Jesus Believes in Evolution 1603456783, 9781603456784

Citation preview

_

s

Pao

a

7 —

2 4

-

i

7

ane

f

JESUS BELIEVES IN

EVOLUTION

As

~

2uedk,

eavausa@ RS

tit fc

MGITUIOVS ~

ae

JESUS BELIEVES IN EVOLUTION

© 2008 Eric Gray

Splendid Archive Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or retransmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by information storage and retrieval systems without written permission from the publisher, except for brief quotations. Points of Contact [email protected] [email protected] ISBN 978-1-60345-678-4 Printed in the United States of America Cover Art

Ancient portrait of Christ Pantocratorby unknown artist, located at Saint Catherine's Monastery at Mount Sinai

Smiling Chimp © iStockphoto.com/pederk

The theories expressed in this book are those of the author, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of those who are referenced.

To Purchase www.jesusbelievesinevolution.org, or www.jesusbelievesinevolution.com

DEDICATION

TO THE READERS

IT IS GIVEN UNTO YOU TO KNOW THE MYSTERIES OF THE KINGDOM

JESUS

OF HEAVEN.

CHRIST

MATTHEW

13:11

CONTENTS PREFACE — WHAT IS TRUTH?

CHAPTER

1 — IN THE BEGINNING

CHAPTER 2 — TWO PARADOXES CHAPTERS 3 THROUGH 29 — SECRET CHAPTERS THE UNFATHOMABLE MYSTERIES OF THESE CHAPTERS SHALL NOT BE SPOKEN

UNTIL THE READER EACH

IN ITS OWN

HAS ATTAINED ORDER.

GNOSIS

FOR

What is Truth? "What is truth?" asked Pontius Pilate. Truth, it seems, is a very difficult thing to know, but if the actions of Pontius Pilate are any indication, the consequences of ignorance are far worse. Luckily, we don't have to be ignorant anymore. A firestorm of truth has been unleashed during the last dozen decades — yielding both light to enhance our understanding, and fire to burn the falsehoods of the past into oblivion. Truth shimmers before us like a double-edged sword. Science is one blade of that sword. History is the other. Science is what we can observe. History is the testimony of what others have observed. Both are valid. Both are necessary. Science is known by means of careful observation and Both are truth. experimentation. History is known by means of archaeology, scholarship, and the practice of critically analyzing the legends and writings which have come down to us. This double-edged sword, science and history, cuts across the four corners of this world. Science cuts across the four corners of the modern world — from the tropical islands of the Galapagos to the wintery mountains of the Burgess Shale, from the impact crater in the Yucatan to the freshly discovered fossil beds of China. History cuts across the four corners of the ancient world — from the clay tablets of Babylon to the Dead Sea Scrolls of Qumran, from the Prophet on the steppes of Persia to the Gnostic in the sands of Egypt. Science and history echo through eternity, and together they ever increase the treasures and perils of truth's infinite mysteries. Science is observation. Religion is belief. Observation causes belief. Seeing is believing. We believe what we observe. Insofar as belief is derived from observation, religion should therefore be derived from science. Some say the two should be kept separate. Yet this opinion is a product of politics, not of truth. Religion should not be kept separate from science. Rather, religion should be a product of science. History is testimony. Religion is belief. Insofar as courts of law establish their belief upon testimony, we should establish religion upon history. Conventional wisdom usually results from the collective examination of all available information. As such, it normally should be respected. But when new information comes to light, then the conventional wisdom must change in order to become congruent with the newly discovered truth. If it does not change, then it no longer deserves to be the conventional wisdom. Such is the state of today's theological nobility. Because they reject science and history, their aging castles are built on the shifting sands of blind existential faith. Faith in faith is faith on sand. Faith in truth is faith on rock. Science and history are that rock of truth.

UnsHid Viev «© at cheats 2 oh

oneal

POAT

Od

durece 2it its ‘oh

chains

me3

AGT

gna. san SK a

t api

aay

1 ate

yi

Lid

years ih ott caftinatts J days

seit

ti

et

-

brete

aintbseite

th my

42

peiai}t

yf tea F

Wahal odio

AG

Le

1% rae > vw teiw ef sonst

cieooe sas 3

NOOR I

‘bast 10 eT yey “te > to whem

farts quieting

tana

aT

Mei

wu)

— bow

rand

vtlh

a

THe

see ee a Pie agi al

mrubdm

|

ergy

4 rides 19 i ;

x

? Wide:

a

as

sare ite

Hy

a Az

a

pit tycome wei v

ae

arbor rod

yd pagans 7 meats are

avnnpivee R saraia siete

Surry

(2

ball

as

:

Suid

! aa

ary

sata

mee

eR

satis

READE in igae be ‘Oe 9

%

ath io pant

ae sige

i

a

ofi lo antengat yrsinhe, ot of aageenac oa magone to opt

of Tivaat Fosvnoaih eltewt ont oF nemogy ed) satire ance ih ah i blow jvetaes oft to anes sao ert gnetiee a2 Cente re ees ‘wi! owt rewnuO 19 allow? noe haokF self of uolvdaBe llet vires las sans roe, peal to ebaee octonhone) ert i) ster

ia ain Ww aoe

To ty

ofl sapoToM! reve vouldecaigebine r -wikndts'a

aoneteven outed Aiee®.

arco

poiamrined

-patlsed *e}i

birehmd 2) oiled 28 Wineal

Homie a

weiierreds

a

owmede uv Jedur Sudo ali gonieta

¥ax IMR scare it hevivab of acters Bipods aoigiiet pomeraedy st |

To tee olitdly to Jatbulg # ai neicigg ctl OY idee gel odbine ow ott nM MBipiket godin! suunie tow ateyse jeu be dae Istipodds noigila a, in SuttonIotouborg & 90h _ Mide wet Yo te erue> 25> whoenl Doilsd wi neviwettase. MRNTpes!ai

Citeid noqu aotgiles deildathe Ulgode sw annomiten noqu toiled

Wi Fo naiterienars prinaliss cdiiooh that teaiene Geen mi Msi Dade tu bytseqeersd bivors ethaeriqeg4;ham ak icon sida + wineNi synarts tat mobaive lnooiteovnds oth aoe oo EKO

* gbtton sls asad WiTT alias bonevoneity ya's

To

siete oi) aidau! nobel

7

todd oteld bine sstaioe Roig fri oksitin"t e hist lelanste bailed ixsYo dae tad! on groteirt betasoni92yhooy

8

oa

oy

pla .

¥

. if

i

oa

,

Ze

ia f

oa

a

HOI

+

1

6

In the Beginning In the Beginning In the beginning, the Big Bang created the heavens and the earth. Actually, that's false. The heavens came about 400 million years after the Big Bang, and the earth came about 9.1 billion years after the Big Bang. So the heavens and the earth did not even exist in the beginning at all. Rather, they came about a very long time after the beginning. Why bother with such trivial details? There is an old expression, "the devil is in the details." It is true. Since the beginning, the Devil has always been in the details, as the Prophet says, "In the beginning, the Holy One spoke to the Devil."' Therefore, since the Devil was in the beginning with God, the Devil has been in the details since the beginning. This being the case, if we study the details of the beginning, then perhaps we can expose the Devil. So, without further ado, let us examine the details of the beginning. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." So begins the first chapter of Genesis. The Bible said it; therefore Jesus believes it — right? Not necessarily. Jesus Christ never quoted Genesis 1. You can search the entirety of the gospels, and you will not find one single instance in which Jesus Christ directly quoted Genesis 1, nor did he ever unequivocally affirm its truth. Some point to Mark 10:6-8 as a place where he did, but upon closer examination, Mark 10:6-8 is an affirmation

of the second chapter of Genesis, and as such does not directly pertain to the first chapter of Genesis.” So let's skip Genesis 1 for now and fastforward to Genesis 2.

Adam and Eve and the Cave-People Too Adam and Eve had neighbors. Their neighbors were cave-people who lived alongside them. The Biblical storyline, starting in Genesis 2, The term implicitly alludes to these cave-people several times. ' Yasna 45:2, from the Gathas of Zarathustra 2 Genesis 2:24, Mark 10:6-8, Matthew 19:5 1

"cavemen" sounds primitively chauvinistic. Therefore, in the spirit of political correctness, I have opted to use the term "cave-people" when referring to those brutish humans who evolved before us. According to the interpretations of the creationists, no people existed before Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve were the first humans. Then, they had two sons — Cain and Abel. Cain killed Abel. At this point there supposedly were only three people on the face of the earth - Adam, Eve, and their son Cain. However, the Biblical story makes a statement which implies other people existed at that time. It says, "Yahweh put a mark on Cain, so that if anybody found him, they would not kill him."’ We must ask, why is the mark necessary? If Adam and Eve were the only other two people on earth, then surely they would recognize their own son, right? Why would God need to put a mark on him, so that people would recognize him? On the other hand, if there were cave-people living alongside them, then it makes sense that God put a mark on Cain. God wanted the cavepeople to know not to kill him, so he put a mark on him, to distinguish him from the cave-people who lived outside the Garden. In this light, the narrative flows logically, for if another group of people were living alongside them, then they might need to see a mark on Cain to know not to kill him, because otherwise they might not recognize him. After this, the Bible informs us that "Cain had sex with his wife."

But where did his wife come from? Creationists will tell you that Cain married his sister. However, Genesis never actually says his wife was his sister. That is only an assumption the creationists make, because they assume no humans existed before Adam and Eve. The same verse continues, "He built a city." At this point, according to the creationists, there were a very limited number of people on earth — only Adam and Eve and some unknown number children they had. But now, Cain is building a city. We must ask, where did Cain find enough people to fill a city? Did Adam and Eve procreate like rabbits? Or, on the other hand, was there a larger group of people unrelated to Adam and Eve, living alongside them, who could now live in cities thanks to Cain’s engineering skills? The same narrative continues to describe how Cain’s descendents gave certain technologies to humanity such as tent-making, herding, musical instrumentation, and metallurgy.” Does it make sense that Cain was the only child of Adam and Eve who was smart enough to

: Genesis 4:15

* Genesis 4:17 ° Genesis 4:20-22

make these technological advancements? Or does it make better sense that he gave these skills to a more primitive type of human? Further along in the story, Genesis mentions that Adam and Eve had another son.

His name was Seth. About Seth, Genesis says,

Adam lived 130 years and begat a son in his own likeness, in his very image, and called his name Seth.° This harkens back to the place in the same narrative where Adam was created in the likeness of God. In the day that God created Adam, He made him in the likeness

of God.’

The Bible continues, saying Seth also had a son. pattern, Seth's son is not in the image of his father.

But breaking the

Seth lived 105 years and begat Enosh.* Notice how Adam and Seth are "made in the likeness" of their progenitor, but Enosh is not. The implications are subtle, but very profound. Adam is the son of God, therefore he looks like his father God, as it says "made in the likeness" of God. Seth is the son of Adam, therefore he looks like his father Adam, as it says, "a son in his own

likeness." Enosh is the son of Seth, but nothing is said about Enosh being in the likeness of his father Seth. \t seems that Adam looked like his father God, Seth looked like his father Adam, but why doesn’t Enosh

look like his father Seth? One possible explanation is that Seth procreated with a woman from outside the Adamic line, and therefore Seth's son Enosh did not have his father's physical appearance. Moreover, the name "Enosh" is very telling, for it is the Hebrew Why would someone name their kid word meaning "Mortal Man." "Mortal Man?" This question is especially appropriate when one considers the god-like life-spans recorded in Genesis 5, which regularly lasted nearly a thousand years. Adam and Seth both lived over 900 years, according to Genesis 5, and nearly everyone in the first ten generations had similarly long life-spans. Compared to the animals and

® Genesis 5:3

7 Genesis 5:1 8 Genesis 5:6

cave-people, Adam and Eve and their kids must have felt like immortal gods. In fact, certain early Christian texts, such as On the Origin of the World record that Eve was not really human at all, but rather she was some sort of luminous goddess-type creature.’ Perhaps Seth called his son "Mortal Man," because he had good reason to suspect that his son might someday perish. If the cave-people had much shorter life-spans, and if Seth procreated with a cave-woman, then Seth would have known that his son was destined to die younger than himself. Next, Genesis records that human life-spans began to decline toward 120 years — "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is now mortal. His days will be 120 years."'° wil Then it says, "Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations. Could this mean that Noah and his pedigree refrained from mingling with the cave-people? A casual glimpse at Genesis 5 reveals that the life spans of Noah’s ancestors did not decline to the stated 120 years. Rather, they continued to live for about 900 years. The statement that he was perfect in his generations, together with the continued long life spans despite God’s curse to reduce them to 120 years, suggests that Noah’s ancestors married mostly among their Adamic cousins, thus preserving their long life spans, even while other branches of the Adamic line mixed their blood with cave-people. After the Flood, however, Noah’s children apparently married cave-people, for their life spans rapidly decline in Genesis 11:10-32. Creationists will tell you that Adam and Eve’s kids married their brothers and sisters. It was their only choice. There was nobody else around. Although the Bible never asserts that Adam and Eve’s children committed incest with each other, some creationists affirm it as surely as if they were there to witness it themselves. By doing this, they create a theological problem for themselves, because the Bible condemns incest: If a man

shall take his sister, his father’s daughter,

or his

mother’s daughter, and see her naked, and she sees him naked, it

is a wicked thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people.”

” On the Origin of the World, Nag Hammadi 2.115-116 '° Genesis 6:3 '! Genesis 6:9

2 Leviticus 20:17

If God said incest is "wickedness," then why would God create a situation where Adam and Eve’s kids had to commit incest with each other?

Did God force them to break His Law?

No, it makes much more

sense that Adam and Eve's children procreated with other humans outside the family — the cave-people. Yet one may object, why aren’t these cave-people explicitly mentioned in Genesis? Actually, they are, but they are called "animals." Indeed, they were still animals — mere primitives descended from apes. Genesis 2:18-22 tells us how God wanted Adam to have a partner, so He brought animals to Adam. But none of the animals suited him, so Eve was created to be his partner instead of the animals. Why is Eve compared to animals here? Was God contemplating the possibility of a marriage between Adam and a goat, or Adam and a cow — only to realize later that

a woman

was

more

fitting?

As with the incest issue, the

implicit mention of bestiality in Genesis causes a serious theological dilemma,

because

the Bible

says,

shall not have

"You

sex with an

animal."!? However, if we take the "animals" to be cave-people, then the theological dilemma disappears. The "animals" were primitive humans who had the nature of animals. God wanted Adam to marry one of these cave-women, whom the Bible calls "animals," but Adam refused to do so, hoping he could marry a god-like human like himself, who lived a long time. Adam was lucky. He got Eve. But Adam's son Seth

procreated with a cave-woman, and that is why his son did not look like him, and why he was named Enosh — "Mortal Man."

Early Christians Believed Humans Are a Type of Animal New archaeological discoveries have uncovered that many early Christians actually believed that we humans are just another kind of animal. Consider some of the quotes from ancient Christian texts found at Nag Hammadi:

You follow after stupidity, but it is not yourself which does this, but rather the animal instincts inside of you."

There were two trees in the Garden. and the other brought about humans.

One brought about animals Man (Adam) chose the tree

3 Leviticus 18:23 '4 The Teachings of Silvanus, Nag Hammadi 7:89 5

that brought about animals, fathered animals.'°

so he turned into an animal and

( : 16 You are flesh and have become like an animal.

If your flesh is born from sexual activity, then how are you different from a wild animal?"’ Don't associate with the animal nature. An irrational animal can be noticed in people when you see someone who thinks they are rational but their speech is like an animal.’® Jesus said, "Do not consider them human, but consider them animals. Just like animals kill and eat each other, there is a certain type of human that kills and eats other humans."””

Animal instincts will lead you to become a product of the earth. However, reason will lead you to more logical ways of living. Embrace reason, and pull yourself away from the instincts of Mother Earth.”° The Valentinians believed that there were three types of humans — spiritual, material, and animal.” The Savior came to those of the animal nature who have free will, in order to save them.”

This is why Jesus said, "the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak,"”* because the flesh evolved from weak-minded animals. This is also why we should listen to the Prophets, because the wisdom of God is superior to the philosophies of stupid apes.

'S The Gospel of Philip, Nag Hammadi 71 '© The Teachings of Silvanus, Nag Hammadi 7:93 '’ The Book of Thomas the Contender, Nag Hammadi 2:139 '8 The Teachings of Silvanus, Nag Hammadi 7:107

" °° “I *?

The Book of Thomas the Contender, Nag Hammadi 2:141 The Teachings of Silvanus, Nag Hammadi 7:94 Irenaeus. Against Heresies 1.7.5 Irenaeus. Against Heresies 1.6.1

3 Mark 14:38

Is Genesis a True Story? So far, we have largely ignored Genesis 1, which has traditionally been the major sticking point between creationism and evolution. Instead, we have concentrated

on Genesis 2 through 6 — the story of

Adam and Eve and their children. There contradicts evolutionary science in Genesis

is nothing that directly 2 through 6. If these

chapters stood alone, without Genesis 1, there would be no reason for an evolution-creation debate. It is Genesis 1 that contradicts evolutionary

science. Of course,

the fact that Genesis

2 through

6 can

be made

to

harmonize with evolutionary science does not necessarily prove that the narrative is a true story. Yet corroborating evidence for its truth does exist. According to a legend told by the Apache Indians, the animals asked the Creator for a companion, and so the Creator made a man from clay and red pigmented materials such as iron and ocher. Doesn’t this sound a lot like Genesis, where it says God made Adam out of dirt, and

animals came forward to be his companions?~*

The word "Adam" itself

means "red," and refers to the color of the dirt in the land of Edom, which is a reddish brown color on account of its iron-rich soil. Thus, both Genesis and the Apache Indians agree on something strikingly

unpredictable — the created man was made from dirt, and the dirt was the color of iron, for in the Apache myth the Creator mixed the dirt with iron. The Apache legend also says that the man needed another companion, so he fell asleep, and when he awoke, a young woman was beside him.”’ Such is the Apache Adam and Eve. This is not the only American Indian legend to correlate with Genesis. Cheyenne folklore has it that the god Haemmawihio created man from his right rib and woman from his left rib. Cherokee folklore speaks of the two sons of the first man and woman,

Kanati and Selus,

who lived in paradise, and of how one son was wild, and this brought about the temptation of the other son, causing the fall and the curse to work at hard labor all one's life. This hearkens back to the Genesis story of the Garden of Eden, Cain and Abel, and of how Yahweh cursed the

ground so that gathering food would be labor intensive.

4 Genesis 2:18, 2:7 5 Morris, Edward Opler. Myths and Tales of the Jicarilla Apache Indians. 1938, American Folklore Society, New York, NY, p 4-8; In Hyers, Conrad. The Meaning of Creation: Genesis and Modern Science.

p 128-129 7

1984, John Knox Press, Atlanta, GA,

These are so similar to the story told in Genesis chapters 2 through 4 that we must ask if they are derived from a common source. If they are, then we must also ask how two legends so geologically isolated from each other chanced upon this same information. Was it given to them in two separate divine revelations — one in America and one in the Middle East? Perhaps the story of Adam and Eve is more fact than fiction.

¢

2

°¢

Two Paradoxes

The Human Paradox Several data points affirm that the human species has been around for about 200,000 years. Along the Omo River in Ethiopia, two partial human skulls were unearthed which dated to around 196,000 years ago.”° Three partial human

skulls were

uncovered

at Herto, Ethiopia, which

dated to 160,000 years ago. This find was especially important because one of the skulls is nearly complete. Its distinctly human face has even been preserved.*’ Besides fossils, mitochondrial DNA indicates that we arose some 200,000 years ago in A frica.”* Interestingly, we had the same brain size back then as we do today. Yet, for the vast majority of the time our species has been alive, we have been living like animals. Civilization came late in the game, and only accounts for about 2.75% of the time Homo sapiens has existed as a species. The first civilization on earth was ancient Sumer in modern day southern Iraq. Its emergence was sudden and unprecedented. Sumerian civilization seems to have been born overnight. Pottery, the wheel, division of labor, organized religion, government, warfare, manufacture

of tools, written language, agriculture, city building, fortification — all the critical elements of human civilization were innovated within the fourth millennium BCE. This happened along the Euphrates River. Interestingly, Genesis specifically states that the Garden of Eden was by the Euphrates River.” Prior to Sumerian civilization, humans had been hunter-gatherers for 200,000 years. They traveled in small family clans. They had no written language. They had primitive tools. They had no kings, no a McDougall, lan; Brown, Frank; Fleagle, John. Stratigraphic Placement and Age

of Modern Humans from Kibish, Ethiopia. 2005, Nature 433, p 733-736 2” stringer, Chris. Human Evolution: Out of Ethiopia. 2003, Nature 423, p 692694 8 Cann, Rebecca L; Stoneking, Mark; Wilson, Allan C. Mitochondrial DNA and Human Evolution. 1987, Nature 325, p 31-36 2° Genesis 2:14

9

governments, and no organized religion. Nowhere on the entire earth did any humans generate anything like civilization. These were humans like We are not talking about Neanderthals. Neanderthals were a us. separate species, and DNA analysis demonstrates that they were not our ancestors.’ We are not talking about ape-people either. Ape-people, that is the genus Awstralopithecus, went extinct about 1.8 million years ago, long before we arrived. Neither are we discussing Homo erectus, whose name does not necessarily imply that primitive hominids practiced same-sex stimulation. We are strictly discussing humans, Homo sapiens, the same species we are today. For 200,000 years, humans like us lived like animals! They were just like us anatomically, and in terms of brain size. Then suddenly, for no apparent reason, we became civilized. Why, after 200,000 years of living like animals did we abruptly decide to start living like we do today? Why did civilization come about? Naturalistic evolutionists have an answer — the end of the most recent glacial period of the present ice ages. Earth has experienced ice ages for about three million years. Not all that time has been spent in cold temperatures. Rather, there have been about 20 cycles of cold snaps and warm spells.*' The cold snaps are called "glacial" periods. The warm spells are called "interglacial" periods. About ten thousand years ago, the last glacial period came to an end. Earth’s weather became much more pleasant. We entered into one of the interglacial cycles. Fertile earth began to emerge in places that had once been covered with ice and snow. People came out of their caves and discovered how to plant crops. Previously, during the glacial period, the growing seasons had been much shorter, which retarded the development of agriculture. But now, the warm summer months lasted long enough to grow and harvest food. Agricultural production became more attractive than hunting and gathering. Instead of freezing in a tent, people could build a house and live there indefinitely. Instead of battling wild animals with spears, people could raise domesticated livestock. Instead of climbing trees to

*° Jobling, Mark A; Hurles, Matthew E; Tyler-Smith, Chris. Human Evolutionary Genetics: Origins, Peoples & Disease.

2004, Garland Publishing, New York, NY,

p 260-261 2 Gould, Stephen Jay; Andrews, Peter; Barber, John; Benton, Michael; Marianne; Janis, Christine; Kish, Ely; Morishima, Akio; Sepkoski, J John Stringer, Christopher; Tibbles, Jean-Paul; Cox, Steve. The Book of Life: Illustrated History of the Evolution of Life on Earth. 2001, W W Norton New York, NY, p 208

10

Collins, Jr; An & Co,

pick bananas, people could reach down to dig up a potato. The agricultural life was much better. The new way of obtaining food demanded a new society. People could no longer live in small tribes. They needed to build cities and forts to defend their food stores from thieves. They needed people to administer the cities. Kings were inaugurated for this purpose. They needed priests to appease the gods so that bad weather did not destroy their crops. Certain aspects of religion were invented for this purpose. They needed some way to till the ground and harvest their crops. New tools were invented for that purpose. The end of the last glacial period of the ice ages made agriculture possible. Agriculture made civilization possible. Civilization made technology possible, and that is why we stopped living like animals. That's the naturalists' explanation. But is this explanation adequate? One problem with the view presented above is that the emergence of civilization really doesn’t correspond with the end of the last glacial period as they claim. Civilization first began about 3,500 BCE. But the last glacial period of the ice age had already ended some 4,500 years before in 8,000 BCE.

Since 8,000 BCE, the average temperature of the

earth has not varied any more than two degrees Celsius.” Temperatures have been enormously stable. The warm climate we have today is the same climate humans enjoyed in 8,000 BCE. Variations from the norm have been comparatively minimal. Did it really take humankind a full 4,500 years to realize that agricultural civilization was the wave of the future? And if so, if they only progressed toward civilization gradually over 4,500 years, then why did all major elements of civilization emerge so suddenly in 3,500 BCE? Another problem is that there have been other interglacial periods during humanity’s existence. About 125,000 years ago, an interglacial period started that was similar to the one we are currently living in. It afforded early humans about 10,000 years of warm weather like ours before the earth was battered by another cold snap.’ The humans who were living then had all the same opportunities that we did. They had the same mild climates we enjoy today. They basked in warm temperatures comparable to ours today. Most importantly, they were humans just like

32 Jouzel, J; Lorius, C; Petit, JR; Genthon, C; Barkov, N 1; Kotlyakov, V M; Petrov, V M. Vostok Ice Core: A Continuous Isotope Temperature Record Over the Last Climatic Cycle (160,000 years). 1987, Nature 329, p 403-408 33 EPICA Community Members. Eight Glacial Cycles from an Antarctic Ice Core. Jun 10, 2004, Nature 429, p 623-628

11

we are today, with the same anatomy, same brain size, and presumably the same intellectual capability. Why didn’t they create civilization? In just 5,500 years, civilization has brought us from jungle bunnies to computer geeks, from barbarians to cell phone junkies, from nomads to moon walkers.

125,000 years ago, humans had a 10,000 year window to

accomplish everything we accomplished in just 5,500 years. Why didn’t they? If civilization was caused by the end of an ice age, then why didn’t the last interglacial 125,000 years ago cause the formation of human civilization back then? Moreover, there was a third interglacial about 185,000 to 215,000 years ago, about the same time our species first arrived on the scene. So humanity has been on the earth long enough to enjoy three long periods of very agreeable weather, and yet civilization only managed to take root the third time around. If civilization was made possible by an interglacial warm spell, then why didn’t civilization emerge the other two times we enjoyed a respite from the ice ages? If the end of the most recent glacial period did not clear the way for civilization, what did? Is it possible that there was a change in our intelligence without a change in our biology? Is it possible we suddenly got smarter without a change in our brain size? And what might cause such a sudden change in intelligence? Besides our intelligence, there is something else about humankind that makes us unique. Above all other species, humans feel a need for justice, empathy, and love for others. For 540 million years, complex life forms have been killing and eating each other with no sense of remorse, and without concern for their ecological impact. Humans are the first to question the morality of such a system. So there are two sparks in the human mind that separate us from other animals — intelligence and a moral conscience. Yet neither can be satisfactorily explained by the naturalists, for our intelligence came about long after our brain reached its current size, and our moral conscience defies the brutality necessary to succeed as a species under the rules of survival of the fittest. So what caused us to gain intelligence and a moral conscience? Could it be - God? Did God impart intelligence and love upon us poor apes? For 200,000 years, we lived as animals. Then, civilization suddenly began about the same time Adam and Eve are said to have been created. Perhaps the injection of Adam and Eve's super-human Godcreated DNA into the gene pool of the cave-people is what made the difference. However, the idea of an Almighty Creator raises a host of difficult questions. ue

The God Paradox According to traditional theology, the Almighty Creator God sees

everything, knows everything, created everything, and can do anything.

This God is the God who created earthquakes and tornadoes, hurricanes

and wildfires, sharks and mosquitoes, black widows and rattlesnakes, and

lions and tigers and bears, who rip out the necks of other animals and eat them alive. And this God desires a better world, as the Prophet says: The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall rest with the young goat, and the calf and the lion and fatted livestock together, and a child shall lead them. The cow and the bear shall graze together... the lion shall eat straw like a cow,

toddlers will play in snakes' dens... they shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain.” If God wanted non-violent animals, then why didn't he just create them non-violent to begin with? Theologians have a ready answer: God did create them non-violent, but the devil was thrown to earth, and therefore

it is the devil who turned the animals to violence. God wants us to see the consequences of the devil's rebellion, so that we can learn a lesson from it. That way, when God reverts the world to non-violence in the future, we humans, the crown of his creation, can better appreciate his creation. This explanation is arguably plausible within the creationists’ time frame of 6,000 years. However, it falls apart if the earth is much older. Animals have been ripping each other's necks out and eating each other for 540 million years. What was God's purpose in allowing this to continue for so long? Certainly it was not to teach us a lesson about the devil's rebellion, for we did not even exist back then. Was the lesson meant for trilobites and dimwitted reptiles? Moreover, the universe is even older — standing at 13.7 billion years. If the human species is the crown of creation, the only organism "made in the image of God," as Genesis | says, then why did it take God 13.7 billion years to create us? What could delay God for 13.7 billion years? Was it really necessary to create failed experiments like dinosaurs and dodo birds before us? Was it really necessary to waste 3 billion years creating different types of bacteria and sea scum before creating the first

34 Isaiah 11:6-9 35 Genesis 1:27

13

true plant or animal?

Once the Almighty Creator God is separated from

the creationist time frame of a 6,000 year-old earth, it leaves that God in

a theological no-mans' land, because there is little cover from the many arguments that can be launched against that God's very existence. Also, if we are in the image of God, then why do our bodies have the marks of evolution on them? We have a worthless organ called an appendix, which is good for nothing but exploding and killing us. We have a large amount of DNA that is repressed and doesn't even code for anything. It just takes up space and nutrients inside our cells. Why would the Almighty Creator God include irrelevant DNA in his code for life? Moreover, if we are the crown of God's creation, and if he created

color and beauty for our enjoyment, then why can't we see colors in their full glory? We are more dependent upon our eyes than upon any other sensory organ, yet the color capacity of our eyes is inferior to that of goldfish and chickens! Far from being highly evolved, our color vision is no better than that of the most primitive of living reptiles, the crocodiles! We have only three cones for color, but many inglamorous species have more. These include flies, jumping spiders, and a certain shrimp-like praying mantis that lives at the bottom of the ocean.*° If we are to assume a divine hand was involved in the making of our evolutionary history, it would have to be more along the lines of Intelligent Interference than Intelligent Design, for God did not perfectly create us, nor did God perfectly morph us from the lower apes. The human body was not designed by an all-knowing God. Rather, it came about haphazardly and imperfectly.

°° Kelber, Almut; Vorobyev, Misha; Osorio, Daniel. Animal Color Vision — Behavioral Tests and Physiological Concepts. 2003, Cambridge Philosophical Society, Biological Reviews, Vol 78, Issue 1, p 83-85

14

+

3

¢

Mutation Magic

Natural Selection Versus Mutation

Evolution is part theory and part proven fact. The reality of natural selection, also called "survival of the fittest," is proven fact. Survival of the fittest happens. We can observe it. When ecosystems change, the

adaptable individuals live. The non-adaptable individuals die. Natural selection happens to bacteria when they become immune to penicillin. Natural selection happens to fruit flies in the laboratory. And for Charles Darwin, natural selection was the primary vehicle by which evolutionary change is accomplished. However, natural selection cannot be the only vehicle for evolutionary change. That’s because natural selection only dwindles genetic variety. It only destroys genetic information. It cannot create any new genetic information. As Kirschner and Gerhart point out, There are some limits on what selection can accomplish. We must remember that it merely acts as a sieve, preserving some .

.

F

A

Sindy

variants and rejecting others; it does not create variation.

37

For example, if a gray moth lands on a soot covered wall in polluted 19" century London, it will be more likely to survive if it becomes darker in color, such that it can be camouflaged against the dark soot. Hence, over time, natural selection reduces its light colored genes, until that moth species becomes very dark. However, if 150 years later, the British learn a lesson from the French, and switch from coal to nuclear power, then

the buildings will become lighter in color, and the dark moths will have to become lighter in color again to blend in with their surroundings. Yet, unfortunately for the moths, they lost all their light color genes during the previous round of natural selection, so they can only be dark now. So

37 Kirschner, Mark W; Gerhart, John C. The Plausibility of Life: Resolving Darwin's Dilemma. 2005, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, p 13 15

the dark moths perch on the light colored walls, where they become easy food for birds. The moths all get eaten and become extinct. Therefore, if natural selection were the only vehicle by which evolution occurs, then extinction would reduce the number of species over time. The amount of variation between living organisms would decrease, not increase.

Every time our environment

changed,

some

unique species would get killed off. Some unique gene would get obliterated. Natural selection destroys life. When it causes evolution, it only does so by annihilating genetic variety. Survival of the fittest does not create new life forms. It only destroys existing life forms. Yet earth history records that the exact opposite has happened to life. The amount of genetic variety and the number of species has increased over time, not decreased. If natural selection is the only cause of evolutionary change, then life would be decreasing in diversity. Yet because we can observe from the fossil record that life is generally increasing in diversity, not decreasing, therefore some other powerful phenomena besides natural selection must be occurring. Something is creating new diversity faster than natural selection can destroy it. Something is injecting new variation into the gene pool faster than survival of the fittest can whittle it down. Something is replenishing that which natural selection has destroyed. Because the diversity of life has increased over time, not decreased, we know that there must be some

force besides natural selection, which is even more powerful than natural selection, and this force creates new genetic variations faster than natural selection destroys genetic variations. This force is mutation. Genetic mutation is the creative force which is overpowering the destructive force of natural selection. Even while natural selection whittles away at the gene pool, genetic mutation adds more to it. Without mutation, natural selection would weed out genes until there was nothing more to weed out. We are fortunate to be mutants, because otherwise, we would go extinct. As Dawkins said,

Evolution by natural selection could not be faster than the mutation rate, for mutation is, ultimately, the only way in which new variation enters the species.**®

But just how fast is the mutation rate? Continuing with Dawkins:

*8 Dawkins, Richard. The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design. 1987, W W Norton & Company, New York NY,p 125

16

,

DNA replicates so accurately that it takes five million replication generations to miscopy one percent of the characters.*” Scientific studies agree that the mutation rate is painfully slow. One estimate gives the mutation rate as a range between one in 40,000 to one in 210,000 at any given locus.*” Another gives it by gene as 29-150 per million for fruit flies, 1.2-2.4 per million for corn, 8-30 per million for humans, and a staggering .07-5.61 per billion for E. coli bacteria.”! Another gives the mutation rate for eukaryotic DNA, which includes all plants and animals, as an order of magnitude in the tens of millions to billions.*7 Another estimate puts 1the occurrence of base substitution rates per locus at a handful per billion.** Not only is the mutation rate slow, but the vast majority of mutations are harmful, and do not directly result in an evolutionary advantage. Thus, the chance that any given locus or gene will become a successful mutant is extremely slim. Hence, evolution is believed to be possible only over millions of years. Given these probabilities, we should ask, is it possible that beneficial mutations could happen frequently enough to outpace the extinctions caused by natural selection? Or are beneficial mutations so infrequent that we need some other catalyst for changing DNA, in order to account for the diversity of life forms we observe in nature? Luckily for evolutionary theory, mutation has a knack for beating the odds.

DNA Base Mutations DNA is the blueprint for life. Think of DNA as an encyclopedia. Each volume of the encyclopedia is like a chromosome. Chromosomes exist as single structures, like a book, yet no single chromosome is complete without the other "books" in the DNA "encyclopedia." Each Just as each entry in an entry in the encyclopedia is like a gene.

° Dawkins, Richard. ibid, p 125 4° Smith, John Maynard. Evolutionary Genetics, 2" Edition. 1998, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, p eh 62 AVS S. Genetics 2" Ed. 2005, Alpha Science International Ltd. 41 sambamurty, Harrow, Middlesex, UK, p 482 42 Snustad, D Peter; Simmons, MichaelJ. Principles of Genetics, 4'"Ed. 2006, John Wiley & Sons Inc, Hoboken, NJ, p 345 ” Miglani, Gurbachan S. Advanced Genetics. 2002, Alpha Science International Ltd, Pangbourne, UK, p 547

17

encyclopedia contains information about a particular subject, so each gene contains information that codes for a particular function or protein. Each word in the encyclopedia is like a DNA codon. Each DNA codon is composed of only three DNA base pairs. DNA base pairs are analogous to the individual letters of the alphabet, except there are only four of them instead of 26.

These four are A, T, G, and C.

These

combine to form "words," which are always three "letters" long. For example, a "sentence" in the DNA "encyclopedia" might look like this: TAG CAT GAG TAT ACT Genetic mutation occurs when one of the "letters" is changed. Let's say the first codon in the example above, "TAG," undergoes a base pair substitution mutation, whereby the base pair "C" is substituted for the base pair "G." Now, instead of "TAG" it reads "TAC." Sometimes a substitution mutation like this causes the DNA "sentence" to change the amino acid it codes for. If it does, it is either a "missense mutation" or a "nonsense mutation." Missense mutations cause a change in the building materials of life. They are analogous to changes in the blueprint of a building. For analogy, you might get concrete in the kitchen sink instead of a garbage disposal, or duck tape to hold up the wall instead of nails. Usually, these mutations are "deleterious," that is, "harmful."

Nonsense mutations are changes in the "punctuation" of the DNA "sentence." They change the regulatory stop codons. It is analogous to deleting a period at the end of a sentence, such that a run-on sentence is created, whereby it keeps going, on and on and on, until it reaches a the next period, eventually, which is a long ways away, kind of like this sentence. The "period" at the end of a DNA "sentence" is actually a codon of three base pairs. When a base pair substitution zaps one of these "periods," which are called "stop codons," then a nonsense mutation

results.

Like

missense

mutations,

nonsense

mutations

are

deletions

and

virtually always harmful. Besides

base

substitutions,

there

are

also

base

additions. These result in "frameshift mutations." To illustrate a frameshift mutation, consider our example DNA string again: TAG CAT GAG TAT ACT Now suppose that the "A" in "TAG" is deleted. This causes all the base pairs to shift up, such that the DNA now reads: T!GC ATG AGT ATA CT The meaning of every subsequent codon has been changed, and this will continue on down the line in the DNA string. Frameshift mutations are extremely deleterious, because they compromise the integrity of an entire 18

string of DNA. However, DNA repair mechanisms often fix frameshift mutations by causing a compensating mutation to occur downstream from the original mutation. This gets the DNA back on track. For example, DNA repair might add another "T" after the third "T" in our example. This repair causes the DNA string to read: T!GC ATG AGT TAT ACT Notice that the last two codons, TAT and ACT, have been changed back to the original. Hence, these two codons, and every other codon downstream from them, are fixed. However, the first three codons, TAG CAT GAG, have been changed to TGC ATG AGT, and this change will

remain even after the compensating mutation. Thus, frameshift mutations can result in permanent mutations even after DNA repair mechanisms have acted to compensate for them.

Hide and Go Seek Evolutionists believe base mutations like these are the root of what causes genetic diversity and the evolution of new species. But these mutations happen very infrequently, and the vast majority of them are harmful, so can they really justify evolutionary theory? For example, sickle cell anemia results from a base mutation. Your chances of having it are extremely remote, but if you do have it, the effects are very detrimental. But sickle cell anemia is an extreme example. Many mutations are only slightly harmful. What really transforms mutation into posivive evolution is the ability of mutation to play hide and go seek. When cells divide, DNA copies itself so that each new cell has a copy. But sometimes, DNA copies itself by accident. The result is that you get two copies of the same string of DNA in a single cell, and the two copies continue together for millions of generations thereafter. Many generations later, if a mutation occurs, that mutation will only affect one of the two copies. Then there will be two different "alleles" for the same "gene." Thereafter, if an individual with a mutant copy breeds with someone who does not have a mutant copy, their resultant offspring has a 50% Mutant Parent chance of carrying the mutant copy. In the adjacent chart, "A" represents the non-mutant copy, and "a" is the mutant copy. The mutant parent has one original copy and one mutant copy of the DNA, so the offspring has a 50% Non-mutant chance of inheriting the mutant allele. 19

However, the non-mutant parent has only the original copy, and thus has a 100% chance of passing along the original allele to the offspring. Alleles account for a lot of the diversity we see in this world. For example, alleles decide whether you will have blue or brown eyes, detached or attached earlobes, and whether or not you can roll your tongue. Alleles are classified as "dominant" or "recessive." Dominant alleles get primacy when deciding what physical features will manifest. But if both copies are recessive, then the recessive allele will decide physical features. What is particularly relevant to evolutionary science is that mutant alleles are normally recessive!“ The implications of this are profound,’ for what it means is that even though mutations are usually harmful, they don't get a chance to express themselves very often. In our example, the allele that carries the harmful mutation, "a," skips the mutant's offspring entirely, because the offspring's non-mutant parent gives the offspring a 100% chance of having a dominant and functioning allele "A." Therefore, even though 50% of the offspring carry the mutant allele, none of them will be adversely affected by it. In the next generation, assuming they don't procreate with their siblings, only 25% of the mutant's grandchildren will carry the mutant allele, and again, none of them will be harmed by it. If the population size is large enough, and if incest does not occur, then the harmful mutation will be so diluted that it

will hardly ever surface. In this way, over vast aeons of time, a large number of mutations can accumulate in the gene pool of a species without harm, and without compromising the species' ability to survive. Occassionally, two carriers of the

recessive

"a"

allele

will

procreate

according to the adjacent chart. There is a 25% chance that their offspring will be "aa," meaning that they carry only the mutant allele. When this happens, the mutant allele will express itself, because there is no dominant allele present, and this will potentially cause severe harm to the offspring.

