Do you want to believe in intelligent ancient extraterrestrials seeding earth?

I don't really think it's about gods or aliens as much as it is about man and our sins... The company's sins. Things we don't know about that only the company does. David and Weyland acted like priests to Shaw and the crew. They said things acertain way and made each character draw interpretations about what they were looking for. Shaw was looking for her concept of god, while Holloway was looking for another. Weyland had his own... Before the release Ridley hinted that each character has their own agenda. Holloway really did believe the alien astronaut hypothesis, in a way, because he thought these beings were an actual culture and not something way beyond our understanding like Shaw sort of thinks. The proof for this is that Holloway uses an archaeological principle.... aerial photos are taken from above to locate dig sites. Things that are buried can even elevate the ground level in strange ways relative to things around it. When viewed from above the nazca lines tell us that something built them that way, and when we see structures that are linear or have right angles it usually indicates human presence, and can be easy to spot. So Holloway was looking for something and he found it.... He knew they weren't gods... "Gods don't build in straight lines". Very early on Holloway knew we were dealing with a culture that can be compared to humans.... This is why he seems like a jackass to David's not "real boy". We may not be done with Holloway's story and the un-filmed sunken city scene, or mars scenes Ridley has talked about may come back into play. Even though it's not said in the film Holloway has dealt with Weyland before and been on a couple tours. He starts to figure out a lot sooner than everyone else that they are a lot like us. His mistake is thinking it's only a tomb, and not expecting one to be alive. Underestimating their technology because of what he had seen. David is told to keep trying harder to look for the immortality they may possess, and David too knows a lot more than he was saying. The thing that is cleverly hidden in the movie is that Holloway was right... his thesis (talked about in the beginning) was correct, and David is able to speak to them/possibly read their language. Although David may not want to admit this.... Ineffective, or effective as it may be--depending on your viewpoint.

For those who have thought up the possible connection to leviticus, the LV-223 stuff. I like this version of LV-426: "He shall burn all the fat on the altar as he burned the fat of the fellowship offering. In this way the priest will make atonement for the man's sin, and he will be forgiven"

"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence." Richard Dawkins Just because something is a mystery does not mean that the extraterrestrial hypothesis is correct. Many of the ancient civilizations are underestimated, when the knowledge and skills of these societies are attributed to the Alien interventions. Even we can say that the proponents of these claims are charlatans who have no idea about ancient symbolism and misinterpret the architecture, art and the religion of these cultures. Also I am a fan of Tolkien's literature, but that doesn't mean that the Hobbits live in my socks. Prometheus for me is a good science fiction movie, but I must confess that I am skeptical about the claims of ancient astronauts, and is not for arrogance as Scott says; is just for lack of evidence as Dawkins says.

The cosmological statistics argue in the favor of the existence of intelligent extraterrestrial life but that is another issue entirely from panspermia - the seeding of planets in the universe either by intelligent life or by microbes piggy backing on asteroids or meteorites. Although is a potential relationship there, just not a direct and sure connection between one and the other.

BTW please differentiate the question that I raised in this post compared to the last one. I am asking each of you if you choose to believe in things because it provides you with security. That is what I was getting at.

I can think a lot about the idea of "Alien seeding earth", because it is an interesting topic. But I don't want to believe in something that is not proven. I want to believe in something that can be proven, depending on the methodology used to arrive at a conclusion, that's what I choose to believe. BTW the meteorites carrying life is very different from what we see in Prometheus, the second is more like Von Daniken's thoughts.

Thanks for clarifying the question nostromo. I did see a distinction between your query and the original in that an affirmative answer to yours requires an additional leap of faith from mere visitors to creators as the role of ancient astonauts. As to the clarified question I must say that I am nominally a chrisitian but I find much of the doctrine difficult to continue to believe as our collective knowledge increases. That being said, one does hope for a paradise despite all evidence to the contrary. I am open to the possibility of other sentient life out there and that they could have visited in the past and been mistaken for gods. Btw I think mala'kak nailed dr shaws beliefs in his expositions

I want to believe in Ancient Aliens. In that there is a circle of Life, Living, Death, Re-birth. But there has to be a start from somewhere. Life in earth is older than we realize. Hints are hidden in folk lore of any civilization anyplace in the world. We are not who we think we are. We are a part of of and a continuation of an Ancient Astronaut. When we arrive in the Planet Mars and find a Weylabnd logo under a rock then we will know our connection to a Star Child and Engineers.

