Ancient Astronauts vs. biblical history

[freezerman2000]

How could have ancient man been able to do this...with a precision that defies the "technology" they had then,let alone the ability to MOVE so much weight,great distances on the transport they had(and still do),reed boats? World Mysteries - Mystic Places - Puma Punku and Tiwanaku [Tiahuanaco]
Even WE don't have the capability to make such fine cuts,with rock saws AND lasers,the surfaces are too smooth for even us to recreate.

 

[Calminian]

How could have ancient man been able to do this...with a precision that defies the "technology" they had then,let alone the ability to MOVE so much weight,great distances on the transport they had(and still do),reed boats? World Mysteries - Mystic Places - Puma Punku and Tiwanaku [Tiahuanaco]
Even WE don't have the capability to make such fine cuts,with rock saws AND lasers,the surfaces are too smooth for even us to recreate.

There you go. The choices seem clear to me. Either highly evolved aliens visited us and help ancient man build things or............. the Bible is true and neanderthal man was superior to modern man.

 

[freezerman2000]

There you go. The choices seem clear to me. Either highly evolved aliens visited us and help ancient man build things or............. the Bible is true and neanderthal man was superior to modern man.

Which didn't answer the question..how did they do it?

 

[Calminian]

Which didn't answer the question..how did they do it?

Exactly how? I dunno. But to answer it generally, I think man was very smart and thus figured out a way.

 

[freezerman2000]

How smart were they?
Why is it that all the early tech we have to go on are stone and metal fragments and tools?
Why are the only records we have to go on are crude cave paintings?
Some of the more baffling architectural works are older than the pyramids..
Gobekli Tepe: The World’s First Temple? | History & Archaeology | Smithsonian Magazine
BTW,those monumental ruins were built long after Neanderthal man disappeared.

 

[freezerman2000]

Exactly how? I dunno. But to answer it generally, I think man was very smart and thus figured out a way.

BTW,I was asking ..how exactly did they do it?
Without firm answers,to state that it could not have been done in a certain manner would be not true.
I like to keep an open mind on such matters..it keeps me from getting stagnant in my approach to things beyond my understanding.

 

[Calminian]

...Why are the only records we have to go on are crude cave paintings?...

I have a feeling a lot of these crude cave paintings may have just been done by young children. When you look at how artistic ancient man is elsewhere, it's seems more logical the crude art came from either children or non-artists. I'm not sure I would have done much better frankly. I can't even draw flies.

I think we have a tendency to assume that every ancient drawing we come across came from the most talented adults of that time. Are we forgetting how much children love to draw? And are we forgetting that even today, most adults suck at art?

 

[ChetSinger]

BTW,I was asking ..how exactly did they do it?
Without firm answers,to state that it could not have been done in a certain manner would be not true.
I like to keep an open mind on such matters..it keeps me from getting stagnant in my approach to things beyond my understanding.

If you're willing to consider more down-to-earth possibilities, I suggest the PaleoBabble blog. The author's a Christian, and the site provides numerous links to exactly what you're talking about. But I should warn you that he doesn't believe the ancients needed any alien or advanced technology, but used their own smarts. If you're interested in megaliths, click on "megaliths" on the right.

I perused the Mystic Places link and really didn't get it. It says Tiahuanaco is 17,000 years old, but Wiki says it's post-Christ. It says a giant 440-ton stone would've been impossible to move without modern tech, but the base of Peter the Great's horse statue is three times heavier, and it was moved in the 18th century. So no modern tech was needed. I guess I think the ancients were just more clever than we give them credit for.

 

[juvenissun]

The Baghdad Battery -- or rather batteries, since there are a number of them -- are containers of unknown function from the Sassanid Persian empire (224 - 651 AD). They are not particularly ancient (they'd be either late classical or early medieval if they were from Europe) and would seem to be completely irrelevant to discussions about the relative intelligence of ancient and modern humans; they come, after all, from a period much closer to our own than to the Egyptian pyramids, and vastly closer than to genuinely ancient humans. (The "batteries" are often ascribed to the Parthian period -- which isn't that much older -- but the ascription seems to be based on nothing at all.) So why bring them into this discussion?

In any case, I don't know what they were for, nor does anyone else. They could, in principle, have been filled with lemon juice or the like and served as pretty crappy batteries, since all they are is a clay pot holding a copper cylinder with an iron rod inside it, but that seems unlikely. Since they were sealed with asphalt, they would have been single-use, short-lived, weak batteries, and since the copper tube was completely sealed over, they weren't usable anyway. It's not impossible that someone figured out that if you put lemon juice in a copper bowl and stir it with an iron rod you get a weird tingling feeling, and built something to create that sensation, but there's also no reason to think that's what they were. I've seen the claim that they resemble holders for ceremonial scrolls found in Seleucia, but I haven't seen any evidence for that claim either.