Carrier

Carrier

On the other hand, however, if the allele has accumulated favorable mutations since the original mutation, then it might just be beneficial. Why might the mutant allele become beneficial? The answer, it is

“4 Snustad, D Peter; Simmons, Michael J. Principles of Genetics, 4" Ed. 2006, John Wiley & Sons Inc, Hoboken, NJ, p 348

20

hypothesized, comes from a DNA reshuffling process made possible by strings of DNA called "transposable elements." Transposable elements are DNA segments that can move about, changing their sequential placement on a chromosome, and, as a result, sometimes radically alter stop and start codons, the recessiveness of alleles, and other meanings of

the DNA. Picture transposable elements as a deck of cards in a poker game. If you don't shuffle the deck, you will draw the same hand every time. If it's a loosing hand, you will always loose. But if you shuffle the deck, you might just wind up drawing a full house or a flush every once in a while. The movement of DNA as transposable elements on chromosomes is what shuffles the DNA deck. It's what makes a loosing It's what transforms the harmful deleterious hand into a winner. mutations into beneficial mutations. Given enough time, over millions of years, shuffling the DNA deck can produce zillions of winning hands. In this way, we might explain the diversity of life forms evolution has produced — in spite of the scarcity and deleterious nature of the originally occurring mutations. Moreover, it may not even be necessary for two carriers of the recessive allele to breed. A related hypothesis, which more plausibly explains evolutionary advancement by mutation, is that when the recessive mutant allele "a" accumulates subsequent mutations that enable it to produce a protein sequence that is not harmful, then that allele stops being recessive, and becomes a "wild-type" allele. Wild-type alleles compete with the dominant allele "A" to actively make protein in the body. When that happens, natural selection can begin acting upon the allele, selecting it, and tweaking the way it relates to the dominant allele, such that a new and different variety within the species is achieved.

Natura Non Facit Saltum Yet when a mutant allele becomes useful, it merely results in a new and different variety within the species. It is not a radical mutant of a new and different species. Only after many successful mutant alleles have accumulated in the gene pool can a species evolve into a truly new species. Thus, evolution by means of mutation is necessarily a very slow and gradual process. Charlie Darwin had a saying: Natura non facit saltum. It is Latin for "Nature does not make sudden leaps." It refers to the fact that evolution must necessarily happen gradually. After 150 years, the science of

genetics still supports Darwin's original opinion. According to Levinton,

Pas

As a general rule, major developmental mutants give a picture of hopeless monsters rather than hopeful change... developmental mutants are of minor portent in evolution. The side effects are too drastic.”

Most mutations are of relatively small effect and larger-scale mutations, though known to occur, usually reduce fitness. Therefore, smaller-scale mutations probably are more important in evolution.*° Natura non facit saltum. Even if mutant ninja turtles were to rise up from the sewers, the harmful effects of such large-scale mutations are too drastic to account for the emergence of new species. Even if there were such mutants, which became new species from a single mutation, who would they mate with? How would they continue the new species? Unless two individuals, living in close proximity, underwent the exact same mutation with the same consequences, there is simply no way macro-mutations could explain evolutionary progress, because the macro-mutant would have no one to mate with. Also, if such mutants do

occur, where are they today? We don't see mass mutants popping up and becoming highly successful new species in today's world. Why would they have done so millions of years ago? We don't observe new species spontaneously mutating from what came before in nature. However, if we had been alive 530 million years ago, we would have seen them.

* Levinton, Jeffrey S. Genetics, Paleontology, and Macroevolution. 2001 Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, p 210-211

“° Levinton, Jeffrey S. ibid, p 505 22

,

¢

4

¢

Bursts of Evolution

The Cambrian Explosion Earth was born 4.6 billion years ago. Life on earth was born about a billion years later — sometime between 3.85 and 3.5 billion years ago. For the next three billion years, life on earth was comprised of simple microscopic critters. Complex life emerged toward the end of the story — after 88.5% of earth's history had already passed. But once it got here, complex life wasted no time diversifying into an impressive array of different forms. During a comparatively short period of time called the Cambrian Explosion, which occurred about 530 million years ago, life underwent complex increase a dramatic in _ evolutionary diversification that has never been equaled before or since. As Wicander and Monroe put it, The basic body plans for all animals were apparently established by the end of the Cambrian Explosion, and only minor modifications have occurred since then.*”

Carroll states that all the major body plans (phyla) came into existence within 5 million years, from 530 to 525 million years ago, and that,

There is no evidence for the gradual evolution of the major features by which the individual phyla or classes are characterized.** Gould expounds,

47 Wicander, Reed; Monroe, James S. Historical Geology: Evolution of Earth

and Life Through Time, 4'" Ed. 2004, Brooks/Cole — Thomson Learning, Belmont, CA, p 218 48 Carroll, Robert L. Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, p 3, 344 23

1997,

Even our strongest opponents admit that in less than twenty million years, from the inception of the Cambrian Explosion to the deposition of the Burgess Shale, marine invertebrate life reached a fully modern range — and that more than 500 million years of subsequent evolution has not at all enlarged the scope of basic anatomical variety.” Schulze-Makuch and Irwin add,

Most of the extant higher order taxa of plants and animals were fixed at that (Cambrian) time and have remained essentially unchanged to the present.”°

The Cambrian Explosion records the first truly diverse ecological system in the history of the planet. Among the life forms present were the first mollusks, including gastropods and bivalves; and also the brachiopods with their shells; the arthropods with their segmented bodies and hard exoskeletons, including the trilobites; the trilobites' cousins, the chelicerates, which had the basic framework of their descendents the

scorpions and spiders, complete with antennae, long stinger tails, and legs near their mouth; and their cousins, the crustaceans, some of which looked similar to crabs and lobsters even back then; the echinoderms, which were the ancestors of the starfish; the cnidarians, which were

primitive precursors to jelly fish and corals; sponges; comb jellies; sea anemones;

sea

cucumbers;

velvet

worms;

carnivorous

worms;

and

segmented worms. All of these extremely diverse body plans were present during the Cambrian Explosion. The Cambrian Explosion also saw the first species of the phylum chordata, which gave rise to that most illustrious critter known as Homo sapiens. One such distant relative of ours, Haikouella, had a rather large brain, which has caused some to suppose that intelligent life is common in the universe and may arise more quickly in the natural course of evolution than previously thought.’ These animals had most of the guts

” Gould, in Morris, Simon Conway; Gould, Stephen Jay. Showdown on the Burgess Shale. 1998, Natural History Magazine, 107 (10), p 48-55. °° Schulze-Makuch, Dirk; Irwin, Louis N. Life in the Universe: Expectations and Constraints. 2004, Springer-Verlag, Berlin & Heidelberg, Germany, p 36

°' Heeren, Fredric J. Was the First Craniate on the Road to Cognition? A Modern Craniate's Perspective. 141

2003, Evolution and Cognition, Vol 9, No 2, p

24

modern chordates now have, including a heart, arteries, gills, a spinal chord, large muscles, and teeth.” The ancestors to these chordates were the annelid worms. Yet

annelid worms first appear in the Cambrian too, thus compounding the

amount of evolution which must have occurred in the Cambrian. Moreover, the genealogy breaks off at the annelids, with no ancestor in the fossil record known before it. Dzik writes,

There is no evidence for the presence of annelids in the Precambrian and recent findings of extraordinarily preserved segmented Ediacaran (Precambrian) metazoans show that their anatomy is different from annelids.™* This means

there were

two quick jumps;

one from some

unknown

ancestor to annelids, and another from annelids to chordates — back to

back quantum leaps in a short period of time. There were even more body plans which quickly went extinct. Often called evolutionary "experiments," these strange creatures don't even have any known relatives — no parent species, no descendant species, and nothing similar in the fossil record. At least 20 such "dead end" phyla

emerged in the Cambrian only to quickly suffer extinction.” The Cambrian Explosion was the most remarkable event in the history of life, because so many completely different creatures evolved so quickly, without evidence for gradual change over long periods of time. The Cambrian Explosion flies in the face of Natura non facit saltum. The sudden emergence of so many entirely different body plans defies the expectation that evolution should happen gradually. Some believe that the Cambrian was too short a time to account for the amount of evolution in the fossil record, and so they look for a way to rationalize how complex life could have been evolving before the Cambrian. >? Chen, Jun-Yuan; Huang, Di-Ying; Li, Chia-Wei. An Early Cambrian Craniatelike Chordate. 1999, Nature 402, p 518 %3 Dzik, Jerzy. Anatomy and Relationships of the Early Cambrian Worm Myoscolex. 2004, The Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters, Zoologica Scripta 33, p 57-69 4 Gould, Stephen Jay; Andrews, Peter; Barber, John; Benton, Michael; Collins, Marianne; Janis, Christine; Kish, Ely; Morishima, Akio; Sepkoski, J John Jr; Stringer, Christopher; Tibbles, Jean-Paul; Cox, Steve. The Book of Life: An

Illustrated History of the Evolution of Life on Earth. 2001, W W Norton & Co, New York, NY, p 54

25

However, the fossil evidence for ancestors of Cambrian forms is weak,

so they imagine that small soft bodied forms were evolving before the Cambrian, before hard exoskeletons and shells were prevalent. Because the fossil record preserves hard parts better than soft body tissue, they say that the fossil record before the Cambrian is simply incomplete. However, even though soft body tissue is rare, it is occasionally preserved, and the fossil record for soft body tissue indicates that there was an increase in the diversity of soft body tissue as well as in hard body tissue during the Cambrian. Many more burrows of soft bodied animals are found in the Cambrian than in previous time frames.”

The Molecular Clock and the Cambrian Explosion The molecular clock is a way to estimate how many millions of years ago two or more lineages diverged. It does this by measuring differences between two or more species' DNA. It is often calibrated to data points in the fossil record, and assumes that mutation rates are predictable and/or relatively constant. If mutation rates were higher during certain times in earth's history, then the molecular clock will record a greater degree of difference between the DNA of the two lineages, and will therefore overstate the age of their most recent common ancestor. This is exactly what happens. Across a very large number of lineages, the molecular clock tells us that lineages diverged much earlier than the fossil record allows. That is, the estimated time of divergence as predicted by DNA comparative differences is significantly earlier than the age of the first fossils that confirm the divergence. According to the fossils, the Cambrian Explosion was completed, start to finish, in about 10 million years or less. But the molecular data indicates that the divergences between Cambrian lineages must have taken place at least 100 million years beforehand, if not more; otherwise, there would not have been enough time for genetic mutation to accomplish such a great amount of diversity.°° There are only two

*° Gould, Stephen Jay; Andrews, Peter; Barber, John; Benton, Michael; Collins, Marianne; Janis, Christine; Kish, Ely; Morishima, Akio; Sepkoski, J John Jr; Stringer, Christopher; Tibbles, Jean-Paul; Cox, Steve. The Book ofLife: An

Illustrated History of the Evolution of Life on Earth. 2001, W W Norton & Co, New York, NY, p 52-53

°° Levinton, Jeffrey; Dubb, Lindsey; Wray, Gregory A. Simulations of Evolutionary Radiations and Their Application to Understanding the Probability of a Cambrian Explosion. 2004, Journal of Paleontology 78(1), p 31-38 26

possibilities to explain this: Either the mutation rate increased about tenfold during the Cambrian Explosion, or there was no Cambrian Explosion. Levinton et al indicated this as follows: The divergence in animal phyla was neither Cambrian nor explosive... The only obvious way to escape these conclusions is to argue that the rate of molecular evolution was greater during the Cambrian Explosion than in subsequent times.*’ What could cause such a sudden increase in molecular evolution? Levinton et al suggested that the ancestors of the Cambrian biota were so small that we don't see them in the fossil record. Yet they also acknowledged that this is problematic in light of the fact that the most recent common

ancestor of protostomes

and deuterostomes

must have

had a circulatory system, which is the prerequisite for large size.°* Thus, the lack of large-sized Cambrian-like animals before the Cambrian confirms the reality of the Cambrian Explosion. Apparent increases in the rate of mutation are not confined only to the Cambrian Explosion. The phenomenon remains a fixture across many ages and many lineages. Molecular evidence suggests that modern birds first diversified 90 million years ago; however, the fossil evidence

cannot support their diversification until about 30 million years later. Moreover, even genetic studies of the molecular data itself indicate that the divergences were not staggered or gradual, but rather were explosive, as Poe and Chubb concluded, "Neoaves (i.e. — modern birds) differentiated so rapidly that the radiation might be considered essentially simultaneous.””” Likewise, molecular data places the most recent common ancestor of rodents and primates at 110 million years ago, but neither order emerged with their distinct features until 55 million years ago, just half the time predicted.”

>7 Levinton; et al. ibid. p 31, 34 8 Levinton; et al. ibid. p 37 °® Boe, Steven; Chubb, Alison L. Birds in a Bush: Five Genes Indicate Explosive Evolution of Avian Orders. 2004, Evolution 58(2), p 404-415 Van Tuinen, Marcel; Hedges, S Blair. The Effect of External and Internal Fossil Calibrations on the Avian Evolutionary Timescale. 2004, Journal of Paleontology 78(1), p 45-50 27

In a third example, molecular evidence suggests snakes arose 125 million years ago,”’ but the fossil record does not produce indisputable snakes until 20 million years later.” The same kind of phenomena has been observed when the molecular clock for flowering plants in calculated. Numerous specimens of flowering plants appear as a well-represented lineage in the fossil record starting 132 million years ago, and become diversified by 125 million years ago. However, molecular evidence based on strict constancy in the mutation rate indicates that they should have appeared much earlier — perhaps back as much as 450 million years ago. From the perspective of the fossil record, this is absurd, because plants did not even exist 450 million years ago. Yet that is what the DNA evidence tells us. Even when the fossil record is used to calibrate molecular clocks, the results

still indicate a date for the first flowering plants which is much older than the fossil record can substantiate. More than a few molecular studies have been done, all but one yielding a range of dates for the first flowering plants which predate their earliest fossils. Often, the date suggested by molecular data predates the earliest fossils by dozens and in some cases even hundreds of millions of years.” ™ Such large gaps between the molecular data and the fossil evidence suggest that accelerations in the mutation rate occur near the base of lineages. What could cause an acceleration in the mutation rate of plants? There was no great ecological calamity 132 million years ago that could explain a change in the mutation rate. The climate during this time was stable and hospitably warm. We lack a natural explanation. Brochu et al summarized the various deficiencies in the molecular clock, saying,

*' Wiens, John J; Brandley; Matthew C, Reeder, Tod W. Why Does a Trait Evolve Multiple Times within a Clade? Repeated Evolution of Snakelike Body Form in Squamate Reptiles. 2006, Evolution 60(1), p 135-136

** Rage, J C; Escuillie, F. The Cenomanian: Stage of Hindlimbed Snakes. 2003, Camets de Geologie, Maintenon, Article 2003/01 (CG2003_A01_JCR-FE), p 1-11

°° Bell, Charles D; Soltis, Douglas E; Soltis, Pamela S. The Age of the Angiosperms: A Molecular Timescale without a Clock. 2005, Evolution 59(6), p 1245-1258 % Magallon, Susana A; Sanderson, Michael J. Angiosperm Divergence Times: The Effect of Genes, Codon Positions, and Time Constraints.

59(8), p 1653-1670 28

2005, Evolution

The

more

we

look

at fossils, molecules,

or algorithms,

the

stronger the disparity seems to grow... (Either) we assume.. imperfections in the fossil record... Or, we assume that the fossil record closely approximates the origination times of these orders and that the molecular clocks are being misled by mysterious simultaneous speedups of evolutionary rate (emphasis added).°°

The only rational basis on which to deny that these magical mystery "speedups of evolutionary rate" have happened is to deny the accuracy of the fossil record. Hox Genes and the Cambrian Explosion Shortly before the Cambrian, the first arguably genuine members of the phylum cnidaria appeared. These were the likely ancestors of corals and jellyfish. Genetically, the cnidarians have only two hox genes, and at that time, the cnidarians were the most complex life form on the planet. By the end of the Cambrian, the number of hox génes in the most complex life forms had apparently increased somewhere in the vicinity of about twenty-fold.°° Hox genes code for variable proteins, and are responsible for the diversity we observe across the various life forms. The magnitude of this rapid and exponential multiplication of hox genes during the Cambrian has no parallel in evolutionary history. The genetic history of the Cambrian can be reconstructed as follows: A lineage diverged from the cnidarians, called the bilaterians, which became the common ancestor of all clams, worms, insects, reptiles, humans, and virtually every other animal that comes to mind except sponges. This primordial common ancestor of most every animal had 7 hox genes.°’ Thereafter, the bilaterians diverged into protostomes and deuterostomes — the former brachiopods, worms, mollusks,

including all insects, crustaceans, etc; and the latter including starfish,

humans, birds, reptiles, fish, etc. These quickly diversified, adding as many as 7 more hox genes, depending on the lineage. °° The common

6 Brochu, Christopher A; Sumrall, Colin D; Theodor, Jessica M. When Clocks (and Communities) Collide: Estimating Divergence Time from Molecules and the Fossil Record. 2004, Journal of Paleontology 78(1), p 1, 4 6 Carroll, Sean B; Grenier, Jennifer K; Weatherbee, Scott D. From ae to Diversity: Molecular Genetics and the Evolution of Animal Design, 2" Ed. 2005,

Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA, p 114-120

67 Carroll, Sean B et al. ibid, p 116 68 Carroll, Sean B et al. ibid, p 116

29

ancestor of the vertebrates then underwent a four-fold duplication, forming four hox complexes, each complex having multiple genes. This must have happened extremely early in vertebrate history, for even the jawless lampreys participated in this event — indicating it happened even before jaws evolved. Today, all tetrapods, including all amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals, have 39 hox genes spread across these four hox complexes” — which indicates that this must have occurred prior to their divergence about 360 million years ago. Since then, the only large scale duplication of hox complexes to occur has been that of the teleost

fish.””

The implications are stunning. Prior to the Cambrian, we have no clear fossil record confirming the divergence of the bilaterians from the cnidarians. This means that the greatest number of hox genes any life form had achieved was still just two, since the cnidarians have just two. Moreover, the emergence of the vertebrates occurred in the Cambrian,

and the vertebrates had an exponentially larger number of hox genes. Hence, it appears likely that the number of hox genes in the most advanced life forms jumped from 2 to approximately 39 or so during the Cambrian or shortly thereafter — a remarkable increase in the number of hox genes for such a short period of time. What is more, in over 360 million years since the first fish climbed out on land and grew legs, the number of hox genes in the tetrapods has remained constant at 39 — for all frogs, lizards, birds, and humans.

To be sure, within each gene, a

tremendous amount of evolution has occurred since then. Yet the number of hox genes has not changed for tetrapods since the mid Paleozoic. Why did the number of hox genes increase so dramatically in the early Paleozoic? And why, with the exception of the teleost fish, have they remained stable since then? What prompted such a sudden blossom of life in the Cambrian? Why did so much evolutionary change, diversification, and progress take place in such a short time? The Cambrian Explosion, both in terms of fossil evidence and in terms of genetic evidence, remains the most confounding enigma in all evolutionary science.

The Carnian Explosion If the Cambrian Explosion was the greatest blossoming of new life forms the world has ever seen, then the Triassic would be the second

° Carroll, Sean B et al. ibid, p 117, 120 ” Carroll, Sean B et al. ibid, p 117, 120 30

greatest such explosion.

Ward states that the "Triassic Explosion," saw,

"the largest number of new body plans seen since the Cambrian."”! The

height of the Triassic explosion was the Carnian age. Lasting from 228 to 216.5 million years ago, the Carnian saw more new body plans emerge among the vertebrates than in any other age. Not only did the dinosaurs first emerge during this time, so did many other new forms. The first lizards were found in the Tiki Formation of the Carnian.” The first pterosaurs, that is, the flying reptiles who dominated the skies during the time of the dinosaurs, also most likely evolved around the CarnianNorian boundary. We might also possibly add turtles to this list, as the first turtle might be as old as 220 million years, which would make it Carnian in age.” The earliest true mammals also made their debut in the Carnian. The mammal Tikitherium accomplished the evolution of the mammalian molar tooth during this time. According to Datta, Tikitherium's molar tooth "stands apart as a distinctly different entity" from those of seemingly related species, and is "the earliest mammalian representative possessing this advanced dental specialization."”"* Other more primitive mammal teeth from the Carnian fill a morphological gap or "missing link" between the cynodont reptiles and the true mammals,” indicating that the Carnian is the dividing line between true mammals and the mammal-like reptiles from which they evolved. The split between mammal and reptile had been a long time in coming. From the early synapsids and pelycosaurs to the later therapsids and cynodonts, the evolution of reptiles into mammals is one of the more gradually evolving lineages the fossil record can provide. The dinosaurs also have a traceable lineage to more primitive reptiles called archosaurs. Hence, we know they evolved. They did not spontaneously emerge; rather, the

1 Ward, Peter D. Out of Thin Air: Dinosaurs, Birds, and Earth's Ancient Atmosphere. 2006, Joseph Henry Press, Washington, DC, p 159 ? Datta, P M; Ray, Sanghamitra. Earliest Lizard from the Late Triassic (Carnian) of India. 2006, Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 26(4), p 795-800 ee Gaffney, Eugene S. The Comparative Osteology of the Triassic Turtle Proganochelys. 1990, Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 194.

™ Datta, P M. Earliest Mammal with Transversely Expanded Upper Molar from the Late Triassic (Carnian) Tiki Formation, South Rewa Gondwana Basin, India. 2005, Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 25(1), p 200-207 ® Lucas, Spencer G; Heckert, Andrew B; Harris, Jerald D; Seegis, Dieter; Wild, Rupert. Mammal-like Tooth from the Upper Triassic of Germany. 2001, Journal

of Vertebrate Paleontology 21(2), p 397-399 31

Carnian saw an acceleration in the amount of evolution across many types of vertebrates. Both the mammals and the dinosaurs each accomplished something unique in the Carnian — something that would propel them to become the dominant forms of life on the planet from then on. In the mammals' case, it was the innovation of the molar tooth, which gives mammals an advantage in chewing grass and herbs. In dinosaurs, it was the innovation of erect posture made possible by direct support of the body by the legs, which permitted them to run faster and grow larger than any animal before them. There was nothing environmentally spectacular about the Carnian period that could have catalyzed this burst of evolution. There was no radical change in climate nor was there a mass extinction event. There was no apparent reason for why animals may have been forced to adapt and thereby become such new and different forms. The Carnian landscape was determined by the supercontinent Pangaea, which was all continents joined together in one giant land mass. Pangaea in the Carnian was the same hot and dry desert of a supercontinent it had been for tens of millions of years before. There was no great geographic or climate change in the Carnian that could have caused such a large number of new forms to evolve then more than at other times.

The Eocene Explosion The dinosaurs became extinct 65.5 million years ago, clearing the way for the age of mammals. But for the first 10 or 12 million years after the dinosaurs were gone, mammals did precious little with the opportunity. Most of them remained small and non-diverse. Moreover, the same marsupials and multituberculates which had lived under the feet of the dinosaurs before the extinction came back to rule the planet after the dinosaurs were gone. Mammals did not change that much after the dinosaurs were gone. Wolves and wildcats were still a long time in the future. Instead, the biggest carnivores of those times were silly looking ostrich-type flightless birds that looked more like Sesame Street's Big Bird than any real carnivore. In essence, the birds were awkwardly evolving back toward being dinosaurs to fill the niche left empty by the dinosaurs. But for the 10 million years or so during which flightless birds were evolving back toward dinosaurs, they never got much beyond the appearance of a gorilla-sized turkey. One would think that if ever in the history of the planet there was an opportunity for a lineage to undergo a massive degree of adaption and speciation, it would have been the opportunity afforded the mammals 32

and birds immediately after the dinosaurs went extinct, because the competition was eliminated. But such was not the case. The major breakthrough for mammals did not come with the death of the dinosaurs. Rather, it came about 10 million years later. About 55 million years ago, "there was an explosion in mammalian variety.". The distinct lineages of monkey-like primates, elephants, rodents, fullfledged bats, whales, horses, and the primitive ancestors of cattle and

pigs all made their debut at that time.” Why did all these important lineages suddenly evolve their unique traits 55 million years ago? According to molecular data, which estimates divergence times based on calibration to the amount of divergence in the fossil record, they should have diverged much earlier, toward the middle of the time of the dinosaurs. Yet the fossil record marks their sudden origins about 10 million years after the dinosaurs became extinct. This discrepancy between molecular data and the fossil record could be explained if there was a 100-fold increase in DNA mutations that lasted over a period of 500,000 years.’’ What could cause such a drastic increase in mutations?

Whatever the cause, one fact is

undeniable — the diversification of the mammals in the early Eocene is separated in time from the extinction of the dinosaurs by a substantial space of at least 10 million years, and therefore the greatest diversification of the mammals was not a direct result of the dinosaurs becoming extinct. Rather, there was another unseen force at play which seems to have dramatically increased mutation rates for a relatively short period of time, about 55 million years ago. The heart of the question is, what accelerates the mutation rate?

7 Haines, Tim; Chambers, Paul. The Complete Guide to Prehistoric Life. 2006, Firefly Books, Buffalo, NY, p 146 77 Hebert, Paul D N; Remigio, Elpidio A; Colbourne, John K; Taylor, Derek J; Wilson, Christopher C. Accelerated Molecular Evolution in Halophilic Crustaceans. 2002, Evolution 56(5), p 920 33

+

5

6

Patterns in Evolution

Retention of Inefficiency Evolution happens gradually. We can know this because it takes evolution a long time to delete inefficiencies from species that are less than perfectly adapted to their environments. Two examples from the fossil record are whales and horses. These two examples provide powerful testimonies on behalf of Darwin's opinion that evolution happens gradually. The primitive whale Basilosaurus retained small hind legs even 10 million years after its ancestors had crawled from land into the sea. Basilosaurus did not use and did not need these legs, yet still had them. The ancestors of the whales were probably the mesonychids — fourlegged land-dwelling carnivorous mammals. There are several genera of mesonychids that lived in North America and in Asia around the same time,’* such as the 62 million year old Ankalagon from New Mexico. About 48 million years ago, we find two species that represent intermediaries between the mesonychids and the whales - namely Pakicetus and Ambulocetus. Although they had adopted some aquatic traits, they were still partially terrestrial, walking on four feet, and had not yet achieved the body of a whale. 10 million years later, the primitive whale Basilosaurus still retained small hind limbs, but was otherwise a purely aquatic whale. Thus, whales provide a good example of how evolution happened gradually over millions of years. Another example is the horse. Primitive horses from 50 million years ago had four toes on the front foot and three on the back. They gradually lost all but one enlarged toe on each foot. Second, horse teeth have gradually improved over time. At first, their teeth were low crowned and ill-adapted for tough grasses, but today, their teeth are high crowned and well adapted for grass. Third, the earliest horses were extremely small, no bigger than a mid-sized dog, which made them easy

’’ McKenna, Malcolm C; Bell, Susan K. Classification of Mammals Above the Species Level. 1997, Columbia University Press, New York, NY, p 366-367

34

prey. Only over tens of millions of years did they become large enough to deter most predators. Unlike the Cambrian Explosion, horse evolution was a long time in coming. It took horses tens of millions of years to overcome key inefficiencies in their feet, teeth, and size.

Even after 50 million years,

their face and body shape still look very similar to the way they did back then. From a broad perspective, horse evolution can be considered as happening gradually. Yet at finer resolution, Gould asserted that each species is actually "well marked and static over millions of years," contradicting the "myth about horse species as gradualistically-varying Thus, in Gould's view, horse evolution parts of a continuum."” happened as a procession of steps, which in the big picture gradually ascended; yet each step by itself was not gradual, but a leap. The transformation from fish fins to feet is thought so difficult to achieve that it only happened once.*’ Estimates for the time it took to complete the transition, start to finish, are limited to 15 million years or

less. This is because 15 million years is the distance from the earliest Frasnian to the latest Famennian, i.e. — from 378-363 million years ago. Rich fossil beds display abundant flesh-finned fish such as Eusthenopteron and Panderichthys in the earliest Frasnian, but no legged-animals; yet 15 million years later in the late Famennian, fully developed legged-animals are abundant. Leading tetrapod expert Clack estimated that the transition happened in less than 5-10 million years, because footprints and trace fossils of legged animals Obruchevichthys and Elginerpeton appear in the late Frasnian, 5 million years before the well-defined forms Acanthostega and Ichthyostega become plentiful.” Others see a slightly longer transition, from 9 million years” to 12-15

™ Prothero, D R; Shubin, N. The Evolution of Oligocene Horses. \n Prothero, D R; Schoch, R M. The Evolution of Perissodactyls. 1989, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, p 142-175

8° |ee, Michael S Y; Caldwell, Michael W. Adriosaurus and the Affinities of Mosasaurs, Dolichosaurs, and Snakes. 2000, Journal of Paleontology 74(5), p 926

8! Clack, Jennifer A. Gaining Ground: The Origin and Evolution of Tetrapods. 2002, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN, p 91-96 82 Carroll, Sean B; Grenier, Jennifer K; Weatherbee, Scott D. From DNA to Diversity: Molecular Genetics and the Evolution of Animal Design, 2" Ed. 2005, Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA, p 186

35

million years.** Hence, by all estimates, fish with fins transformed into land-walking creatures with well-defined and fully functional legs in 5 to 15 million years or less. The possibility that it happened in an even shorter time is still open, as a flood of freshly discovered fossil tetrapods are still turning up. The first important transformation from fins to feet is noticed in Panderichthys, the most primitive fossil form to adapt its arm bone into an immobile platform to support the body.™ This 5 to 15 million years is a short period of time when compared to the amount of time it took for natural selection to perfect legs. From the first appearance of legs in the fossil record, until the time legs evolved into efficient running machines, is about 135 million years. The first animals with legs were extremely slow and cumbersome on land. This was because legs were not positioned directly under the weight of the body, but were flanged out to the sides. Thus, the earliest four-legged animals could only waddle. Also, legs were rather short for a long period of time, failing to lift the head much above the ground. If a species could have evolved the ability to grow long legs, it would have proven a distinct advantage, for long legs would have enabled that species to eat herbs forbidden to animals of a lower height. As it was, legged-vertebrates did not even evolve the ability to eat plants at all until the latter Carboniferous. One would think, since they grew legs in less than 15 million years, they should have evolved a digestive system to cope with plants in less than 40 million years, but such was not the case. Height could have also protected animals' necks from the bite of predators. Under these selective pressures, we might expect that tall animals should have evolved fairly quickly. After all, if it only took 5 or 15 million years for evolution to turn a fish fin into a leg, it should not take much longer for evolution to make the leg more efficient. Yet this did not happen. Land animals stayed low to the ground, even the largest of them barely able to lift their heads much more than a couple feet off the forest floor. Their legs flanged out to the sides, inefficiently supporting their body weight, and slowing them down. These inefficiencies were retained for about 80 million years, at which time modest improvements were made by the mammal-like

*° Carroll, Robert L. Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution. 1997, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, p 300, 336

* Shubin, Neil H; Daeschler, Edward B; Coates, Michael |. The Early Evolution of the Tetrapod Humerus.

2004, Science 304, p 93

36

therapsids. Yet the therapsids' legs were still flanged out to the side, and they failed to reach the height necessary to eat herbs high in the trees. The archosaurs achieved a breakthrough about 250 million years ago when they attained the ability to place their weight directly under their legs, rather than having their legs splayed out to the sides. The descendents of the archosaurs, the dinosaurs, perfected this ability with the evolution of a socket joint in the hip capable of both swift speeds and the ability to stand on just two feet. They also added length to their legs for greater height. Hence, it was not until the time of the dinosaurs that legs finally reached their full potential in terms of speed, strength, height, and efficiency. The first dinosaurs evolved about 230 million years ago — roughly 135 million years after legs first evolved. Thus, despite their comparatively rapid evolution from fish fins, legs retained grave inefficiencies for 135 million years. The paradox is inconsistency in the rates of evolutionary progress. It took only 5 to 15 million years for fish fins to turn into legs, yet it took another 135 million years for unsteady waddling legs to become surefooted fast running legs. The greater morphological change occurred in the shorter period of time, and the lesser morphological change occurred in the longer period of time. If natural selection required a whopping 135 million years to make adjustments to an existing form, then why did it require only 5 or 15 million years to invent a radically different form? It is a matter of a strange discrepancy in the speed of evolutionary change. If natural selection works only slowly over time, as genetics suggests, then it must be asked what force besides natural selection causes accelerations in the amount of evolutionary change?

Retention of Ancestral Traits Despite Change of Habitat During the Cretaceous period, certain lizards invaded the ocean and became sea monsters of enormous size. Called mosasaurs, these monster

lizards ruled the deep from 90 to 65 million years ago,” and they left an exceptionally complete fossil record over their 27 million year tenure. § Carroll and deBraga have argued for the gradual evolution of the mosasaurs over more than 60 million years, from the anguimorphs to

85 Christiansen, Per; Bonde, Niels. A New Species of Gigantic Mosasaur from the Late Cretaceous of Israel. 2002, Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 22(3), p 629 = Bell, Gordon LJr; Edited by Callaway, Jack M; Nicholls, Elizabeth L. Ancient Marine Reptiles. 1997, Academic Press, San Diego, CA, p 281 37

aigialosaurs to mosasaurs, although the earlier parts of the transition are somewhat wanting in the fossil record.*” Despite 27 million years of dominating the oceans, the mosasaurs did not become radically different from their terrestrial lizard ancestors. Both inside and outside of the water, they were always more akin to lizards than to any fish or other marine reptile. The mosasaurs retained their lizard-like appearance. They did not develop caudal tails or dorsal fins like fish. Their skull shape remained flat and v-shaped across time, both as terrestrial lizards and as aquatic reptiles. They were long and slender, both as lizards and as mosasaurs. They made certain adaptations to aquatic life, including broader tails for swimming and shorter limbs, but their tails were unlike those of fish, and the digits on their limbs retained a distinctly lizard-like skeletal structure. The success of the mosasaurs is a testimony to an oft overlooked evolutionary pattern — namely, it is not necessary for a lineage to become radically different from its ancestors in order for it to succeed in a new habitat. Mosasaurs did not need to become fish in order to succeed in the ocean. They did fine just being lizards, and they even outcompeted the fish as successful predators. Applying this to the Cambrian Explosion, one might ponder why so many different forms suddenly emerged in the Cambrian, for they did not need to diverge into such an array of various forms to fill new habitats. Cambrian life could have retained the same basic structure of the most primitive phyla, cnidarians and sponges, and made only small adaptations over time to attain the full potential of those phyla. There was no adaptive necessity for radically different structures to evolve in the Cambrian as they did. Besides mosasaurs, other terrestrial creatures have invaded the seas, including whales, sea cows, sea lions, ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, and turtles. Each of these comes from a lineage distinctly different from the others, which was originally terrestrial, and each retains many features of

its terrestrial ancestors. They have not become fish-like, nor have they converged to become like each other. Rather, each has retained its unique structure from when it used to be terrestrial, and this remains true down through the aeons. Nor did any of them develop the ability to breathe underwater as fish do, though it would be an evolutionary advantage for them to do so. Why has evolution proved incapable of

*’ Carroll, Robert L. Mesozoic Marine Reptiles as Models of Long-term, Largescale Evolutionary Phenomena. Edited by Callaway, Jack M; Nicholls, Elizabeth L. Ancient Marine Reptiles. 1997, Academic Press, San Diego, CA, p 475-477

38

ene sea faring reptiles and mammals to breathe under water as fish 0? When multiple lineages evolve to fill the same habitat, there is no rule that they must become similar to each other. Rather, they retain the characters of their ancestors. In Carboniferous times, giant dragonflies filled the skies. In Mesozoic times, flying reptiles called pterosaurs overtook the dragonflies. Now, the air is dominated by birds and bats. Yet each of these four — dragonflies, pterosaurs, birds, and bats — are entirely different from each other in terms of body structure and flight propulsion. If there were a certain type of wing best suited for flight, then we should expect to see these four converge toward a common type of wing. Yet this is not the case. For 400 million years, the dragonflies have kept essentially the same body plan, having no bony digits to support their wings. In contrast, pterosaur wings were supported by a single very long bony digit on the front edge of the wing. Yet birds' digits are short and contained deep inside the wing. Also, birds are the only one of the four to employ feathers in flight. If feathers are easily derived from scales, as some believe, then why were pterosaur wings so lacking in them? Bats, for their part, exhibit a wing structure entirely different from the first three, having four very long bony digits to support their wings. Therefore, natural selection does not force species to evolve the highest and best structure. For every habitat and niche, there are a variety of structures capable of succeeding in it. Hence, species tend to retain the structures of their ancestors, rather than develop entirely new structures. When an ancestral structure proves inadequate, it is modified, not immediately discarded for a new structure. Thus, animals are not perfectly adapted to their habitats. They just make do with what they have, gradually tweaking it through the aeons to make it workable. Radically different body plans are not necessarily required for species to adapt to various ecological niches. Rather, the same body plan can be used for a very broad variety of environments. Arthropods have taken to the air as insects, yet they also crawl on the ground, and dwell in the ocean as lobsters. Wherever they roam, they retain the same essential characters of arthropods. Mammals have adapted to life in the trees, on the ground, in the ground, on the water, in the water, and in the skies — yet they retain the same characters in terms of having fur and giving birth to live young. Why, then, have so many different forms emerged? One or two phyla could have easily filled the planet. As far as natural selection is concerned, the multiplicity of phyla generated in the Cambrian Explosion was not necessary. 39

Snakes Snakes evolved from four-legged lizards. They lost their legs when they began to slither. A very large number of intermediary forms in the fossil record provide evidence for this. Coniasaurus was a snake-like reptile that had an elongated neck, torso, and tail, but also had four short

limbs.** Several fossils yield a range of dates from the early Cenomanian to the mid Santonian,® which is from 99.6 to 84.5 million years ago. Haasiophis was an advanced snake that had small yet distinct hind legs. It is from the early Cenomanian, corresponding to about 99 to 95 million years ago.’ Pachyrhachis was an advanced snake from the Cenomanian that had well-developed hind legs, but no front legs.”’ Podophis was another advanced snake with legs from the same time.” There are also a number of snake-like forms with limbs that lived in aquatic environments. The sea monster lizards, the mosasaurs, are considered to be a relative of snakes, on account of shared characters

such as thecodont tooth attachment,” elongated body form, skull similarities, reduced limb size, a second row of teeth on the upper palate, and kinetic jaws (meaning the jaw can crack open like a break-action shotgun to enlarge the mouth). Another marine squamate, Adriosaurus, lived 95 million years ago. It was similar to a snake in that it had a long

88 Caldwell, M W; Cooper, J. Redescription, Paleobiogeography, and Palaeoecology of Coniasaurus Crassidens Owen, 1850 (Squamata) from the English Chalk (Cretaceous; Cenomanian). 1999, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 127, p 423-452

* Shimada, Kenshu. Coniasaurus Owen, 1850 (Reptilia: Squamata), from the Upper Cretaceous Niobrara Chalk of Western Kansas. Paleontology 80(3), p 589-593