Well malex234 I disagree that Mala'kak nailed the question. I was not asking after the opinions of Drs Shaw or Holloway, but on that subject no one has mentioned here that Holloway, in the extra blu ray material that showed both shaw and holloway talking about the Prometheus project before they left earth, Holloway stated that his purpose was to show that the engineers genetically constructed us not God so he wanted once and for all to smash organized religions based upon God. He was an atheist. OK now back to the subject at hand. Shambala and malex234 both came the closest to answering my post as stated followed. To answer the question exactly in the spirit that it was given you would have to say something like: IMO it is an error in logic to choose to accept a philosophical idea just because of wishful thinking. Like not wanting to believe that our consciousnesses just dissipate when we die as apposed to thinking there is a soul or integral consciousness that either goes on to an afterlife or is reborn in reincarnation. That is a question of faith. While we are all entitled to our philosophical/ spiritual beliefs, the problem comes into play in two ways: 1) The Church has long placed a premium on faith, which is the belief in things without the burden of proof. Jesus preached this idea saying blessed be those who have faith in God and in so doing also love him with all your heart and soul. Since he was the original source of Christian philosophy, I have no problem with his stating such a precept as it is a spiritual idea. In this context it is reasonable if you value his words. Now the Roman Catholic Church and all its spin offs used the idea of faith as a tool to control the flock and act as the intercessor between God and man. Therefore you needed the church and tithes to it to support it if you wanted to go to heaven. They made themselves necessary in the lives of their flock and rich by doing this. 2) the second context where faith has little place is in the realm of science. Its OK to have a gut feeling and follow that because the process of coming to a scientific epiphany often comes from knowledge and information that may be buried in the mind or subconscious. In such cases it can manifest as an intuition or even in a dream but the important distinction here is regardless where the source, all hypotheses at some point need to be proved either through physical experimentation where repeatable results are obtained, or if not possible as in the case of advanced theoretical physics, though initial rigorous mathematics and hopefully in the future through experimentation when the ability to setup the conditions necessary to demonstrate the principle in question exist.

Indy, don't forget to qualify your statements and beliefs. You got off to a good start but it falls apart after the third sentence: 4) "Life in earth is older than we realize. Hints are hidden in folk lore of any civilization anyplace in the world. 5) "We are not who we think we are. We are a part of of and a continuation of an Ancient Astronaut." 6) "When we arrive in the Planet Mars and find a Weylabnd logo under a rock then we will know our connection to a Star Child and Engineers." Starting with statement 4), Life is older than who realizes? There are many reputable modern scientists who believe there may have been ancient advanced cultures that became obliterated either due to internal cultural forces, or by a natural catastrophe. The hints you refer to have found their way into popular culture unfortunately through Eric Von Daniken, who made major mistakes by going too far out on a limb and saying that his data didn't just suggest but rather PROVED that ancient extraterrestrials seeded the earth. That is a cardinal mistake in science. All major hypothesis must be supported by references and other sources or stated in such a way that the data supports that etc..... Do you see what I mean here. After he publishes in the scientific journals, panels of his peers read his articles over and if they all agree then, and only then, can it be published. Statement 5) is just far too broad and is lacking in data. What this statement really is, is an opinion. Opinions are fine as long as you state that it is your opinion. Statement 6) falls under the category of wishful thinking. Sure it would be cool if we found archaeological evidence on Mars of any thing to do with life but that is what you 'choose to believe.', like Dr Shaw.

In response to the posed question my answer is: 1) I believe in GOD because I choose to do so, through my faith. 2) I will believe ancient aliens seeded the Earth when I see proof, or the sequel to Prometheus.

to follow cerulean blues answer format i dont beleive in god..... although sometimes [i]i wish i could[/i] i dont beleive in ancient aliens.. no truly compelling evidence OP asked do you [b]want[/b] to beleive..... well i can see how it would have advantages over encountering aliens in the future who have no ties to us, if like in prometheus we had an advanced ancestor species we would have the opportunity to say "hey you gotta help us out were family" of course you could get a smack in the face as an answer but.....