The point is that the making and the use of this device could be taught by ancient astronauts. Otherwise, there is no reason for its existence. Isn't it?

 

[sfs]

The point is that the making and the use of this device could be taught by ancient astronauts.

The making and use of absolutely anything could be taught by ancient astronauts. The question is, is there any evidence that its making was taught by ancient astronauts?

Otherwise, there is no reason for its existence. Isn't it?

Since we don't know what it was for, how could we possibly know that? If it was made to store scrolls, then yes, there is a reason for its existence. Even if it were meant to deliver a small shock, there could easily be an earthly reason for its existence.

What's the alternative, anyway? Why would ancient astronauts have taught Sassanid Persians how to make crappy batteries, rather than something useful? And why didn't they bother telling them that both contacts have to be exposed for a battery to work? What was the point of sealing the top with asphalt, anyway? Why isn't there any mention of these astronauts in historical records of the time and place, or any evidence of any of the other technology needed to make electricity work?

 

[Assyrian]

Could a primitive battery have been used to electroplate 'base metal' with gold? It would have been really handy for any counterfeiters producing bogus gold coins and jewellery. Could it have been the source of the alchemist's legendary quest to turn base metal into gold? Of course aliens capable of ftl interstellar flight would probably be capable of transmuting lead into gold with out using cheap tricks like electroplating.

 

[sfs]

Could a primitive battery have been used to electroplate 'base metal' with gold? It would have been really handy for any counterfeiters producing bogus gold coins and jewellery. Could it have been the source of the alchemist's legendary quest to turn base metal into gold? Of course aliens capable of ftl interstellar flight would probably be capable of transmuting lead into gold with out using cheap tricks like electroplating.

It's been suggested that the Baghdad batteries were used for electroplating (although usually for less nefarious purposes), but there are several problems with the hypothesis:1) There is no evidence of electroplated objects from the period; 2) many batteries (all short-lived and non-rechargeable, thanks to the solid seal) would have to be used in series, but no evidence of any kind of wiring has been found; 3) the batteries as fashioned wouldn't work anyway, since one of the contacts is buried.

The only reason for thinking that these were electrical at all is that they had both copper and iron parts, which is pretty thin.

 

[juvenissun]

The making and use of absolutely anything could be taught by ancient astronauts. The question is, is there any evidence that its making was taught by ancient astronauts?


Since we don't know what it was for, how could we possibly know that? If it was made to store scrolls, then yes, there is a reason for its existence. Even if it were meant to deliver a small shock, there could easily be an earthly reason for its existence.

What's the alternative, anyway? Why would ancient astronauts have taught Sassanid Persians how to make crappy batteries, rather than something useful? And why didn't they bother telling them that both contacts have to be exposed for a battery to work? What was the point of sealing the top with asphalt, anyway? Why isn't there any mention of these astronauts in historical records of the time and place, or any evidence of any of the other technology needed to make electricity work?

Good questions. What would you do if we can not find the answers? Just forget it as it never exists? What is the purpose of making speculations on this little thing? (as well as big thing like the Nazca Lines)

Faith. That is what matters. How do YOU see the meaning of unexplainable feature or object is a concern of YOUR faith. Once we start to think that ancient alien is a possibility, then our theology need to be adjusted.

 

[sfs]

Good questions. What would you do if we can not find the answers? Just forget it as it never exists? What is the purpose of making speculations on this little thing? (as well as big thing like the Nazca Lines)

If we still don't know, we'll keep saying, "We don't know". At this point, a perfectly mundane explanation seems quite plausible, with no need to invoke mysterious alien visitors. So a mundane explanation remains overwhelmingly more likely.

Faith. That is what matters. How do YOU see the meaning of unexplainable feature or object is a concern of YOUR faith. Once we start to think that ancient alien is a possibility, then our theology need to be adjusted.

Why? I already admit the possibility that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe. If someone were to present evidence that intelligent aliens have visited earth in the past (something that has been wholly lacking in this thread), I would have to take that possibility seriously, but why should it change anything in my theology?

 

[juvenissun]

If we still don't know, we'll keep saying, "We don't know". At this point, a perfectly mundane explanation seems quite plausible, with no need to invoke mysterious alien visitors. So a mundane explanation remains overwhelmingly more likely.


Why? I already admit the possibility that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe. If someone were to present evidence that intelligent aliens have visited earth in the past (something that has been wholly lacking in this thread), I would have to take that possibility seriously, but why should it change anything in my theology?

I guess that is a major difference between an evolutionist and a creationist. I don't believe the existence of human outside the earth. Thus, no alien like human.

A serious question is: if we have beings more intelligent than human out there, what would we call them? Are they still "human" made in the image of God? If not, then why the Lord Jesus showed up among humans and took the form of a human, but not at the time when we evolved into a more intelligent species? Would we evolve out of the image of God?