2006, Journal of

*° Rieppel, Olivier; Zaher, Hussam; Tchernov, Eitan; Polcyn, Michael. The Anatomy and Relationships of Haasiophis Terrasanctus, A Fossil Snake with Well-Developed Hind Limbs from the Mid-Cretaceous of the Middle East. 2003, Journal of Paleontology 77(3), p 539, 542 *! Zaher, Hussam; Reippel, Olivier. On the Phylogenetic Relationships of the Cretaceous Snakes with Legs, with Special Reference to Pachyrhachis Problematicus (Squamata, Serpentes). 2002, Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 22(1), p 104-109 olRageJ C; Escuillie, F. Un nouveau serpent bipe‘de du Ce‘nomanien (Cre ‘tace’). Implications phyle‘tiques. 2000, Comptes Rendus de |’Acade’mie des Sciences de Paris, Sciences de la Terre et des Plane’ tes 330, p 513-520 > Lee, MSY. On Snake-like Dentition in Mosasaurian Lizards. 1997, Journal of Natural History 31, 30314

40

and —— trunk and tail, yet it had very small front legs and good-sized hind legs.** Dolichosaurus was a four-legged marine reptile with small front legs, a break action kinetic jaw, and a very long snake-like neck and tail. Its legs were apparently so small that they were useless, and were purely vestigial.” These half-snake half-lizard intermediaries congregate in the vicinity of 99 to 85 million years ago. Therefore, one might assume that fullfledged snakes evolved sometime thereafter, perhaps 80 to 70 million years ago. But this assumption is inaccurate. Sound science, both from the fossil record and from molecular DNA,

indicates that full-fledged snakes evolved before these intermediaries existed. According to molecular evidence, snakes arose approximately 125 million years ago.’ According to the fossil record, the earliest indisputable snakes occur in the latter half of the Albian, which is about 106-99 million years ago.”’ Thus, snakes were already up and running, or down and slithering, as it were, before these intermediaries with legs

arrived in the Cenomanian. Hence, despite the fact that the snakes with legs appear to be good intermediaries, they could not have been the true ancestors of modern snakes. Instead, they were the descendents of a common ancestor they shared with snakes, i.e. — they were snakes' sister taxa. The Cenomanian, some 99-93 million years ago, is the era when snakes first became common. Far from being primitive, they were already well-advanced, even though they were very early. From the beginning, snakes were macrostomatan, that is, they possessed a unique skull and muscular structure in the head that allowed them to swallow prey bigger than their own diameter. In this character, they appear to have skipped over the scolecophidea and alethinophidea branches of the order serpentes, which, according to molecular DNA

analysis, should

*4 Palci, Alessandro; Caldwell, Michael. Vestigial Forelimbs and Axial Elongation in a 95 Million-Year-Old Non-Snake Squamate. 2007, Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 27(1), p 1-7 °5 Caldwell, Micahel W. On the Aquatic Squamate Dolichosaurus Longicollis Owen, 1850 (Cenomanian, Upper Cretaceous), and the Evolution of Elongate Necks in Squamates. 2000, The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology 20(4), p 720-735

°° Wiens, John J; Brandley; Matthew C, Reeder, Tod W. Why Does a Trait Evolve Multiple Times within a Clade? Repeated Evolution of Snakelike Body Form in Squamate Reptiles. 2006, Evolution 60(1), p 135-136 °7 Rage, J C; Escuillie, F. The Cenomanian: Stage of Hindlimbed Snakes. 2003, Camets de Geologie, Maintenon, Article 2003/01 (CG2003_A01_JCR-FE), p 8 41

have come before them as evolutionary steps toward the more advanced macrostomatan form.”® It is strange that snakes would reach such an advanced form so early, as Rage and Escuillies said,

The three hind-limbed snakes have a macrostomate skull; but in

existing snakes this character appears only in forms considered to be the most

"advanced,"

the macrostomata,

a priori, this

structure should be derived... the presence of hind legs and macrostomate structure, poses a serious problem.” Reippel et al commented in like manner,

With Haasiophis, Pachyrhachis, and Podophis representing macrostomatan snakes, the question of the sister-group relationships of snakes within Squamata, or of snake "origins," remains unresolved. Nevertheless, the presence of snakes with macrostomatan characters at 95 Ma (million years ago) indicates that a series of cladogenetic events leading to the major extant groups of snakes occurred prior to the mid-Cretaceous.'”° This means that snakes had already diverged and become advanced prior to 99 million years ago. Therefore, a significant amount of snake evolution must have occurred that has not been preserved in the fossil record. Either this evolution occurred tens of millions of years beforehand in the early Cretaceous, as Darwinists would prefer; or, it occurred so quickly that the fossils were not preserved. The latter accords better with the actual fossil data, because the fossils don't go back beyond the Albian. The problematic nature of snake origins has also led to a debate on aquatic versus terrestrial origins. Caldwell suggested that "snakes, mosasauroids, dolichosaurs, and coniasaurs may have a common aquatic

*8 Wilcox, Thomas P; Zwickl, Derrick J; Heath, Tracy A; Hillis, David M. Phylogenetic Relationships of the Dwarf Boas and a Comparison of Bayesian and Bootstrap Measures of Phylogenetic Support. 2002, Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 25(2), p 360-371

” Rage, JC; Escuillie, F. The Cenomanian: Stage of Hindlimbed Snakes. 2003, Camets de Geologie, Maintenon, Article 2003/01 (CG2003_A01_JCR-FE), p 7

' Rieppel, Olivier; Zaher, Hussam; Tchernov, Eitan; Polcyn, Michael. The Anatomy and Relationships of Haasiophis Terrasanctus, A Fossil Snake with Well-Developed Hind Limbs from the Mid-Cretaceous of the Middle East. 2003, Journal of Paleontology 77(3), p 554

42

ancestor."wll

But

:

Wiens

‘

F

et al maintained

that snakes

evolved

from

of lizards, mosasaurs,

full-

terrestrial burrowing reptiles,’ because the two most basal lineages of snakes are burrowers — the scolecophidians and the annelids.!™ It is a problematic pattern often observed in the fossil record. When we reach back in time to the beginnings of a new life form, we often find a woefully incomplete or non-existent record for how that life form came about. There are three possible explanations for this: 1) Either the fossil record is poorly preserved, or 2) Some intelligent being suddenly creates new forms out of thin air, or 3) New forms evolve so quickly that there is not enough time for the missing links to leave fossils. Applied to snakes, the problem with the first hypothesis is that the fossil record is not poorly preserved. As demonstrated above, the fossil record adequately recorded a host of intermediary forms. It has also provided us with innumerable

specimens

fledged snakes, etc. Surely, if snakes evolved gradually over millions of years, we should expect to find intermediaries that predate the appearance of advanced snakes 95 million years ago. The problem with the second hypothesis is that intermediary forms do exist. If God created snakes out of thin air, then why do we see so many snake-like forms with reduced limbs in the fossil record? Moreover, traces of the rear legs are found in some snakes even to this day. Why would a Creator God make snakes with legs they don't need? Only the third hypothesis makes sense. If snakes evolved rapidly, then the missing links did not exist long enough to leave fossils. Nevertheless, the missing links did have children, some of which still

retained sizeable legs. It is these descendents of missing links that are found so frequently in the fossil record. Although the intermediaries with reduced limbs occur too late to be the missing links themselves, they are the right age to be the descendents of the missing links. Thus, when snakes evolved from lizards, their transformation happened so quickly that the missing links were not preserved, yet the children of 101 Caldwell, Micahel W. On the Aquatic Squamate Dolichosaurus Longicollis Owen, 1850 (Cenomanian, Upper Cretaceous), and the Evolution of Elongate Necks in Squamates. 2000, The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology 20(4), p 720-735 102 Wiens, John J; Brandley, Matthew C; Reeder, Tod W. Why Does a Trait Evolve Multiple Times within a Calde? Repeated Evolution of Snakelike Body Form in Squamate Reptiles. 2006, Evolution 60(1), p 138 103 Fug, GR; Vitt, LJ; Caldwell, JP. Herpetology: An Introductory Biology of Amphibians and Reptiles, 2" Ed. 2001, Academic Press, San Diego, CA

43

those missing links show up millions of years after the transformation, as contemporaries of the more advanced forms. The loss of all traces of legs in snakes is known to occur very slowly over time. For example the annielline and anguine snakes are known from 50 million years ago, yet still retain the pectoral girdle bones.'”* Even after 100 million years, natural selection has failed to complete the transition, for some snakes today still possess vestigial elements of hind limbs. The traces of vestigial legs in snakes even after 100 million years, is a testimony to how slow and inefficient natural selection actually is. It appears as though there are two types of evolution. One type generated a massive transformation from lizards to snakes in just a short time. The other type has been gradually trying to tidy up the last vestigial remnants of that transformation — a process it still has not completed even after 100 million years. One type of evolution is rapid. The other type is gradual. Gradual evolution has accomplished less in 100 million years than rapid evolution accomplished in a much shorter period of time. The best explanation for this is that there are two separate mechanisms that bring about evolution — the gradual mechanism being natural selection, as Darwin described it, and the rapid mechanism being some other kind of force.

Birds Birds and reptiles have a lot in common.

Similarities in their bones,

digital claws, red blood cells, kidneys, penis, together with the reptilian

appearance of bird embryos all speak to a common ancestor.'” A high calcium diet even causes birds to develop reptilian ankle bones.'”° Birds have even more in common with a certain type of reptile — the theropod dinosaurs. They share the following characters: fused clavicles, feet with three claws pointing forward and one backward, partially fused metatarsals, and a second set of ribs covering the front of

104 Wiens, John J; Slingluff, Jamie L. How Lizards Turn into Snakes: A Phylogenetic Analysis of Body-Form Evolution in Anguid Lizards. 2001,

Evolution 55(11), p 2303-2318 '°5 Martin, Robert A. Missing Links: Evolutionary Concepts & Transitions Through Time. 2004, Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Sudbury, MA, p 143-144

'°* Levinton, Jeffrey S. Genetics, Paleontology, and Macroevolution. 2001, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, p 208

44

the torso.'"’ The earliest bird, Archaeopteryx, even had three fingers with claws coming out the top of its wing, and it had teeth in its mouth instead of a toothless beak.

Theropod dinosaurs also had three fingers,

all with claws, and sharp teeth in their mouths. One theropod in particular, Compsognathus, is often placed in museums next to the earliest bird, Archaeopteryx, to show their similarity. At first glance, they look similar because they are both about the size of a chicken.

However,

there are a number

of substantial

differences between Archaeopteryx and Compsognathus. Archaeopteryx had a longer femur, thinner leg bones, and its tail vertebrae are of a different type than those of Compsognathus, having exchanged dinosaur features for bird-like features.'"* Other characters of Archaeopteryx are distinctly more bird-like than dinosaur-like, including a larger brain size, the closeness of its teeth, the lack of dental serration, the nature of its

shoulder girdle, its caudal maxillary sinus, fewer bones in the tail, its reduced prezygapophyses, its elongated prenarial, the break up of its postorbital bar, and the relationship between its caudal and columellar parts.'°

Archaeopteryx had full wings and tail feathers capable of flight. In contrast, Compsognathus had no wings at all, and does not appear to have had any feathers — not even a few small ones on the skin for warmth. In another gross morphological difference, Archaeopteryx possessed an ornithischian hip, wherein the pubis and the ischium both are positioned toward the posterior, unlike the saurischian hip of Compsognathus, with its forward placement of the pubis, as in all theropods. On paper, this sounds obscure, but it is significant because if it weren't for other features, an ornithischian hip would normally make the bird more related to completely different looking dinosaurs such as the horned Triceratops and the plated Stegosaurus. So even though Compsognathus looks superficially similar to Archaeopteryx, it is actually a rather poor candidate for a "missing link." We should look to other candidates. 107 Martin, Robert A. Missing Links: Evolutionary Concepts & Transitions Through Time. 2004, Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Sudbury, MA, p 148 108 Martin, Robert A. Missing Links: Evolutionary Concepts & Transitions

Through Time. 2004, Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Inc. Sudbury, MA, p 143150 109 Witmer, Lawrence M. The Debate on Avian Ancestry: Phylogeny, Function, and Fosills; In Chiappe, Luis M; Witmer, Lawrence M. Mesozoic Birds: Above the Heads of Dinosaurs. 2002, University of California Press, Berkeley & Los Angeles, CA, p 7 45

The coelurosaurian raptor Unlike Compsognathus, many stiffened tail, and their pubis position and the ornithischian

dinosaurs make a better intermediary. of the raptors had feathers, they had a was midway between the saurischian position. Other characters shared with

birds include a wishbone, birdlike feet, a carpus bone in the wrist, the

social behavior of traveling in packs/flocks, and the presence of longer arms than those of other dinosaurs. A wealth of such raptors has been uncovered from the Yixian Formation in Asia. However, the age of the Yixian Formation is about 125 to 120 million years ago,''” which presents a problem, because the first bird Archaeopteryx is known from a half-dozen specimens that are 25 to 30 million years older — found in the beginning of the Kimmeridgian of Bavaria, dating to 155 million years ago in the late Jurassic. Thus, the feathered raptors of the Yixian Formation are too young to be the missing link between birds and dinosaurs. Even though the feathered dinosaurs from the Yixian Formation might be related to the birds, they cannot be direct ancestors. As Martin states, The small coelurosaurian dinosaurs related to Archaeopteryx all occur in the fossil record after Archaeopteryx and so cannot be directly ancestral.'"’ The dilemma concerning the origin of birds is similar to that of the snakes. Raptors are to the birds what reduced-limbed lizards are to the snakes — an intermediary form that would be a good example of a missing link, except that it arrives too late in the fossil record to be a missing link. Because they are intermediaries, they give evidence for the theory of descent in a general sense, yet because of their timing in the fossil record, they fail to provide true evidence for a gradual transition between forms over long time frames. We are left with the reality of rapid evolution — the sudden evolution of new forms. Raptors were evidently the descendents of missing links that evolved so quickly that they left little trace in the fossil record. Luckily, there is at least some hope for finding a missing link. A few raptor-like dinosaurs can be dated to around 160 to 165 million years ago, which is about 5 to 10 million

'' Swisher, Carl C Ill; Wang, Yuan-qing; Wang, Xiao-lin; Xu, Xing; Wang, Yuan. Cretaceous Age for the Feathered Dinosaurs of Liaoning, China.

1999, Nature

400, p 58-59

'! Martin, Robert A. Missing Links: Evolutionary Concepts & Transitions Through Time. 2004, Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Sudbury, MA, p 153 46

years prior to Archaeopteryx. Hence, it is still possible that the perfect intermediary might be discovered. After Archaeopteryx, early birds retained certain reptilian characters for a long time, such as toothed mouths instead of the typical beaks of modern birds. Their transition into truly modern forms was a long time in coming, and did not reach fruition until the Eocene and Oligocene — long after the dinosaurs became extinct. Thus, the amount of time it took natural selection to perfect the new form was much longer than the time it took rapid evolution to build the basic structure of the new form. As with the snakes, it appears that there are two mechanisms for evolution in play — rapid evolution of new forms by means of an unknown force, followed by gradual evolution of existing forms by means of natural selection. Pterosaurs Pterosaurs were winged reptiles that ruled the skies during the time of the dinosaurs. They first appear in the fossil record near the CarnianNorian boundary, soon after the dinosaurs made their debut, and they went extinct during the same catastrophe that the dinosaurs did. They were also closely related to dinosaurs. Rapid evolution best describes the origins of the pterosaurs. According to Haines and Chambers, In particular, pterosaurs suddenly appear in the fossil record as highly specialized fliers with no clear intermediates before them.'!”

They go from no representation in the fossil record to suddenly very adequate representation in the Norian, and quickly radiate into several new species to fill various ecological niches. The earliest among them is Eudimorphodon, which is found in various rocks of early Norian age, such as the Fleming Fjord formation.''* Moreover, one pterosaur feature that was at one time considered advanced, namely the head crests of the

112 Haines, Tim; Chambers, Paul. The Complete Guide to Prehistoric Life. 2006, Firefly Books, Buffalo, NY, p 72 ‘13 Jenkins, F A Jr; Shubin N H; Gatesby S M; Padian; K. A Diminutive Pterosaur (Pterosauria: Eudimorphodontidae) from the Greenlandic Triassic. 2001,

Harvard University, Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology 156(1), p 151-170

47

later pterodactyls, is now known from a fossil of Norian age,''* thus demonstrating that the pterosaurs achieved advanced features at the very beginning of their history. The fundamental features of the pterosaur body plan remained constant from their earliest beginnings to their ultimate demise. They had small bodies, lightweight bones, sharp teeth, long mouths, and long arms. At the end of their arms, they possessed four fingers. The first three fingers terminated in three short claws, which stuck out at the front of the wing and could be used for crawling on the ground when not in flight. The fourth finger was extremely long by comparison, often extending several feet away from the body. The bulk of the wing was supported on this fourth finger. The wing was a lightweight flap stretching from the fourth finger to the back leg. This body plan continued unchanged for all of their 160 million year tenure. The most plausible ancestor the fossil record can provide is Scleromochlus of the Lossiemouth Formation. If Scleromochlus is the ancestor of the pterosaurs, it would mean that pterosaurs accomplished a tremendous amount of evolution very quickly across the Carnian-Norian boundary. Scleromochlus did not have even the beginnings of wings. The fourth finger, so greatly elongated in pterosaurs to support the wings, in Scleromochlus is no more elongated than the other fingers. Scleromochlus also had short arms and long legs, the opposite of pterosaurs. Benton even concluded that Scleromochlus was no more related to pterosaurs than to dinosaurs, but had split from both of them shortly before their most recent common ancestor.'’? Hence, the morphological differences between Scleromochlus and the earliest pterosaurs are great, and require that a tremendous amount of evolution must have occurred in a short time for them to have had been ancestor and descendent. Then, there is the problem of whether Scleromochlus really predates their supposed descendents, the pterosaurs. There is some question as to whether the allegedly late Carnian strata of Scotland's Lossiemouth

"4 Vecchia, Fabio M Dalla; Wild, Rupert; Hopf, Hagen; Reitner, Joachim. A Crested Rhamphorhynchoid Pterosaur from the Late Triassic of Austria. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 22(1), p 196-199

2002,

'® Benton, Michael J. Scleromochlus taylori and the Origin of Dinosaurs and Pterosaurs.

1999, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B

354, p 1423-1446

48

Sandstone is really Carnian or whether it is actually early Norian.'!° If Norian, the supposed ancestor is a contemporary of the pterosaurs, and therefore unlikely to be an ancestor. To add fuel to the fire, there is also some question over whether the pterosaurs first appear in the Norian or in the late Carnian. A pterosaur jawbone has been reported from the Dockum Group of Texas, hence plausibly putting the first pterosaurs in the Carnian.''” If this is correct, then it makes the pterosaurs at least contemporary with, if not before, their supposed ancestor Scleromochlus. In any case, Scleromochlus cannot support the idea that pterosaurs evolved gradually, because it did not arrive in the fossil record substantially beforehand. Thus, the search for a pterosaur ancestor is elusive at best, both for

morphological reasons and for stratigraphical reasons. The most that can be said is that they arose suddenly, without intermediaries, and that the closest thing to their ancestor is essentially their contemporary. Hence, pterosaur origins point to an instance of rapid evolution, whereby evolutionary change happened so fast that no fossil intermediaries were preserved. The evidence does not, however, point to the spontaneous creation of the pterosaurs by God. It is highly unlikely God created them perfectly, for the earliest among them were lacking shorter tails and toothless mouths — two features that are proved advantageous adaptations to an aerial lifestyle, both in pterosaurs and in birds, and the former in bats as

well. If God is perfect, it stands to reason that he creates new forms perfectly, but pterosaur tails and teeth were far from perfect when they first took to the skies. _ It took 40 million years to shorten the tail of pterosaurs such that by the latter Jurassic they evolved into the very short-tailed pterodactyls. Yet strangely it only took a fraction of this time for pterosaurs to get wings with full-powered flight. Their primal point of origin, their morph into a new and completely different body structure at the base of their lineage, is shrouded in mystery, and seems to have happened so rapidly that it did not leave a trace in the fossil record. Hence, pterosaur evolution represents a two step process — rapid evolution of a new form, followed by small improvements to that form over time. 116 Olsen, Paul E; Sues, Hans-Dieter; Norell, Mark A. First Record of

Erpetosuchus (Reptilia: Archosauria) from the Late Triassic of North America. 2000, Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 24(4), p 635

117 andres, Brian. 2006, Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 26(3)-Abstracts, p

37A 49

Pinnipeds Seals, sea lions, and walruses are all part of the same lineage called pinnipeds. According to molecular DNA evidence, their nearest kin are skunks and weasels.'!® '!? However, their earliest fossils look nothing like skunks and weasels. Instead, they look much like they do today. The earliest among them is Enaliarctos. Some of the features it has in common with modern pinnipeds include flippers instead of feet, equal length elongated toes, short femur and humerus bones, general size, and overall appearance. According to Berta et al, Enaliarctos documents an early, yet complete, stage in the acquisition of features associated with aquatic locomotion in pinnipeds.

Yet Berta et al also note the olecranon process and the number of lumbar vertebrae are different from later pinnipeds, and state that Enaliarctos 1s therefore intermediate between terrestrial animals and later pinnipeds.'”° Enaliarctos is the best the fossil record can provide for an intermediary between terrestrial land mammals and pinnipeds. 1 Enaliarctos shows some affinity to bears,'*! and it was widely believed for a long time that pinnipeds' closest relatives were bears. The molecular DNA evidence indicates that indeed bears are closely related to the mustelids and to the pinnipeds, probably diverging from them just before the mustelids and pinnipeds diverged from each other.'** This

''8 Arnason, Ulfur; Widegren, Bengt. Pinniped Phylogeny Enlightened by Molecular Hybridizations Using Highly Repetitive DNA. 1986, University of Chicago, Molecular Biology and Evolution 3(4), p 356-365

'! Sato, Jun J; Wolsan, Mieczyslaw; Suzuki, Hitoshi; Hosoda, Tetsuji; Yamaguchi, Yasunori; Hiyama, Kozue; Kobayashi, Mari; Minami, Shinji. Evidence from Nuclear DNA Sequences Sheds Light on the Phylogenetic Relationships of Pinnipedia: Single Origin with Affinity of Musteloidea. 2006, Zoological Society of Japan, Zoological Science 23, p 125-146

°° Berta, Annalisa; Ray, Clayton E; Wyss, Andre R. Skeleton of the Oldest Known Pinniped: Enaliarctos mealsi.

1989, Science 244, p 60-62

'*! Berta, Annalisa. New Enaliarctos (Pinnipedimorpha) from the Oligocene and Miocene of Oregon and the Role of "Enaliarctids" in Pinniped Phylogeny. 1991, Smithsonian Institution Press, Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology 69

'? Flynn, John J; Finarelli, John A; Zehr, Sarah; Hsu, Johnny; Nedbal, Michael A. Molecular Phylogeny of the Carnivora (Mammalia): Assessing the Impact of 50

fact would mean that a relatively swift divergence among the three groups occurred, to explain why the reconciliation of DNA data with fossil data is problematic. As Arnason and Widegren said, It is likely that the evolution of otariids and phocids (subdivisions of pinnipeds) was fast in the early stages of marine adaptation; hence evolutionary linkages with mustelids may be difficult to establish by means of paleontological findings.'”*

It would not be the only rapid diversification to occur among the carnivores. There was also a swift three-way split of the feline lineage into cats, vivets, and hyaenas.'~*

Swift divergence among pinniped ancestors was followed by a much longer period of about 23 million years during which natural selection made comparatively small adjustments, causing adaptive radiations at the genus and species level, which resulted in speciation within the pinniped group. Moreover, the transformation is not complete, for the pinnipeds today fill an ecological niche similar to that of the ancestors to whales Pakicetus and Ambulocetus, which were partly terrestrial and partly aquatic. Given several millions of years, the pinnipeds might evolve to become fully aquatic like the whales. Yet this is still occurring in slow motion. The pinnipeds exemplify the operation of two distinct mechanisms — one mechanism being natural selection, which brought about gradual evolution with regard to the diversification among seals, sea lions, and

walruses; and the other mechanism being some poorly understood mutational force which catalyzed an evolutionary event so rapid and so intense that it brought about a radically new and different form while

leaving only a trace in the fossil record.

Increased Sampling on Resolving Enigmatic Relationships. 2005, Systematic Biology 54(2), p 317-337 123 Arnason, Ulfur; Widegren, Bengt. Pinniped Phylogeny Enlightened by Molecular Hybridizations Using Highly Repetitive DNA. 1986, University of Chicago, Molecular Biology and Evolution 3(4), p 356-365

124 Flynn, John J; Finarelli, John A; Zehr, Sarah; Hsu, Johnny; Nedbal, Michael A.

Molecular Phylogeny of the Carnivora (Mammalia): Assessing the Impact of Increased Sampling on Resolving Enigmatic Relationships. 2005, Systematic Biology 54(2), p 326, 329 51

Turtles The first turtle fossil, Proganochelys, dates to 220-205 million years ago. Proganochelys looked much the same as turtles do today. Among other traits it shares with modern turtles, it was nearly toothless, it had a fully developed shell both on top and on bottom, it was low to the ground, its head was roughly the same size as that of a modern turtle, and in all major respects it was a turtle. However, it could not fully retract its head under its shell.'”° Nothing like turtles had ever existed before. Gould et al described the sudden appearance of turtles as "A whole new reptile order appearing out of nowhere."!”° Lee also acknowledged the lack of a missing link, stating, "Our understanding of chelonian (i.e. — turtle) origins has been restricted by a paucity of information on intermediate forms," yet Lee attempted to explain turtle origins by suggesting that the turtles are descended from the pareiasaurs, a group of large armored plant eating beasts.'7’ Turtles and pareiasaurs were very different. If they were closely related, a theory which is debated, there are still a multitude of missing links between them. Most obviously, Proganochelys had a shell of bony armor over its back, fused to its ribs, and another plate of armor under its

belly. The pareiasaurs had no such plates of armor.

They did have bony

scutes floating under the skin, but these were not fused to the ribs, and were not connected to each other to make a plate. Proganochelys had very small teeth, but the pareiasaurs had thick long teeth. In the neck,

Proganochelys had four spines per vertebra, two to each side, sticking outward. Pareiasaurs had only one upper chevron located on the vertebra, not to the side. Along the torso, the vertebrae of Proganochelys were elongated under the shell. The pareiasaur vertebrae were not, and they had a different number of vertebrae in the torso than did the turtle. Proganochelys had no chevrons on the vertebrae of its torso. Pareiasaurs had such long upper chevrons that they actually stuck out of the skin,

"5 Gaffney, Eugene S. The Comparative Osteology of the Triassic Turtle Proganochelys.

1990, Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 194

"6 Gould, Stephen Jay; Andrews, Peter; Barber, John; Benton, Michael; Collins, Marianne; Janis, Christine; Kish, Ely; Morishima, Akio; Sepkoski, J John Jr; Stringer, Christopher; Tibbles, Jean-Paul; Cox, Steve. The Book of Life: An Illustrated History of the Evolution of Life on Earth. 2001, W W Norton & Co, New York, NY, p 123

"7 Lee, Michael S Y. Correlated Progression and the Origin of Turtles. 1996, Nature 379, p 812

52

making a row of knobby spikes along their backbone. Proganochelys had a club on its tail, pareiasaurs did not. The upper chevrons on Proganochelys' tail vertebrae were short. The pareiasaurs' were long. The length and number of vertebrae in the tail of Proganochelys was less than that of the pareiasaurs. These are just a few of the differences between the two. One thing they did have in common was their descent from the anapsids — reptiles without holes in their skulls. As such, they are at least distant relatives. The close ancestors of the turtles apparently evolved so rapidly that they did not leave any trace in the fossil record. Yet Proganochelys does not show the markings of intelligent design by a perfect God, for Proganochelys was still an imperfect turtle. Its tail was long, and it could not retract its head under its shell to escape predators. Whatever catalyzed the rapid evolution of the turtles, it did so imperfectly. Natural selection has since tweaked the structure of turtles toward improvement.

Lepospondyls Certain early amphibians, the lepospondyls, also exhibit a pattern of rapid evolution. They are all highly derived when they first appear in the fossil record, and as for their proposed ancestors, "there are no plausible intermediaries between them."'”*

Moss From the plant kingdom, it has been observed that the Hypnales mosses underwent an "exceptionally rapid diversification" at the base of their history. Yet their kinfolk, the Hookeriales mosses, may have enjoyed a steadier rate of diversification.” Thus, not all evolution is rapid evolution. Some lineages, such as the Hookeriales, are characterized by slower, more gradual evolution, as is expected under the Darwinian model, while others are more rapid.

Ichthyosaurs The ichthyosaurs were marine reptiles which lived slightly before They superficially resembled and during the time of the dinosaurs. dolphins, but were actually quite different — having side-to-side tail '28 Carroll, Robert L. The Origin and Early Radiation of Terrestrial Vertebrates. 2001, Journal of Paleontology 75(6), p 1207 29 Shaw, AJ; Cox, CJ; Goffinet, B; Buck, W R; Boles, S B. Phylogenetic Evidence of a Rapid Radiation of Pleurocarpous Mosses (Bryophyta). 2003, Evolution

57(10), p 2226-2241 53

propulsion rather than up-down tail propulsion, and having both front and hind fins rather than just front fins. The earliest fossils of the ichthyosaurs occur in the Olenekian period of the early Triassic. Nine different genera of ichthyosaurs suddenly appear in the Olenekian,'*° thus indicating that a rapid evolutionary emergence of the ichthyosaurs was quickly followed by their subsequent speciation into a variety of diverse types — both the sudden emergence and the diversification being completed perhaps within 2 to 4 million years. By comparison, the whales took about 20 million years to adapt completely to marine life, and another 15 million years to diversify into their current forms. According to Calloway, Even the oldest known ichthyosaurs are completely adapted to marine life and have no close, gross morphological resemblances to any other reptiles... (this) has posed perplexing problems regarding the ancestry, early evolutionary history, and phylogeny of the group.” The ichthyosaurs subsequently inhabited the Mesozoic oceans for another 152 million years until apparently going extinct at the Cenomanian-Turonian boundary of the mid-Cretaceous.'** During their long tenure, they diversified into a number of varieties. Some of them evolved fish-like dorsal fins and tails.'*’ Others evolved stereoscopic vision and specialized teeth.'** Hundreds of species have been named and thousands of fossils of have been found.'*° There is a report of one primitive-looking ichthyosaur from the Spathian of Japan, which although appearing primitive in some ways,

'° Lucas, Spencer G. Marine Reptiles and Mesozoic Biochronology. Edited by Callaway, Jack M; Nicholls, Elizabeth L. Ancient Marine Reptiles. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, p 430

1997,

'5! Calloway, Jack M. Edited by Callaway, Jack M; Nicholls, Elizabeth L. Ancient Marine Reptiles.

1997, Academic Press, San Diego, CA, p 3

'? Massare, Judy A. Edited by Callaway, Jack M; Nicholls, Elizabeth L. Ancient Marine Reptiles.

1997, Academic Press, San Diego, CA, p 413-414

'33 Massare, Judy A. ibid, p 401-402 '4 Maisch, Michael W; Matzke, Andreas T. The Cranial Osteology of the Ichthyosaur Leptonectes CF. Tenuirostris from the Lower Jurassic of England. 2003, Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 23(1), p 116-127

'°> Motani, Ryosuke. True Skull Roof Configuration of Ichthyosaurus and Stenopterygius and its Implications.

2005, Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology

25(2), p 338-342 54

was already advanced enough to be obligatorily aquatic, as its flippers could not move its body around on land. Motani et al suggested it is an intermediary between terrestrial reptiles and aquatic ichthyosaurs. However, its age, 240 million years ago, is about 10 million years after

the ichthyosaurs first appeared.'*° As such, it occurs too late to be a directly ancestral missing link, although, like the snakes with legs and the feathered dinosaurs discussed above, perhaps it is a descendent of a missing link. The existence of an intermediary such as this, among early specimens of a lineage, indicates that the new form truly did evolve — it was not created. If it were created by an all-wise God, then what is the purpose of the intermediary? Was the intermediary poorly designed? Did God fail in the first attempt? The most natural explanation for these data is neither creation nor gradual evolution. Rather, it is that evolution acted rapidly to bring about a radically new and different form — so rapidly, in fact, that there was not enough time for missing links to accumulate in the fossil record.

Sauropterygians Sauropterygians were a highly diversified lineage of marine reptiles contemporary with the ichthyosaurs and later with the mosasaurs. Early sauropterygians first appear at the Olenekian-Anisian boundary some 245 million years ago, about the same time as the ichthyosaurs' sudden origin. At their first appearance, the sauropterygians were already diversified into several genera, including Cymatosaurus, Dactylosaurus, Proneusticosaurus, Nothosaurus, Placodus, Hemilopas, Saurosphargis,

as well as indeterminate members of the family Pachypleurosauridae.'*’ Both they and the ichthyosaurs are "very distinct from any putative ancestor when they first appear in the fossil record.""**

136 Motani, Ryosuke; Minoura, Nachio; Ando, Tatsuro. Ichthyosaurian Relationships Illuminated by New Primitive Skeletons from Japan. 1998, Nature

393; p 255 '57 Rieppel, Olivier; Hagdorn, Hans. Paleobiogeography of Middle Triassic Sauropterygia in Central and Western Europe. Edited by Callaway, Jack M; Nicholls, Elizabeth Diego, CA, p 134 138 Carroll, Robert scale Evolutionary L. Ancient Marine

L. Ancient Marine Reptiles.

1997, Academic Press, San

L. Mesozoic Marine Reptiles as Models of Long-term, LargePhenomena. Edited by Callaway, Jack M; Nicholls, Elizabeth Reptiles.

1997, Academic Press, San Diego, CA, p 472

a5

They continued to gradually diverge into several families, genera, and species.’ In one example, the divergence of the long-necked plesiosaurs and the short-necked pliosaurs is evidenced by intermediate teeth from the Lyme Regis formation, which suggest that a gradual divergence between the two forms occurred in the early Jurassic."° It also appears that primitive sauropterygians, unlike the ichthyosaurs, were not capable of trans-Pacific migration until sometime after the Carnian, Some of the at least 30 million years or more after their debut.'*! sauropterygians, such as the nothosaurs, make good intermediaries between land and sea creatures, for they possessed longer limbs with foot-like paddles. A common myth of evolution is that every organism is "perfectly adapted to its environment." The truth is, not every organism is so perfectly adapted. In the case of the sauropterygians, a critical adaptive deficiency existed, which they never evolved to overcome, despite their long tenure of 180 million years on the planet. They suffered from decompression syndrome, which is the deterioration of bones due to excess nitrogen in the blood caused by diving deep under water. Unlike sauropterygians, whales have evolved cardiovascular adaptations to successfully avoid this problem.'** Whales have accomplished this in less than 50 million years. Yet the sauropterygians could not accomplish a similar adaption, even though they lived in the ocean more than three times longer than the whales. It is a curious feature of evolution that these great beasts of the deep were able to develop all the necessary equipment for life in the water within a brief period, yet were unable to find a solution to decompression syndrome in 180 million years. Apparently, there are limits to how far natural selection can take a form.

'8° Rieppel, Olivier; Hagdorn, Hans. Paleobiogeography of Middle Triassic Sauropterygia in Central and Western Europe. Edited by Callaway, Jack M; Nicholls, Elizabeth L. Ancient Marine Reptiles. 1997, Academic Press, San Diego, CA, p 107-119

'40 Massare, Judy A. Edited by Callaway, Jack M; Nicholls, Elizabeth L. Ancient Marine Reptiles.

1997, Academic Press, San Diego, CA, p 409

'4I Nicholls, Elizabeth L; Wei, Chen; Manabe, Makoto. New Material of Qianichthyosaurus Li, 1999 (Reptilia, Ichthyosauria) from the Late Triassic of Southern China and Implications for the Distribution of Triassic Ichthyosaurs. 2002, Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 22(4), p 759-765

' Rothschild, Bruce M; Storrs, Glenn W. Decompression Syndrome in Plesiosaurs (Sauropterygia: Reptilia). 2003, Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology

23(2), p 324-328 56

Bats Bats popped out of the evolutionary woodwork about 55 million years ago. They first appear as a radically new yet fully developed form, which was not in any way significantly different from modern bats. Their debut in the fossil record is sudden, complete, and lacks intermediaries. In 55 million years, they have changed little. Among the earliest bats is a 54.6 million year-old bat from Queensland Australia, which is similar to another early bat named Palaeochiropteryx.'** Other early bat fossils include Icaronycteris'™ and Onychonycteris.’” Modern bats are similar to these most primitive bats in all their most vital characteristics, including the same diamond-shaped skull, the same

square rib cage followed by a sizeable and very distinct lumbar region, narrow

bones

in the limbs, the distance

from

shoulder

to elbow

is

roughly two thirds the distance from elbow to wrist — and most obviously, the third, fourth, and fifth digits in the forelimb are long and narrow to support the wing. It is this character, the length of the digits, which is most striking about the skeleton of bats, for it appears fully developed in the most primitive bats, with no link between it and the short fingers of its supposed insectivore ancestors. The best explanation for this is that bats must have evolved very rapidly — so rapidly that intermediary forms did not last long enough to stand a good chance at being preserved. Yet Nature presented Onychonycteris as an intermediary, because it differed! both from modern bats and from its contemporaries in having claws on all its fingers, rib and vertebral fusion, a shorter wingspan, and

lack of echolocation ability. However, there are some modern bats that do not echolocate, and some still have claws on more than one finger, so not all these characters necessarily make Onychonycteris a missing link. Rather, they make it a different sort of bat. In other respects Onychonycteris was similar to both modern bats and to its advanced contemporaries. It had long narrow fingers, flapping flight, as well as a

i? Godthelp, Henk; Archer, Michael; Cifelli, Richard; Hand, Suzanne, J; Gilkeson, Coral F. Earliest Known Australian Tertiary Mammal Fauna. 1992, Nature 356, p 514 eg Jepsen, GL. Early Eocene Bat from Wyoming. 1966, Science 154, p 1333-

1339 145 Simmons, Nancy B; Seymour, Kevin L; Habersezter, Jorg; Gunnell, Gregg F. Primitive Early Eocene Bat from Wyoming and the Evolution of Flight and Echolocation.

2008, Nature 451, p 818-822

57

similar skull shape, pelvis, hind limbs, rib cage, scapula, clavicle, and

sternum. '*° Onychonycteris was a contemporary with the more advanced bats Icaronycteris and Palaeochiropteryx, and it is actually predated by the bat from Queensland Australia. As with the small-limbed snakes and feathered raptors, it occurs too late in the fossil record to be a direct ancestor to the earliest bats.

Therefore, it cannot constitute evidence for

a gradual transition from terrestrial insectivore to bat-like forms. Nevertheless, its primitive characters, such as shorter wingspan and claws on all fingers, can plausibly be interpreted as intermediary features. Hence, although this fossil indicates that a transition did indeed happen, it does not support that such a transition was necessarily gradual. Rather, the fact that it was contemporary with advanced modern-like bats supports the theory that bat evolution happened rapidly. That is to say, when the intermediaries do not predate the fully developed forms, then evolutionary transitions most likely took place over periods of time that were so brief that missing link fossils were not preserved. If the distinctive characters of bats evolved by means of natural selection, such evolution must have occurred gradually, over a multitude of generations, as natura non facit saltum mandates. If this were the case, then we should see a gradual change from insectivores to bats in the fossil record. Instead, we find a sudden appearance of fully-formed advanced bats, without intermediaries before them.

Some would take

this as evidence against evolutionary theory, and assert that God created the bats from scratch. But this cannot be supported by the data, for the bats did not persist as immutable species each after its own kind. Rather, the bat lineage has subsequently diversified into more than 200 genera.'*” This must mean that species have been morphing into other species. This has happened gradually, as natural selection has caused bats to adapt to a multitude of different ecological niches, which are well represented in the fossil record. The evolution of bats follows the same pattern seen time and time again in the fossil record: Sudden emergence of a new body plan followed by an adaptive radiation. That is, evolutionary advancements involving gross morphological changes occur suddenly; however, what is

a) Simmons, Nancy B; et al. ibid, p 818-822

'47 McKenna, Malcolm C; Bell, Susan K. Classification of Mammals Above the Species Level. 1997, Columbia University Press, New York, NY, p 366-367Im C; Bell, Susan K. Classification of Mammals Above the Species Level. 1997, Columbia University Press, New York, NY, p 295-322

58

gradual is the manner in which the species possessing those advancements adapt to fill every environmental niche permitted by the advancement.