After rereading this thread and a bit of pondering of the thoughts, I would like, if I may, to pose a scientific question and follow it up with a theological question: 1. What would constitute scientic proof that we were seeded by aliens? 2. In the face of such proof could you maintain a belief in god? In response to the first I must admit that my background is in liberal arts, so short of the saucer landing and the alien showing us how it was done I can only guess at the correct answer to that one. Assuming proof of seeding is shown would undoubtedly undermine all organized religion, but couldn't one still believe in a universal creator. Perhaps the seeders are no more than servants/instruments of a higher power. I personally would want to believe that there is more.

I’m more of a Deist because God is a mnemonic even in the mind of a non-believer. What I choose to believe, is that faith is a tool that is used when faced with those dark corners and moments of existence. It’s an internal force for survival, irrelevant of any religious dogma, but also a convenient mechanism for religious dogma to hide behind. My belief is based on the proof of the natural power of the mind. If we were seeded by aliens, then so what. It does not change my belief system one bit. We have evolved our own mind states along our own unique paths of individual experience and existence. I am, I’m me, stuff em.

@Cerulean You believe in an invisible, all powerful God because of 'Faith' (even without a shred of proof and evidence to the contrary) and yet demand concrete evidence when faced with any other theories. This is just like those who demand proof of the "Theory" of evolution. It's okay for you guys to claim and believe whatever you like, again with no evidence at all. (And please don't say 'scriptural evidence' ) And yet still demand to see the Missing Link in between the missing link in between the missing link. Which, btw are widely available for anyone who can walk into a museum- or read a book less than 2000 years old. Wouldn't devoting your life to the worship of a higher power be the one decision you would want to make in a careful and methodical way, and demand proof for? Anyway, to answer the post: -I believe that Ancient Aliens is much more plausible than any religion I have ever been presented with. It is logical, scientifically possible, and the theory doesn't constantly contradict itself, which is refreshing. -I waver in my belief in an afterlife; believing on darker days, that this thought is just a pacifier for those that cannot bear mortality. Like telling a child "if you're good, Santa will come" Except its "if you're good you get into the most magical, happy place where everyone you love is and nothing bad or scary ever happens!

[img]http://laurendate.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/i_want_to_believe_01.jpg[/img] The truth is out there :-) I believe in other intelligent life.... There are billions of galaxies in the universe= big and reliable evidence for me..

Some of the problems with believing in a God and a heaven is what do you do about Lucifer and Hell? I could never buy the idea that a loving God who made us very imperfect and some people are totally incapable of acting nonviolently and they wind up doing some heinous crime like killing their mother with a hammer - that happened to Jim Gordon, the drummer who played with Eric Clapton and wrote the piano portion on the song Layla. Anyway the point is there is just a lot that doesn't make sense once you start accepting the idea of God , the devil heaven hell purgatory or limbo. Anyway that's enough for now...

As I have stated previously I am a Deist. That means I can have a belief in God, but also completely ignore any ancient scribble relating to the concept of heaven and hell, or Lucifer for that matter. I believe Shaw is a Deist as well, which is why she is a scientist. The reason she wears a crucifix is a sign of respect and remembrance of her Christian upbringing. Not all Deists are the same. Some believe in an afterlife and some don’t. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism]Deism...[/url]

What we believe or think we believe will affect our life's work. If you believe in God in any context of that word yiou will see the world filled with references to that God. If you don't believe in anything and just observe, detail, compare, experience you would, it seems to me see more truth. I don't know what life is al about. In our movie we see storylines, charactors and events presented in a format that RS seems to think we may have interest in. And that is of interest to me. No matter what we believe the truth is the truth. The different viewpoints are expressed here reflect each poster's beliefs. I enjoy reading of the different thoughts. But let's not kid ourselves. No one is 'right'. Everyone just has not seen all of the truth yet. We will see RS's truth, his storyline, in the next few episodes. That wil begion a new round of belief's presented by posters. And I find that intersting and worthwhile. Now about that 'goo'.......