These are serious questions and could affect the meaning of Salvation.

 

[ChetSinger]

I guess that is a major difference between an evolutionist and a creationist. I don't believe the existence of human outside the earth. Thus, no alien like human.

A serious question is: if we have beings more intelligent than human out there, what would we call them? Are they still "human" made in the image of God? If not, then why the Lord Jesus showed up among humans and took the form of a human, but not at the time when we evolved into a more intelligent species? Would we evolve out of the image of God?

These are serious questions and could affect the meaning of Salvation.

As I read the Bible, there already are beings more intelligent than us out there. They're called fallen angels, and they're bad news.

 

[Aman777]

Juv:>>I guess that is a major difference between an evolutionist and a creationist. I don't believe the existence of human outside the earth. Thus, no alien like human.

Dear Juv, Amen. Since there was only one Ark, there is only one Planet which contains Humans, and that is Planet Earth. When we go to Space, we will find life when we find liquid water, and we will find prehistoric people, but we will NOT find other Humans. That's because ALL humans are the descendants of Adam.

Juv:>>A serious question is: if we have beings more intelligent than human out there, what would we call them? Are they still "human" made in the image of God? If not, then why the Lord Jesus showed up among humans and took the form of a human, but not at the time when we evolved into a more intelligent species? Would we evolve out of the image of God?

No. To be created in God's Image is to be born again in Christ. It's a Spiritual Creation, thus invisible to the world.

Juv:>>These are serious questions and could affect the meaning of Salvation.

The power of God unto Salvation is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Those who believe His Gospel are born Spiritually and those who don't are lost. So don't worry about finding beings which are made higher than men. That's impossible since man was made Billions of years BEFORE any other living creature, and is destined to have dominion over EVERY other living creature AFTER Jesus returns to this Earth. Genesis 1:28-31

In Love,
Aman

 

[Aman777]

As I read the Bible, there already are beings more intelligent than us out there. They're called fallen angels, and they're bad news.

Dear Chet, Not according to Scripture. Here is where the fallen angels are:

Jud 1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, He hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

Where does it say the angels are more intelligent than humans? According to Genesis 3:22 we have an intelligence like God's. 1Cr 6:3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels?

In Love,
Aman

 

[sfs]

I guess that is a major difference between an evolutionist and a creationist. I don't believe the existence of human outside the earth. Thus, no alien like human.

I don't believe in them either -- I didn't say that I did. I said that I admit the possibility. That would seem to be a major difference between us: when I have little information about a hypothesis, I don't pick a belief. I simply don't know.

A serious question is: if we have beings more intelligent than human out there, what would we call them?

"Aliens"? Whatever they call themselves? There used to be a big debate in Christianity about whether there were inhabitants in the Antipodes. Well, we found out that there were, and we managed to find things to call them.

Are they still "human" made in the image of God?

I don't know. That seems like a question best addressed when we have something other than speculation to base our answers on.

If not, then why the Lord Jesus showed up among humans and took the form of a human, but not at the time when we evolved into a more intelligent species? Would we evolve out of the image of God?

No explanation has been given to us about why Jesus appeared when he did even in the context of human history. So "I don't know" seems like it's going to be the answer to this question for the rest of time.

Would we evolve out of the image of God?

No. How could we do that?

These are serious questions and could affect the meaning of Salvation.

That's another difference. I think these are idle questions that have no effect on anything in my life.

You might want to read C.S. Lewis's thoughts on this question (in an essay in the collection "The World's Last Night") and in the novel Perelandra.

 

[juvenissun]

I don't believe in them either -- I didn't say that I did. I said that I admit the possibility. That would seem to be a major difference between us: when I have little information about a hypothesis, I don't pick a belief. I simply don't know.


"Aliens"? Whatever they call themselves? There used to be a big debate in Christianity about whether there were inhabitants in the Antipodes. Well, we found out that there were, and we managed to find things to call them.


I don't know. That seems like a question best addressed when we have something other than speculation to base our answers on.


No explanation has been given to us about why Jesus appeared when he did even in the context of human history. So "I don't know" seems like it's going to be the answer to this question for the rest of time.


No. How could we do that?


That's another difference. I think these are idle questions that have no effect on anything in my life.

You might want to read C.S. Lewis's thoughts on this question (in an essay in the collection "The World's Last Night") and in the novel Perelandra.

I think that is probably true. I like to build models. Even many things are not known for sure, I tends to assume some most favorable values to them. They will be temporarily right until better choices come up. A model can not tolerate many unknowns.

Well, God is basically an unknown to science. But we have no choice but to take Him as a truth. To science, the whole theology is a model. Some critical unknowns may cause it to collapse.