Recapitulation Concerning existing forms, the following patterns permeate the history of life on earth: 1. Existing forms evolve gradually over time in accordance with the expectations of Darwin's theory of natural selection. ee Some improvements to a form are surprisingly slow in evolving, or never do evolve. Existing forms can adapt to a wide variety of environments. They don't need to become new phyla to adapt. The best conclusion is that evolution by means of natural selection happens slowly and is limited in the degree of change it can effect on a form. Concerning new forms, a different set of patterns permeate the history of life on earth: be New forms appear suddenly. ps Intermediaries exist, but they come after the new form is already established, and therefore cannot be direct ancestors of the new form.

The best explanation for this is that new forms evolve so rapidly that missing links do not have enough time to leave an adequate fossil record; and that the intermediaries we see are descendents of missing links, not the missing links themselves. Therefore, we have two types of evolution. One is gradual. The other is rapid. One explains small changes. The other explains big changes. One is adequately explained by Darwin's theory of natural selection. The other is more difficult to explain.

59

¢

6

°¢

Theories on Rapid Evolution "Gaps"

The observation that new forms and structures appear suddenly in the fossil record is old news. The difficulty posed by "missing links" or "gaps" in the fossil record was acknowledged even by Darwin himself: Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and_ this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.'** Darwin thought the gaps in the fossil record exist because the record is incomplete, and that subsequent discoveries might fill in the gaps. To a degree, he was right. Since then, some gaps have been replaced by thin bridges of intermediary forms. Yet even where these bridges connect forms in a parent-descendent relationship, the pattern of sudden appearances, or rapid transformation into new forms, has not changed. After 150 years of new discoveries, the pattern is firmly established and recognized. As Clarkson asserted,

What is seen in the rocks is not the result of the fossil record's inadequacy, but a fair picture of the actual pattern of events.'” Even George Gaylord Simpson, who championed the Darwinian opinions of the Modern Synthesis, candidly admitted the problem,

'48 Darwin, Charles. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection.

1859, p 280

'” Clarkson, EN K. Invertebrate Paleontology and Evolution, 2"4 Edition. 1986, Unwin Hyman Ltd, London, UK, p 26

60

It is a feature of the known fossil record that most taxa appear abruptly. They are not, as a rule, led up to by a sequence of almost imperceptibly changing forerunners such as Darwin believed should be usual in evolution.'™’ These so-called "gaps" in the fossil record are a timeless centerpiece of creationist arguments. As Eldredge and Gould put it, The rarity of transitional series remains as our persistent bugbear. From the reputable claims of a Cuvier or an Agassiz to the jibes of modern cranks and fundamentalists, it has stood as the bulwark of anti-evolutionist arguments.'”' Yet by emphasizing the "gaps," the creationists de-emphasize the fossil links that have been found, thereby only giving half the picture. Evolutionist Robert Carroll gave a more complete picture by acknowledging the pattern of suddenness, yet also making a case for evolutionary change where evidence exists for it. With regard to sudden appearances, he stated,

Instead of showing gradual and continuous change through time, the major lineages appear suddenly in the fossil record.’ The same basic evolutionary pattern applies to all groups for which there is an adequate fossil record.’ New discoveries are unlikely to change our understanding of large scale patterns of evolution.'™

general

'50 Simpson, George Gaylord. In Tax, S. Evolution After Darwin. 1960, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, p 149 ‘Sl Eldredge, Niles; Gould, Stephen Jay. Punctuated Equilibrium: An Alternative to Phyletic Gradualism. First published in 1972, Models of Paleobiology, Edited by TJ M Schopf. Reprinted in Eldredge, Niles. Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium. 1985, Simon and Schuster, New York, NY, p 198-199 'S2 Carroll, Robert L. Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution. 1997, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, p 2

'53 Carroll, Robert L. ibid, p 8

'54 Carroll, Robert L. ibid, p 16 61

Instead of new families, orders, and classes evolving from one another over long periods of time, most had attained their most distinctive characteristics when they first appeared in the fossil record and have retained this basic pattern for the remainder of their duration.'” Yet Carroll also found examples of gradual evolution in conformity with Darwinian expectations. He described the gradual and directional evolution of ichthyosaur paddles over their 100 million year tenure, as well as gradual and directional changes in mammal teeth during the Pliocene.'*° He also proposed that late Jurassic pleurosaurs evolved gradually from the late Triassic sphenodontids.'*” Likewise, Levinton also acknowledged a "morphological discontinuity among taxa," yet, like Darwin, postulated, "missing data,

rather than saltations (leaps), are the likely explanations."'”” Even Gould, who was usually on the opposite side of the fence from the gradualists, acknowledged a documented case wherein gradual speciation had occurred over a period of 2 million years from one species of Melanopsis to another.'” Thus, although many evolutionists admit that there are "gaps" in the fossil record, this does not by itself justify creationists' attempts to use their words to attack evolution, nor to support the notion that God formed each species as an unrelated lineage, as Genesis 1 repeatedly insists, "each after its own kind."'®' Although there are "gaps" in some cases, gradual evolution certainly does happen in other cases.

Higher Taxa The anomaly has always been, and still remains, the sudden origin of the higher taxa. As Clarkson put it,

'S° Carroll, Robert L. ibid, p 167 '°° Carroll, Robert L. ibid, p 257, 90-95 'S7 Carroll, Robert L. ibid, p 473-475 158

Levinton, Jeffrey S. Genetics, Paleontology, and Macroevolution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, p 208 '? | evinton, Jeffrey S. ibid, p 357

2001,

'© Gould, Stephen Jay. The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. 2002, President and Fellows of Harvard College, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press Cambridge, MA, p 867

'! Genesis 1:11-12, 1:21, 1:24-25 62

,

The links between higher taxa are obscure, and are but poorly represented in the fossil record... but what the fossil record does give us is many examples of the ‘instantaneous' origin of new structural plans... the origination of higher taxa, in this sense, remains the least understood of paleontological phenomena.’

The phrase "higher taxa" refers to the broader groupings of life forms.

For example, mammals, birds, and reptiles are higher taxa than

cows, pigeons, and alligators. From lower to higher taxa, humans are classified as e sapiens (species) — (lowest) Homo (genus - plural is genera) Hominids (family) Primates (order) Mammals (class) Chordates (phylum — plural is phyla) e Animals (kingdom) — (highest) With regard to human evolutionary lineage, the lower taxa show a pattern of gradual transitions, for there are a multitude of fossils that are progressively more and more human-like and less and less ape-like, which demonstrate human evolution happened gradually. However, at the higher taxa, the order primates appeared suddenly, without a gradual line of fossils connecting it to an earlier group of mammals. It is this puzzle, the origin of higher taxa, which has proven the most difficult question.

Saltation Natura non facit saltum. "Nature does not make sudden leaps." That statement is among the most sacred scriptures of Darwinism. But during the first half of the 20" century, a large group of evolutionists adopted a theory named after the word sa/tum, meaning "sudden leaps." Called "Saltationists," they defied Darwin, asserting that Natura facit saltum — "Nature does make sudden leaps." An evolutionist named Schindewolf was among their proponents. Schindewolf expressed the conviction that gaps in the fossil record would remain regardless of whatever new discoveries are made:

162 Clarkson, EN K. Invertebrate Paleontology and Evolution, 2" Edition. Unwin Hyman Ltd, London, UK, p 37-38 63

1986,

The missing links of the cliché have never been found... the closed evolutionary lineages which we have before us regularly break off as we near their roots. Nothing in the future will change this.'* Schindewolf pointed out that when dramatically different life forms first appear in the fossil record, they cannot be traced to known ancestors by small incremental steps of evolutionary change. Rather, they appear suddenly, as "large evolutionary steps, without connecting transitional links."' The clean break in the traceability of ancestry is most acute at the root of the higher taxa:

All decisive transformations of the basic structures of the higherranking types are brought about in large, individual steps with far-reaching consequences, without links or transitions, in early ontogenetic stages.'°

The beginnings of Saltationism can be traced to Hugo DeVries who lived at the turn of the 20" century.' At the core of Saltationist theory is the notion that sudden macro-mutational events can radically alter the DNA sequences of reproductive cells, thus causing a very speedy injection of new genetic material, the result of which is a new species. In other words, your sperm 'n' eggs get zapped so hard by some sort of excessive radiation that your kids are born as mutants. Then, by means of multi-generational inbreeding, your kids procreate a new and better species. Another Saltationist, Goldschmidt, dubbed these hypothetical mutants "hopeful monsters." The idea is that a macro-mutation, which is not immediately lethal, could conceivably be tweaked by natural selection over a few generations into something useful. Saltationism is so reviled among some evolutionists that it is called "heresy." It is now dead and buried somewhere in the intellectual trash pile of the scientific community, mostly on account of its genetic

'® Schindewolf, Otto H. Basic Questions in Paleontology. 1950, E Schweizerbartsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, Erwin Nagele, Stuttgart, Germany. Translated by Schaefer, Judith. Edited by Reif, Wolf-Ernst, Forward by Gould, Stephen Jay. 1993, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, p 106 '4 Schindewolf, Otto H. ibid, p 124

'® Schindewolf, Otto H. ibid, p 211 '® Schwartz, Jeffrey H. Sudden Origins. 1999, John Wiley & Sons Inc, USA, p 192

64

impossibilities. The large-scale genetic mutations it requires are too harmful for the production of viable mutants. Evolutionary genetics favors slight mutations, not macro-mutations. Yet despite the collapse of Saltationism, the paleontological observations which originally constituted the basis for it have not gone

away.

Punctuated Equilibrium After the conventional wisdom of the Darwinists had silenced the Saltationists, it was just a matter of time before a new theory of rapid evolution was formulated to explain the sudden appearance of new forms. In 1972, Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould published such a theory. It has gone down in history as Punctuated Equilibrium, and it remains the most widely held theory of rapid evolution today. The

two

words,

"Punctuated"

and

"Equilibrium,"

separate phases within the lifetime of a given the evolution of a species is "Punctuated" — evolutionary change occurs over a short time long period of relatively little change, called As Eldredge and Gould put it,

refer

to two

species. In the first phase, meaning that most of the period. Second, there is a "Equilibrium" or "stasis."

Most evolutionary changes in morphology occur in a short period of time relative to the total duration of the species.'®”

One example of Punctuated Equilibrium in action was provided by a study of African mollusks from the Turkana Basin. 3,300 individual mollusks across 13 different lineages were measured. Williamson concluded,

The Turkana Basin sequence clearly conforms to the punctuated equilibrium model: long-term stasis in all lineages is punctuated No gradualistic by rapid episodes of phenotypic change. morphological trends occurred in any lineage.

'67 Eldredge, Niles; Gould, Stephen Jay. Punctuated Equilibrium: An Alternative to Phyletic Gradualism. First published in 1972, Models of Paleobiology, Edited by Schopf, TJ M. Reprinted in Eldredge, Niles. Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium, 1985, Simon and Schuster, New York, NY, p 204

65

When change did happen, speciation events were completed within 5,000 to 50,000 years.'** Punctuated Equilibrium can also be observed in the Huaqiao Formation in Hunan, China. Layers of rock record the sudden arrival of half-a-dozen or so new species, which exist for a while before being replaced by other suddenly emerging species. Cycles of spontaneous arrival of new species happen several times in the formation.'” Another documented occurrence of Punctuated Equilibrium in the fossil record comes from the analysis of 14,000 conodonts over 10 million years of Ordovician time in Argentinean strata. Albanesi and Barnes found that stasis had been punctuated by a brief period of speciation from one type of tooth-like structure to another. They hypothesized that the cause of the speciation was genetic isolation coupled with deposits of volcanic ash into the conodont's habitat. Within 230 meters of rock, there was no change; then, in less than one meter, the

transformation from one type of dentical to another was complete — representing a period of 50,000 to 100,000 years. This was correlated to Gould's earlier estimate that marine invertebrate species usually last for 5 to 11 million years, and that the punctuation phase of their evolution generally accounts for only 1% of that time,'”’ which pleasantly agrees with the 50,000 to 100,000 years they calculated for the time in which the punctuation event occurred.'”’ The 50,000 to 100,000 years that they calculated for the time it took

one species to evolve into another is consistent with the findings of other studies. Geary's study of Miocene gastropods suggested that a punctuation event that led to speciation happened in "tens of thousands

'68 Williamson, P G. Paleontological Documentation of Speciation in Cenozoic Molluscs from Turkana Basin. 1981, Nature 293, p 437-443

'® Peng, Shanchi; Robison, Richard A. Agnostoid Biostratigraphy Across the Middle-Upper Cambrian Boundary in Hunan, China. 2000, Journal of Paleontology, Volume 74, Special Issue 53, p 4 '? Gould, Stephen J. The Meaning of Punctuated Equilibrium and Its Role in Validating a Hierarchical Approah to Macroevolution. Compiled in Milkman, R. Perspectives on Evolution. 1982, Sinauer, Sunderland, MA, p 83-104; and in The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. 2002, President and Fellows of Harvard College, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, p 768

'7! Albanesi, Guillermo L; Barnes, Christopher R. Subspeciation Within a Punctuated Equilibrium Evolutionary Event: Phylogenetic History of the LowerMiddle Ordovician Paroistodus Originalis-P. Horridus Complex (Conodonta). 2000, Journal of Paleontology 74(3), p 492-502

66

of years."'’* Goodfriend and Gould found that the pulmonate genus Cerion morphed from one species into another in no more than 15,000 to 20,000 years.’ Therefore, Punctuated Equilibrium supposes _ that evolution happens in the tens of thousands, not millions, of years. Although considerably shorter than traditional Darwinists suppose, tens of thousands of years is not exactly the six days mentioned in Genesis 1. Punctuated Equilibrium cannot support creationist suppositions. Some evolutionists were angered by the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium,

not so much

because

of its scientific merit, but rather

because it was presented as an alternative to Darwinism, which inadvertently resulted in creationists presenting it as evidence against evolution in general — an unwelcome consequence that Eldredge and Gould tried to mitigate.

Stasis is Data The primary pillar for the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium is the reality of stasis in the fossil record. Species tend to remain essentially unchanged for long periods of time, often extending for millions or even tens of millions of years without altering their anatomy. As Gould put it, Stasis is data... The fossil record may, after all, be 99 percent

imperfect, but if you can, nonetheless, sample a species at a large number of horizons well spread over several million years, and if these samples record no net change, with beginning and end points substantially the same, and with only mild and errant fluctuation among the numerous collections in between, then a conclusion of stasis rests on the presence of data, not on absence!'”*

Gould documented a multitude of examples of stasis, wherein a large number of individual fossils within a species, sampled over long time

DH. The Importance of Gradual Change in Species-Level Transitions. 12 Geary, In Erwin, D H; Anstey, R L. New Approaches to Speciation in the Fossil Record. 1995, Columbia University Press, NY, p 67-86 '3 Goodfriend, G A; Gould, SJ. Paleontology and Chronology of Two Evolutionary Transitions by Hybridization in the Bahamian Land Snail Cerion. 1996, Science 274, p 1894-1897

74 Gould, Stephen Jay. The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. 2002, President and Fellows of Harvard College, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, p 759 67

increments, revealed a picture of relatively little or no net change. Gould summarized evidence for stasis from a large variety of fossilized life forms — trilobites, beetles, lungfish, cheilostomes, scallops, brachiopods,

and certain ungulates such as wildebeasts.'” Some of these examples of stasis are based on extraordinarily plentiful data. For example, stasis is the norm among nearly all of the more than 330 invertebrate species that existed over a period of 9 million years in the Devonian times of the Appalachian Mountains.'’° Some might say these were merely fossilized hillbillies that were incapable of evolution; notwithstanding, the shear multitude of data points among these Appalachians is a good indication of the reality of stasis. Stasis is the "equilibrium" part of Punctuated Equilibrium, and often it is the only part of a species' evolutionary history that can be observed, because the period of stasis is so much longer than the period of punctuation, that only fossils from the period of stasis have been preserved. Richard Dawkins, a critic of Punctuated Equilibrium, attributes punctuations to migrations, not to rapid evolution:

When we look at a series of fossils from any one place, we are probably not looking at an evolutionary event at all: we are looking at a migrational event, the arrival of a new species from another geographical area.'”” However, the difference between a migrational event and a punctuational event can be distinguished when the punctuational event has fossil intermediaries in a formation. In fact, Eldredge's first discovery of a punctuation event was characterized by just that — parent and child species, together with intermediaries, all in a single formation. He found that a certain species of trilobite called Phacops milleri dominated lower Hamilton formations for 3 or 4 million years. It consistently had 18 columns of lenses in its eyes. The entire time period with regard to P.

' Gould, Stephen Jay. ibid, p 753-755, 769, 788, 817, 824, 826, 866; and references therein

'7° Gould, Stephen Jay. ibid, p 865 '7 Dawkins, Richard. The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design. NY, London, UK, p 240

1987,

68

W W Norton & Company, New York,

milleri was characterized by a "simple lack of change."'” Then, very abruptly, that trilobite was replaced by another very similar trilobite called Phacops rana, which remained unchanged for 7 or 8 million years thereafter.'” The replacement was too abrupt, and the periods of stasis too long, for a gradual transition to be possible. At first, there were no intermediaries,

and

so

Eldredge,

like

Dawkins,

phenomenon to migration, not macromutation.

attributed

the

However, there was one

formation in New York, where intermediary forms did exist.

They were

present in a quarry, and occurred enough to discern that the evolutionary event was completed in just 1,000 to 10,000 years' time.'*® Once the change was complete, the new species branched out to new locations, replacing the earlier species, and it remained essentially unchanged for millions of years thereafter. We may draw certain conclusions from Punctuated Equilibrium. Among them, 1. Species stay essentially unchanged for millions of years. 2. When species do evolve, they evolve within thousands of years, not millions. 3. The degree to which they evolve is small and produces only a slightly different descendent species.

The Problem Remains This third conclusion, namely that Punctuated Equilibrium explains only small evolutionary changes, should draw our attention, for it means that Punctuated Equilibrium does not necessarily solve the bigger problem regarding the sudden appearance of higher taxa. This, I think, should give us pause, for it tends to limit the applicability of Punctuated Equilibrium to the level of the lower taxa, and leaves us still curious about the higher taxa. Eldredge himself hinted at the matter, speaking about Phacops rana,

Hardly prodigious, this degree of anatomical retooling falls well

within the bounds of "micro-evolution" — loosely speaking, the

178 Eldredge, Niles. Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium, 1985, Simon and Schuster, New York, NY, p 67-70

179 Eldredge, Niles. ibid, p 80 180 Eldredge, Niles. ibid, p 81 69

kind and degree of relatively minor change that marks difference between closely related species.'*!

the

The sudden appearance of new and completely unparalleled forms is the great problem. Where are the missing links from archosaurs to pterosaurs? From mustelids to sea lions? From Ediacaran fauna to the Cambrian Explosion? Punctuated Equilibrium seems to only address small changes from species to species — not from order to order, class to class, or phylum to phylum, and therefore does not answer the most pressing question about the origin of higher taxa. The examples of Punctuated Equilibrium that can be garnered from the fossil record — the snails, the conodonts, the trilobites — all these are examples of minor

species-level changes. Although Punctuated Equilibrium is an excellent framework for explaining small evolutionary changes at the level of the lower taxa, it is not necessarily directly pertinent to the bigger problem regarding the sudden appearance of higher taxa. If the change brought from a punctuation event is small, as every indication testifies, then an accumulation of Punctuated Equilibrium cycles are required before a quantum leap from one phylum, class, or order can be realized. And if these punctuations are most often separated by long periods of stasis, then would not the emergence of new phyla, classes, and orders be, as a matter of the big picture, gradual? The accomplishments of multiple Punctuated Equilibrium cycles over time should therefore yield a gradual advancement not too different from what Darwin originally envisioned — a slow and steady progress, characterized by punctuations, yes, but each of such a small scale and with such infrequency as to be barely distinguishable from the "big picture" of phyletic gradualism. The alternation between stasis and punctuation yields a very slow rate of progress over time. It still falls short of explaining the sudden emergence of the higher taxa. For even though a punctuation at the level of species or genus, such as Phacops was, could be quite speedy; however, the subsequent period of stasis is not speedy, and therefore if we wish to use the framework of Punctuated Equilibrium to explain, for example, how the trilobite's relatives became spiders, we must assume it happened over a long period of time, for a large number of punctuations followed by periods of stasis must have occurred to make it happen. The three figures below plot amounts of evolution over time. Notice that both Darwinism and Punctuated Equilibrium yield an overall pattern de Eldredge, Niles. ibid, p 70

70

of gradual evolution. Even though Punctuated Equilibrium is characterized by fits and starts, it still necessarily takes a long time to accomplish significant evolutionary change at the magnitude of higher taxa. That is because stasis separates punctuations, and because punctuations only accomplish small amounts of change. Both traditional Darwinism and Punctuated Equilibrium contrast sharply with what the fossil record actually demands, for the fossil record frequently does not allow for the gradual evolution of higher taxa. According to Simple Darwinism

lower and higher taxa both change gradual at Constant

Amount Change Evolutionary of According to Punctuated Equilibria

New Species New Genus ~.

(?)

New Species. Stasis

lower taxa

Stasis

Equilibria the Punctuated at higher the for Explanation taxa

Stasis

Change Evolutionary of Amount

va

According to the Fossil Record ie]

New Species.

=

z

‘\

Oe

Stasis

~

2

;

S = ©

“~~~ New Order,

=

o

cay

E>

=

®

-c

222

2

i)

=

x

=e

vet 8

ag:

a

iis Som z

89

$

Class, or

SB Si Lng

as

Phylum

~

s

E€=

=

=

S ed a

eo oe o

S w Genus c Ne | S

— >

= 10 Genesis 49:10 51 Jeremiah 1:1

512 Jeremiah 7:12-14, 26:6-9, 41:5 513 Eriedman, Richard Elliot. Who Wrote the Bible? 1997, HarperCollins Publishers, New York, NY, p 125-126

*14 Mark 2:25-26 159

The Old Testament story Jesus was recollecting tells of how King David was befriended by a father-son combo of priests named Abiathar and Ahimelech. One was the son and the other the father, although which was which is not certain, for the Old Testament contradicts itself on this detail.°’> Two other priests, Zadok and his father Ahitub, were also alive

at this time.°'° However, David did not go to Zadok and Ahitub in his youth. Moreover, Jesus Christ never called them high priest. Instead, Jesus called Abiathar high priest, thus relegating Zadok and Ahitub to something below that office. It seems that Jesus regarded Abiathar as the legitimate high priest, and Zadok as something else. Abiathar was the priest of Shiloh. Zadok was the priest of Jerusalem. These facts taken together indicate that there were two rival priesthoods, one of Abiathar and the other of Zadok, and that Jesus and Jeremiah regarded Abiathar as the more legitimate of the two. Zadok and the Sadducees

The 1“ century historian Josephus informs us, For a long time, the Jews were divided into three schools of thought — the Essenes, the Sadducees, and the Pharisees.*!” The second of these, the Sadducees,

or Zadokees,

were

named

after

Saduc, or Zadok, the first high priest of the Jerusalem temple. This is the same Zadok who helped Solomon become the king and who was the first high priest of the Jerusalem temple. In Jesus' time, the priesthood of the Jerusalem temple was affiliated with the Sadducees, and effectively worked together with the Sadducees as the same sect.°!® Josephus and the New Testament inform us that the Sadducees did not believe in angels, nor in the resurrection. They believed in free will. They rejected Jewish oral tradition, conforming only to the scriptures. They were harsh in their enforcement of the criminal justice, and they quarreled amongst each other and with the Pharisees. They were respected among the wealthy, but lacked popularity with the masses.°””

>! 4* Samuel 21:1-6, 22:20-23:6, 2" Samuel 3:17 516 94 samuel 8:17 aa Josephus. Antiquities of the Jews 18.1.2

*18 Acts 4:1-6, 5:17-28 °! Josephus. Antiquities of the Jews 18.1.2, 13.10.6, Wars of the Jews 2.8.12; Mark 12:18, Luke 20:27, Matthew 22:23-34, Acts 23:8

160

Who Killed Christ? Who killed Christ? According to the gospels, Jewish leaders convinced the Roman governor Pilate to kill him. But which Jewish leaders did this? As we have seen, there were three major denominations. Were they all responsible, or just one of them? Neither Jesus nor the New Testament ever criticize the Essenes, so

they can be cleared of the charge. The Pharisees, for their part, were continually attempting to neutralize Jesus by interrogating him with difficult questions aimed at discrediting him. However, the Pharisees were sometimes friendly toward Jesus. Nicodemus praised him, and Simon the Leper had him over for dinner. °° When given the opportunity to kill Jesus and the Christians, they sometimes declined. For example, they warned Jesus when Herod was trying to kill him.°*! Also, they argued to refrain from persecuting Christians after the first Pentecost,” and wanted to release Paul when he stood on trial before the Sanhedrin.” Therefore, although some of the Pharisees may have wanted to kill Jesus,’ it is doubtful that the sect as a whole was fully united toward this aim. The Sadducees are much more to blame for Jesus' death. It is generally agreed among scholars, particularly those who are the most skeptical, that Mark's account of the passion is the earliest and most trustworthy of the gospels. Therefore, let us look to the events Mark records. Mark says that it was the "chief priests, Bible copiers, and elders" who hired Judas the traitor and who arrested him.”

Likewise, it

was the "high priest, the chief priests, the Bible copiers, and the elders" who tried him in the temple court.*° Again, it was the "chief priests, Bible copiers, and elders" who led him away to Pontius Pilate.°*’ And when Pilate hesitated, it was the "chief priests" who incited a riot, thus forcing Pilate to execute him.** Pilate had experience with riots. In one particular riot, he had been forced to kill a large number of Samaritans.”

520 71 522 %23 °24 °25 26

John 3:1-9, Luke 7:36-49, Mark 14:3, Matthew 26:6 1uke 13:31 Acts 5:34-41 Acts 23:6-9 Mark 3:6, John 18:3 Mark 14:43 Mark 14:53

527 Mark 15:1

°28 Mark 15:10-15 °29 Josephus. Antiquities of the Jews 18.4.1 161

Since killing one man was preferable to killing a whole mob, Pilate's decision was a matter of the lesser evil. So Pilate consented to forgo the legal formalities and carry through with the crucifixion. Hence, it was not the Romans who eagerly killed Christ, nor was it the Jewish masses, nor was it even the Pharisees. It was the chief priests of Jerusalem and their peripherals, the Bible copiers and elders — these hold the lion's share of the blame for Jesus' death. Jesus is nowhere said to have had any friends among the Sadducees whatsoever, which indicates that he didn't even care to breathe the same

air with them. This contrasts sharply with his numerous associations among the Pharisees. The Sadducees' dislike for the Christian faith extended beyond the death of Jesus. It was the Sadducees who put the Christians on trial after the first Pentecost, and it was the Sadducees who

tried to convict Paul before the Sanhedrin.>*° Therefore, those who killed Christ were the heirs of Zadok, the first

high priest of Jerusalem, who was responsible for usurping the priesthood from the true priests of Shiloh and driving them into exile. It was after Zadok, aka Saduc, that the Sadducees took their name, and it

was after Zadok that they fulfilled the words of Jesus Christ — "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who slay the Prophets and stone those who are sent to you."

Zadok and the Damascus Document Among the Dead Sea Scrolls is a text entitled The Damascus Document. It is significant to our discussion for two reasons: First, it states that the Bible, the "Torah," was hidden in the Ark of the Covenant for hundreds of years, and was not revealed until Zadok arrived, and so Zadok's children are deemed the chosen ones of Israel.>*!

This sounds a lot like the experience of another Jerusalem temple priest, Hilkiah, who mysteriously "found" a Bible in the temple that had allegedly been missing for hundreds of years.”” With all these Bibles popping out the woodwork, one can see why Jeremiah accused the Jerusalem priests of forgery. The priests of Zadok evidently used texts like The Damascus Document to justify their authority. Second, The Damascus Document is the only text among the Dead Sea Scrolls that Jesus Christ directly contradicted. It says, "Don't eat anything on the Sabbath except what you have already cooked. Don't eat

°° Acts 4-5, 23:6-10 °3! Dead Sea Scrolls. The Damascus Document 5:2-5, 4:4-5 $32 94 Kings 22:8 162

anything out in the field."** Jesus directly disobeyed this regulation when he and his disciples went through the grain fields on the Sabbath, picking up grain and eating it.°** The Damascus Document also says, "If an animal falls into a water hole on the Sabbath, you shall not lift it out.""?> Jesus directly attacked this regulation also, saying, "Which of you, if your animal falls into a ditch on the Sabbath, will not lift it out?... It is permissible to do good deeds on the Sabbath."°** It is unusual for Jesus to directly contradict the Dead Sea Scrolls, yet here are two places where he does, and they both concern The Damascus Document — the same document that seems intimately connected to Zadok and his Jerusalem priests. The Damascus Document was the one text among the Dead Sea Scrolls that was actually friendly toward the Sadducee-Zadokee priesthood, and Jesus directly attacked it. This is yet another subtlety that reinforces our theory that Christ was fundamentally opposed to the Sadducees and their progenitor Zadok.

A Den of Thieves In a well known story told in all four gospels, Jesus overturns the tables in the Jerusalem temple, and accuses those of the temple that they have turned the temple into "a den of thieves." He placed himself directly in the shoes of Jeremiah when he said this, for Jeremiah also went to the gates of the temple at Jerusalem and called the temple "a den of thieves."°’

About this there is no coincidence, for Jesus Christ saw

himself as a Prophet in the tradition of those Prophets who had come before him, and he believed that every true Prophet stands against the priests and against their temple at Jerusalem. We have seen how there was a longstanding priestly tradition centered in Jerusalem, which had its origins with a high priest named Zadok. We have also seen that this group of priests was responsible for polluting scripture with forgeries, exiling the true priests, usurping the throne, killing the Prophets, and ultimately killing Christ. More than a theory, the foregoing hypothesis rests upon the solid edifice of mainstream Biblical scholarship, as we shall see in the next

chapter. 533 Dead Sea Scrolls. The Damascus Document 10:21-22

534 Wark 2:23-28, Luke 6:1-5, Matthew 12:1-8

35 Dead Sea Scrolls 40265.

The Damascus Document fragment 6

°36 Matthew 12:10-12 537 Jeremiah 7:11, 7:2, Mark 11:17, Luke 19:46, Matthew 21:13, John 2:13-17 163

+

14

°

The Documentary Hypothesis Four Sources for the Torah This chapter describes what mainstream non-fundamentalist scholars believe about the origins of the Torah — that is, the first five books of the Bible, Genesis through Deuteronomy. The Torah is derived primarily from four sources. The two oldest sources are The Yahwist Narrative, which was written by the southern Hebrews sometime between 930-720 BCE, and The

Elohist Traditions, which were written by the northern Hebrews during the same time period. These make up the bulk of Genesis, and also a great deal of Exodus and Numbers. The third source is the book of Deuteronomy, which was most likely the Bible that Hilkiah "found" in the temple.**® Scholars believe whoever published Deuteronomy also compiled Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel, and Kings — and that even though these were not compiled until the 620's BCE, certain original source documents and oral traditions upon which they were based are much older. The identification of these older sources is a challenging process, and, although reasonably complete approximations can be achieved, we will never be able to conclusively pinpoint the origins of all of them. The fourth source is The Priestly Text which was composed by the

priests of Jerusalem. Scholars are divided about the date of this source. Some think it was written before the Babylonian exile of the 6" century BCE, some think during that exile, and some think after that exile by as much as 100-200 years. On the whole, its material is more recent than the others. The largest of the four, it constitutes all of Leviticus, a great deal of Exodus and Numbers, and a little of Genesis, including the allimportant creation account in Genesis 1.

Early Hebrew History In order to understand why scholars believe this, it is necessary to have a cursory knowledge of ancient Hebrew history. The Hebrews

538 "4 Kings 22:8

164

migrated from Palestine into Egypt during the 1700's BCE — an event commemorated in the story of Joseph, and in Egyptian history as the Hyksos take-over of northern Egypt. The Hebrews departed from Egypt about 1550 BCE, which Egyptian history records as the expulsion of the Hyksos, and which corresponds in very general terms to the Biblical Exodus. Then there follows a 300+ year period filled with very interesting but inconclusive information, which largely reduces us to the art of speculation. The degree of uncertainty abates in the 1220's BCE with the archaeological verification of Israel's existence in Palestine. The Biblical book of Judges is our best source for what happened during the period from about 1200 BCE until 1050 BCE. The first few chapters of Judges indicate that there was a deep cultural divide between the northern Hebrews who mingled with the Canaanite culture and the southern Hebrews who did not. We know this from studying the various judges, who often ruled over exclusively northern tribes, but not southern tribes, and vice-versa — for example, the very ancient Song of Deborah,

mentions almost every northern tribe, yet fails to mention southern tribes such as Judah and Simeon, and says the southern tribe of Reuben was only a lukewarm ally.*” From about 1050 BCE until 930 BCE both northern and southern Hebrews were theoretically united under the iron fists of the kings Saul, David, and Solomon; but these kings were constantly quelling revolts initiated by one faction or the other. It was during Solomon's time that Zadok started the priesthood of the Jerusalem temple, and disenfranchised the northern priests under Abiathar. The merger of north and south proved unworkable, and dissolved with the successful revolt of the north under Jeroboam.

Yahwists and Elohists King Jeroboam presided over a deeply divided kingdom in the north. Not only were the northern Hebrews culturally divided from the southern Hebrews, the northern Hebrews were also religiously divided amongst themselves — some worshiping Yahweh and others worshipping the pagan Canaanite god Baal. To complicate matters, even those who

worshipped Yahweh were divided between Abiathar's successors and Zadok's priests at Jerusalem. Yet despite their differences, all western Semitic peoples, Hebrew and Canaanite

alike, believed in a Father-God

3° Judges 5:14-19 165

named

El, as we

can

surmise from a large number of archaeological sites.” Jeroboam attempted to use this common belief in El in order to unite his northern kingdom. Like Henry of Navarre, he was a politique. He erected idols of El's symbol, the golden calf, at Dan and at Bethel, and said "Here are your gods O Israel."**' The calf, or cow, was a symbol of EI, for it is known from archaeology that he was depicted as a bull with horns.>” Therefore, it became politically correct to call God by the name of "El" or "Elohim," not "Yahweh." To say that El was God was acceptable to Canaanite and Hebrew alike, but to say that Yahweh was God was offensive to the Canaanites, and therefore politically incorrect. The northern Hebrews began referring to their God as Elohim, in order to be politically correct, yet many of them still worshipped Yahweh. Therefore, they began to use the names Elohim and Yahweh interchangeably for the same God. This is evident from an Elohist passage in Genesis 29:31-30:24, where the progenitors of the southern tribes are associated with Yahweh (the LORD), but the progenitors of the northern tribes are associated with Elohim (God) — yet it is implicit that both are the same God. It was at this point that scholars believe the two sources known as The Yahwist Narrative and The Elohist Traditions began to take shape. The Yahwist came from the south, and the Elohist came from the north. We know they were once separate texts because the Bible preserves them as telling the same stories in two different ways. For example, the story of Hagar is told twice in the Bible — once in Genesis 16, which calls God Yahweh, the signature of The Yahwist Narrative; and again in Genesis 21 which calls God Elohim, the signature of The Elohist Traditions. The story of Abraham giving his wife to another man is also told twice — the Yahwist version in Genesis 12 and the Elohist in Genesis 20. The story of God's warning to Balaam is also told twice — the Yahwist version in Numbers 22:22-35 and the Elohist in Numbers 22:9-12. Differing more than merely on the names for God, there are minute details which establish the Yahwist and Elohist versions as two as separate texts. Moses' father-in-law has two different names — he is

°* smith, Mark S. The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts. 2001, Oxford University Press, New York,

NY, p 135 “41 4 Kings 12:28-29 *? smith, Mark S. The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts. 2001, Oxford University Press, New York,

NY, p 87, 32

166

called Reuel in the Yahwist version and Jethro in the Elohist version>” Likewise, the mountain on which the Ten Commandments are given has two different names — it is called Sinai in the Yahwist version and Horeb in the Elohist version.**

Deuteronomy The north-south division continued until the Assyrians conquered the north in the 720's BCE. At that time, it is believed that many northerners moved south and combined The Elohist Traditions with The Yahwist Narrative into one document. Many Elohists became loyal to the southern kingdom that was still ruled by the descendents of King David. They, by necessity, were forced to take a back seat to Zadok's Jerusalem priests. They compiled their traditions into the book of Deuteronomy and the books of history, Joshua through Kings. Out of allegiance to their new southern home, they gave these books a very pro-monarchy and pro-Jerusalem bias. Yet they still retained certain Elohist signatures, for example, Deuteronomy still called the Mount of the Covenant by the name of Horeb instead of Sinai. If one assumes that Moses wrote Deuteronomy, as is traditionally thought, then one must also assume that he used the names Horeb and Sinai interchangeably; but if this is true,

then why does Deuteronomy constantly use the word Horeb but never Sinai? If these names were truly interchangeable, then why is their usage not more random?

The Priests of Jerusalem The last of the sources, The Priestly Text, which includes Genesis 1, was the brainchild of the Jerusalem temple priests who were the heirs of Zadok. It was woven together with The Yahwist Narrative and The Elohist Traditions, to complete Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, and to add Leviticus. Scholars believe it achieved its final form sometime after the Jews returned from Babylon in 539 BCE, although a great deal of the material is from earlier times. The Priestly text was comprised of at least three main bodies of material — 1) genealogical records, 2) rituals and regulations, and 3) a historical narrative including Genesis 1. Although the first two may be somewhat more ancient, it is the historical narrative

543 Exodus 2:18, 10:29-36 "Reuel" and "Yahweh" vs. Exodus 2:24-3:1, 18:5-27 "Jethro" and "Elohim" 544 Exodus 19:10-11, 19:18, 19:20-23, 34:1-5 "Sinai" and "Yahweh" vs. Exodus 2:24-3:1, 20:18-21 "Horeb" and "Elohim" 167

which causes the greatest degree of skepticism among scholars, and most agree it is largely false or misleading.

Differences in Vocabulary Identify the Sources Throughout the Torah, scholars observe subconscious differences in vocabulary which strongly indicate multiple authors. In whole sections of Exodus and Numbers, the masses following Moses are called "the people." In other lengthy sections they are called "the congregation." The sections where they are called "the people" don’t contain the phrase "the congregation." Likewise, the sections where they are called "the congregation" don’t contain the phrase "the people." In some sections, the Israelites are called "Hebrews." In other sections, they are called "the children of Israel." Some sections refer to the monarch of Egypt as "the king of Egypt," but other sections call him "Pharaoh." Some sections call the town of Hebron "Mamre by Hebron." Other sections call Hebron "Machpelah by Mamre." The two names never occur together in the same section. The same is true of northwestern Mesopotamia, which is variously called "Haran" in some sections and "Padan-Aram" in others. Why does the Bible use two names for the same place? As for the deserts south of Israel, some sections call it "the Negev" while other sections call it "The Wilderness of Zin," or "The Wilderness of Paran." As there is no theological reason for such trivial differences in

vocabulary, the best explanation is that the first few books of the Bible were compiled from multiple authors, each manifesting unique subconscious preferences for certain vocabulary. There are even more signatures of the Priestly source which identify it and separate it from the earlier sources. In the Priestly text, the main characters are almost all male, in contrast to the Elohist and especially the Yahwist sources which often include women as main characters. The Priestly text is the only source to use the names Horeb and Sinai interchangeably. This indicates that the Priestly text was written after the other sources, that is, after the northerners had moved south, bringing the

name Horeb with them and identifying it with Sinai. Besides this, other phrases that distinguish the Priestly text from the earlier sources include "the sons of Aaron," "perpetual ordinance," "a statute throughout all your generations," "to be observed throughout all generations," and "all flesh." These are repeated frequently in the Priestly text, but are elsewhere non-existent. Priestly sacrifices are "without blemish" and God’s Law is an "everlasting covenant." Whoever breaks the Law is "cut off from his people." There is also an

inordinate amount of emphasis on "the ark of the covenant," priestly 168

garments called "ephods," the colors "blue, purple, and crimson," and the

"holy place." These items are rarely mentioned in the other sources. Most people who read the Priestly material find it to be boring ritualistic dribble, which is neither good for spiritual edification nor for entertainment. In contrast, the earlier Yahwist and Elohist texts are packed full of

poetry, exciting adventures, and moral lessons spiced with gratuitous dirty little stories. The main characters cheat, lie, steal, kill, and commit incest. They get married, get drunk, and have sex. These earlier texts are fond of vocabulary such as "he knew his wife," "nakedness," and "a land flowing with milk and honey." Phrases like "face of the earth," "flocks and herds," "the ground," "Thus says the LORD," "let my people go," "Here I am," and "the hill country," are used often, but the Priestly sections don’t use these phrases. Lots of places are discussed that the Priestly Text fails to mention — Shechem, Bethel, Gerar, and Beer-Sheba.