To answer the question "Do you want to believe in Ancient Aliens?", I have to answer yes. Otherwise, it seems like an awful waste of space (as was pointed out by Ted Arroway in [i]Contact[/i]). Do I want to believe in an ancient visitation to planet Earth? No. I'd like to think that the building blocks of life can appear and result in intelligent life right across the cosmos. There's no evidence for this, of course, but even quite conservative estimates of factors used in the Drake Equation suggest that new life could be springing up (and perhaps dying out) at upwards of 1,000 civilisations per second. The universe is [i]that[/i] big. However, I wouldn't say that I choose to believe that there are extraterrestrials. In the absence of evidence one way or the other, one's mind should be open to all possibilities. But I certainly [i]want[/i] those civilisations to exist.

I sort of believe in science & archaeology but I lost faith in that at one point in my life. Sometimes science fails to recognize when it doesn't have all of the available evidence yet. Things still need to be dug up, tying into David only working out the broad strokes. It's not that ancient aliens are being covered up... I think whole periods of our existence have yet to be discovered and properly examined. There's an upper limit to how far back carbon dating can go, but once we start applying a lot of the new absolute dating techniques in a more widespread way we'll find out much more about the period around 1.5-2 million years ago. There's a lot of corporate/gov't involvement in archaeology that tries too hard to maintain the status quo. We're talking about carbon dating here... things like the pyramids can't actually be carbon dated themselves so we have to look at artifacts that are in context, and this leads to the possibility that the dates historians give are not accurate. I know it's hard to hear but many Egyptologists have been bought and paid for, and you only get to be one if you study for many years, regurgitating what is said in the textbooks, and then work your way up the corporate ladder. To archaeologists on the outside it's a joke... In which we were already becoming ancestral homo sapiens, but were contemporaries with a lot of other species that were exiting the stage like Homo Neanderthalensis, Homo Habilis and Homo Erectus. Basically, I follow the theory that we out-bred and out-warred them-- but I think we did have a little help culturally. Archaeologists are really dropping the ball on exposing how long we have been here for and challenging historians accounts of the developments in culture that they base on literature. While archaeologists use actual science to recreate an accurate story of the past. Things that tell of a time far before the written word existed. However the spoken word has been shown to have most likely existed long before this, and early ways of conveying thought through art definitely did. Some of the things we've dug up are astounding, and sometimes unexplainable like crystal infused metals no one has ever seen. This tells me there's a lot more to the story. But I think it's much simpler than aliens, while at the same time encompassing the myths about them, which can make it seem complex.. It's all about man. An earlier stage of man that preceded us and the things that came after. The rounds of man described in the Greek myths. We were created and then destroyed a number of times already if you go by those myths, even in the Old testament God has no qualms about wiping out things he deems punishable like Sodom and Gamorrah, or the destruction of the Garden of Eden. Forcing humans to live outside Paradise. I believe in myths about the Golden Age, Atlantis, a precursor civilization, a paradise lost, a destroyed garden, a global stone-age empire that once existed etc more so than ancient aliens. although I believe they're one and the same... This could explain why they return and pose as gods, although they are said to look like us in the myths. Prometheus shows that the Engineers are a genetic match, they didn't create us, we're actually a reproduction of them. Made in their image, the image that the true God's of the story created. Shaw asking who created them is the obvious evidence that they aren't actually creators. More like reverse engineers. These being mingled with the gods. The Atlanteans mingled with the Olympian gods and Titans, but they were an earlier group of humanity. The first round of humanity in the Greek myths. The original blueprint for all the life that deviated/sped up through its influence and hybridized with it. Some of the earliest myths about Atlantean like beings indicate them to have been a tall race of man with extremely advanced forms of science. Linguistically atlantis relates to a number of other dialects but the most clear interpretation comes from the norweigan or swedish where it was altlandis. Which basically means "all land ice" but it's referring to a time period, and links through a series of other etymological links form a meaning close to "when all the land masses were covered with ice except for this mythical island empire"... So basically the mythic Atlanteans could have been a much earlier line of hominid that survived numerous ice ages with its advanced technology, before it ever restarts civilization with the many claimed sites in the Mediterranean