natural forces. This seems to be one step beyond the literal gods inherent in everything that tribal nations believe(d).[/i] right, that was their contribution at their time and reflects their standards of thinking at their time. [i]I mention them with maybe too much space because their clear and distinct method approaching God is helpful and in no way exclusive. When we get into God as personal then I can't say it doesn't exist and neither can science. But science says Nothing, absolutely nothing with absolute certainty. As another poster said, it is right until it is proven wrong. However, science can point to what is most likely. And when a theist argues for a personal God, not only that but, and this is the most important part for me, one who has the qualities of love and mercy and kindness and concern for individuals, it is not up to science to disprove this being, it is up to the theist to prove it, or at least show the evidence is clearly in its favor.[/i] So a real delighted one is proof to himself and others. Like the Christ or Buddha. But God is such a loose term, I don't even know if that is what theists/believers are arguing [i]anymore. Is God in us or are we in God? Is the God of the Bible what we are talking about or the God of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams and John Locke? Hence my point agreement with Dawkins that all of us are atheists in some way.[/i] Yeah, the final questions are a problem. In what [i]form[/i] can they be answered? [i]I find it fascinating to contemplate the source of everything, the bringer of order into a chaotic universe. Whatever one believes, rationality exists internally and externally. We would have never gotten this far if it weren't so. No matter what happens on the sub-atomic level. There is a pattern that allows Newton to exist alongside Einstein alongside Quantum Physics. But more than that what can we say? Nothing. I differ greatly with those "hip" atheists who think all of the Bible or the Koran or the Tao Te Ching is just silliness of no worth. And anyone who denies the Christian and Islamic contributions to civilization in the 9-12 centuries is just plain ignorant of history. But in the end it comes down to saying something specific when one says God. And I just don't know anymore what most people are saying when they use the term. Hence my agreement with Dawkins on the point of everyone being an atheist on some level.[/i] Its not contradictionary to be a scientist and still believe. [i]And switching from God to ancient aliens doesn't change anything about the nature of the universe.[/i] ;)...its just an excuse, right. [i]Finally, I will get a little acidic and say many theists must stop using Einstein as some evidence of a scientist believing in God. At the end of his life, Einstein was no longer a believer in anything except a kind of deistic first mover, which is very, very different from the God some want Einstein to believe in.[/i] So, why is that a problem, wasnt Darwin a believer, too? Its a [i]personal[/i] thing of these people, when they get inspiration, the better. Thats how I would put it.