Stories explain the origin of place names. The compound name for God is sometimes used — Yahweh Elohim — "the LORD God."

Reactions to the Hypothesis It is hard to find scholars who disagree with the Documentary Hypothesis. Jewish and Christian fundamentalists continue to oppose it, yet even among them, some of their experts concede that most scholars think it is "strong and durable."**° Even some of the most conservative Biblical scholars believe the Documentary Hypothesis is true. William Albright acknowledged that the Torah was derived from sources, and he quite naturally built his positions with the multiplicity of sources in view. Also the Roman Catholic Church officially states in its catechism, The first three chapters of Genesis occupy a unique place. From a literary standpoint these texts may have had diverse sources. The inspired authors have placed them at the beginning of Scripture. ..°*°

An objection frequently raised against the Documentary Hypothesis is that the different names for God can be explained theologically. As the argument goes, "El" and "Elohim" were universal names for God to 545 Cassuto, Umberto. Translated by Abrahams, Israel. The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch: Eight Letters by Umberto Cassuto. 2006, Shalem Press, Jerusalem, Israel, p 18 546 Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1985, paragraph 289 169

be used when conversing with gentiles, but "Yahweh" was a name for God that endeared the Jews.°*’ But this opinion falls apart when actually tested against the scriptures. For example, in 1* Samuel 4-6, the Ark of the Covenant is alternatively called "Ark of Elohim" and "Ark of Yahweh" without any theological significance apparent in the names. Both the Israelites and the gentile Philistines call the Ark by both names, and the narrator (or narrators) do the same, without any regard whatsoever to whether the verse in question has Israelites or gentiles in view. Likewise, Moses speaks to the gentile Pharaoh with Yahweh’s name, not with Elohim, and all the oracles that the Prophets pronounced against gentile nations do so in the name of Yahweh, not in the name of Elohim. The argument is entirely erroneous and without merit. Another objection is that the Documentary Hypothesis threatens the credibility of the Jewish

Bible.

However,

this fear is unwarranted,

because the parts of the Bible that it undermines are not central to the modern practice of Judaism. The parts that it undermines concern a temple that no longer exists, rituals that are no longer practiced, and a defunct priesthood that has been replaced by rabbis. Judaism, as it is practiced today, no longer observes the customs and rituals contained in many of these texts anyway, so it is hardly threatened by the Documentary Hypothesis. Nor is the Documentary Hypothesis antiSemitic. The Shalem Center, a self-identified Zionist think tank,“ states, "It would be a mistake to categorize it as an anti-Semitic manifesto."°”

See for Yourself You don't have to trust the scholars to believe that the Documentary Hypothesis is true. You can see it for yourself. Everyone has the tools to investigate it for themselves, regardless of their brainpower or knowledge of the Hebrew language. All you need is a good oldfashioned King James Bible and a set of colored pencils. In fact, the King James is preferable for this excersize, since it is more consistent

*47 Cassuto, Umberto. Translated by Abrahams, Israel. The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch: Eight Letters by Umberto Cassuto. 2006, Shalem Press, Jerusalem, Israel, p 35

**8 The Shalem Center. The Institute for Zionist History and Ideas. http://www.shalem.org.il/research/?did=12 2006

* Berman, Joshua A. Introduction to The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch: Eight Letters by Umberto Cassuto. Press, Jerusalem, 2006, p xvi

170

Shalem

and literal than most other translations. Color-code words and phrases such as "the LORD," "God," "congregation," "the people," and the other phrases mentioned above. Start in the beginning, Genesis 1, and skim your way forward. It won’t take long to become a believer in the Documentary Hypothesis. You will find that whole passages use one set of vocabulary, and that other passages use an entirely different set of vocabulary. Try to identify some theological reason for why this might be. You will find that there is no theological reason. The only explanation is multiple authors. After identifying which passages belong to which sources, we can then compare the opinions of the differing sources. It is then that some very disturbing things begin leaping off the pages at you.

17%

¢

15

°¢

The Priestly Problem Priests and Sadducees Against the Earlier Sources Beyond mere differences in vocabulary and style, even deeper differences emerge among the sources - differences which concern theology and doctrine. The most striking differences occur when the Priestly text is compared to the earlier traditions, namely the Yahwist and Elohist sources. Angels are never mentioned in the Priestly text.°°° This links the Priestly text with the Sadducees, who likewise did not believe in angels.’ Dreams and visions from God are never mentioned in the Priestly text.°°’ This is also similar to the doctrine of the Sadducees, about whom Josephus wrote, "they don't believe in fate at all, and suppose that God does not worry with what we do."”” In contrast, the earlier sources do mention angels, dreams, and visions.

The Priestly text emphasizes rituals, priestly orders, and the Law given on Mount Sinai. In contrast, the earlier sources piece together a history from anecdotal stories concerning the Hebrews' ancestors. In this, the Sadducees are like the Priestly text, and the Pharisees are like the earlier sources. As Josephus testified, The Sadducees don't keep anything except what the Law requires... (but) the Pharisees have given the masses a lot of traditions from their ancestors.°™* Thus, a case can be made that the Sadducees were the spiritual descendents of the Jerusalem priests who wrote the Priestly text. Not a2 Friedman, Richard Elliott. Who Wrote the Bible? 1997, HarperCollins Publishers, San Francisco, CA, p 191

°°! Acts 23:8 °°? Eriedman, Richard Elliott. Who Wrote the Bible? 1997, HarperCollins Publishers, San Francisco, CA, p 191 °°3 Josephus. Wars of the Jews 2.8.14

°** Josephus. Antiquities of the Jews 18.1.4, 13.10.6 172

only did the Sadducees inherit the Jerusalem priesthood from them, they

also inherited a number of doctrinal assumptions from them. As such, there is apparently some kind of denominational continuity from the priesthood of Zadok which existed in pre-exilic times, down to the Sadducees of Hellenic and Roman times. They retained certain similarities through the centuries, uniting them as a denomination. One of the most defining doctrines the Sadducees shared with the Priestly text was the doctrine of God's nature. They both saw God as allpowerful,

all-wise,

spiritual,

and heavenly.

In contrast,

the earlier

sources had a much more down-to-earth concept of God. The earlier sources say that God repented and changed his mind about the Flood and about wishing to destroy Israel. He prefers to walk when it is cool outside. He asks Adam and Eve and their son Cain some questions as if he did not know the answers. He even feels threatened by human achievements such as the Tower of Babel.°*° In contrast to the Priestly text's view of God, the God of the earlier sources is prima facie not allpowerful, not all-wise, not spiritual, and not heavenly. These factors enable us to separate the theology of Genesis 1 from that of the earlier sources, for the God of Genesis 1 is all-wise, allpowerful, and is heavenly. Seven times Genesis | insists about creation that "God saw that it was good."*° This runs quite contrary to the

Yahwist account which records that "Yahweh repented that he created Adam."°>”

In Genesis 1, and indeed throughout the entirety of the Priestly text, God is super-cosmic —- dwelling above all creation. When he created rainbows, he distinguished himself from "the flesh on the earth.""* But in the earlier sources, God takes visible form inside the cosmos, walking as a man alongside Adam, Noah, Abraham, and Jacob.>”

In the Priestly text, when the Israelites suffered slavery in Egypt, God did not come down to investigate; rather, "their cry ascended to This is in sharp contrast to the God of the earlier Yahwist God." source, who actively comes down to investigate when the Tower of

555 Genesis 3:8-11, 4:11, 6:6-7, 8:21, 11:6-7, Exodus 32:12-14 556 Genesis 1:4, 1:10, 1:12, 1:18, 1:21, 1:25, 1:31 557 Genesis 6:6-7

558 Genesis 9:13-17 559 Genesis 3:8, 6:9, 18:1-33, 32:24-30 56 Exodus 2:23 173

Babel is being built.°°' One God observes from the heavens. The other God observes from the earth. When the God of the Priestly text came to Mount Sinai, he hid himself in a fiery cloud and no one was permitted to see him.” This contrasts with the earlier Elohist account where "Moses brought the people out of the camp to meet God." In the Elohist account, it is the people who choose not to meet God because they are frightened of him — God does not hide himself, rather the people hide from God.*” In the Elohist account, God even eats dinner with Moses and the elders while

he is thundering commandments from the mountaintop.” * Yet for all of his invisible heavenly glory, the God of the Priestly

text still demands idols of cherubim be built.°

This is in sharp

contradiction to the Ten Commandments, which forbid all graven images. The Ten Commandments most likely come from the ElohistDeuteronomist tradition with which Abiathar and Jeremiah were

affiliated.”

In short, the God presented in Genesis | is consistent only with the God of the Priestly text, and can in no way be forced to reconcile with the God of the earlier sources.

The Late Date of the Priestly Text Because the Priestly text is of a late date, we cannot be sure it accurately represents the teachings of the Prophet Moses, nor can we assert much confidence in its historical value. This is especially true in light of many archaeological findings, which largely prove the impossibility of the Priestly text’s chronology concerning Israel’s desert wanderings after the Exodus and in the Transjordan.*°’ But the most crushing blows against the text's antiquity and thereby also against its credibility comes from textual criticism.

°6! Genesis 11:5

°® °® ° °©

Exodus Exodus Exodus Exodus

16:10, 19:18, 24:15-17 19:17, 20:19-20, 24:9-11 24:9-11 25:17-22 °° Deuteronomy 5, Exodus 20 — although 20:11 is Priestly, 20:1 introduction says "Elohim" and Exodus 20 is surrounded by Elohist material on either side.

°°” Dever, William G. Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From? 2003, William B Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI, p 2335

174

In his historic work, Prolegomena to the History of Israel, Julius Wellhausen laid out a powerful case for why the Priestly text was the latest of the four sources. In a nutshell, he proved that the Priestly text was a forgery. Thanks to him, the ghost of Moses, who was for so long misquoted because of the forgery, can finally rest in peace. Wellhausen had this to say about the Priestly text: It has actually been successful, with its moveable tabernacle, its

wandering camp, and other archaic details, in so concealing the true date of its composition that its many inconsistencies with what we know, from other sources, of Hebrew antiquity previous to the exile, are only taken as proving that it lies far beyond all known history...°* In other words, the people who committed the forgery knew that the well-known traditions of the Hebrew people were contrary to their agenda, so they invented a false history about events from such a far distant past that the collective memory of the culture did not have the depth of recollection to prove it wrong. In this manner, they managed to convince the Jewish nation that Moses had said things that he really never said. Wellhausen adds,

In the Pentateuch the sacrificial ritual is indeed copiously described, but nowhere in the Old Testament is its significance formally explained.°” This means that by the time the rituals were written down, they were so

old that people had forgotten what they meant. Hence, the authors of the Priestly text must have come long after the sacrificial system had been in place. Therefore, although the sacrificial codes may be derived from more ancient sources, the stories together with the doctrines and theology they contain are of a much more recent date. Moreover, in contrast to all the earlier sources and the Prophets, the Priestly text seldom talks of kings, wars, or politics, but rather dwells on

religious issues. This links the Priestly text to Persian times, when the protection provided by the Persian Empire allowed for this luxury. As Wellhausen said,

568 Wellhausen, Julius. Translated by Black, J Sutherland; Menzies, Allan. Prolegomena to the History of Israel Introduction 2. Kessinger Publishing, p 17 5° Wellhausen, Julius. ibid, p 49 WE

From the exile there returned not the nation but a religious sect...°’” In the eyes of the Priestly Code, Israel in point of fact is not a people, but a church; worldly affairs are far removed from it and are never touched by its laws. Its life is spent in religious services. Here we are face to face with the church of the second temple, the Jewish theocracy, in a form possible only under foreign domination.*”! This explains why the Priestly text calls the Israelites "the congregation" instead of "the people." The Priestly text was written after the Babylonian exile, that is after 539 BCE, at which time Judaism built the second temple and became a theocratic "congregation" under the Jerusalem priesthood. They didn't need to worry with "worldly affairs" because they were under foreign domination by the Persians, who were most often a benefactor rather than an oppressor. Regarding the type and number of sacrifices to be given during the Feast of Tabernacles, Numbers 29:12-38 contains one set of regulations,

and Ezekiel 45:23-25 contains a contradictory set of regulations. Interestingly, an old Kabbalist tradition comes into play here. According to the tradition, some of the sacrifices listed in Numbers 29:12-38 are not really sacrifices to God, as the text claims, but are actually sacrifices to

Satan!>” More than likely, the two contradictory passages originally represented the divergent views of opposing factions within the Priestly sect. In other words, it’s a case of heretics arguing with other heretics — both managing to weasel their contrary opinions into the Bible, and inventing tales of how the opposing factions were offering sacrifices to Satan. Based on discrepancies like this between Ezekiel and the Priestly text, Wellhausen argued that the Priestly text could not have been completed before the book of Ezekiel, and it is well established that the date of Ezekiel is no earlier than 590-570 BCE. Ezekiel 40-48 is Priestly in nature, as everyone concurs, and it even mentions the priest Zadok

four times,” yet it varies with the Priestly text of the Torah on minute

°° Wellhausen, Julius. ibid, p 27 °7! Wellhausen, Julius. ibid, p 111 572

Shahak, Israel. Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years. 2002, Pluto Press, Sterling VA, p 34

°? Ezekiel 40:46, 43:19, 44:15, 48:11 176

and inconsequential details,’”* such that it could not have been copying from the Priestly text we now have in our Bible, but was rather drawing upon an earlier version of the Priestly tradition. As Wellhausen put it, Ezekiel surely could hardly have had any motive for reproducing Leviticus 23 and Numbers 28, and still less for the introduction

of a number of aimless variations as he did so. Let it be observed that in no one detail does he contradict Deuteronomy, while yet he stands so infinitely nearer to the Priestly Code; the relationship is not an arbitrary one, but arises from their place in time. Ezekiel is the forerunner of the priestly legislator in the Pentateuch.°” Wellhausen also pointed out that the Priestly text calculated the dates of the festivals based on the phases of the moon, to which he says, As harvest feasts, they are from their very nature regulated by the condition of the fruits of the soil. When they cease to be so, when they are made to depend upon the phases of the moon, this means that their connection with their natural occasion has been forgotten.°”°

The Prophet Isaiah testifies to this effect: "Your new moons and determined feasts my soul hates."°’’ This squares with the earlier Yahwist

version of the feasts in Exodus

34, which does not link the

timing of the feasts to the phases of the moon. For these reasons, the Priestly text is not authentic history; rather, it

is only a late forgery, written long after the events it pretends to describe. Insofar as the creation account of Genesis 1 is part of the Priestly text, it is part of that forgery.

Moses and Aaron The Priestly text corrupted the Exodus story to make Aaron equal with Moses. In Exodus 7:14-18, God tells Moses to stretch his rod over the Nile River and turn it to blood. In the next few verses, Exodus 7:19-

74 Compare Ezekiel 45 and 46 to Numbers 29 575 Wellhausen, Julius. Translated by Black, J Sutherland; Menzies, Allan. Prolegomena to the History of Israel. Kessinger Publishing, p 81 576 Wellhausen, Julius. ibid, p 77

°77 Isaiah 1:14 177

21, the story is unnecessarily repeated, but this time it is not Moses who turns the Nile to blood, but some other guy named Aaron.” 78 This is part of a broader pattern apparent throughout Exodus and Numbers — namely, in the earlier sources Moses acts alone, but in the Priestly text Aaron is nearly equal with Moses. When Moses strikes the rock to draw forth fresh water, he acts alone in the earlier Elohist version, but he acted with

Aaron by his side in the Priestly text.” 2 Also, in the Priestly text, Aaron justified his priesthood over Korah's priesthood by labeling Korah a heretic.°*’ Yet the priesthood of Korah wrote no fewer than 11 hymns in the Biblical book of Psalms.**! We must ask, how is it that God allowed the priesthood of a heretic to write so many Psalms in the Bible? Maybe Korah wasn't a heretic after all. Maybe the Priestly sect unjustly ousted the sons of Korah from the priesthood, perhaps out of jealousy and competition.

Genealogies The earliest humans are given two conflicting yet similar genealogies

in Genesis. Here they are: Gen 4:17-18, Yahwist

Gen 5:1-28a, Priestl

Cain begat Enoch

Adam begat Seth

Seth begat Enosh Enosh begat Cainan Cainan begat Mahalaleel Mahalaleel begat Jared Jared begat Enoch Enoch begat Methuselah

Methuselah begat Lamech The most striking difference between the two is that they repeatedly and consistently call God by different names. In Genesis 4, God's name is "Yahweh;"

but in Genesis

5, God's name

is "Elohim."

There is no

mistaking that these two genealogies are variants of a single earlier tradition, for the people who are listed in the one find a doppelganger in the other. Cain = Cainan, Enoch = Enoch and Enosh, Irad = Jared, Mehujael = Mahalaleel, Methusael = Methuselah, and Lamech =

Lamech.

Of the two, it is the Priestly text which is the most infeasible,

*”8 Friedman, Richard Elliott. Who Wrote the Bible? 1997, HarperCollins Publishers, San Francisco, CA, p 190-196

*” Exodus 17:6 & Numbers 20:1-5 are Elohist vs. Numbers 20:6-12 is Priestly °8° Numbers 16

°8! Psalms 42, 45, 44, 46, 47, 48, 49, 84, 85, 87, 88 178

for it records the most outrageous life spans — "And years... Methuselah lived 969 years..."°*? etc. Insofar spans are highly improbable, it is the other account, the in Genesis 4, which is more likely to contain some truth

Adam lived 930 as such long life Yahwist account to it.

The Prophets Against the Priests The Priestly text holds a most dubious place in scripture, for Jeremiah rejected it, Biblical scholarship casts doubt on it, and modern science refutes its creation myth in Genesis 1. Moreover, the people who wrote it were the predecessors of those who have the blood of Christ on their hands — that is, the Sadducees, aka Zadokees.

Nor were Jesus and

Jeremiah the only Prophets to find conflict with it. Amos, who was the very first Prophet to make an entire Biblical book, had this to say about the priests: Woe to them that are at ease in Zion (Jerusalem)... you who eat the lambs of the flock and the calves when they are born.°® Even though you offer me burnt offerings and food offerings, I will not accept them... did you offer me sacrifices when you were in the wilderness for forty years, O house of Israel?*™* The question is rhetorical, and the answer is no, as Jeremiah says,

I (Yahweh) did not instruct your ancestors about burnt offerings and sacrifices in the day I led them out of Egypt.”

This flies in the face of the Priestly text which says that Moses did perform burnt offerings and sacrifices in the wilderness.**° Furthermore, a great number of Prophets disavow animal sacrifice as it was practiced in their day, including not only Amos and Jeremiah, but also David, Isaiah, Micah, Hosea, and Jesus Christ himself. Here is their testimony: Sacrifice and offering you did not require.”*’

°82 Genesis 5:5, 5:27 583 Amos 6:1

584 Amos 5:22-25 85 Jeremiah 7:22 586 Exodus 29, Leviticus 1-9, 16-17, 22

°87 Psalm 40:6, 51:16 179

Yahweh says, "Why do you make so many sacrifices to me?

I

am sick and tired of burnt rams, animal fat, and the blood of cows, sheep, and goats... Don't pray to me. I won't listen. Your

hands are full of blood.""** Should I come to Yahweh with burnt offerings and year-old calves? Is Yahweh made happy with 1,000 rams and 10,000 rivers of oil? Should I give my firstborn for my sin — the fruit of my own body for the sin of my soul? He has shown you, O man, what is good. Yahweh requires that you practice justice and mercy, and that you walk humbly with your God.?*”

“e . 590 For I desire mercy, not sacrifice. Also, we may note that the laws about the priest's consecrated bread, how only priests can eat it, are from the Priestly text. Jesus and David both rejected these laws, as mentioned above, by saying it is lawful for nonpriests to eat it. For that matter, the true priests, Abiathar and Ahimelech, also rejected it, for it was they who gave the consecrated bread to David.””!

Genesis 1 is Part of the Priestly Text There is a broad consensus among scholars that the creation story in Genesis 1 is part of the Priestly text. Therefore, the credibility of Genesis 1, and indeed its very place in the Bible, is tied to the credibility of the Priestly text. Their fate is bound together. If one is rejected, the other must also be rejected. Every wound inflicted upon the Priestly text is a wound inflicted upon Genesis 1, and every wound inflicted upon Genesis 1 is a wound inflicted upon creationism and its mutant clone "Intelligent Design." We may assert this because Genesis | is part of the Priestly text. The scholars testify to this as follows (emphasis added): Hyers — "If the seven day account was written in the context of the dark period of the exile following the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem and the deportation of the Jews to Babylonia, as most

°88 Isaiah 1:11-15 58° Micah 6:6-8

°°° Hosea 6:6, Matthew 9:13, 12:7, Mark 12:33-35, °°! Exodus 29:33, Leviticus 8:31, 24:9, 1° Samuel 21-23, Mark 2:26, Luke 6:4, Matthew 12:4

180

scholars concur, any points of correspondence with Babylonian cosmology take on additional meaning and power... the construction of the text as we have it strongly suggests that it is from priestly hands of the exilic period (500's BO} meJteas therefore referred to as the Priestly account, reflecting a priestly style and content."””” Wellhausen — "The Bible begins with the account of the Priestly Code of the creation of the world."

Campbell and O’Brien — "It is thought that P (P is short for Priestly text) was composed around the time of Israel’s exile: either in the years immediately before, when the exile was threateningly immanent; in the time of the exile itself; or shortly after the end of the exile... in this creation account, P presents a stately and ordered view of creation..."°”* Friedman — "The famous opening of P’s story in the first chapter of the Bible is: 'In the beginning of God’s creating the heavens and the earth, the earth was unformed and void..."""”° Smith — "4 Priestly text, Genesis 1 shows a modification of old mythic material known from Israel and the rest of the ancient Near East. This creation story combines two different visions of the cosmos: the first and older view where the cosmos is the stage where divine wills engage in conflict; and the second and largely priestly notion that the cosmos is a holy place analogous to a sanctuary."”°

2 Hyers, Conrad. The Meaning of Creation: Genesis and Modern Science. 1984, John Knox Press, Atlanta, GA, p 51 °°3 Wellhausen, Julius. Translated by Sutherland, JBlack; Menzies, Allan.

Prolegomena to the History of Israel 8.1.1, Kessinger Publishing, p 204 °°4 Campbell, Antony F; O’Brien, Mark A. Sources of the Pentateuch: Texts, Introductions, Annotations. 1993, Fortress Press, Minneapolis, MN, p 22 °°5 Friedman, Richard Elliott. Who Wrote the Bible? 1997, HarperCollins Publishers, San Francisco, CA, p 167

5% Smith, Mark S.. The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts. 2001, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, p 167-168 181

Thus scholars agree that Genesis | is part of the agree that it was written about the time of (although Friedman asserted a date circa 700 occurred in the 500's BCE. This is the time when

Priestly text, and most the Babylonian exile, BCE’). The exile Genesis | came of age.

In Biblical terms, the 500's BCE is rather late, for it came after Moses

and most of the Prophets. If you jumped into a time machine and went back and told the Prophets that the earth was created 6,000 years ago in just six days, they would look at you with blank stares on their faces, for they would not know what you were talking about. The Prophets who prophesied before the exile — Moses, Samuel, Elijah, Elisha, Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, Micah,

and Nahum — these speak nothing of Genesis 1, which most likely means they had never even heard of it. The earliest Prophet to show familiarity with Genesis 1 was Jeremiah, and he blasted it as a forgery from the pen of lying Bible copiers.

Ezra's Web of Deceit The final version of the Torah is a patchwork of discordant and often contradictory texts which were cut and pasted together by the hand of Ezra in the early to mid 400's BCE.

Ezra was not a Prophet, nor was he

the high priest. He really had no business being the final editor of Israel's sacred history. In the book of Ezra, we learn that he was a descendent

of Aaron

and Zadok,’*

which

associates

him

with

the

Priestly sect responsible for the Priestly text. He was also a "scribe of the Law of Moses,"°”’ which means he was experienced in hand-copying the various Bibles from which the Torah is derived — making him very familiar with them. He was "prepared to seek the Law of Yahweh."°” What does the Bible mean when it says that Ezra was prepared to seek the Law of Yahweh? Had the Law of Yahweh not yet been found? That is to say, the Law, the Torah, had not yet been compiled from its various sources; therefore, he was "prepared to seek it." That the Law, the Torah, was not compiled before Ezra, is evident from the account in Nehemiah 8, wherein Ezra reads his version of the

Law in front of all the people, and the people hang on his words as if it were some kind of marvelous new thing they were unfamiliar with. We

°°” Eriedman, Richard Elliott. Who Wrote the Bible? 1997, HarperCollins Publishers, San Francisco, CA, p 210 98 Ezra 7:1-5

” Ezra 7:6 6 Ezra 7:10

182

are told four times in a single passage that Ezra's reading of the Law gave them a new understanding of it.°°' Moreover, we are told twice that "they found written in the Law" new things they had never heard of before — namely, that they should live in booths during a seven day feast, and that they should divorce their gentile wives.°” It is on this second point, that Jews should divorce their gentile spouses, that we find the most glaring immorality and inconsistency of Ezra's forgery. Ezra commanded: You have sinned by marrying foreign women... divorce yourselves from the people of the land and from the foreign women. we

The story goes on to describe how a very large number of Jews all divorced their wives at once. This must have been a very traumatic event in Israel’s history, for Ezra and Nehemiah spill a great deal of ink describing it. The effects to the Jewish nation must have been devastating. In an age before gender equality and social safety nets, divorced women would have been reduced to servitude and prostitution. Children whose fathers had disowned them would have no land to farm and thus no means to survive. Possibly because of this, the Jewish nation sank into a cultural dark age immediately after Ezra's time. Jewish literature and culture is virtually non-existent from 440 to 190 BCE. The few scraps of literature from this period, such as Tobit, do not come from Palestine, but rather have their origin in Diaspora Judaism outside of Palestine. We know virtually nothing about Jewish history during the late Persian and early Hellenic periods, except for a few paragraphs in Josephus — and even these are compromised by blatant chronological errors. The dearth of knowledge is so bad, we actually know more about Israel in 1000 BCE than in 400 BCE! There were no wars or plagues at this time that can explain this dark age. We have only Ezra to blame — the man who ripped Jewish family life to shreds and gave us the final edition of the Old Testament Torah. Ezra’s mass divorce spree was inconsistent with the rest of the Bible. The Biblical book of Ruth celebrates a romance between a Hebrew and a Moabite, and informs us even King David’s grandmother was a gentile.

601 Nehemiah 8:7, 8:8, 8:12-13 602 Nehemiah 8:14, 13:1 603 Ezra 10:10-11, 13:1 183

David married a Hittite. Even the Solomon married an Egyptian. Prophet Moses himself married a Midianite. Marriage between Hebrews and gentiles was honored, not ridiculed. Malachi was the last of the Prophets. He was Ezra’s contemporary, perhaps old enough to be his father or grandfather. Malachi stated that they should not divorce the "wife of their youth," because, "Yahweh, the God of Israel, says He hates divorce.""* The same concept was expressed by Saint Paul, who said, "If any brother has an unbelieving wife, and if she is happy enough to live with him, then don’t divorce

her."°> Moreover, Jesus himself indicated that religious differences do not constitute a legitimate cause for divorce.°” Therefore, the Law makes it illegal to divorce because of religious differences. We may conclude that Ezra’s policy of forcibly divorcing Jews from gentiles was inconsistent with the rest of the Bible. Ezra had no legal precedent to legitimize the divorces. Rather, it seems this ill-begotten doctrine was something of the Priestly sect's own invention. As soon as Ezra came, the Old Testament Prophets ceased. Malachi was the last of them. We should ask, if the God of Israel was happy with Israel's Torah, then why did he stop talking with them? Ezra-Nehemiah is classified as Kethuvim, which means Writings. This is the lowest and least important level of authority in the Jewish Bible. Moreover, Ezra is represented by only one short fragment among the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Nehemiah by none, in contrast to most Biblical books, which are represented by multiple and relatively complete copies. Chronicles, which like Ezra-Nehemiah was written by affiliates of the Priestly sect, is likewise represented by only one short fragment of just a few verses, and it is not even consistent with the text we have today, which suggests they did not exert the same level of care in copying it as they did other books of the Bible.”’ Accordingly, it is likely that these books were not even considered scripture among the Essenes. Wellhausen writes, "Chronicles represents Israelite history in accordance with the Priestly Code."** The literary works that came from Ezra's time — namely Ezra, Nehemiah,

64 Malachi 2:10-16 6 4* Corinthians 7:12 6°° Matthew 19:8-9 ad Abegg, Martin; Flint, Peter; Ulrich, Eugene. The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The Oldest Known Bible Translated for the First Time into English. 1999, HarperCollins Publishers, San Francisco, CA, p 632-635

°°8 Wellhausen, Julius. Translated by Black, J Sutherland; Menzies, Allan. Prolegomena to the History of Israel 8.1.1.

184

Kessinger Publishing, p 36

Chronicles, and the final edition of the Torah — are not scripture. These books wrongly weaseled their way into the Old Testament. Ezra’s task was to create one national religion out of a bunch of squabbling sects. He did this by weaving together the various religious texts into the first five books of the Bible. He intentionally cut and pasted these texts together in such a way that it would be difficult to decipher that they had once existed separately. It has taken modern Bible scholars centuries to untangle the mess. At the beginning of this mess stands Genesis 1.

Beyond Ezra's Control When the Babylonian exile ended, some Jews went back to their homeland In Palestine. These became Judean Jews, and they followed Ezra’s interpretations. However, there were two other Jewish groups who did not live under Ezra’s jurisdiction. They were free to continue ancient traditions which Ezra’s interpretations would not allow. One group consisted of the Jews of the Diaspora, that is, those who lived abroad. After Alexander the Great conquered the known world, the Hebrew Diaspora adopted many aspects of Greek thought and philosophy. The other group consisted of a Hebrew-gentile mixture living in Samaria, which was the old northern kingdom of the Elohists. The Samaritans continued Israelite traditions, which they claimed originated from very ancient times, and on the whole, they were friendlier toward Greek culture than were Ezra's Judean Jews to the south. Both groups preserved traditions that stood outside the culture of Ezra's second temple and its Priestly religion. Over time, these traditions faded into apocryphal legends, and they mixed these traditions with Greek philosophy and myth, thus forming the foundation of what would later become known as_ Gnosticism. Some very unorthodox interpretations resulted. Among these was Apelles, who is said to have

Uttered slanders against the first five books of the Bible and against the prophets, alleging that the things which are written are of human origin and false.” Valentinus added that the prophets and the first five books of the Bible, and indeed the bulk of the Old Testament, was inspired by a stupid god who created the world — the demiurge. And for this reason, Jesus 6 Hippolytus.

The Refutation ofAll Heresies 7:26 185

declared in John 10:8, "All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers."°"° Another voice of antiquity, Justinus, taught that there exists a distinction between the God Elohim and another God called "The Good One." This hearkens back to a time in Israel’s extreme antiquity, when a distinction existed between the Father-God El or Elyon, and his son the storm God, Baal or Yahweh.

Scholars

understand

this from textual

criticism and from the archaeology excavations at Ugarit. Justinus also taught that the prophets were sent by these Gods; however, the prophets were deceived by an evil angelic serpent named Naas. Naas is a derivative of the Hebrew word nachash, meaning serpent. The same word nachash occurs in Genesis 3, and refers to the serpent who deceived Adam and Eve. According to Justinus, after the evil angel Naas had deceived the prophets, Jesus was selected to set the record straight. Jesus was told, "All the prophets before you were led astray." The prophets had been deceived because the serpent interfaced with the fallible human psychology of the prophets, thus causing them to misinterpret the Father's revelation.°"! In other words, Satan the Devil wrote a great deal of the Old Testament! That’s the gist of it. Irenaeus and Hippolytus put it quite bluntly, describing even more Gnostic opinions, The followers of Saturninus... hold that some prophecies were uttered by the angels who made the cosmos, and some by Satan.°”” Cerdon proposed that the god spoken of by Moses and the prophets was not the same as the Father of Jesus Christ.°!? Irenaeus also recorded that when the Gnostics were confronted with passages from the New Testament which refuted their ideas that they dismissed the problem saying that "the Apostles intermingled the things of the Torah with the words of the Savior," because "the Apostles were

still under the influence of Judean opinions," and that therefore on this point the New Testament falls short of the truth.°"*

°!0 °!! *!? °!3 °!4

Hippolytus. The Refutation Hippolytus. The Refutation Irenaeus. Against Heresies Hippolytus. The Refutation lrenaeus. Against Heresies

of All Heresies 6:30; John 10:8 of All Heresies 5:21 1.24.2 of All Heresies 7:25 3.2.2, 3.12.12 186

One has to wonder where the Gnostics got these opinions. The history of the Samaritans and the Diaspora Jews must be considered here. When Ezra finalized the Torah, certain factions among the Samaritans and Diaspora Jews must have had grave reservations. Why should they accept this new redaction of the Bible? What made it superior to the earlier traditions? Unfortunately, Judaism worldwide entered a cultural dark age about this time, so we know very little about the arguments which must have transpired. What we do know is that when the dark age ended about 200 BCE, there were deep divisions within Judaism — for

they had already separated into Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Samaritans, and proto-Gnostics. Over the centuries, these conflicts were remembered — first as history, then as legend, and finally as a faint memory that Ezra's Bible was not legitimate. In the end, they attributed the textual corruption of the Old Testament to evil forces that allegedly deceived the prophets. This is evidence that Ezra's Bible was distrusted, and that many ethnic Hebrews who honored traditions outside of Judean Judaism believed parts of the Old Testament had been falsified by Ezra and his Judean Jews.

187

+

16

°¢

Jesus Against the Priestly Text Manna The Priestly text contains a fantastic story in Exodus. The Hebrew people were on the brink of starvation. Then God miraculously rained bread down from heaven.°'” This bread was called "manna." A second version of the story is told by the Elohist source. Yet the manna in the Elohist account is different from the manna in the Priestly account. In the Elohist account, it never says that the manna came from heaven. It never says that the manna was a miracle. It never says that the manna was a gift from God. In fact, the Elohist manna was very poor food. The Hebrews complain, "Our soul is dried away. There is nothing at all besides this manna before our eyes."°'® It was just lying on the ground, and it made for a lousy supper. It was not the bread of heaven. Jesus gives us a third account of the manna, saying, Moses did not give you bread from heaven.*”” Here, Jesus clearly rejects the Priestly account. The manna is not bread from heaven. Jesus explicitly denies the fact that manna ever came down from heaven. Simply put, Jesus called the Priestly text's version a fib. There is still a fourth version of the story — the scientific version. Manna is actually quite real. Anyone can find it in the desert of Sinai, even today. Just as the Bible tells us, it is truly white like coriander seed, it falls like dew in the night, and it is sweet.°'* But it definitely does not come from heaven. Manna is actually the resin produced when insects cut through tamarisk tree leaves.°"”

°!5 Exodus 16:1-35 °!6 Numbers 11:6-9 $17 John 6:32-58 618 Exodus 16:31, Numbers 11:7 *! Keller, Werner; Neil, William; Rehork, Joachim; Rasmussen, BH. The Bible As History.

1995, Barnes & Noble Books, New York, NY, p 129

188

From a scientific standpoint, it seems Jesus was ahead of his time. He agreed with the Elohist source and with science. He disagreed with the fallacious Priestly text which erroneously claimed that manna came from heaven.

Jesus and the Sabbath "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath."©° So said Jesus. From the gospels, we may notice that Jesus was permissive

when it came to exerting oneself on the Sabbath. He rejected the strict regulations against gathering food on the Sabbath, the prohibition against healing on the Sabbath, and the rule that you should not help an animal out of a ditch on the Sabbath. Jesus was so casual about the Sabbath that many believed he was breaking it. Why did they think he was breaking it? Because the Priestly text said so, that's why. According to the Priestly text, if someone gathered firewood on the Sabbath, they should be executed!”!' According to the Priestly text, you should not gather food on the Sabbath, as it said, Six days shall you gather it, but on the seventh day, which is the Sabbath, you shall not find any. °” Notice that Jesus directly disobeyed this Biblical commandment when he walked through the grain fields collecting food on the Sabbath.” This is nothing short of a clear cut case of Jesus breaking Torah Law. Jesus directly and intentionally disobeyed the Bible’s commandments. However, he only broke the commandments of the Priestly text. He did not break the commandments from the earlier Yahwist and Elohist sources.

Jesus and the Holy Feasts The earliest texts of the Old Testament,

that is the Yahwist

and

Elohist together with the pre-exilic Prophets, know of only three holy feasts God commanded Moses to observe. These three festivals are 1) Passover which is also called Unleavened Bread, 2) the feast of Weeks or First Fruits which is also called Pentecost, and 3) the feast of Ingathering or Harvest which is also called Tabernacles. The earliest record of these

620 621 622 623

Mark 2:27 Numbers 15:32-36 Exodus 16:22-30 Mark 2:23-24

189

comes from the Yahwist account of what God instructed Moses on the mountain, and also from an archaic source called the Covenant Code,

both of which now reside in Exodus.” As these are the earliest listings of holy feasts, they constitute the best information we have concerning what Moses may have actually commanded Israel to observe. References to these three festivals also appear in the pre-exilic Prophetic writings.’ These early texts instruct observers to rejoice during the three festivals. There is no mention of any particular priesthood, nor is there any mention of a temple or a central shrine such as Jerusalem. Jesus Christ kept all three of these festivals. All of the gospels explicitly testify that Jesus kept Passover.°”° Jesus also kept Ingathering, which is also called Tabernacles.’ It seems from the chronology of John’s gospel that Jesus also kept Pentecost; although it is not specifically stated, John’s chronological placement of the other festivals in his gospel narrative lead us to consider Pentecost the most likely candidate for the unnamed feast of John 5:1. In any case, Acts 2 confirms that Pentecost was very much a foundational holy day of the apostolic church. From John, we can also deduce that Jesus kept Hanukah,”*® which was more like a national holiday such as the Fourth of July or Cinco de Mayo than a religious holiday, and does not pertain to the religious Law of the Torah. The early Christian observance of Passover is especially well documented. A large faction of the orthodox churches in Asia Minor kept Passover instead of Easter Sunday even into the third century,’ and Polycrates testified that they inherited this tradition from none other than the Apostles John and Philip.*° Therefore, we may conclude that Jesus and his earliest followers kept the three feasts of the most ancient Hebrew texts - Passover, Pentecost,

and Ingathering. Once this is understood, it becomes clear that there is no difference between the religious festivals Jesus observed and the festivals given in the earlier sources of the Torah. They both kept the same religious holidays.