and Carribean. While the other groups struggled to survive on the planet. We've lived through ice ages before, there's proof in the archaeological record. Just how we did that during our evolution is interesting. We basically burrowed. What I'm proposing, is the mythic Atlanteans known to the greeks to be incredibly advanced left the planet in a previous ice age... Only to return as our kings. The aliens are us, we were made from their original designs as Prometheus's recreation outlines. Prometheus only created one of the rounds of humanity... Poseidon created the first round of humanity in the Greek myths. The Atlanteans. Our story hasn't started at the beginning. We never saw the Engineer's being created & they are us, hence we haven't really seen how we were created as Shaw hints. We were made in their image, another round of that original design. They precede us and everything that came after them when they fell into the ocean...It was only them who returned later on to pose as gods... as aliens... We're missing that part. They are us, an earlier line of hominid, man's sins, and have been sinning this whole time. The serpent in the garden of eden is the atlanteans, is this earlier group of priests and scientists who knew of the tree of knowledge and of life. had lived through the ice ages. Had slept through the centuries and left to distant moons, leaving record of where they were going if we dared to follow in their quest to kill the father. To destroy the true creators who trapped them on this rock with us. They destroyed the garden and want to destroy it again because they're jealous of us. Earth is their home too, which sets up in the conflict for those who have read about the many groups that look like us in real-world ufology. I honestly believe it's a mixture of things and there could be truth to many myths, but you have to look at the earliest sources. Then look at what the priests have encoded in the updated versions of the myths. There can be some truth to myths--it's encoded in the root word. There is a sort of code that runs through organized religion I believe, but now it's so shrouded in BS and all the ways the myths have changed, that only priests who understand how to interpret certain things or have access to the vatican library can gain that knowledge. And then they gain power. And with power can sometimes come corruption. And we have a great deal of corruption going on inside religion/the vatican these days. So knowledge can equal corruption as in the garden of eden myth, and it could end up destroying Paradise if too much knowledge is spread ;) The things we believe to be Ancient aliens, at least the ones that look like us... I believe they were the returning descendents of Atlanteans who intended to rule us. Think about it the sumerian stories say they interbred directly with us, not only genetic manipulation like in the Enki parts. To do so they would actually have to be very closely related to us in the first place. In addition the atlanteans were said to be genetic meddlers, but they only hybridize things. Let's say they didn't want to lose all their technology when the ice age began and when the ice age finally ended. They had been situated along the equator in the Atlantic ocean between the continents, the only area free of ice as the ice age began ending 14 000 years ago. As the ocean levels rose and habitable zones were created on the continents mass flooding ensued which connects all these stories. During this process colonization of the the newly available land areas had begun in the fertile cresecent, with the Atlanteans and those they saved claiming to be gods... Portraying themselves as gods like Weyland. Nowadays they're portrayed as the humanoid aliens (I'm not totally discounting the possibility of something else out there, in the Greek myths the ruler of Atlantis is Zeus's brother, and then we have Titans). There really could be something else out there as described in some of our earliest myths, different types of beings who aren't depicted as human, however the bird man concepts in Egypt are simply indicating that they would fly like a falcon or eagle. Seeming to glide. Hovering in place. I personally believe in a mixture of things, and that you have to combine everything to get the answer. The simplest answer may not always be the right one unless we actually have all the evidence. 1000's of submerged pyramids/complexes off the coasts of both sides of the Atlantic, and in the Pacific tell me we are the aliens and there's a deliberate reason the Engineers are so human as to be a genetic match... They aren't the true creators/aliens yet. something else gave birth to them. Who were actually very much human to the Greeks, before their civilization fell and they became mermaids. Some of the myths and Plato himself described it as an Empire. What if earth was meant to be a colony and the Atlanteans were really angels, dark angels that destroyed themselves, fallen angels ;) And them rebelling against the fathers/gods, and passing along some of the knowledge to us, letting us bite the apple. Meant that we became free and didn't have to live as servants to the Olympians as the Atlanteans were. David could take a similar approach and his rebellion against the fathers might lead to us being a little more free, although we end up with the knowledge of good and evil.

