The origin of man
Chapter 34, chapter 35 and chapter 36 deal with the problem of the origin of man: just a bipedal ape, as Darwin believed, created by God 'in his Own image' as the Bible tells us, or, perhaps a hybrid between ape and alien, bioengineered by aliens?
Although the last option sounds outrageous it is based on more solid evidence than the other two hypotheses, as argued at length in chapter 36, entitled: Aliens: the missing link.
What follows is based on an interview given by Defares to the well-known Dutch journalist Willem Smitt in 2010, which provides a concise overview of the issues involved.
Under the heading Is our origin extraterrestrial, have we been designed by God or are we a highly developed ape? the following questions based on the BOOK are raised in this interview with Defares. Some of these issues have already been touched upon above.
Why do you regard Darwin's theory as untenable?
Man and chimpanzee share a common ancestor and 99 percent of their genes. Does it follow from this that man descents from the apes?
Genetically the difference between both is only ten times greater than between you and your neighbor. But the essential difference between man and ape is not a matter of physique, physiology, or genes, but of mental capacities.
This gap is not a ditch but a ravine. Even the godfather of Darwinism, professor Ernst Mayr of Harvard, calls it 'a puzzle'. Alfred Wallace, who proposed the theory of evolution independently of Darwin (they were friends) showed by a simple Darwinian argument that the higher human capacities can not be explained by 'adaptation', as explained in my book. The gap between man (Einstein, Mozart, Gandhi, your wife) and the chimpanzee is biologically inexplicable.
There are four 'absurd' theories:
man is no more than an evolutionary advanced ape,
-
God had created man 'body and soul',
-
man's body derives from an ape, but his soul comes from God,
-
man is a transgenic creature developed from anthropoids by aliens, similar to God (Genesis) creating man from clay.
These are all 'absurd', but only the aliens hypothesis is supported by concrete pointers.
Please elaborate.
In his book about origins, Life Itself, Francis Crick, Nobel prize winner and co-discoverer of DNA, proposed the theory that the first life on earth was brought on a spaceship some four billion years ago. He arrived at this hypothesis by exclusion: eliminating all other options, including the chemical soup.
So, the possibility that aliens have played a part in the transformation from ape to man (by genetic manipulation ) is less absurd than it looks at first sight. The key question is: 'Are there any pointers to support such a wild hypothesis?' After all it concerns matters that – if true - happened hundred of thousands years ago. History does not go back in time beyond 5000 BC. So all we may expect are footsteps in time.
Many ancient cultures mention gods visiting earth from space. Even the biblical prophet Ezekiel describes in blank amazement how he was transported by a fire-spitting space-craft to another part of our planet. The mere fact that the NASA scientist Dr. Blumrich obtained a number of patents on the basis of a 'technical reading' of the Book of Ezekiel, leading to the construction of the space-craft the Rotary Rocket, is proof that the prophet's observation of an UFO was not based on fantasy. So, even the Bible tells of the presence of aliens visiting earth long ago.
There is another fascinating pointer, which, however, requires some elaboration, begging your patience. It is fully discussed in my book.
The Dogon people are an ethnic group living in Mali. Their high priests the hogons possess a detailed knowledge of the star Sirius going back for 5000 years.
Since Sirius has a companion star, it dances a tango in an elliptic orbit of sixty years, a fact which can only be observed with a telescope. The hogons, however, possess this knowledge from time immemorial.
Even more surprising is that the hogons know that the companion star, Sirius B, has an orbit of fifty years and that this invisible star is (in scientific parlance) a 'white dwarf', a teeny-weeny, but extremely massive ('heavy') cinder of a moribund star. The hogons speak of a termite hill as heavy as a mountain. Anthropologists found in the twenties of the last century that the hogons are familiar with the existence of a second companion star of Sirius, Sirius C, which was only discovered in 1995 by the astronomers Benest and Duvent.
How did the hogons acquire this sophisticated astronomical knowledge? They say they learnt it from visitors from planets in the Sirius star system. Logically, it is the only viable explanation.
These are wondrous matters, says Dogon-expert Robert Temple, who notes that the Dogons originally hail from ancient Egypt, the land which, together with Sumer, is the cradle of civilization.
Eskimo's tell about their ancestors being transported to earth by iron birds. The name Ford Thunderbird derives from these ancient 'myths'.
The Maya's describe welcoming 'gods' from space, depicting these 'gods' in statues and images. On the famous memorial slab in Palenque ( Mexico ) an 'astronaut' piloting his space-craft is clearly depicted in his cabin. Ancient Indian cultures tell of visits of 'flying chariots' from space.