64 °°5 °° °7 628 °° °°

Exodus 34:18-26 Yahwist, 23:14-19 Covenant Code Jeremiah 5:24, Isaiah 30:29, 29:1, Exodus 10:9 Mark 14:12-16, Matthew 26:17-19, Luke 22:11-15, John 2:13,23 John 7:2-10 John 10:22-23 Hippolytus. Refutation of All Heresies 8.1 Eusebius quoting Polycrates. The History of the Church 5.23-24 190

But the Priestly text adds two holy days nowhere mentioned in the earlier texts of the Old Testament. These two are Trumpets (Rosh Hashanah) and Atonement (Yom Kippur).' As these two extra days are mentioned only in the Priestly text, they appear to have been introduced into Judaism only at a very late date, and are therefore not authentic. Stunningly, there is no record whatsoever that Jesus or any of his early followers kept either of these two religious holidays. It is as if the early Christians somehow knew these two holy days were of dubious origin, and so they shunned them. This is yet another indication that the Priestly text was a falsification of the original Hebrew religion, which neither Moses nor the Prophets nor Jesus Christ endorsed. And, if the Priestly text is not trustworthy, then neither is the fallacious account of creation it contains within Genesis 1. Also, one may notice from the gospel that Jesus kept Tabernacles, that is Ingathering, for only a portion of the festival, not for the full seven days.°” The Old Testament records that when Ezra read the Law, it was found that they needed to keep the Feast of Tabernacles seven days, and that this had not been done since the time of Joshua.°*?

Now Joshua, as

we have already established, was a fictitious character, since his supposed conquest of Canaan can in no way synchronize with archaeology. Yet even if we suppose he truly existed, Joshua was at least eight centuries prior to Ezra. What is the likelihood that the keeping of Tabernacles was lost for eight full centuries, then mysteriously rediscovered? This does not indicate revival. This reeks of forgery. To be sure, the earlier parts of the Law do mention a festival of Ingathering to be kept in the autumn, but this earlier scripture does not say that it should necessarily last seven days, nor that it is necessary to dwell in tabernacles.“* These two regulations were inventions of the Priestly sect, and even then, there are three different versions, for the Priestly heretics could not even agree among themselves.°”

631 | eviticus 23:23-32, Numbers 29:1-11

632 John 7:2-14 633 Nehemiah 8:13-18 634 Exodus 34:2

635 | eviticus 23:33-43, Numbers 29:12-40 , Ezekiel 45:25 191

Jesus,

Jeremiah, and Paul Against Priestly Circumcision

"Moses

gave you circumcision, not because Moses

wanted it, but

rather because your ancestors did it."°° So said Jesus. According to the Priestly text, Moses gave circumcision to Israel.’ But the Elohist tradition, from which Jeremiah and Abiathar came, says nothing of circumcision. The Yahwist narrative mentions circumcision only once, and even then, it mentions how everyone who got circumcised was suddenly killed in a murder rampage at the hands of others who were also circumcised.** Moreover, there is a grave discrepancy between the Yahwist and the Priestly accounts of Abraham's covenant with God. In the Priestly text, God commanded Abraham to practice circumcision five times in a single passage.” But in the earlier account of Abraham's covenant, that is the Yahwist account, circumcision is never once mentioned. The earliest sources, the Elohist and the Yahwist, are in agreement with Jesus, Jeremiah, and Paul — but the later source, the Priestly, has no witnesses to call. Here is what Jeremiah says about circumcision:

Yahweh says, "Behold the day is coming when I will punish all of them who are circumcised along with the uncircumcised... so take away the foreskins of your heart..." And here is what Paul says about circumcision: Circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter...” Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is

nothing...’

43

There is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision or

uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free, for Christ is

all, and in all.

636 John 7:22 637 Exodus 12:44-48, Leviticus 12:3

8 Genesis 34 ° Genesis 17:1-21

4 Genesis 15:all *4! Deuteronomy 30:6, 10:16, Jeremiah 4:4, 9:25 62 Romans 2:29

3 | Corinthians 7:19 4 Colossians 3:11

192

Notice a pattern here? Both Jeremiah and Paul had the same attitude toward circumcision.

What mattered was "circumcision of the heart,"

not of the flesh. It was spiritual, not physical. Only the Priestly text saw physical circumcision as essential. On this the Priestly text is incongruent with other authorities. As Jesus says in Thomas, If circumcision were a good thing, then their father would have sired them already circumcised.” This is another reason to be suspect of the Priestly text and its creation myth in Genesis 1.

Celibacy The Priestly text states "Be fruitful and multiply." Consequently, many religious individuals believe that procreation is a God-sponsored sporting event, albeit not for spectators. According to Protevangelion, the grandparents of Jesus Christ felt shame because they could not have children,”’

and

worse,

Jesus

Christ's

grandmother

was

ostracized

because her womb was barren.™* But her shame was alleviated by the miraculous birth of her daughter Mary.’ Although not in the Bible, Protevangelion probably contains genuine facts not mentioned elsewhere. For example, the early testimony of Justin Martyr agrees with Protevangelion that Jesus was born in a cave, over and against Luke which says he was born in a manger.°”” Jesus did not agree with the mistreatment of the barren, and he blatantly disregarded the Priestly text's command to reproduce sexually. Jesus said,

Some have cut off their genitals on behalf of the Kingdom of Heaven. Not everyone can accept this doctrine, but those who can accept this, let them accept ae

645 646 647 on

The Gospel of Thomas 53 Genesis 9:1 Drotevangelion 1:5-9 Protevangelion 2:1,5, 3:3

649 Protevangelion 5:10 650 Justin Martyr. Dialogue with Trypho 78.5; Luke 2:7; Protevangelion 19:5

61 Matthew 19:12 192

Spoken as hyperbole, which Jesus frequently employed, the meaning of the overstatement is still apparent. On this point, the teaching of Jesus is again at odds with the Priestly text, and therefore he is also at odds with Genesis 1, because it is part of the Priestly text. Yet Jesus' doctrine on celibacy aligns perfectly with the practice of the Essenes who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls, as Josephus testified,

They (the Essenes) don't have slaves or wives, because they think the first is unfair and the second just causes arguments.°” A preference for celibacy existed both in the Bible and also in Christian tradition, as well as in the Gnostic literature. In the Bible, Paul cautioned against marriage,°” and John believed that virgins will receive heavenly rewards.°* Ancient Christian leaders encouraged celibacy as a way to draw closer to God. Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Tertullian, Origen, Novation, Cyprian, Victorinus, and Pierius were among the pre-Constantine leaders who endorsed celibacy. The only early Christian on record for expressing reservations about the practice of celibacy was Methodius.°* Yet it should be noted that Peter

was married and Philip had children.°° As Jesus said, not everyone can accept the doctrine. Even the angels of Christ are celibate, as Jesus says, "they neither marry nor are given in marriage," and everyone in the kingdom of God will eventually be celibate like the angels®’ — in this, they are unlike the world-creating angels of the demiurge, who amuse themselves with all manner of bestial perversion. Tertullian said that it was common for married Christian couples to abstain from sex by mutual consent, so that they could pursue a more spiritual union with God.** Paul himself was apparently both married and celibate. In one New Testament passage, he indicated that he was celibate, but also indicated that he had a "sister-wife."*””

6°? Josephus. Antiquities of the Jews 18.1.5 3 | Corinthians 7:1, 7:8-9, 7:32-38 64 Revelation 14:4 655

Bercot, David W. A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs. 1998, Hendrickson

Publishers, Peabody, MA, p 88-90, 672-674

*°° Matthew 8:14, Acts 21:9; Clement of Alexandria. Miscellanies 3.6.52, 7.11.63; Eusebius quoting Gaius. The History of the Church 2.25

°°7 Mark 12:25, Luke 20:35-36, Matthew 22:30 8 Tertullian. To His Wife 1.6 °° 4* Corinthians 7:5-7, 9:5 194

Recently, a new theory has become popular Magdalene were married with children. Yet this early Christian literature. We have, at our disposal ancient Gnostic scriptures, a plethora of early

that Jesus and Mary finds little support in for study, four dozen Christian apocryphal books, and ten volumes of Christian literature written before Constantine. Within this literature are detailed descriptions of the beliefs and practices of a multitude of unorthodox groups. Yet none of these groups are said to have believed that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were lovers, nor that they had a child together. No orthodox Christians believed it, and no "heretics" believed it either. Nobody even suggested it. This cavernous silence amidst a mountain of ancient literature makes the theory highly improbable. Some point to The Gospel of Philip, which states that Jesus kissed Mary Magdalene. Yet if Jesus kissed Magdalene, how is this different from what the New Testament states about fellowship — "Greet each other with a holy kiss?" Should we extrapolate from this that early Christian fellowship included orgies during church services? Should we presume that Judas performed a homosexual act on Jesus when he "betrayed the Son of Man with a kiss?"*°' Perhaps the elders of Ephesus were also homosexuals, for they kissed Paul on the neck.%” Likewise the merciful father who fell on the neck of his prodigal son and kissed him.® Such misunderstanding is the result of an ethnocentric assumption that kissing is necessarily sexual. Even to this day, a kiss is a greeting in Middle Eastern cultures, and does not carry with it any sexual connotation. Why assume anything more concerning Mary Magdalene? Still, they point to the Merovingian kings of France as the ancestors of Christ and Magdalene. Yet here, there was a political motivation for the invention of a lie, for the Merovingians were newly converted Germanic pagans struggling to control a nation of Latin Christians. The ethno-religious struggle in France at that time was severe. What better way for the Merovingian kings to legitimize their dynasty and unite their kingdom than to say they were descendents of the King of Kings himself? Hence, the story was a political lie told for the unity of France —and even then it did not come about until 500 years after the fact.

660 Romans 16:16, 1* Corinthians 16:20, 2"° Corinthians 13:12, 1° Thessalonians 5:26, 1° Peter 5:14 661 Wark 14:44, Luke 22:47, Matthew 26:48 662 Acts 20:37 63 | uke 15:20 195

Jesus was celibate, the Essenes were celibate, and many early Christians were celibate. These facts are attested for in the earliest sources. A sexual relationship between Jesus and Magdalene is not.

Jesus and Leviticus Jesus quoted from Leviticus fairly frequently. This is worthy of examination, because Leviticus was Priestly in origin. Some of these quotes were in opposition to Leviticus. To "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth," Jesus replies, "But I tell you to not resist a wicked person."°* To "You shall not swear by my name falsely" he replies "You shall not swear at all." But in other places, Jesus appears to endorse Leviticus. "Love your neighbor as yourself" is found in Leviticus, but here the section starts out with "Yahweh spoke unto Moses," not Moses and Aaron, as the Priestly text does elsewhere, and so its connection to the priests of Aaron is weakened. Jesus' saying "Every sacrifice will be salted with salt," is also paralleled in Leviticus.’ But the ritual use of salt was not confined to the Priestly sect, for Elisha also used it.%* Elisha was of the northern tradition and was therefore unaffiliated with the southern Aaron-Zadokee sect that wrote the Priestly text. If there is any passage where Jesus seems to have unequivocally embraced a Priestly regulation, it occurs where Jesus tells the leper, "Show yourself to the priest and offer the gift Moses commanded."* The regulations for this gift are found in Leviticus. But Jesus adds "do it as a testimony to them," perhaps to signify that he was not commanding this from his own belief but rather requesting it in order to stay on good terms with the priesthood, as a testimony to them that he was not a rebel, for it was still early in his ministry and his time had not yet come. This

interpretation is substantiated in the gospel account of the temple tax, wherein Jesus tells Peter that the children of the kingdom don't have to pay temple tax, but tells him to pay it anyway, "lest we offend them."°” The gospel passage is relevant because it refers to the command that all

6 | eviticus 6 | eviticus 6° |eviticus °°7 Leviticus

24:20, Matthew 5:38 19:12, Matthew 5:33 19:18, 19:1, Mark 12:31, Luke 10:27, Matthew 22:39 2:13, Numbers 18:19, Mark 9:49

668 94 Kings 2:20-21 6 Leviticus 14:1-32, Mark 1:44, Luke 5:14, 7:14, Matthew 8:4 679 Matthew 17:24-27 196

Jews pay the temple tax, which was part of the Priestly text.°7! Therefore, when Jesus declares that the children of the kingdom don't need to pay the temple tax, he speaks against the Priestly text, yet he obeyed its command anyway, in order to stay out of trouble. Concerning the leper, the Old Testament passage to which Jesus refers speaks only of Moses, not of Aaron — unlike a great deal of the Priestly text in which Aaron and Moses act together, yet here Moses acts alone. As such, the passage may have an author who was not affiliated with the Aaron-Zadok line of priests.°” This is substantiated by two other facts.

First, Deuteronomy, which is derived from the old Elohist

traditions of those affiliated with Abiathar, mentions the command about leprosy, and calls the priests "Levites" instead of "sons of Aaron," thus associating the leprosy laws with the Elohist school.°” Second, Leviticus contains two parallel pieces of legislation about leprosy — chapter 14, which mentions only Moses; and chapter 13, which mentions both Moses and Aaron. It appears, therefore, that chapter 14 may be a Priestly redaction of the Elohist version touched upon in Deuteronomy, and that chapter 13 is the purely Priestly version. Hence, we may plausibly excuse the anomaly, for there is no doubt that Jesus accepted the bulk of the Elohist and Deuteronomy law codes, which he quotes frequently. It is also noteworthy that Campbell and Obrien regard only chapters 8, 9, 10, and 16 of Leviticus to have been part of the Priestly text proper,

as they write, The extensive collections of laws in Leviticus 1-7, 11-15, and 17-26 do not belong to the Priestly document (see Pentateuchal

Traditions 8-9); hence only the narrative sections are attributed to P here.°”

If this is true, then Jesus never quoted nor even alluded to the Priestly text at all, since all the parts of Leviticus he referenced were outside chapters 8, 9, 10, and 16.

Certainly Leviticus on the whole is of a Priestly nature, and of this there is broad agreement, yet the sum total of everything Priestly can be 671 Exodus 30:11-16, 38:24-26 672 Ezra 7:1-5 673 Deuteronomy 24:8 nadCampbell, Antony F, O’Brien, Mark A. Sources of the Pentateuch: Texts, Introductions, Annotations. 1993, Fortress Press, Minneapolis, MN, p 61 197

subdivided into several components. There was a Priestly document or narrative of a very late date which was a forgery, and this includes Genesis 1, for it was part of the manufactured narrative. But before this, there was a vast amount of Priestly regulation, which, as Wellhausen said, must have been based on much older traditions, for by the time they were incorporated into the Priestly text, the priests had forgotten what the regulations meant, and this is why everywhere sacrifices are described but never explained.°”° This, perhaps, is why Jesus warned against removing any jot or tittle from the Torah,°” for even though it is filled with disinformation, any attempt to remove the false parts may result in the accidental deletion of valid parts. However, modern scholarship has given us a great deal more precision than what was available to the ancients.

Every Jot and Tittle Don't believe that I came to destroy the Torah or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy, but to fulfill. Truly I tell you, till heaven and earth passes, not one jot nor one tittle shall pass from the Torah until all is fulfilled. So whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches people to follow suit will be called least in the kingdom of heaven.°”” So said Jesus, according to Matthew.

Yet, like so much of Matthew, a

parallel is found in Luke. Both paraphrase the earlier Quelle document from which they wrote their gospels. In Luke's version, Jesus said something a little different: The Torah and the Prophets were until John. Since then, the kingdom of God is preached. It is easier for heaven and earth to pass than it is for one tittle of the Torah to fail.°”

Thus, according to Luke, Jesus' point is that the Torah foretold the coming of the kingdom of God, and toward that end it had in no way failed. Matthew also indicates this, for "not one jot or tittle will pass until all is fulfilled," and "I came to fulfill."

*” Wellhausen, Julius. Translated by Black, J Sutherland; Menzies, Allan. Prolegomena to the History of Israel. Kessinger Publishing, p 49

°76 | uke 16:16-17, Matthew 5:17-20 677 Matthew 5:17-19 678 Luke 16:16-17

198

Notwithstanding, if it still be held that Jesus meant that the Torah is perfect, then it must be asked, to which Torah was Jesus referring?

There were four different Torahs in his day — one from Judea, one from Samaria,

one

from

the Dead

Sea

Scrolls,

and one

from

the Greek

Diaspora (Septuagint) — and these were by no means entirely consistent with each other. In light of this, the whole argument becomes superfluous. For all we know, Jesus was referring to a heavenly Torah, which truly is perfect, despite the corruptions which have occured to the Torah that has been handed down to us. This is not just a copout. The book of Jubilees, which the Essene community of the Dead Sea Scrolls

accepted as Biblical, records that there are "Heavenly Tablets," that is, not tablets as in pills you pop, but rather tablets of Law.°” Not one jot or tittle of the Heavenly Tablets will fail, even though much of the Law has been corrupted on the earthly tablets. For this reason Saint Paul said that "Jesus took away the regulations that were against us, and nailed them to his cross, making a mockery of the world-creating angels that govern the cosmos." What were the regulations that were against us? Neither the Yahwist narrative nor the Elohist texts are filled with regulations. It is primarily the Priestly text which is filled with all manner of regulations. Therefore, Paul in no way declared an end to the Old Testament Law when he said this. Rather, he

declared that Jesus had purged the Law of the Satanic verses that had polluted it. For why should God give one Law under a certain dispensation only to negate it with a future dispensation? Is God such an unstable Judge as to overturn legal precedent which he himself has set? This makes God a fool. It is much more reasonable to believe that the Law of God is forever, that it does not change. The reason why God sends Prophets is to correct the corruption of the Law, not to issue a new Law. As Mohamed rightly said, the eternal Law is never abrogated, but rather it has become corrupted:

There is a faction among the People of the Book who twist the Book with their words, and say it is from Allah, but it is not from

Allah... Some of the Jews move words around, erroneously rearranging them... and so they have lost a great deal of the Prophetic word that was given to them... Woe unto thee who

679 Jubilees 33:10 680 Colossians 2:14-15

199

write the Book with thine own hands and then say ‘tis from

Allah!**!

Indeed, modern scholarship has proven Mohamed correct, not for the intolerance such statements caused, but rather for the technical

correctness of the objective fact. A great deal of the Bible is corrupted. Therefore, new Prophets are sent to correct the errors that have accumulated over the centuries, both by accident and by intention. Other gods do the same with their holy books. Krishna, god of the Hindus, stated that he has come down time after time to straighten out the mess: When righteousness becomes puny and cowardly, and when evil struts around haughtily, then my spirit comes to earth.* Aside from this, it is interesting to note that Jesus only sanctioned the Torah and the Prophets. The Jewish Bible is divided into three sets of books

—

the Torah,

the Prophets,

sanctioned the Writings. The Chronicles, and Esther, which we rejecting based on their affiliation of representation among the Dead the books of Solomon — namely Songs. Solomon was among the most

and

the

Writings.

Jesus

never

Writings include Ezra, Nehemiah, have already described the reasons for with the Priestly sect and on their lack Sea Scrolls. The Writings also include Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of

notorious criminals of the Bible.

68! Qur'an 3:78, 4:46, 5:13, 2:79

6° Bhagavad Gita 4:7 200

¢

17

°

Temple of Demons 666, the Number of the Beast King Solomon taxed his subjects exactly 666 talents of gold a year, as it says in the Bible, Solomon's annual gold revenues totaled 666 talents.°*

Six-Six-Six is the number of the beast, according to the book of Revelation.“ Thus, King Solomon is a prototype of the Antichrist.

Solomon also had a host of vices which the Bible records: Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.’ A concubine is a female slave who gets used as a sex toy. Solomon "turned toward other gods, and his heart was not perfect with Yahweh." Therefore, he built temples for these pagan gods. Among them was the Ammonite god Molech.**° Molech was believed to enjoy the smell of burning children, so the ancient Hebrews burned their own children in sacrificial fires to this god.°*’ Even so, Solomon was actually more concerned about making his own house bigger than building temples for the gods. His royal palace was so big that it took thirteen years to build it. In contrast, the extravagant temple at Jerusalem only took seven years to build.°** To finance his building projects, Solomon sold twenty of Israel's cities to his friend King Hiram of the Baal-worshipping Phoenicians, thereby disenfranchising his own people for the sake of his selfish and idolatrous aggrandizement. King Hiram of the Phoenicians is the same Hiram whom the Freemasons honor when they haze new members of

683 4** Kings 10:14 684 Revelation 13:18

685 4 Kings 11:3 686 45t Kings 11:4-8, 11:33, 2" Kings 23:13

687 94 Kings 23:10, Jeremiah 32:35 688 4** Kings 6:38-7:1 689 4* Kings 9:11 201

their fraternity. The Freemasons also deeply respect Solomon and the Jerusalem temple he built, and they worship the letter "G" for "Genitalia" — in this they copy the example of their progenitor, Solomon, whose voracious sexual appetite was exemplified by the number of women he kept. Solomon's

influence was

so nefarious that a later king, Hezekiah,

who "did right in the eyes of Yahweh," actually stopped using some of his books in worship services.” This was the same Solomon discussed earlier, who built the temple at Jerusalem, who abolished Abiathar's priesthood, and who established

Zadok the son of Aaron as the sole high priest of Israel.’ Zadok was the first high priest to govern the Jerusalem temple priests, and these priests were responsible for the Priestly text. We should ask, since Zadok politically supported Solomon against his brother, and since he did this despite the fact that Solomon was given over to so many idolatries and other crimes, and since he did this even before King David had named his heir, thus disregarding David's authority as king and Prophet, then what does this say about Zadok? And if these accusations are true, then how can we possibly believe that the God of Israel actually gave his seal of approval to the dominance of the Aaron-Zadokee priesthood that wrote the Priestly text?

Temple of Demons Many ancient traditions assert that Solomon was heavily involved with the demonic realm, and that the integrity of Jerusalem was compromised as a result. In the words of one ancient Christian tradition, Solomon, whom David fathered by adultery, built Jerusalem with the help of demons which gave him power. When construction was complete, he kept the demons in the temple. He locked them up in seven jars and left them there in the jars for a long time. When the Romans came to Jerusalem, they found the jars, and straightway the demons escaped their jar prisons. Then the jars became pure. Nowadays, the demons influence ignorant people, and they are still in the world... but these things are mysteries.

°° Hippolytus. Fragment On the Song of Songs

1 4* Kings 2:27, Ezra 7:2, 7:5 the

Testimony of Truth, Nag Hammadi 9.70

202

Is this true? Was the temple at Jerusalem built by demons? And did these demons continue to live in the temple after it was built? The tradition is actually a lot older than this text. An earlier text called The Testament of Solomon includes a passage with a command allegedly given by the arch-angel Michael to Solomon saying, You must put all the demons, both female and male, in prison,

and you must build Jerusalem with their help.°”’ The text continues, describing all the various demons who helped build the Jerusalem temple. Many are quite hideous and vulgar. Josephus adds that Solomon had a special way of controlling the demons by means of a ring, which he placed in the nostrils of those who were possessed.°”* Solomon could direct demons in this fashion. Mohamed too, in the Qur'an, indicated that there was black magic associated with Solomon's time, although he attempted to exonerate Solomon himself, because he mistook Solomon for a Prophet.

The blasphemy did not come from Solomon, but from the evil ones who taught the Babylonian witchcraft that came down with Harut and Marut.°” In his commentary on this verse, Islamic theologian Abdullah Yusaf Ali identifies Harut and Marut as angels who came down from heaven and were tempted.®° This ties together with Enoch, which also states that the lustful angels taught witchcraft and sorcery to humans.” Other texts also record the legend in these words: Solomon was a joke because he thought he was the Messiah. was puffed up by the six.°”*

Solomon built the temple with demons.”

63 Testament of Solomon 1:7 6°4 Josephus. Antiquities of the Jews 8.2.5

65 Qur'an 2:102 696 ali, Abdullah Yusuf. The Meaning of the Holy Qur'an. 2001, Amana Publications, Beltsville, MD, p 44

67 4* Enoch 8 698 The Second Treatise of the Great Seth, Nag Hammadi 7:63

6° The Testimony of Truth, Nag Hammadi 9:70 203

He

The demiurge was troubled and asked 'How powerful is the Man who is above us?'... The third kingdom proclaims he was born of a virgin... Solomon dispatched an army of demons to capture the + 700 virgin. Like the dragon of Revelation who chases the child and the woman,” Solomon is accused of trying to capture the virgin mother in order to destroy the Christ child.

Animal Sacrifice Why was there a tradition that the Jerusalem temple was the residence of demons? There is actually a very good reason, and it is based on mainstream scholarship. To understand it, one must first understand the reasons for the practice of animal sacrifice. Some folks assume that animal sacrifice is weird or Satanic, because modern witches and Satanists are about the only people who practice it today. However, the ancient meaning of animal sacrifice was substantially different from Satanism. When the ancients slaughtered an animal for food, they knew they had killed a living creature. They felt guilty, or pondered what happened to the deceased animal’s soul. To atone for killing it, they sacrificed the animal to their god. The smoke from the altar transported the soul of the animal toward heaven, where it attained unity with the god. This was mutually beneficial for both the animal and the god. The animal could rest in peace, and the god acquired the power of the animal's life force. Thus sacrifice was the moral and compassionate thing to do on behalf of the animals you ate, and it also served your god. Both the Bible and the apocryphal texts clearly teach that the souls of animals remain in the blood even after death.” Therefore, the ancient Hebrews refrained from eating blood, believing their abstention would facilitate the passage of deceased animals into the afterlife. This is demonstrated in Enoch, where the angel-human crossbreeds "sinned against birds, wild animals, lizards, and fish" by eating their blood,’ and also in Jubilees, which states, "Nobody among you should eat blood," for, "you should not allow the soul to be eaten with the flesh... there is

7 The Apocalypse of Adam, Nag Hammadi 5:77-79 791 Revelation 12

7 Genesis 4:10, 9:4 703 4** Enoch 7:5-6 204

no limit to the days this law applies, it is forever.""" Both Jubilees and Genesis even personify spilled blood, saying that Abel's blood "complained" and "cried out" because Cain slew him.” Furthermore, it is the reason why both Old and New Testaments prohibit the consumption of blood, and it is why blood was always poured out on the altar according to Old Testament Law.’” Of all the Old Testament regulations, the prohibition against eating blood was one of the few that James the brother of Jesus insisted the nonJewish Christians abide by. Such was the absolute importance of the doctrine.” Christianity does not require vegetarianism. Nevertheless, the earliest Christians and Hebrews still cared for the souls of the animals they ate, because they refrained from eating their blood, thus respecting the soul rather than consuming it. The only blood Christians are allowed to eat is the blood of Christ, and likewise, the gospel of Christ gains strength by eating the blood of the martyrs — each feeding on the other's life force.

The Centralization of Sacrifice Animal sacrifice was practiced in the ancient Hebrew faith, but not in today's Jewish and Christian faiths? Why? The answer is found in the Priestly text, which Jews and Christians have unfortunately and unwittingly inherited in their Bible. The Priestly text commands that sacrifices should only be performed in the place where God resides, at the altar of his tabernacle, which is assumed to be the temple of Jerusalem, since that is where the tabernacle has resided since the days of Solomon.’ The Priestly command to sacrifice at only one central location is as follows:

Any Israelite who kills a cow, lamb, or goat in the camp or outside the camp, and fails to bring it to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, to offer it to Yahweh, in the tabernacle of Yahweh, blood will be upon that person. They have shed blood, and they shall be cut off from their people.’”

704 Jubilees 7:28-32, 6:14 75 Genesis 4:10, Jubilees 4:3-4 796 Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 3:17, 7:26-27, 1* Samuel 14:32, Acts 15:29

797 Acts 15:28-29 708 4** Kings 8:3-8 709 |eviticus 17:3-4, see also 17:9, 1:3, 3:7 205

Deuteronomy is even more poignant: Take care not to burn your sacrifices in every location you see, but in the place Yahweh chooses within one of your tribes, there you must bring all your sacrifices. ”’”

Today, an Islamic shrine sits on the spot where the ancient tabernacle of Jerusalem used to sit. Consequently, no sacrifices are performed.

Sacrifice Outside

Jerusalem

Yet virtually every "righteous" individual who performed animal sacrifices in the Old Testament directly violated this regulation. Abraham sacrificed everywhere but in Jerusalem. He built altars at Shechem,

Bethel, and Hebron,

and these altars were

used for animal

sacrifice.’’’ As Abraham journeyed south, he passed right over Jerusalem, not even stopping there. His son Isaac was no different. Isaac built an altar at Beer-Sheba, but not at Jerusalem.’’?

Before them,

Noah built an altar and sacrificed animals somewhere in Mesopotamia.’ Moses asked Pharaoh to "let my people go" so that they could sacrifice animals out in the middle of the Egyptian desert.’’* None of these altars were even close to the so-called "holy city" of Jerusalem. Clearly, the idea that animal sacrifice can only occur in Jerusalem is a false doctrine of the priests, and is easily disproved by the earlier texts of the Bible. What’s more, the Priestly text never mentions any of these sacrifices. It omits the story of how Noah sacrificed after the Flood, of how Abraham and Isaac sacrificed at random locations in Canaan, and of how

Moses attempted to sacrifice in the sands of Egypt. These omissions were not accidental. The Priestly text intentionally omitted these for the purpose of deceiving people into believing they had to sacrifice only in Jerusalem. They did this because they depended upon the revenue generated when all tithes and sacrifices came to Jerusalem, where they were located. To allow the people to sacrifice elsewhere was simply bad business. The almighty dollar is the reason why Jerusalem became the city of the Almighty. Follow the money. Just like modern corporations which violate anti-trust laws, the Jerusalem temple priests wanted to

™° Deuteronomy 12:11-14 ™! Genesis 12:7-8, 13:18, 15:9-12 72 Genesis 26:25,33 713 Genesis 8:20

74 Exodus 5:3 206

monopolize the market for religion by destroying all competition. To do this, they invented forgeries and distorted Israel's true history, telling everyone they must pay tithes and sacrifices to their Jerusalme temple. In the early times, for the first six centuries after the Hebrews entered the Promised Land, the Hebrews continued to sacrifice anywhere they wanted, and the God of Israel was perfectly satisfied with this arrangement. The Hebrews set up altars on the mountain tops, which they called high places. Jerusalem had no special status. Jerusalem was just one of many high places. For example, David sacrificed in his Solomon hometown of Bethlehem, a rather insignificant town.’’> sacrificed animals to Yahweh on high places outside Jerusalem, and Yahweh rewarded him for it. Solomon also sacrificed animals in Jerusalem, but Solomon is not said to have received any reward for sacrificing in Jerusalem.’ The Prophet Samuel also sacrificed on the high places, and so did Saul. God rewarded their sacrifices with the gift of prophecy.’'’ Such was the disposition of the God of Israel, that he rewarded people for sacrificing outside the so-called "holy city" of Jerusalem. If people got a sudden urge to eat meat or make a sacrifice, makeshift altars were created on the spot.’* No special location or temple was required. Even after the temple at Jerusalem was well established, God’s Prophets continued to sacrifice outside of Jerusalem. For example, Elijah, who prophesied a century after the Jerusalem temple was up and running, sacrificed on Mount Carmel, and God confirmed that Elijah was

justified in doing so by consuming the sacrifice with fire.”’” Likewise Samson’s parents. Moreover, a large number of Yahweh-worshipping kings throughout Judah’s history had a favorable policy toward the high places

outside

of Jerusalem,

including

Azariah,

Amaziah,

Jehoash,

Jehoshaphat, and Asa.”° All of these kings lived after the Jerusalem temple was already established, and all of them recognized that sacrificial altars outside of Jerusalem had a right to exist. They did not destroy the high places. These kings were more ancient and thus closer in time to Moses than the Priestly text, and so their opinions hold preeminence.

715 716 717 718 719 720

4 Samuel 20:6,28-29 4% Kings 3:2-15 4 Samuel 9:12-10:11 4% Samuel 14:32-35, Judges 13:19-20 4% Kings 18:19,30-39 9"4 Kings 15:1-4, 14:1-4, 12:1-3, 1° Kings 22:41-43, 15:9-14 207

The Corruption of the Elohist Torah As long as the Hebrews sacrificed to Yahweh on the high places, Yahweh continued to bless them with freedom and prosperity in the Promised Land. Evidently, God was quite happy with the high places. Then, one day, an eight-year old boy named Josiah ascended to the throne, and his priests convinced him to tear down all the high places and leave only Jerusalem.”' It appears the boy king was easily manipulated by the priesthood, for these priests supposedly "found" a holy book that had been missing from the Bible for hundreds years,” yet scholars believe they largely invented it. The book was Deuteronomy, which, like the Priestly text, commands the Israelites to sacrifice at only one central location.’ This explains why Josiah tore down the high places. The name "Deuteronomy" means "second giving of the Law," and it is likely that it was the second edition of the Elohist Torah. The original Elohist Torah was not compatible with the Priestly text; therefore, it was reworked into Deuteronomy. This can be deduced from who "found" Deuteronomy in the temple — namely Hilkiah, who was related both to Abiathar's priesthood at Anathoth and also to Zadok's priesthood at Jerusalem.’*

Insofar as Hilkiah was the child of both traditions, he

sought a merger of the two, and thus we have the book of Deuteronomy, which merges Elohist and Priestly doctrines. This is further substantiated by a tradition that Ezra omitted part of the Elohist Torah, and justified this omission by referencing Deuteronomy in its place.’”° The priests loved Josiah, so they formulated a false prophecy that the young king would live long and die peacefully. Yet, in actual fact, Josiah would later die in battle at a young age.””° Obviously, God wasn’t filling the mouths of the Jerusalem priests with prophecy! Rather, these were the false prophets Jeremiah so frequently mentions. Josiah’s religious reformation lasted exactly thirteen years.’ By the end of those thirteen years, Josiah lay slain, Judah’s armies were defeated, and the Hebrew nation had lost its ability to sustain itself. The once lofty

721 9" Kings 22-23 722 9"4 Kings 22:8 ™3 Deuteronomy 12:11-13 7494 Kings 22:8, Jeremiah 1:1, Ezra 7:1-2, 1° Kings 2:26-27 ” Wellhausen, Julius. Translated by Black, J Sutherland; Menzies, Allan. Prolegomena to the History of Israel 8.1.1. Kessinger Publishing, p 121

726 9"4 Kings 22:20, 23:29

27 9"¢ Kings 22:1,3, 23:23 208

kingdom of David was reduced to a puppet state. Over the next twenty years, the Hebrew kings played political stunts with their Babylonian overlords, until finally, Babylon utterly destroyed them in the siege of Jerusalem. The temple was destroyed and Jerusalem was burned to the ground. The lucky survivors were exiled to Babylon, where they remained for 70 years. Thus, within a generation of Josiah’s religious reforms, the Hebrew

nation went from freedom to slavery. If one chooses to view history theologically, then one should revise the book of Kings in this light. Why did Yahweh abandon his chosen people in the middle of the greatest religious reformation of they had ever accomplished? Why did God punish Israel at a time when they were obeying Torah Law better than they ever had in the past? The answer, I believe, resides in the fact that the theology of Kings is wrong. That is to say, Josiah was not a great reformer, but was rather a heretic, and Yahweh punished Israel with the Babylonian exile because of his heresy. To the king of Assyria, this was obvious, as he says,

You tell me that you trust in your God Yahweh. But isn't this the same God whose altars Hezekiah has dismantled, telling you to worship only at the altar in Jerusalem?’””*® The logic of the king of Assyria was simple: Hezekiah tore down Yahweh's altars on the high places. Therefore, Yahweh punished Hezekiah — as the Bible tells us and archaeology confirms. Hezekiah was besieged in Jerusalem and kept locked up like a caged bird, and he was forced to loot the temple and give its treasure to Assyria. The Assyrians even claimed Yahweh had commanded them to invade.’””” The next king to remove the high places was Josiah, and he was slaughtered

at Megiddo, whereupon Israel effectively lost its sovereignty.” This theological interpretation, which reduces Jerusalem and its temple to heresy, is perfectly compatible with Jesus and the New Testament, as Jesus says, "Believe me, the hour is coming when you won’t worship the Father on this mountain nor in Jerusalem."””! Likewise

Saint Paul, "The Lord of heaven

and earth doesn’t live in

78 9™ Kings 18:22 29 9"4 Kings 18:4-30, The Prism Inscription of Sennacherib at Ninevah

730 "4 Kings 23:8, 23:29 7! John 4:21 209

temples made by hands."”** Also, the gospels frequently state that Jesus worshipped on mountain tops, an action analogous to early Hebrew worship on the high places. Moreover, Josephus informs us that the Essenes refused to sacrifice at the Jerusalem temple.”* Apparently, components of the original Hebrew faith had survived in the Essene sect, but had been forgotten by other Jewish sects. Jesus resurrected the true Hebrew religion from corruption.

Recap The foregoing arguments have shown that the six-day creation account in Genesis 1 comes from the Priestly text, and that the Priestly text is a forgery. Moreover, Jesus Christ rejected the Priestly text, as do scholars and ancient critics. The people who wrote the Priestly text operated in a temple that was the home of demons. Yet for all this, there is still one more accusation that can be brought forward against Genesis 1. The creation account in Genesis I is the Whore of Babylon.

™ Nets 17:24 > Josephus. Antiquities of the Jews 18.1.5 210

¢

18

°¢

Whore of Babylon Enuma Elish The prevailing view among scholars is that Genesis 1 is derived from a depraved polytheistic Babylonian myth called Enuma Elish. This is because there are several converging similarities between Genesis 1 and Enuma Elish. Below is a list: Genesis | says that creation took place over seven days. Likewise, Enuma Elish is a creation account written on seven tablets. Genesis | says that humans were created on the sixth day. Likewise, the creation of humans is recorded on Enuma Elish’s sixth tablet.” Genesis 1 says that God made the sun, moon, and stars to be signs for times and seasons. Likewise, Enuma Elish says that the sun, moon, and stars were created in the form of constellations, and rules were

established to govern them so that they don’t "wander."”*° Genesis | says that a solid ceiling, or firmament, was spread out above us to hold the weight of an ocean in the sky.” This firmament must be quite strong to support the weight of the water.”’ Likewise, Enuma Elish says that there is an ocean in the sky, and that the torso of a dead goddess named Tiamat forms a firmament to support its weight.”* Genesis’ Priestly account of the Flood, which bears many markings of Genesis 1's cosmological assumptions, asserts that there are fountains of the ocean deep that can spring up and flood the land.” Likewise, Enuma Elish asserts that the god Marduk took the breasts of the dead goddess Tiamat and made mountains of them. Then he ran fountains

™34 Enuma Elish 6.2

®° Enuma Elish 5.1-5 736 Genesis 1:6-8 737 Hvers, Conrad. The Meaning of Creation: Genesis and Modern Science. 1984, John Knox Press. Atlanta, GA, p 39

38 Enuma Elish 4.35,37 ®° Genesis 7:11

211

from the ocean deep through her nipples to make springs, rivers, and lakes.’*° Genesis 1 says that "darkness was on the face of the deep." The Hebrew word for "the deep" is Tihom. In Enuma Elish, the goddess of the ocean deep is called Tiamat. The two words are obvious cognates, and they are both identified with the depths of the ocean. Enuma Elish tells how Tiamat was killed by the god Marduk, and so it is natural that Genesis 1 mention that "darkness was on the face of Tihom (the deep)" — because Tihom was killed, and so her face was dark. As Albright put it, "There was originally a statement in verse 2 mentioning specifically and succinctly the triumph of God over the great Deep — Tehom = Acc. (Accadian) Tiamat — which was later deleted."”*! The very next phrase in Genesis 1 continues, "and the Spirit of God moved over the waters." The Hebrew word for spirit here is Ruach, which can also mean "wind." According to Enuma Elish, the god Marduk killed Tiamat by blowing a hurricane of wind into her belly and exploding her from the inside out.” Wind moving over the waters is apparently the Bible’s way of remembering this primordial hurricane. Why is their so much bloodshed in Enuma Elish? According to Enuma Elish, the goddess Tiamat was pregnant with the gods. She decided to kill her own children. But the gods hired a hit man named Marduk who killed her instead. Genesis | bears all the markings of a sanitized "G-Rated" version of an earlier "X-Rated" Babylonian myth. The authors of Genesis 1 probably didn’t care about whether their story was scientifically accurate or not. They couldn't prove that the earth was created in six days, nor did they care to do so. They just wanted to create a theologically acceptable alternative to the popular nonsense of the day. From a theological standpoint, it is rather disturbing that creationists are defending a regurgitated Babylonian myth, especially in light of what the Revelation tells us about Babylon:

MYSTERY BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.7”?