There was a time when priests and scientists meant pretty much the same thing. Ancient priests used to also function as scientists in many cases. The priest class was basically the scientist class in those days... Such a massive change occurred in the way the underclasses of the rulers organize themselves, their symbols, their proto-languages, and systems of worship. What we're looking at is beyond belief, theories and hypotheses. It involves the historical roots of what you could call the secret societies. They developed out of these early priesthoods and priest classes who guarded knowledge... Knew about the movements of the stars, but may not have actually been from them. They just had more time to observe them and pass their knowledge on to cultures all around the world, as well as the pyramid designs and bits of culture. Explaining why Pyramids show up in South America and in the highest numbers in China. We want actual scientific fact now. And the problem with alien astronaut hypothesis is that it raises too many questions from the anthropological/ archaeological angle. Things that can't be explained by observing what we've dug up. We have myths and things of that nature to go off of, but there's not enough physical evidence to start forming a valid hypothesis yet. Much of the evidence can go so many ways, but it's about trying to explain all of the evidence at the same time. That's why I sort of lean towards an unconventional belief about Atlanteans. I think certain aspects of culture want us to buy into the alien astronaut stuff to cover up what really went on... In the past it was much easier to make people believe these were mystical beings from the lights above that were visiting. And becoming the early god-kings described in myth. The movie 10 000 BC says it best about the egyptians although probably slightly inaccurate, as the Egyptians have their own tales about the powerful island empire. "Some say they came from the stars, others say the water". This was altered to make them seem divine, give them the divine right to rule.

@Fleshvessel - I guess I can believe what I choose to believe & so can you. Therefore, we are different. As to who is right, who cares? To everyone here: I will never personally question what anyone here believes, it is way above my pay grade. I can only answer questions as to what I think in regard to the question posted for discussion. There have been quite a few personal attacks on this site lately & it is something I hope will cease. We can leave the head-ripping-off trait to the Engineers, right?

yup.... wait no! raaaghhhhhhhr rrriiiiip! jk :P i'm an atheist but i totally get why people believe in various spiritual 'stuff' for starters mostly ppl seem to be hardwired to beleive in something i sometimes think science is a replacement in part for that hence some people having [b]emotively[/b] strong opinions about sciencey matters if we were all logical and spock-like we wouldnt argue and nitpick so much would we? we'd debate more calmly lol, sometimes the thought of oblivion shakes me and i wish i could beleive in a god or afterlife but i cant right from childhood it just didnt fit......

[quote]But let's not kid ourselves. No one is 'right'. Everyone just has not seen all of the truth yet.[/quote] And probably we will never know, that's why it is called faith. Anyway the science is more productive than faith and religion, after all the knowledge of the universe, that is expanding every day, is thanks to science and not thanks to religion or pseudoscience.

It's not an attack, it's a challenge. Also I made no claims to know who made us or what awaits us. Only that I find one to be more likely than another (if I had to choose) I could argue your reply was also an attack-Stating that you, personally, would NEVER stoop to my level, in your glorious humility. The implication is there. I Believe any faith or belief system should be able to Stand up to a little scrutiny and i welcome people to challenge or question Anything i post as it will only serve to strengthen our collective knowledge. I asked a genuine question about your methodology of deciding what to believe and what not to. I may have poked a bit, but everything I said is a part of my belief system- QUESTION EVERYTHING. (All of that being said, I could be a little softer- you're right.) I hope we can still be friends.

That last line sounds sarcastic but it really isn't (just in case it came across that way)

@Shambhala. Keep in mind religion/faith is a theorum. So when you say "science is more productive than faith and religion" I would have to strongly disagree. Because religion answers the "why?" "The why we were created" part. Science doesn't. Thats why so many people follow religion and faith, because its a sense of fulfillment, that science doesn't give. Sooner then later science will answer the "who created us" part, but people could care less about that part, theres no value to that. So like i said, i believe faith is the most productive thing, in a sort of different sense. ( I know i went a little of track)

@ParkenN, that's like saying "Science can not explain that God does not exist, so he exists"...that is wrong and is a fallacy. Religion has answered this question with fantasy, IMO, and science does not work that way. Furthermore, science does not answer why we were created? the real question is how life began on Earth? Is too easy explain everything with magic and then suggest just have faith...in fact, anyone can do that...also the religion can not conclude anything about it because they have no evidence...that is why they ask you to have faith. Science Could never explain everything, that's impossible (but the religion could, and in a very easy way), but the methodology of Science is more reliable...also the journey of knowledge never end, and that's beautiful.

BTW, I want to clarify that my intentions are not to offend people's beliefs. Everyone here has a right to have their own beliefs and opinions. I'm just stating my point of view and respond to the person who addresses me, that's all. :)