The most revealing hints about extraterrestrial visitors are inscribed in thousands of clay tablets from ancient Sumer, a region in the south-east of present day Iraq.
Couldn't these texts have been religious fabrications?
The famous astronomer Carl Sagan referring to these texts wrote, "It will always be difficult to establish conclusive proof of contact with an extraterrestrial civilization merely on the basis of these ancient texts." With this caviat we continue.
But first a word or two about the Sumerian civilization. When you read the history of Sumer you go from one surprise to the next. Nearly four thousands years BC these primitive farmers in a flash suddenly could do everything. They invented writing, the wheel and the war chariots. They melted metals from rocks. They asphalted their roads with a product extracted from petroleum. It was they who introduced the concept of ‘zero’ [no math without '0'], who divided the day into 24 hours, the hour in 60 seconds, etc.. Agriculturally, militarily, scientifically, their achievements were out of this world.
The Sumerians themselves attributed all this to their gods, giving the greatest praise to their God Enki, the king of heaven and earth. The only explanation that makes any sense is that they received help from 'above' and their gods were tangible creatures of flesh and blood, cosmonauts from a very advanced civilization elsewhere in the universe.
Texts on clay tablets of Sumerian, Akkadian and Babylonian origin record that these gods came from space to the Persian golf bringing technology, science and civilization. The evidence is fully discussed in my book.
But did aliens play a part in the creation of man?
To begin with, let me point out that no archaeologist or Sumerologist would ever put his academic career at risk by giving a literal interpretation of these ancient texts, that is by connecting them with UFO's and extraterrestrial visitors. So, these texts are dismissed as mythological fantasies.
A few hard-headed scholars, like Robert Temple and Zecheria Sitchin, took a different view. In his massive work The Earth Chronicles Sitchin distilled from the texts on the clay tablets the detailed story of space travelers from the planet Niburu visiting the earth in a distant past, in search of gold in order to protect their atmosphere from vanishing into space. By the way, we use platinum (in our cars ) to protect our own atmosphere.
This literal interpretation of the texts reminds us of Schliemann who interpreted the story of Troy in the Iliad literally, while the academic scholars regarded it as a myth. The result is well-known: Schliemann discovered the treasures of Troy.
And then what happened?
According to Sitchin's chronology the Anunnaki (the inhabitants of Niburu) landed on earth 450,000 years ago to extract gold from the Persian Gulf. Absurd? Still it is a striking fact that the Nobel prize winner Fritz Haber obtained a patent in 1920 to extract gold from the sea, and that the Persian Gulf has the highest gold content of all the oceans. When thousands of years later the gold mining from the sea declines the decision is taken to mine the gold from gold mines in southern Africa.
Coincidence? Much later the Annunaki workers in the gold mines rise in revolt against the harsh conditions. This leads to the decision to produce slaves by genetic manipulation of anthropoids (homo erectus).
Thus the first humans came into being: slaves in the gold mines of what is now called South Africa. This tallies with the scientific finding based on DNA that southern Africa is the cradle of modern man.
The theory proposed by Sitchin refers to physical changes of 'apes' induced by aliens and does not rule out the belief that man's spirit, his soul, is created by God.
The clay tablets (many thousands have been found) mention that the 'gods' impregnated a number of humans. 'The seed of your Lord, the glorious seed, has been released into my womb' one text exults.
This agrees with Genesis 6:2 which reads: '...the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful and they married any of them they chose'. And again in Genesis 6:4: 'The Nephilim were on the earth in those days – and also afterwards - when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.' The heroes of old? The Annunaki astronauts?
Just pious myth, or a reference to the 'gods' from outer space?
In this way the hybrid new humans came into being, who, according to Dr. Sitchin, ultimately transformed Sumer into an advanced civilization at around 3800 BC..
Sitchin's outrageous hypothesis kind of 'synthesizes' the Darwinian hypothesis and the theological view if we phrase it thus: 'God created modern man from the ape, assisted by his helpers, the 'gods'.’ Did this really happen? We'll never know, but can a greater story be told?
Is this creation story not highly speculative?
Of course it is. But it is the least absurd of the three theories and supported by the best (the least shaky) evidence: the literal interpretation of the clay tablets combined with the miracle of Sumer.
Darwin's theory is no less contestable. As Carl Sagan once observed: "The clay tablets speak, the bones are silent."
The transformation of ape to man was both metaphorically and literally a cosmic event!