™ Enuma Elish 5.11 ™! Albright, William Foxwell. Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan. 1968, Doubleday & Company.

Garden City, New York, NY, p 185

™ Enuma Elish 4.16 ™3 Revelation 17:5

202

OF

Revelation speaks of this "whore of Babylon" clothed in red, who drinks

the blood of the saints, and she is usually interpreted to represent false

religion. Enuma Elish is straight out of Babylon, and it represents a very depraved and false religion indeed! Enuma Elish is the spawn of Babylon, and Genesis | is its sibling. Thus, we might rightfully label the entire creationist worldview as a child of the Whore of Babylon! At the heart of both Enuma Elish and Genesis 1 is an erroneous earth-centered assumption about the solar system. When the ancients saw the sun set in the west, toward the Mediterranean Sea, they reasoned

that the sun sank into the ocean. What keeps the sun in the ocean during the nighttime? Perhaps a big monster keeps it hostage in the ocean deep. In order for the sun to rise, a hero must kill the monster.

Tiamat was the

monster and Marduk was the hero. When the monster is disposed of, the sun and the waters of the ocean are free to ascend to the heavens, and

that's why we have sunlight and rainwater. Seeing that this myth is thoroughly refutable on the basis of scientific fact, we may discard it as ignorant superstition; and, since Genesis | is

derived from this nonsense, we may discard it also. Yet there is an element of scientific truth to Enuma Elish. The myth states that the primordial mother goddess Tiamat wanted to kill her own children.

In this, she is like Mother Nature.

Natural selection is made

possible when Mother Nature sacrifices her own children before they procreate, thus bringing about evolution by means of cleansing the gene pool. In this, the Babylonian myth Enuma Elish is actually more scientific than Genesis 1; for Tiamat is truly a symbol of Mother Nature, in that she kills her own children.

Ishtar, the Whore of Babylon The goddess Ishtar was also a whore of Babylon, for she betrayed and cheated on her husband Tammuz numerous times,’ and she was known for hanging out with prostitutes.”*° She was such a suck-you-butt that she even threatened to raise zombies out of hell to overwhelm the land of the living.”*° Ishtar was apparently very fond of the colorful stone lapis lazuli, and of gold, for she mentioned these precious elements in oracles she delivered to the Babylonians.’ Lapis lazuli is blue and purple with ™ Gilgamesh Epic 6:6-7,46-79 of Assyrian tablet

745 Gilgamesh 6:165-166 of Assyrian tablet

74 Gilgamesh Epic 6:99-100 of Assyrian tablet

741 Gilgamesh Epic 6:10 of Assyrian tablet

Zi

specks of gold-yellow color. The Priestly text states that the uniforms of the priests were blue, purple, and yellow.’ King Solomon apparently decorated the temple with lapis lazuli, for the Queen of Sheba is reported to have noticed it in the newly constructed temple.’” Lapis lazuli was frequently used as a religious stone in ancient times. Egyptian women used it as makeup. It is found in the tombs of pharaohs and on the seals of Assyrians and Babylonians. Far from being particular to the Hebrew faith, it was a mark of pagan influence. Therefore, the use of lapis lazuli colors on the Priestly garments is evidence that the priests of Jerusalem were practicing religion in the tradition of the pagans, and therefore it is right to call them the whore of Babylon.

Hoodoo in Jerusalem Hoodoo folk witchcraft, which is common in the southern United States, traces its roots to Zadok, the first high priest of the Jerusalem

temple. According to the hoodoo’s own historical claims, their occult practices were derived from the 6" and 7" books of Moses, which Moses supposedly wrote in addition to the first five books of the Bible. These books were secrets until the time of Zadok the priest. Of course, one must wonder how a book could have been kept secret for so long, for there were several hundred years between Moses and Zadok. It is more likely that Zadok wrote the book himself as a forgery, just as his descendents invented the Priestly text. It is interesting that the Jerusalem temple priests kept turning up secret holy books nobody had ever heard of before. It supports our thesis that the Jerusalem temple priests were a bunch of con-artists and scoundrels who falsified roughly half the Torah and deceitfully passed it off as divine inspiration. Worse, if the hoodoo tradition is to be believed, they practiced witchcraft.

Urim and Thummim The Priestly text makes frequent mention of certain sacred stones called the Urim and Thummim. It is believed that a person would ask the Urim and Thummim questions, and they would respond by glowing light. Strangely, the Urim and Thummim are never mentioned at all in the earlier Yahwist and Elohist sources. They are never mentioned in the

Prophets either.

In short, the Urim and Thummim only appear in very

late texts — namely the Priestly portions of the Pentateuch, the 5™ century

748 Exodus 28:5-37, 39:1-5 ™ Testament of Solomon 21:1-3 214

texts of Ezra and Nehemiah, and in the very late pseudepigraphal Song of Moses.’”° There is one exception. Urim is mentioned without Thummim in the early book of Samuel, yet here it only says that "Yahweh did not answer with

dreams,

Urim,

or prophets,"

which

means

he did not care

to

communicate by means of Urim and Thummim. Hence, the verse does not necessarily lend support to the Priestly use of it. Besides this, it can be explained as an interpolation, because the earlier Elohist version does not mention Urim, but only says "Elohim (in place of Yahweh) does not answer with prophets or dreams."”°' In Samuel, there is an Elohist core that is older than the Yahwist portions. Urim is only mentioned in one of the Yahwist passages. Therefore, the use of Urim and Thummim is only condoned in the late texts. We must ask the question, if the use of Urim and Thummim is never condoned in the earlier parts of the Bible, were they really part of the early Hebrew religion? Did they really come from Moses? And if not, then this is another blow to the Priestly text and its creation myth in Genesis 1, for it means that the Priestly sect consulted with an occult device used for divination, which is tatamount to flirting with demons.

The Priestly text describes the use of the device as follows: Put the Urim and Thummim in the mishpat breastplate, and they will be on Aaron’s heart when he goes before Yahweh... and you shall make the priest’s garment all blue.’””

The Hebrew word mishpat refers to the act of making a decision, or answering a question about what to do. The Urim and Thummim were used to ask God a question, to which he answered yes or no. Also, "Urim" is the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet, and "Thummim" is the last, which suggests that the Urim and Thummim contained an alphabet, in addition to its yes/no function. If this interpretation is correct, the Urim and Thummim must have been very much like an Ouija board, since Ouija boards communicate by means of both an alphabet and a yes/no function. Since exorcists generally agree that Ouija boards are a fast track for demonic possession, and since the Urim and Thummim were so similar to Ouija boards, we should ponder if the Urim and 750 Exodus 28:30, Leviticus 8:8, Numbers 27:21, Ezra 2:63, and Nehemiah 7:65 are Priestly; Deuteronomy 33:8 is Song of Moses

751 4 Samuel 28:6, 28:15 72 Exodus 28:30-31 215

Thummim were devices for divination which connected the priests to the demonic realm. Divination is condemned throughout the Bible. Jeremiah and Kings mention divination negatively. Ezekiel repeatedly condemned divination. | Deuteronomy offers a blanket condemnation of all witchcraft, specifically including divination.”*> So why does the Bible condone the Urim and Thummim, seeing that they were a tool for divination?

The

explanation,

I think, is that the use

of Urim

and

Thummim was a heretical practice of the Priestly sect. The Urim and Thummim were allegedly used to translate the Book of Mormon, according to their founder Joseph Smith,”* who was excommunicated from the Methodist Church for his involvement in the occult. The Urim and Thummim are also featured on the seal of Yale University. Yale is home to the nefarious secret society called "Skull and Bones,"

to which

both candidates

of the 2004

US

Presidential

election belonged. Therefore, we may conclude that the Jerusalem temple priests were deciding public policy based on oracles from an ancient Ouija board! They were conjuring up Captain Howdy and his band of wild demons to help them run their ostensibly "theocratic" government. Perhaps this explains why Jewish culture sank into a 300 year dark age as soon as Ezra introduced Priestly religion to the second temple. These were the forces who wrote Genesis 1.

™ Jeremiah 14:14, 2 Kings 17:17, Ezekiel 12:24-13:23, Deuteronomy 18:10-11 ™ Joseph Smith History 1:35 216

¢

19 ¢

Is God All Powerful?

Is God All Powerful? Why did God allow lies and falsehood to creep into his Bible? If one assumes that the God of the Bible is all powerful and all wise, then how could God allow the Bible to become so polluted? The question is flawed because the assumption is flawed. God is not all powerful. Certainly the God of Genesis 1 is all powerful, for this God created everything, and had the power to ensure that everything was good. But that God is the God of the Priestly text. The God of the earlier parts of the Hebrew Bible is different. Below are quotes from the earlier, more authentic parts of the Bible, such as the Yahwist and Elohist sources, Judges, and Samuel: Yahweh was with Judah; and he possessed the mountains, but he

was not capable of driving out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had iron chariots.””° After God tested Abraham, God said, "Now I know that you fear

God."’® (Beforehand, God was not sure ifhe did.) When God saw he could not beat Jacob in a wrestling match, God said, "You have struggled with God and man and have prevailed.""*' Yahweh regretted making humans on the earth.’® (God said) J greatly regret that I have set Saul up as king.”

5 Judges 1:19 756 Genesis 22:12 737 Genesis 32:24-30 78 Genesis 6:6 739 4 Samuel 15:11

217

Moses convinced God not to destroy Israel in the desert, and afterward Amos again convinced God not to destroy Israel.” Hence, God can be swayed by human arguments. Indeed, the entire corpus of archaic Hebrew literature is entirely incompatible with any notion that God controls everything, knows everything, or is impermeable. This cannot be explained away with theological constructs, hermeneutics, or exegesis, for the earliest sources

of the Bible are clear and consistent on this point. Likewise, the earliest gospel, Mark, takes for granted that Jesus Christ is not all powerful, as is clear from the quotes below: Jesus could not do a mighty work there, except for laying his hands on a few sick people and healing them.”*' They brought a blind man to him... When he had spit on he asked him if he could see see men like trees, walking." and again made him look everything clearly.”

So sometimes it takes

Jesus and they begged him to touch his eyes and put his hands on him, anything. He looked up and said, "I Then He put His hands on his eyes up, and he was restored and saw

Jesus multiple attempts to accomplish something.

The Gods of Nag Hammadi and the Dead Sea Scrolls Traditional religious establishments have brainwashed us to think Moses taught monotheism on Mount Sinai. He didn’t. They tell us that the Judeo-Christian tradition has always believed in only one God. It didn’t. In fact, monotheism did not even exist among the Hebrews until the late 600's BCE, which was long after Moses and the early Prophets. When monotheism came to dominate Jewish thinking in the mid 400's BCE under Ezra, then God stopped sending Prophets to Israel altogether. Why did the Prophets cease? Was Yahweh angry at the monotheists? Allusions to "the gods" plural are constant throughout the Dead Sea Scrolls. Here are two examples:

70 Exodus 32:14, Amos 7:1-6

76! Mark 6:5 70 Mark 8:22-25 218

On the Last Day, the congress of the gods shall engage in ferocious combat with the armies of the humans, causing mass destruction.’° Who in the heavens is like you, my God? Who among the sons of the gods? Who in the entire congress of the gods?”™ We may also point out that Josephus makes mention of the fact that some Jews were not monotheists even in his day: There are many schisms among the Jews.

Some espouse that

God is one, as it says in the ancient holy writ, but others declare

that God is a plurality.”

The Dead Sea Scrolls also mention a church of gods, and that Michael reigns over a kingdom of gods. They also specify that these are living gods, indicating their real existence outside the imagination.’ The Dead Sea Scrolls were written by the Essenes, who, as we have already stated,

were

in many

ways

similar

to Jesus,

and

were

denomination of Judaism that Jesus did not criticize.

the

only major

One must ask, if

Jesus were so adamantly opposed to the Pharisees and the Sadducees, who believed in only one God, yet was tolerant toward the Essenes, who

believed in many gods, then does it not stand to reason that Jesus Christ himself may have also believed in many gods? In fact, Jesus Christ did believe in many gods. This is implicitly stated within his commentary on Psalm 82. People were criticizing him for calling himself the Son of God, because they thought it was blasphemy. In response, Jesus pointed out that Psalm 82 in the Bible says that there are many gods, and so therefore it is not blasphemy for Jesus to assert that he is one of these gods, as he put it: Is it not written in your Torah, "I said you are gods?" If he called them gods unto whom the word of God came, and the

763 Dead Sea Scrolls. The War Scroll 1:10 74 Dead Sea Scrolls. Non-Canonical Psalms fragment 15 16 The Tripartite Tractate 12, Nag Hammadi 1:112

766 Dead Sea Scrolls. 4Q400 fragment 1i, The War Scroll 17:7-8, 4Q403 11 44, 4Q405 19-20, 40491 fragment 11:5, 40471b 5, 4Q280-290 fragment 7ai

219

scripture cannot be broken, then how can you accuse me of blasphemy just because I said I am the Son of God?”®’ By saying this, Jesus affirmed the real existence of more than one God and affirmed his own divinity at the same time.’ More than a few ancient Christian writers affirmed the existence of many gods. They spoke of "cosmic gods,"’” "secret gods,"’”° and "gods that are above god."”"! They said "God creates gods,"’” and that "when three gods are in one place, they are gods,"’”* indicative of the Trinity. The early Christians who believed in a multitude of gods clearly distinguished them from angels and demons. One text lists several types of heavenly entities including, "cosmocrator princes, principalities, authorities, woman-gods, man-gods, and archangels"’” each apparently being distinct. The depths of hell are also filled with distinctly different entities, including at least four different types "princes, angels, demons, and souls."”” The following two passages give us precision in defining gods, for they draw a distinction between "gods" and "angels," making it clear they are two different types of entities. The gods arose, and from them divine gods, and from them masters, and from them archangels.’”° We are not certain whether the Unfathomable One has angels or gods — or maybe he was just by himself in the ylem.””” The Genesis story records that the serpent tempted Eve saying, "Your eyes will be opened, and you will become like elohim."""* The Hebrew

787 John 10:34-36 7°8 Heiser, Michael S. The Unique Son of the Most High: The Place of Jesus in the Divine Council, Part 1 of 4. Divine Council Files 1(7), Downloaded Oct 5, 2008, www.thedivinecouncil.com/dc101psalm82john10.pdf

7° On the Origin of the World, Nag Hammadi 2:97 7 Marsanes, Nag Hammadi 10:30 ™ Zostrianos, Nag Hammadi 8:34

™ ™3 ™4 ”°

Asclepius, Nag Hammadi 6:68 The Gospel of Thomas 30 Melchizedek, Nag Hammadi 9:2 Trimorphic Protennoia, Nag Hammadi 13:35

"® Eugnostos, Nag Hammadi 3:87

™” Allogenes, Nag Hammadi 11:67 220

word e/ohim can mean either "God" singular or "gods" plural, depending on the verb. An early Christian source clarifies the matter, explicitly saying "You will become like gods."”” Moreover, the book of Jubilees found among the Dead Sea Scrolls also confirms that "gods" plural is the ’*° original meaning. The God of the early sources of Genesis clearly does not know everything. Ancient Christians attested to this: The prince asked, "Adam, where are you?"’®! because he didn't

know what happened.’*” What kind of God angrily keeps Adam from eating of the Tree of Knowledge and asks "Adam, where are you?" Doesn't God know everything?’”™ The early Christian sources also state that "the gods are derived from pristine matter."”** Here, the gods are not spiritual entities, but material entities, and therefore may be biological in nature like we are. Yet the same passage also asserts that the gods are immortal. Perhaps certain biological entities that are much more intelligent than we are have figured out a way to cheat death indefinitely, and thus become "pristine matter." Genesis | presents us with one single all powerful Creator God. As such, it is incompatible with the notion that there are many gods. What did Jesus think about Genesis 1? Jesus never affirmed that the earth was created in six days. Jesus never affirmed the creationist timeline. Only one place in the entire New Testament speaks about the six-day creation, and it occurs in Hebrews,’ a book that had a little harder time getting into the canon than did most books of the Bible. We don't even know who wrote Hebrews, and many of the eastern churches

kept it out of their Bibles. Moreover, the opening verse of John’s gospel, "In the beginning was the Logos," presents a creation account that 78 Genesis 3:5 7° The Hypostasis of the Archons, On the Origin of the World, Nag Hammadi ZAG S290 78 Jubilees 3:18 78! Genesis 3:9 182 The Hypostasis of the Archons, Nag Hammadi 2:90 783 The Testimony of Truth, Nag Hammadi 9:47 784 Asclepius, Nag Hammadi 6:67 785 Hebrews 4:4

221

appears to be aimed at competing against Genesis 1. The Greek word Logos implies logic and order, which is the exact opposite of what Genesis 1 says about the earth being "without form and void." From a New Testament perspective, the Genesis 1 account of creation is stuffed in the back of the pantry like an old wineskin.

Henotheism Henotheism, not monotheism, is the theology of Moses and the Prophets. This fact is generally accepted by scholars, as any number of authorities can attest. What is Henotheism? Nothing better defines Henotheism than what Saint Paul the Apostle told the Corinthians: There are many gods, but for us there is one God.”*° Henotheism is the belief that many gods exist, but that only one God should be worshipped. Unlike monotheism, there are truly many gods and they really do exist. Yet unlike polytheism, not all the gods are worshipped. Only one of them is worshipped, and the rest are profane. Henotheism explains why James the brother of Jesus and Saint John the Apostle, together with all the Prophets, were so thoroughly against idols and eating meat sacrificed to idols, even to the point where it was one of the few regulations of the Old Testament that they insisted nonJewish Christians must keep’*’ — because sacrifices to idols serve profane entities that truly do exist.’** Henotheism explains why idolatry is the most frequently mentioned offense in the entire Bible — for if God is all powerful, then an idol is nothing, and it would only be an inconsequential joke and hardly worth the mention — but if idolatry truly serves other gods that truly do exist, and if sacrifices to idols truly assist those gods, then this explains why Yahweh and his Prophets are so vociferously against idolatry. For if there are other gods, then these gods are truly a threat to Yahweh and to his Messiah, and therefore it is particularly important that idolatry does not infiltrate the ranks of the faithful, for it truly gives enemies a foot in the door by which they can infiltrate the armies of Yahweh. The God of Henotheism is actually competing against other gods who are real. Worshipping other gods is serving other gods, and serving other gods 786 787 788

1* Corinthians 8:5-6 Acts 15:29, 1* John 5:21, Revelation 2:14, 2:20, 9:20

1* Corinthians 10:19-22 222

undermines the power of your covenant God, and this is tantamount to adultery against your God and treason against your nation. In such terms the Prophets speaks of idolatry. This line of thinking only makes sense in light of Henotheism. If God were Almighty, then the overarching importance of the prohibition against idols makes no sense at all, because in a monotheistic system, and idol has no power. Which is worse, praying to rocks and dead trees, or committing murder? In a monotheistic system, the first is laughable but the second is quite heinous. But in a Henotheistic system, idolatry is even more heinous than murder, for murder can only kill the body, but idolatry kills both body and soul, for it puts the soul at the mercy of gods who care not for humanity. Only within the framework of Henotheistic thinking does it make sense that idolatry is a worse crime than murder, theft, sexual perversion, or any other infraction. Seeing that the Bible condemns idolatry more frequently than any other sin, this is a case for Henotheism.

The Uniqueness of Yahweh Nevertheless, the God of Israel was still unique from the other gods in some ways. Unlike other gods of the region, Yahweh never had sex and he never died. Most other ancient Near Eastern gods at least had sex, and some like Tammuz died. We know from archaeology that Baal had sex with a cow 77 times and he also died.” From the very earliest of the Israelite settlements, there is no archaeological evidence that an idol of Yahweh was made, indicating a very early belief in the prohibition against idols.’”°

Examples of Henotheistic Thinking in the Bible The real existence of the pagan god Dagon is implied in the Biblical story of how Dagon's idol fell on his face before Yahweh. The Bible never says that wind blew him over or that God blew him over. Rather, the Bible presents the story as if Dagon was truly a living god who made a conscious decision to humble himself before another god.””'

789 Smith, Mark S. The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts. 2001, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, p 175, 90-92, 87

70 Dever, William G. Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From? 2003, Eerdmans Publishing, Grand Rapids, MI, p 128

71 4% Samuel 5:2-4 223

In another archaic Biblical text, Naomi tells Ruth, "Your sister-in-

law went back to her nation and to her gods.

You should do the

same."”’* Naomi was a Hebrew who believed in Yahweh, but here she sanctioned the worship of other gods besides Yahweh, but only for those outside the Hebrew nation.

Then there is the case of how the Old Testament makes references to other gods as if they were actual people, and that they could be bound in chains and led into captivity. The Prophet Jeremiah wrote about Chemosh, the god of the Moabites,

Chemosh shall go into captivity, with his priests and princes together.’ It's as if the god Chemosh were physically capable of being handcuffed.

Henotheism Explains Things Monotheism Cannot Have you ever wondered why the prophecies in the Bible are vague? If God were really all powerful, then God should be able to pinpoint exact times, dates, locations, and names when giving prophecies for thousands of years in the future. But most of the prophecies in the Bible do not attempt such precision. This is not consistent with monotheism. But on the other hand, if there are gods who live for thousands of years or more, and if they have substantial control over future events, but not total control, then they can give vague prophecies, which will remarkably and fairly consistently come true. Such are the Prophets of the Bible. Have you ever wondered why bad things happen to good people? If God were all powerful and all good, this should not happen. On the other hand, if there are gods who are good, yet who cannot always control things, or who do not have the resources to intervene, then the

existence of evil makes sense, for the gods can only do so much.

Understanding the Ancient Hebrew Theological System What follows is an explanation of the ancient Hebrew theological system, as scholars know it from piecing together archaeology with the Biblical texts. The western Semitic peoples, including Hebrews, Canaanites, and the more archaic city of Ugarit, believed in a Father-God called El. The name El and its variants are known throughout the Bible — El, Elyon, El-Shaddai, and Eloah. They believed El spawned a brood of

™ Ruth 1:15 73 Jeremiah 48:7 224

sons called bn-I/m (Ugaritic) or beni-ha-Elohim (Hebrew), which means "sons of El" or "sons of the God," and that these sons of El participated in some kind of divine government called "the congress of the gods.""”"* The operations of this congress are implicit within such Biblical stories as the Tower of Babel, where Yahweh consults with the other gods — "Let us go down and confuse their language"’”’ — and in Job, where "the sons of God came to present themselves before Yahweh."””° El and his wife Athirat had a total of 70 sons in the Biblical and Ugaritic traditions, or 77 in the Hittite tradition. These were the "sons of God," and to each of them El gave a nation as an inheritance. Yahweh was

one

of these

sons

of El, and

his

inheritance

was

Israel.’?’

Consequently, each nation was supposed to worship one of the sons of El Canaan worshipped Baal, Moab worshipped as its appointed God. Chemosh, Ammon worshipped Molech, and Israel worshipped Yahweh. They all paid homage to El as the Father-God. This can be seen in Jubilees, where Shem "blessed the El of elohim (God of gods) who gave Yahweh's word, and he blessed Yahweh."””* In this passage, it sounds as if Shem was blessing two distinct divine entities — El and Yahweh, Father and Son. These ancient Semites assumed that the gods of other nations truly existed. If somebody wanted to worship a foreign god, they scooped up some dirt from the foreign soil of that god's nation and took it home with them to worship with, because the gods were geographically limited to a certain nation. This can clearly be deduced from the story of Naaman the leper, who took two mule loads of Israelite dirt back to Syria on which to kneel down and pray to Yahweh. The Prophet Elisha did not protest Naaman's theological interpretation on this topic, but merely said, "Go in peace."”” Some even thought that the God of Israel was confined to the

794 Smith, Mark. The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts. 2001, Oxford University Press, New York,

NY, p 37-53 75 Genesis 11:7

7 Jobi:6,.2:4 797 Smith, Mark S. The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts. 2001, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, p 55, 157, 44-46, 63 78 Jubilees 8:20-21

799 9"4 Kings 5:17-19 225

mountains.°” The national limitation of deities is attested for by the Biblical Prophet Micah, and also by Deuteronomy: All the nations will walk each in the name of their own god, and we will walk in the name of Yahweh our God forever.*” When Elyon divided the nations, when He separated the sons of Adam, he set the boundaries of the nations according to the number of the sons of Elohim.®”

What this passage means is this: The Father-God Elyon divided the nations according to the number of sons he had, and so each nation got its own god. Your Bible might say "sons of Israel" in place of "sons of Elohim," but both the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint attest that the Bible originally said "sons of Elohim"

not "sons of Israel,"°™ as does

Irenaeus also.“ Scholars believe that the Hebrew Bible was intentionally corrupted by the monotheists to read "sons of Israel" because later Judaism evolved to become monotheist.*” Often, even in early times, the national god was combined with the Father-God El to form one entity, hence the term "Yahweh Elyon" (the LORD Most High) in Genesis 14, and "Yahweh Elohim" (the LORD God) — these titles occurring in the Yahwist narrative, which is considered to be the earliest of the four major source texts of the Torah. Hence, the two deities were collapsed into one long before monotheism was invented. This also is the origin of Trinitarian thinking — that Jesus Christ, as an entity, can be collapsed into a single entity with the Father and the Spirit, thus making God three-in-one. Today, theologians often refer to the Trinity as a "mystery," but there was no such "mystery" in the minds of ancient Christian Trinitarians. They took it for granted, because it was consistent with the same way they had thought for 800 4* Kings 20:28

8°! Micah 4:5 80? Deuteronomy 32:8, Dead Sea Scrolls and Septuagint. Masoretic text is corrupted to read "sons of Israel" in place of "sons of elohim."

83 Abegg, Martin Jr; Flint, Peter; Ulrich, Eugene. The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The Oldest Known Bible Translated for the First Time into English. 1996, HarperCollins Publishers Inc, New York, NY, p 191

8 Irenaeus. Against Heresies 3.12.9 85 smith, Mark S. The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts. 2001, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, p 48-49, 73

226

centuries. Only with the general acceptance of the monotheistic heresy did the Trinity become a seemingly self-contradictory "mystery." On Psalm 82, Smith asserts Elohim (God) and Yahweh are the same:

Here the figure of God, understood as Yahweh, takes his stand in the assembly. The name El was understood in the tradition — and perhaps at the time of the original text's composition as well — to be none other but Yahweh, and not a separate God called E1.°

Yahweh's Right to Rule and the Covenant Relationship This brings us to Psalm 82 itself, which tells another aspect of ancient Hebrew religion — the God of Israel's rightful destiny to ultimately conquer the other gods and appropriate their inheritances: God is the president gods... saying "You like mortals you will O God, and judge the

of El's Congress. He judges among the are gods. You are all sons of Elyon. But die, and like the rulers you will fall." Rise earth, for you will inherit all nations.*””

In a world filled with hostile nations and hostile gods, the logical thing to do is to make your nation and your god the top dog, so that you can defend your interests. That's exactly how ancient Israel viewed things. Yahweh should be president in the congress of gods, and he has a right to take away all power and possessions of other gods. This is especially evident when we study the Psalms and the life story of King David. David's covenant with Yahweh was simple: you keep me from being killed by my enemies, and I will conquer all Israel's neighbors for you. The covenant was a contractual obligation between two parties for their mutual benefit. The benefit to David was a long life. The benefit to Yahweh was the conquest of Edom, Moab, Philistia, Syria, Ammon, and the national unity of Israel. Once this is understood, David's Psalms make sense. His frequent mention of the underworld and his intense fear of death — coupled with his description of Yahweh as a god of war with nostrils filled with fire, riding on thunderclouds, sword in hand, hurling lightening bolts, and shooting arrows at his enemies,

along with multiple songs of victory — these features are consistent with

David's incessant wars of conquest against all Israel's neighbors.

806 Smith, Mark S. ibid, p 48, 156 897 Dsalm 82:1,6-8

227

It was a god-eat-god cosmic system, and David wanted to ensure that his god was the top dog. This sort of alliance system between gods and humans is what Old Testament covenant theology is all about. When Israel went to war, they carried the throne of Yahweh into battle, the Ark of the Covenant, because Yahweh was their commander and ally. Before they attacked, they consulted with Yahweh, to make certain he approved of the military action. Every war was a holy war against some other competing nation and its god. Expanding the boundaries of your nation meant expanding the empire of your covenant god, and your god would reward you for it.

Jesus' Jihad This type of theology does not stop in the Old Testament. It is quite evident in the New Testament message of Jesus Christ too. The types of personalities Jesus chose for his Apostles mirrored that of King David. They had a tendency toward violent bravery. Saint Peter toted a sword around. When Jesus was threatened, Peter cut off the ear of the high priest. Likewise Saint Paul, who actually committed murder in the name of religion before being converted. James and John were called sons of thunder. One of the Apostles was named Simon the Zealot. The Zealots were a boisterous anti-Roman faction, essentially hell bent on violence in the name of freedom. What else would one expect from a Messiah who said, "Do not think that I came to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword?"* Jesus Christ made friends with hated bureaucrats, prostitutes, and

social outcasts. He was not looking for ethical people. He was looking for loyal people. He was looking for people in the dregs of society who would fight for him — who would risk everything for him, because they had nothing to loose anyway. Conspicuously absent from Jesus Christ's inner circle were people such as Gandhi or Mother Teresa. There were no such Apostles or disciples of that nature. If the Christian God is a God of Almighty Universal Love, this simply makes no sense. On the other hand, if Jesus Christ is not all powerful, then he is a god among gods, who must fight his way to become chief of the gods, or else become a slave to gods more powerful than himself. In this case, he would not want Gandhi or Mother Teresa in his army, because they are too universalistic in their theology, and therefore too apt to be kind to the enemy. Instead, he would want to save violent people who were ferociously loyal to him. 808 Quelle, Luke 12:51, Matthew 10:34 228

This also explains the doctrine of hell. Why would an Almighty God torture people forever? Isn't that sadistic? But on the other hand, if the gods are at war, it stands to reason that they will incarcerate prisoners of war. Such is the Christian perception of hell, for in the New Testament, hell is described as a dungeon of spirits in chains, who are awaiting judgment,*” and they will be judged at the time of the resurrection, that is after the war is over, when they can receive due process of law as non-

combatants.*'® This makes perfect sense with regard to the rules of war. To be sure, Jesus Christ certainly aspires to attain a master plan of love, whereby if he is victorious, he will implement a policy of peace, love, and justice. But until victory is realized, Jesus must conserve his resources. He cannot afford to save people who are not loyal to him. Ifa violent sinner is more loyal to him than Gandhi, he will save the violent sinner first, for at least violence and loyalty is useful on the field of battle, but universal love is not.

This is not the mentality of an Almighty God. Rather, it is the mentality of a god who is struggling in a death match with other gods, who desperately needs to recruit loyal soldiers. He is not looking for saints. He is looking for soldiers.

Henotheism, Gnosticism, and Evolutionary Science Agree A fundamental principle that unites Henotheism, Gnosticism, and evolutionary science is this: they all reject any notion that the governing force of this cosmos is good and just. The governing force of ancient Near Eastern Henotheism was the Father-God El, who was known for his support of the hostile forces of nature, such as Yamm (the ocean) and Mot (the desert), which were symbolized in mythology as grotesque primordial monsters and serpents. Likewise, the governing force of Gnosticism was the demiurge, who was known for his arrogance and stupidity, which caused him and his

stupid perverted angels to create a failed cosmos. The governing force of evolutionary science is natural selection or survival of the fittest, which is nothing but the selfish instinct to preserve one's own interests at the expense of others. For 540 million years, animals have been ripping each other's throats out and feeding on each other's misery. There is no room for a Universal God of Love in such a system. Rather, there is violence among the animals, and war among the gods.

809 5°4 Deter 2:4, 1 Peter 3:19 810 4 Deter 3:19-4:6, Revelation 20:11-15 229

+

20

°

Answering Monotheism

What About "Almighty God?" The phrase "Almighty God" appears often in the English Bibles. Based on this, the monotheists assert that the God of the Bible is all

powerful. However, this is wrong because it fails to understand the meaning of the Hebrew word E/ Shaddai, which is erroneously translated "Almighty God" in the English Bibles. E/ is Hebrew for God; however, shaddai does not mean "Almighty." Rather, it means "wilderness," since the Akkadian shadu and Hebrew sadeh are cognates that mean wilderness.*'' Akkadian was the eastern branch of the Semitic lingual group, and thus closely related to the Hebrew language. The Hebrew words sadeh and saddai both appear dozens of times in the Bible and they both mean "wilderness," that is, the desert.

We can see that saddai

is related to shaddai in the Biblical book of Judges, because the Hebrews of the northern hill country could not pronounce the "sh" sound,*’” and so this means that saddai is a homonym of shaddai. Furthermore, this makes sense of Moses' statement to Pharaoh, "Let us go celebrate a festival in the wilderness for our God Yahweh,"*’’ and of many other Biblical passages that link the God of Israel to the wilderness.*"* Thus, E] Shaddai means "God of the Wilderness," not "Almighty God." The God of Israel is not Almighty God. Rather, he is a god of the dry desert wilderness.

Is Any Thing Too Difficult for Yahweh? Yahweh speaks, "Is there any thing too difficult for Yahweh?"*!> and the Prophet answers, "Lord Yahweh, there is not any thing too difficult

811 Heiser, Michael S. Email communication, Jan 2005

812 Judges 12:6 513 Exodus 5:1, 7:16 si Judges 5:4-5, Deuteronomy 33:2, Psalm 68:17, Habakkuk 3:3 815 Genesis 18:14, Jeremiah 32:26

230

for you."*'® The monotheists might claim this supports their position for believing in an all powerful God. However, the Hebrew word dabar, which is translated "thing" here, more specifically means "word," "decree," or "statement of intent." Many introductions to Prophetic oracles in the Bible begin with dabar, establishing the fact that dabar means "prophetic proclamation." Here are a few examples: The dabar of Yahweh that came to Zephaniah.*"’ The dabar of Yahweh that came to Jeremiah.*!® The dabar of Yahweh that came to Hosea.*!” The dabar of Yahweh that came to Joel.*”°

Hear this dabar that Yahweh has spoken.*! In both places above where Yahweh asks "Is there any dabar too difficult for me?" Yahweh immediately follows the statement with a prophecy — in these two cases, the prophecies relate to the birth of Isaac and to the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem.*”* Hence, the context clearly indicates the meaning of dabar is related to Yahweh's personal guarantee to prophetically fulfill certain events in the future. Therefore, dabar does not mean just any "thing," but specifically is associated with prophecy. As we have already stated, the fact that Biblical prophecy is often vague in detail, and without a definite time frame for fulfillment, indicates that Yahweh prefers to give himself enough leeway in order to make sure that prophecy can be fulfilled in the event that unforeseen circumstances may interfere with his dabar. In this light, the question, "Is there any dabar too difficult for Yahweh?" does not establish God's almightiness, but rather it establishes God’s personal guarantee that he will do whatever it takes to make something happen. It relates to his ability to force future events and thus fulfill prophecy, not to his foreknowledge of those events.

816 Jeremiah 32:17 817 Zephaniah 1:1 818 Jeremiah 43:8 819 Hosea 1:1

820 Joel 1:1

821 Amos 3:1 822 Genesis 18, Jeremiah 32

231

The Growing Power of God Among the Writings, which are the least authoritative Hebrew scriptures, there stands the book of Job, wherein Job allegedly stated, I know that you (God) can do everything.*”° Job himself seems to have been something like a King Arthur of the ancient Near East — a real historical figure around whom fictional legends accreted. Hence, we cannot be too certain of the book's accuracy. Be that as it may, the key Hebrew word in this passage is yakol, which means "can" or "could." Yakol is often accompanied by another verb to form a meaning such as "could find" or "can number."*”4 However, if yakol is not accompanied by another verb, it means to "overcome" or "prevail."*”° In the passage from Job, the latter is the case — yakol is not accompanied by another verb, so the meaning is "to overcome." The phrase "can do" or "could do" should be yakol lahsoth in Hebrew, as it is in numerous places in the Bible.*° But the Hebrew word /ahsoth, which means "to do," is not present in the passage from Job. The translation above has inserted the verb "to do" when in fact the Hebrew does not substantiate it. Moreover, the verb tense is the imperfect, which is analogous to the English present and future tenses, and designates incomplete action. This means that God will be able to do everything in the future. Based on this information, here is how the passage should read: I know that you (God) will overcome everything.

This means God will become all powerful sometime in the future. This interpretation squares with Psalm 82, wherein Yahweh stands in the congress of the gods and declares his intent to overthrow the other gods so that he can reign supreme. He hasn't accomplished it yet, but plans to do so in the future. This also squares with what Gabriel told Mary, "For

with God, nothing will be impossible."**’

The almightiness of God is

something that will be realized in the future.

823 Job 42:2

84 825 86 827

Daniel 6:4, Genesis 13:16 Jeremiah 20:7, 1° Samuel 17:9 Genesis 19:22, 34:14, 1* Kings 20:9, Jeremiah 18:6 | uke 1:37 232

We

can

also

see

this

in Revelation,

where

the

Greek

word

Pantocrator is erroneously translated as "Almighty" but really means "ruler of everything," since panto means everything and crator means ruler. The passage in Revelation speaks of the second coming of Christ, a time still yet in the future, about which the 24 elders say,

We give thanks to you, Lord God Pantocrator, who is and who was and who is to come, for you have taken your awesome power and have begun to rule.*”®

Thus, Christ is called Pantocrator, the "ruler of everything," only after he vanquishes all his enemies at Armageddon, only after he has "begun to rule." God must fight a battle against other forces in order to become the ruler of everything. He is not currently all powerful, but hopefully will become all powerful sometime in the future. The turning point in the war seems to have been the first coming of Jesus Christ. In the Hebrew language, the word Satan has a numerological value of 359. The Hebrew word Mashiach meaning "Messiah" has a value of 358, which is one less than that of Satan. That’s the Old Testament. But in the New Testament, the Greek word

Satan has a numerological value of 552, which is one less than 553, the value of Bar Enosh which means "Son of Man" as it appears in Daniel, "Behold, one like the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven... His dominion is an everlasting dominion."*” Jesus Christ constantly called himself the Son of Man throughout his ministry. We can deduce, therefore, that Satan was one greater than the Messiah before the coming of Christ (359 > 358), but Christ has now surpassed Satan by one point since he has become the Son of Man (553 > 552). Thus God is becoming more powerful. The numbers assigned to letters is consistent and limited in the Unlike the arbitrary nonsense of the "Bible science of numerology. Code," there are not infinite combinations yielding infinite "hidden codes." Thus, numerological calculations reveal believable expressions of divine communication. Numerology reveals that unseen forces had a hand in the development of holy languages and the ordering of their

alphabets, as it says, they made new tongues at the tower of Babel. They arranged the letters so that they could communicate hidden mysteries those who study the science of numerology. 828 Revelation 11:15-17

829 Daniel 7:13 233

The Prophet Zarathustra Zarathustra was an Iranian Prophet. He taught that there exist two eternal forces, one good and the other evil, and that the good will eventually win the war between the two, but it has not won yet. Both God and Satan the Devil, whom he called Angra Mainyu, i.e. "Evil Spirit," were together in the beginning, and they are diametrically opposed to each other even to the point of absolute hatred.*°° Moreover, there are a group of gods that have taken sides with the Devil, and there is an alliance of gods that have taken sides with the Good God — we humans having free will to choose between the two — and if the good alliance gains more gods and humans to its side then "we can defeat evil by this increase in numbers."*’

Thus, God is not in complete control,

because the Devil is in the same league with him. This explains why evil and suffering exist — God does not allow it, he just can't overpower it. Why should we care about what Zarathustra said? We should care because Zarathustra was a Prophet who foretold the physical incarnation of Jesus Christ hundreds of years before it happened. He said, "May Asha attain a body."*** This passage is from the Gathas, which are the part of the Zoroastrian holy texts that scholars believe are the real words of the ancient Prophet Zarathustra himself. Duchesne-Guillemin says about this verse, "He (Zarathustra) desires that righteousness may become incarnate and strengthened by the action of mankind."** In a later Zoroastrian text, a comment is made, apparently about this verse, that in the Gathas it says there is a wise man called "the Word incarnate."*** The word Asha means "Righteousness," but it also carries a deeper meaning, because Asha is the second member of the divine triad of the Gathas. Zarathustra believed in a Trinity of sorts, the first member being Ahura Mazda (Lord of Wisdom), the second member being Asha (Righteousness), and the third member being Vohu Mainyu (Good Spirit). These three, which are the three most frequently mentioned spiritual entities of the Gathas, roughly correlate to Father, Son, and Holy 830 831

Yasna 45:2, 30:3, from the Gathas of Zarathustra

Yasna 30:6, 32:3-5, 30:9, 31:3-4, 31:11, 51:1, from the Gathas of Zarathustra

83° Vasna 43:16, from the Gathas of Zarathustra

*° Duchesne-Guillemin, Jacques. Translated by Henning, M. The Hymns of Zarathustra: Being a Translation of the Gathas Together with Introduction and Commentary. 1992, Charles E. Tuttle Company Inc, Rutland, Vermont, p 138

®°4 The Vendidad of the Zend Avesta, Fargard 18.51 234

Spirit. The fact that the second member of this Trinity, Asha, is the divine manifestation to become incarnate, thereby being analogous to Christ, coupled with the fact that Zarathustra elsewhere repeatedly speaks about the coming of multiple Messiahs,*** provides a case that Zarathustra was indeed a Prophet of Christ, on par with Isaiah, David, Jeremiah, Zechariah, and the other Hebrew Prophets who also foretold

his coming. Zarathustra even swears allegiance specifically to Asha, the second person of the Trinity, as his Prophet.**° Zarathustra also implies that a certain figure he called "the man of insight" would accomplish some kind of atonement on behalf of all others: We

present offerings of service to you, Ahura,

and to Asha,

asking that you accomplish the destiny of all living things in the kingdom through Vohu Mainyu. For the salvation of the Man of Insight, who is among you, O Mazda, will hold good for all.°*’ This man of insight is identified as Mazda acting in the capacity of Asha, with the fruits of Vohu Mainyu,*** that is, divine Wisdom acting in the capacity of the Logos with the fruits of the Holy Spirit. Another Zoroastrian scripture strikes a chord with evolution in a rather remarkable way, converging with the scientific belief that DNA arose only once on this planet: Ahura Mazda created all living things from a single species.*” Certain ancient Christians were very fond of Zarathustra. One of the texts found at Nag Hammadi bears the title Zostrianos, which is an Egyptian form of the name Zarathustra. The Christian text states, "Zostrianos, the gods have told you these things."*”° It thus affirms the

reality of Zarathustra's divine revelations.

Another ancient Christian

authority, Mani of Mesopotamia, who taught in the 200's AD, formed a Christian denomination based on both Jesus Christ's teaching and on

835 Vasna 48:9, 48:12, 34:13, 46:3, 45:11, from the Gathas of Zarathustra 836 Vasna 50:5-6, from the Gathas of Zarathustra 837 Vasna 34:3, from the Gathas of Zarathustra

838 Vasna 50:9, 48:12, from the Gathas of Zarathustra 839 Denkard 3:246

840 Zostrianos, Nag Hammadi 8:128 235

Zarathustra's teaching, asserting that the message of Christ and of Zarathustra are from the same God. Zarathustra also has certain commonalities with the Hebrew Prophets. Like Moses, he prays with his arms outstretched.*”’ Like Isaiah, he "declares anathema all predatory animals" on account of their wicked violence, which is of the Devil and unfit for the kingdom of God.*” Like Revelation, Zarathustra saw an apocalypse at the end of the age,” and also a day of judgment at the time of the end.** Like Jesus and John, he foresaw a major makeover of the universe after the end of the

age.**

Like

Jeremiah,

Amos,

Hosea,

and

David,

Zarathustra

despised those who killed animals merely to sacrifice them.*”° In another Zoroastrian writing, which may have been written too late to be a prophecy, it states that the Savior will be born of a fifteen year old virgin.*’ This is intriguing because some manuscripts of the nativity story in Protevangelion say that Mary was 14 years old when she conceived Jesus,*“* which would most likely mean she was 15 when she gave birth to him. Hence the early Christian nativity story lines up with the nativity story of the Zoroastrian Messiah. In another late prophecy it speaks of humankind being in the grave for three days and three nights before passing over into the afterlife.**? This explains why Clopas the uncle of Jesus said, "They crucified him... and what's more, this is the third day," as if everyone knew the third day was significant.*”°

Then there is the matter of how certain Zoroastrian kings of Persia paid homage to both their own Zoroastrian God and also to the God of Israel. King Darius called Yahweh "God of Heaven."**! It is known from archaeology that Darius worshipped Zarathustra’s God, Ahura Mazda, as evidenced by Darius' inscription on an ancient monument, wherein he repeatedly states "Ahura Mazda helped me" to conquer other nations and "by the grace of Ahura Mazda" the empire was founded. In *41 Vasna 29:5, 50:8, from the Gathas of Zarathustra; Exodus 17:11 8 Vasna 34:5, from the Gathas of Zarathustra; Isaiah 11 843 Vasna 48:4, from the Gathas of Zarathustra

84 Vasna 43:5, 43:12, from the Gathas of Zarathustra *# Yasna 34:6, 30:9, from the Gathas of Zarathustra; Matthew 19:28, Revelation 21:1

846 Vasna 48:10, 32:14-15, 51:14, from the Gathas of Zarathustra

847 848 849 8°

Denkard 7.10.15-18 Protevangelion 9:23, 12:9 Bundahis 30:12 Luke 24:20-21

85! Ezra 6:10 236

one place he briefly mentions that other gods helped him too, which can only mean that Zoroastrianism was originally no more monotheistic than was Judaism or Christianity.” It was Henotheistic. Yet it was not polytheistic, because Darius far and away worshipped Ahura Mazda above other gods. Cyrus, who was also possibly a Zoroastrian, says, "Yahweh God of Israel — he is God."**? In turn, the Bible asserts that

Cyrus is Yahweh's anointed one.*** Xerxes, the Zoroastrian king who followed Darius, was the husband of the Biblical Esther, who supposedly saved the Jews from Haman. The festival of Purim which commemorates this event might actually be a Jewish adaptation to the older Zoroastrian festival of No Ruz. All this data tends

to confirm

that Zoroastrians,

Hebrews,

and

Christians share a common source of divine inspiration, that they all originally were Henotheists, and that they believed God was not yet all powerful.

Ot £8 Ou

les eo et ie

852 Darius' Inscription at Behistun 833 Ezratts3 854 Isaiah 45:1

237

¢

J]

°

The Gods in Earth's History The Number 26 We have seen the evidence from the ancient texts that the God of the Prophets was not really all powerful. But what scientific evidence is there that the God of the Prophets exists at all? The evidence exists, but it is hidden. Mainstream scientists Raup and Sepkoski discovered a pattern in mass extinctions that has been maintained since the Permian some 247 million years ago. They found that mass extinction events occur at intervals of 26 million years. The greatest extinction of all time, the Permo-Triassic extinction, lies on the interval of this pattern, as does also the second largest extinction, which killed the dinosaurs. Other extinction events that conform to the 26 million year pattern are the end of the Triassic, the early Jurassic, the end of the Jurassic, the mid Cretaceous, the late Eocene, and the mid Miocene. At least two of these, the dinosaurs and the Eocene, are associated with meteor impacts, and

therefore Raup and Sepkoski stated "we favor extraterrestrial causes." There are four extinction events that do not conform to the pattern, yet these are comparatively minor in terms of numbers of extinct species, and are most likely due to other forces besides the force which drives the 26 million year pattern.*”° What is so special about 26 million years? 26 is the number of Yahweh, the God of Israel. Yahweh's name consists of four letters in the Hebrew language. Yod(Y), He(H), Vav(W), and another He(H) spells YHWH, or Yahweh. Yod is the tenth letter of the Hebrew alphabet, and

so its number is ten. He is the fifth letter of the Hebrew alphabet, and so its number

is five.

Likewise, Vav is the sixth letter of the Hebrew

alphabet, and so its number is six. The four letters added together are 26. Yod 10, plus He 5, plus Vav 6, plus another He 5, adds up to 26. Thus, Yahweh, or YHWH, as it is spelled in Hebrew, is signified by the number 26. Could it be that Yahweh was leaving a signature? Was he

*°° Raup, David M; Sepkoski, J John Jr. Periodicity of Extinctions in the Geologic Past. 1984, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 81, p 801-805 238

causing mass extinctions every 26 million years to announce his presence? This scenario certainly does fit the personality of the God Yahweh. As the God of the Old Testament, Yahweh is known for exhibiting regular cycles of destructive judgment followed by longer periods of permissiveness. Indeed, the entire history of the Hebrew people, according to the Old Testament, is summarized by this very type of cyclical pattern. In the Old Testament pattern, Israel disobeyed, and so Yahweh destroyed part of Israel for a short time, but afterwards Yahweh had mercy on Israel for a long time. Similarly, Yahweh exerts cyclical judgment on life as a whole. Interestingly, another study showed extinction events occurring every 33 million years.*°° 33 is the sacred number of Freemasonry, which is a secretive society. There are 33 verses in the 2" chapter of the book of Jubilees, which is a lost book of the Old Testament found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. The 2™ chapter of Jubilees just happens to tell the same creation myth as Genesis |. Perhaps it has 33 verses to signify that the spirits of Freemasonry are behind the creation myth of Genesis 1.

Signatures of the Gods Yahweh is not the only god who exhibits such patterns of judgment in the fossil record. The gods of the ancient Vedic faith, precursor to Hinduism, apparently also judged the world by cleaning house every certain number of years. According to mainstream paleontologists McKenna and Bell, On average, in the early Cenozoic, convenient time divisions like

the North American Land Mammal Ages are about four million years in duration — coincidentally one mahayuga of the Rig Veda

= 4,320,000 years.**” Not to be outdone, Allah's revelation in the Islamic Qur'an reveals

his superior scientific observations.

He states that he is expanding the

856 Tiwari, R K; Rao, K NN. Correlated Variations and Periodicity of Global COz, Biological Mass Extinctions and Extra-terrestrial Bolide Impacts Over the Past 250 Million Years and Possible Geodynamical Implications. 1998, Geofizika 15, . p 103-112 C; Bell, Susan K. Classification ofMammals Above the Malcolm 857 McKenna, Species Level.

1997, Columbia University Press, New York, NY, p 7

239

vastness of space, and that fire hardly touches the stars,°°* which is correct because the Big Bang expands space, and because stars are fueled by nuclear fusion which is not the same as fire. There was nobody around at the time of Mohammed who could have possibly known these things. Evidently, Allah is some kind of paranormal or superhuman entity who was scientifically ahead of us 1400 years ago. Yet he told Mohamed that he alone is God, and that there is no other God besides Allah. This, I think, is a lie. Allah wants to increase the power of his own authority, so he deters idolatry by pretending that the other gods don't exist. Therefore, Allah lied to Mohamed. Other gods may do likewise, as there is a motive for them to marginalize the other gods.

They wish to increase the worship with which they are served, so they pretend like there is no other game in town. Some gods have apparently contaminated the Bible with similar lies.

Inexplicable Climate Changes and Fish Evolution Earth’s temperature has seen a lot of ups and downs over the past several hundred million years. Sometimes it’s hot. Sometimes it’s cold. Most of the time, these climate changes have natural scientific explanations. However, in two separate events, the data is contrary and perplexing. These two events happened within 20 million years of each other, which in geological terms is not very long. They are the late Ordovician ice age, and the late Silurian drop in sea level. An ice age occurred some 440 million years ago at the end of the Ordovician. Extensive glaciers existed on the southern supercontinent of Gondwana. This is known from drill cores and analysis of archaic rock formations. Also, a mass extinction event happened at that time, giving us further evidence of a major climate change, since drops in temperature tend to kill off large numbers of species. However, it is very strange that an ice age occurred at this time, because carbon dioxide levels were at an all-time high. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. It traps the heat of the sun in the earth’s atmosphere, thus making the earth warmer. When carbon dioxide levels are high, we would expect earth to be very warm. But in the late Ordovician, something strange happened. Carbon dioxide levels were extremely high, but the earth was cold. For this reason, the late Ordovician ice age is puzzling. Therefore, it is reasonable to postulate that some sort of divine, supernatural, or extraterrestrial intelligence interfered with the climate of our planet at the end of the Ordovician.

858 Qur'an 51:47, 24:35

240

The other mysterious anomaly in the history of earth’s climate is the drastic drop in sea level which occurred at the end of the Silurian. About 420 million years ago, the ocean shrank. Naturally, one would ask, where did all the water go? The conventional answer would be into the polar ice caps. Indeed, this is the current situation in our world today. The ocean is smaller than it has been at other times, because a lot of the

earth’s water is tied up in ice sheets around the poles. However, there was no ice age 420 million years ago. There is no sign of glaciers existing during the late Silurian. Wherever the water went, it did not turn into ice. In fact, the general consensus is that the late Silurian was one of the hottest times earth has ever experienced, and that ice sheets were small or non-existent. So where did all the water go? For lack of a scientific answer, one might postulate that there was some

sort of divine or extraterrestrial interference with the oceans 420 million years ago. Perhaps the gods were thirsty. And if they drank the water, then how did the sea level rise again in the Devonian? Perhaps the gods have bodily functions similar to humans. Other major climate changes can be understood within the scope of more natural phenomena. For example, the Permo-Carboniferous ice age happened for two reasons. First, trees conquered land and consumed carbon dioxide in large quantities for the first time. Consequently, carbon dioxide levels fell, and so the earth cooled.

Second, the super-

continent Gondwana was over the South Pole. When land is over the poles, it prevents ocean currents from circulating warmer waters over them. Hence, the poles get very cold and snow falls on them. Snow is white, and therefore it does not absorb much heat. When sunlight hits the white snow, the heat from the sunlight radiates back into outer space. So the earth gets colder because of the snow. The cold, in turn, creates more snow, and more snow means more white surface, and so the earth

spirals into an ice age. The same principles hold true today. Antarctica is a big icy white surface radiating heat into space, and preventing the ocean from warming the South Pole.

Similarly, Siberia, Greenland, and North America cut

the Arctic off from warmer waters, thus making the Arctic a frigid realm. That's why we have been having ice ages for 3 million years. In Pre-Cambrian times, the continents were assembled together over the South Pole. This created a very serious ice age, and traces of it After this, in Cambrian and early remain in Pre-Cambrian rocks. Ordovician times, large landmasses journeyed toward the equator, forcing polar ice to melt. Carbon dioxide levels were very high during 241

the Cambrian, because there were no trees yet, thus creating a green house effect that warmed the earth. Consequently, earth got progressively warmer throughout the Cambrian and into the early Ordovician. Conversely, in the Triassic, no land was over the poles.

The oceans

circulated warm water to the poles and kept ice from developing. All the land was located in one mega-continent called Pangaea, much of which was landlocked and thus deprived of moisture. As a result, vast deserts covered the earth, and so there were fewer forests to draw down the carbon dioxide level. These factors created a world that was extremely hot and dry. Thus, the earth’s climate history usually makes sense. However, the late Ordovician ice age and the Silurian drop in sea level were unique,

because they do not conform to what science knows about patterns in climate. These two events happened within a relatively short time of each other, about 20 million years apart. They represent anomalies, for which there is no easy scientific explanation. Therefore, one might postulate that some sort of divine or extraterrestrial intelligence interfered with the earth’s climate during the time from 440 to 420 million years ago. This time period corresponds to the time in which fish made most of their advancements and diversifications — including the development of jaws, paired fins, teeth, and the divergence of sharks, ray-finned fish, lobe-finned fish, acanthodians, and placoderms from a common ancestor.

Is it possible that the gods were inserting rogue DNA into fish during this time, causing evolution to advance more rapidly than usual?

Back from the Dead Speaking of fish, we came from a fish that crawled out on land some 363 million years ago. This wasn't just any kind of fish. It was a lobefinned fish, related to the coelacanths. The coelacanths disappeared with the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. However, the world was shocked when a live one was caught in the ocean not too long ago. Several have been caught since then, all in recent decades. Were they really there all along? Or have our dead ancestors come back to life in the depths of the watery abyss? Ifso, who or what might have preserved their DNA for so long? There is also the ammonoid family Goniatitidae, which evolutionists call a "typical Lazarus taxon," because like many life forms, it disappeared from the fossil record for millions of years, only to reappear much later, as if Jesus had resurrected it from the grave like he did 242

Lazarus in the gospel story.* *° Another example of a Lazarus taxon is the arthropod Naraoia, which went extinct at the end of the Ordovician, but came back after 20 million years at the end of the Silurian.*! In the latter half of the Cretaceous, from the Kyzyl Kum desert of central Asia, there comes the first shrew, who was called Cretasorex.°”

This animal was apparently way ahead of its time, for it looks like a shrew, and even has a coronoid process like a shrew, but it lived long before shrews existed. Shrews first arrived about 45 million years ago in the fossil record, although some hypothesize that they might extend further back to the Wasatchian some 55-50 million years ago.*® Cretasorex is at least 20 to 30 million years older, as the Kyzl Kum desert produces fossils of mid to mid-late Cretaceous age. Its remains are extraordinarily well preserved, which theoretically should leave little doubt of its identity, yet its date is so far outside the timeframe expected for shrews that paleontologists are reluctant to classify it as a shrew. The gap between Cretasorex in the Cretaceous and the arrival of shrews in the Eocene suggests extinction and reintroduction. Perhaps the body plan of the shrew was an experiment which the gods developed and immediately scrapped, but then decided to re-introduce at a later time. For the naturalist, who believes re-evolution of extinct forms to be extremely unlikely, Cretasorex remains something of an anomaly. Outside of mainstream science, several legends exist of long-dead animals which are allegedly still subsiding. Both the Lapps of northern Europe and the Eskimos of North America espouse that there exists a large animal with tusks which approximates the description of the wooly mammoth. There is also the matter of the Nandi Bear in Africa — a 859 Korn, Dieter; Klug, Christian; Mapes, Royal H. The Lazarus Ammonoid Family Goniatitidae, the Tetrangularly Coiled Entogonitidae, and the Mississippian

Biogeography.

2005, Journal of Paleontology 79(2), p 356-365

860 John 11:39-44 861 Caron, Jean-Bernard; Rudkin, David M; Milliken, Stuart. A New Late Silurian

(Pridolian) Naraoiid (Euarthropoda:Nektaspida) from the Bertie Formation of Southern Ontario, Canada — Delayed Fallout from the Cambrian Explosion. 2004, Journal of Paleontology 78(6), p 1138-1145 862 Nessov, LA; Gureyev, AA. The Find of a Jaw of the Most Ancient Shrew in the Upper Cretaceous of the Kylzyl Kum Desert. 1981, Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR 157(4), p 1-3 863 Asher, Robert J; McKenna, Malcolm C; Emry, Robert J; Tabrum, Alan R; Kron,

Donald G. Morphology and Relationships of Apternodus and other Extinct, Zalambdodont, Placental Mammals. 2002, Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 273, p 1-117 243

legendary beast whose description sounds a lot like the chalicotheres of the Miocene. The chalicotheres, as discussed previously, were large herbivores with the head and teeth of a horse, the claws of a sloth, and the knuckle-walking capabilities of a gorilla. Even more bizarre are stories from Greco-Roman antiquity which speak of humans that crossbred with animals and produced hominid creatures who, although they understand human speech, could only bark and chirp like dogs and birds, and these have claws, fangs, tails, and heads like dogs.* Kongamato is allegedly a modern pterosaur that resides deep within the remote recesses of Africa. The problem is, pterosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago with the dinosaurs. Kongamato has wings with no feathers, and instead of a toothless beak as birds have, Kongamato has teeth in its beak. Therefore, trying to identity it as a bird is problematic. When asked, the natives replied, "It isn't a bird really; it is more like a lizard with wings like a bat."*® When the natives were shown a picture of a pterosaur, "every native present immediately and unhesitatingly picked it out and identified it as Kongamato."* Could the gods have preserved pterosaur DNA on ice, then cloned them millions of years later? There are at least four witnesses that testified for the real existence of Kongamato — an explorer, a missionary, an employee of the British Museum, and the natives themselves.*® Cadborosaurus, or Caddy for short, is a 60 foot long serpent-like animal that lives in the Pacific Ocean off the coast of British Columbia. It has flippers, a tail, hair, and a camel-like head. Its hair perhaps indicates that it is a mammal, such as an early whale. It is described as having saw-like teeth, which is also consistent with the dentition of very early whales. But modern whales do not have bodies with hair, nor are they serpent-like, nor do they have a head like a camel. However, early whales might have. Are ancient species being brought back from the dead? Mackal records that there are actually three such species off the Pacific coast of Canada. One has large eyes, a camel's head, long neck,

**4 Heuvelmans, Bernard. On the Track of Unknown Animals. 1995, Kegan Paul International, London, UK, p 397, 492-493, 91-95

°° Mackal, Roy P. Searching for Hidden Animals. 1980, Doubleday & Company Inc, Garden City, NY, p 56

°° Serret, Cisco. Kongamato — Flying Demons of the Forbidden Swamps. downloaded Mar 21, 2008, www.cryptozoology.com/cryptids/kongamato.php

*°7 Heuvelmans, Bernard. On the Track of Unknown Animals. 1995, Kegan Paul International, London, UK, p 589-592

244

and a fur coat. A second is like the first, but with small eyes, horns, or a mane. The third is a serpent-like form with a sheep's head, dorsal fin,

and small eyes — a kind of snake in sheep's clothing. They are all good swimmers.'”* Horns, camel's heads, and sheep's heads all are traits of the lineage artiodactyla. The artiodactyls are genetically very similar to whales and some think the artiodactyls are the ancestors of whales. And of course, how could we forget the Loch Ness Monster. It and Champ resemble plesiosaurs, which were giant marine reptiles that went extinct with the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. Evidently, somebody is busy cloning monsters of antiquity.

The Beast of Gevaudan In all cryptozoology, the Beast of Gevaudan stands in its own class, because it is so well documented.

As Brockis states,

Compared with other monster mysteries she was unique, leaving graves,

witnessed

parish

records,

and

archives

of official

documents, many of them included in this book, proving her real and guilty beyond doubt.*” The beast terrorized the French countryside from 1764 to 1767. Pourcher published numerous unfiltered firsthand accounts, which testify convincingly to the beast’s real existence and strange characteristics. Based on these firsthand accounts, we know today that the beast resembled a mesonychid, that is, a prehistoric predator known from 60 million year old fossils. The mesonychids of the fossil record were ungulates, which means they had the beginnings of hooves to supplement As such, they were related to horses, cows, sheep, etc. their toes. However, unlike most ungulates, the mesonychids ate meat. They were also sexually dimorphic, meaning that one gender was larger than the other.*””

868 Mackal, Roy P. Searching for Hidden Animals.

1980, Doubleday & Company

Inc, Garden City, NY, p 19 869 Brockis, Derek. Forward to The Beast of Gevaudan. 2006, AuthorHouse, Bloomington, IN, p ix a2? O'Leary, Maureen A; Lucas, Spencer G; Williamson, Thomas E. A New Specimen of Ankalagon (Mammalia, Mesonychia) and Evidence of Sexual Dimorphism in Mesonychians. 2000, Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 20(2),

p 387-393 245

Much about the Beast of Gevaudan was consistent with these and other mesonychid features. The beast apparently had hooves.®”! Sometimes a smaller individual of the same type was seen alongside the beast, acting as her companion,*” which suggests sexual dimorphism. She could run by leaping 28 feet in one jump, a feature of artiodactylid ungulates such as deer and antelope, but less common among modern carnivores. When it had the choice, it preferred eating humans over sheep and cows,*” perhaps because it was averse toward eating its own ungulate kin. Carnivorous animals generally do not eat species of close kin. The fact that she avoided cattle suggests she was related to cattle. The mesonychids led solitary lives. So did the beast. The mesonychids superficially looked like wolves. So did the beast. Even the beast's great size supports that she was a mesonychid, for the largest meat-eating mammals of all time were mesonychids.*” The beast killed on days sacred to the occult — on the witch sabats of Mabon (Sep 21), Yule (Dec 21), and Litha (Jun 21); and its last kill was on the 18" of June — 18 being 6+6+6, or 666, June being the 6" month.*” She also had 6 toes on each foot,*”° and in this, she resembled certain

giant monsters of the Bible,*”’ as well as some of the earliest legged vertebrates from Devonian fossil beds. She angrily spat blood at people and cows that opposed her.*’* Some even thought that she was a spirit or demon, because musket balls reportedly failed to penetrate her. But many accounts clearly record that she was shot and stabbed multiple times, that she bled, and that she yelped in pain, but always ran away and recovered.*” 871 Pourcher, A P; translated by Brockis, Derek. The Beast of Gevaudan. 2006, AuthorHouse, Bloomington, IN, p 6, 66

8” Pourcher, A P; translated by Brockis, Derek. ibid, p 238, 244, 245, 249, 429, 442

*7° Pourcher, A P; translated by Brockis, Derek. ibid, p 220, 460 874

Haines, Tim; Chambers, Paul. The Complete Guide to Prehistoric Life. 2006, Firefly Books, Buffalo, NY, p 160-161

*” Brockis, Derek. The Beast of Gevaudan: When You Hear a Twig Snap Don't Whistle:

What Was the Beast of Gevaudan?

Downloaded Sep 13, 2008,

www.labete.7hunters.net/pdf/whatwasthebeast.pdf

87° 877 *”8 *”

Pourcher, A P; translated by Brockis, Derek. ibid, p 6 1* Chronicles 20:6 Pourcher, A P; translated by Brockis, Derek. ibid, p 27, 222, 457 Pourcher, A P; translated by Brockis, Derek. ibid, p 7, 40, 57, 68, 124, 285,

454, 482, 72, 71, 95, 166, 192, 233, 263, 266, 267, 269, 276, 302, 303, 369, 378, 456, 269

246

Although the beast resembled a wolf, she was quite a bit larger. She was much too cowardly to be a lion or tiger.*8° Some even thought she was a monkey, because she was somewhat bipedal, like an ape. She

usually walked on all fours, but occasionally walked on two feet, when crossing a river or rearing up for an attack. She also batted with her

paws like a monkey.**!

Others thought she was a hyena, and this remains the most likely of all natural explanations. However, certain key differences make this problematic. Hyenas laugh. The beast grunted like a dog wanting to bark.*** Hyenas are not very sexually dimorphic. The beast might have been. Hyenas live in large packs. The beast was always solitary, or with just one companion. Hyenas are pursuit predators. The beast was an ambush predator.**? Hyenas grow no larger than 190 pounds. The beast was the size of a calf or donkey.*** Hyenas can keep their mouths closed. The beast's jaw was always gaping.** Hyenas are proportionately tall for their length. The beast was long but low to the ground, being the height of a wolf but much longer.**° Hyenas cannot jump. The beast could jump over walls and make leaps of 28 feet.**’ Hyenas have midsized scrawny tails. The beast’s tail was very long and extremely thick.*** Hyenas' front legs are much longer than their hind legs. The beast was the opposite, her hind legs being longer than her front legs.**” Though the beast did have a long black stripe down its back,*” this does not make her similar to a striped hyena, as striped hyenas have multiple stripes, and they are vertical from the back to the stomach; in contrast, the beast had a single horizontal stripe along the length of her back. Also, female hyenas have a very large clitoris — as big as a penis. The clitoris is so large that it makes female hyenas look like males. Yet the 880 Dourcher, A P; translated by Brockis, Derek. ibid, p 24, 12, 20 881 Bourcher, A P; translated by Brockis, Derek. ibid, p 6, 40, 101, 44, 137, 242, 318, 367, 66, 68, 439, 457, 482 882 Bourcher, A P; translated by Brockis, Derek.

ibid, p 44

883 Bourcher, A P; translated by Brockis, Derek. ibid, p 6, 24, 113, 126, 318, 68 884 Pourcher, A P; translated by Brockis, Derek. ibid, p 5, 113, 264, 45, 67, 23, 256 885 Bourcher, A P; translated by Brockis, Derek. ibid, p 6, 44, 72, 264 886 Bourcher, A P; translated by Brockis, Derek. ibid, p 5, 41, 67, 264, 6, 23 887 Dourcher, A P; translated by Brockis, Derek. ibid, p 6, 113, 258, 482

888 Pourcher, A P; translated by Brockis, Derek. ibid, p 5, 6, 41, 44, 66, 113, 453 889 Bourcher, A P; translated by Brockis, Derek. ibid, p 65, 470

89 Pourcher, A P; translated by Brockis, Derek. ibid, p 5, 41, 65, 113, 264, 369, 442, 453, 483 247

beast was always described as a she. Moreover, a multitude of testimonies from the time of the attacks consistently and repeatedly reported that the beast did not eat the entire carcass of its prey, but only ate the chest cavity, the blood, parts of the head, and sometimes muscle tissue.**! This is in stark contrast to hyenas, which eat the whole carcass, even the bones, hooves, teeth, and other parts that other carnivores pass

over. The Beast of Gevaudan was real and unlike any animal alive today. It was either a resurrected mesonychid or a frankenstein monster. natural explanation is satisfactory.

No

Recapitulation and Reambiguation We have seen how Genesis | is a and that a large number of gods have planet since times immemorable. But not all powerful, not all knowing, and

farce, that monotheism is a farce, been interfering with life on our what are these gods? If they are not capable of even keeping their

own Bibles from becoming corrupted, then what exactly are they?

In the Image of UFOs The gods said, "Let us make life in our image, after our likeness." So they made life in the image of a UFO. Before the Cambrian, there were strange creatures living in the depths of the ocean. This was the Ediacaran period, some 610 to 550 million years ago. Ediacaran fossils preserve a rather curious piece of evidence for the presence of extraterrestrial influences upon the development of life, because of their body shape. They resembled UFOs. Several genera that are common in Ediacaran strata possess a disc shape with a distinct inner circle called a "central boss" which is

thicker or more elevated than the outer circle that defines the exterior of the organism. In this respect, they bear a striking resemblance to UFOs, in that they are circular, and possess a bulge in the middle, which is an elevated circle within a circle raising the middle up from the rest of the structure. This disk shape is apparent in the fossils of Aspidella, which is among the earliest and most common of Ediacaran biota. Aspidella and its close kin range

from Newfoundland,

where

it is dominant,*”

*°' Pourcher, A P; translated by Brockis, Derek. ibid, p 12, 41, 197, 199, 221, 240, 280-282, 300, 315, 318, 340, 357, 382, 459

8°2 Deterson et al. ibid. 248

to

Australia.** Another like it is Charniodiscus, which is also a disc. The difference between the two is that Charniodiscus supported a leaf-like "frond" from its basal disc, whereas Aspidella apparently did not. There are several other disc-shaped organisms among these earliest of nonmicroscopic creatures — Cyclomedusa, Ediacara, Hiemalora, Charnia, Hadrynichchorde, and Tribrachidium.*”* The life of the Ediacaran period was very different from that of the Cambrian. Although large multi-cellular organisms existed in Ediacaran times, it cannot be demonstrated conclusively that they were complex, for they may have gained nutrients merely by means of direct exchange through cell walls, thus negating a need for complex structures such as circulatory and nervous systems. Some suggest they led the lifestyle of a fungus.*” The gross morphological differences which separate them from the complex and diverse animal life of the Cambrian has caused most to conclude that one of two things must be true — either the Ediacaran life forms were unrelated to the Cambrian life forms, or the

Ediacaran life forms underwent a tremendous amount of evolution in a brief period in order to achieve the diversity and complexity seen in the Cambrian. The presence of Ediacaran fossils in nearly all regions of the world greatly reduces the probability that complex Cambrian life evolved gradually in some here-to-fore undiscovered corner of the earth, for if it did, Cambrian life forms would be present somewhere in Ediacaran fossil beds. As we have seen, there exists among the Ediacaran fossils a widespread radial-centric body plan that bears a certain resemblance to UFOs. These are the earliest occurring multi-cellular organisms that you don't need a microscope to see, and can plausibly be called modestly complex. Could it be that the gods genetically engineered these early life forms in the image of UFO's?

oe Bengston, Stefan; Rasmussen, Birger; Krapez, Bryan.

The Paleoproterozoic

Megascopic Sterling Biota. 2007, Paleobiology 33(3), p 351-381 AF. Ediacaran Biota on Bonavista 894 Uofmann, H J; O'Brien, SJ; King, Peninsula, Newfoundland, Canada. 2008, Journal of Paleontology 82(1), p 1-36 8°5 Peterson, Kevin J; Waggoner, Ben; Hagadorn, James W. A Fungal Analog for Newfoundland Ediacaran Fossils? 2003, Integrative and Compa rative Biology

43, p 127-136 249

©. oD

Zarai.d

The Ocean Hoppers Geographical Limitations of Species Throughout the millions of years complex life has been on this planet, species have usually been geographically limited by the oceans. For example, if a certain creature lives in Europe, it will not be able to cross the Atlantic and go to the Americas, nor will it be found in Australia, but it might cross Arabia into Africa, or Russia into Asia.

Consequently, we might find related species in Europe and Africa and Asia; however, we should not expect to see related species in both Europe and America, or Europe and Australia, unless introduced by humans. Indeed, this rule holds true in most cases, as the fossil record attests. Isolated landmasses like Australia and Madagascar sport unique animals like kangaroos and mongooses, because they have been evolutionarily isolated for a long time. Madagascar lost contact with Africa around 130 million years ago. Australia's most recent connections have been with Antarctica, a continent rather devoid of life anyway. South America also used to be home to many unique animals, before the isthmus of Panama came into existence about 4 million years ago. South American fossils from before 4 million years ago typically represent evolutionary lineages that are unknown to the rest of the world. This phenomenon is to be expected under normal evolutionary conditions. Natural selection will yield different results on different continents. The terrestrial life forms that evolve on unconnected continents will remain different from each other, as long as vast oceans restrict them from invading each other's geographic range. For the most part, the fossil record establishes that this is indeed the case. However, exceptions do exist. The geographic restriction of terrestrial life forms is occasionally violated by anomalies in the fossil record. Certain families and genera show up in parts of the world where they should not be. They appear on two or more continents that were separated by broad oceans, often with no likely explanation for how they got there. Examining these anomalies is the subject of this chapter. 250

Noah's Ark of Marsupials Toward the end of the dinosaurs' long reign, there whose name was Glasbius. 20 specimens have been Lancian rocks of North America,*”° dating to the range years ago. Glasbius disappeared from North America ago, along with the dinosaurs.

lived a marsupial found among the of 67-65 million 65 million years

However, immediately after the extinction, some close relatives of

Glasbius appeared in South America. These relatives were so similar to Glasbius that they are classified together in the same family — that is Caroloameghiniidae, or super-family Caroloameghinioidea.*’’ *° °° Glasbius may be a close cousin of its South American relatives.’ Glasbius and the South American Carolameghiniidae are similar enough that an evolutionary relationship would normally be presumed. Yet nothing like Glasbius or the Caroloameghiniidae existed in South America before the dinosaurs went extinct. Their debut in South America occurs in the Tiupampa fossil beds of Bolivia.” The Tiupampa is the early Paleocene, immediately after the dinosaurs, and immediately after Glasbius went extinct from North America. A couple of other close kin of Glasbius are also known from the Paleocene of South

America.””

Hence,

before

the

dinosaurs

went

extinct,

the

Caroloameghiniidae are known only from North America; yet after the dinosaurs went extinct, they are known only from South America. It's as if the whole lineage migrated from North America to South America. The problem is, Central America had not yet formed at that 8° The Paleobiology Database, www.paleodb.org.

Search Parameter: Taxon

"Glasbius," data were downloaded Sep 13, 2008

8°7 Marshall, America.

LG; de Muizon, C. The Dawn of the Age of Mammals in South

1988, National Geographic Research

4, p 23-55 898 Jehle, Martin. Paleocene Mammals of the World, www.paleocene-

mammals.de/pali.htm, data were downloaded Dec 2007; Ameghino 1901 89 Marshall, LG; de Muizon, C. The Dawn of the Age of Mammals in South America. 1988, National Geographic Research 4, p 23-55 °° Goin, Francisco; Candela, Adriana M; de Muizon, Christian. The Affinities of Roberthoffstetteria Nationalgeographica (Marsupilia) and the Origin of the Polydolopine Molar Pattern. 2003, Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 23(4), p 869-876 91 De Muizon, Christian; Cifelli, Richard L. A New Basal "Didelphoid" (Marsupialia, Mammalia) from the Early Paleocene of Tiupampa (Bolivia). 2001, Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 21(1), p 87-97 902 Jehle, Martin. Paleocene Mammals of the World, www.paleocenemammals.de/pal1.htm, data were downloaded Dec 2007 251

time. A wide ocean separated North America from South America. There was no Panama land bridge between the two as there is today. Thus, it is difficult to explain why or how these animals relocated from North America to South America. Particularly, why would such a relocation just happen to coincide with the extinction of the dinosaurs? One explanation could be that extraterrestrial and/or supernatural intervention saved the Caroloameghiniidae. Perhaps the gods saw fit to save this creature from the cataclysm that killed the dinosaurs, and so they protected a few of them and transplanted them to South America. Much like Noah saving a few animals before the Flood, it appears that some benevolent god loaded these creatures onto some kind of boat or craft and saved them from destruction. But why would the gods rescue the Caroloameghiniidae and not rescue other species? One plausible answer might be that the gods saw evolutionary potential in the Caroloameghiniidae, because they were somewhat like primates.” As such, they had the potential to evolve along the same lines as apes and eventually humans. As it turned out, the true primates beat them to the punch, and so the rescue mission was an exercise in futility. None the less, it was a reasonable gamble for the gods to take given the evolutionary odds of developing an intelligent creature.

Another genus within the family is Chulpasia, which is similar to Thylacotinga from Australia.” If all these belong to the same lineage, as their similarity suggests, it would mean, perhaps, that the Caroloameghiniidae were also airlifted to the distant continent of Australia; however, it is currently believed that such migrations to Australia occurred over a land bridge via Antarctica, as Antarctica was warmer then. The Pediomyidae were another family of marsupial mammals, which seem to have disappeared from North America along with the dinosaurs, but then inexplicably reappeared in South America immediately after the dinosaurs became extinct. | The Pediomyidae were found in South

°° Goin, FJ. A Review of the Caroloameghiniidae, Paleogene South American "Primate-Like" Marsupials (?Didelphimorphia, Peradectoidea). 2006, E Schweizerbart'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, Palaeontographica Abteilung A

278(1), p 57-67 *4 Sige, B; Archer, M; Godthelp, H; Hand, S; Crochet, J Y. Peruvian-Australian Paleogene Mammal Connection. 1995, Fifth Conference on Australian Vertebrate Evolution, Palaeontology and Systematics 1:2

252

America in the Laguna Umayo Formation,” which was at first thought to be Cretaceous in age, but was later demonstrated to be early Paleocene.” One can clearly see that the Pediomyidae suffered complete extinction from North America at the same time the dinosaurs suffered extinction, for nearly 100 fossilized specimens have been found in North America from the time immediately before the end of the dinosaurs, but none have been found after the end of the dinosaurs.”

Only in South America did they reappear. Nor is this because more advanced animals replaced these marsupials, for the early Paleocene fauna of North America consists largely of primitive marsupials and multituberculates, which were common

on both sides of the extinction

event — not being replaced by advanced mammals until the Eocene. The mainstream explanation is as follows: These marsupials evolved first on North America, then migrated to South America over an elusive

land bridge,’ which allegedly rose and fell multiple times.’ Then, some of them moved from South America to Antarctica over another elusive land bridge, where they thrived because the earth was warmer back then. Finally, they arrived in Australia, because Australia at that time was still connected to Antarctica. That's the naturalistic explanation for how marsupials got to South America and Australia. But why did these migrations just happen to coincide with the extinctions of the same lineages from North America? Moreover, if there was a landbridge, then why didn't more species cross it? For the most part, North American and South American fauna were different — Caroloameghiniidae and Pediomyidae are the exception, not the rule.

°°5 Sige, B. La Faunule des Mammiferes du Cretace Superieur de Laguna Umayo (Andes Peruviennes). 1972, Bulletin du Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 3e ser, Sciences de la Terre 99, p 375-405

°° Crochet, J Y. Donnees Nouvelles Sur L'Histoire Paleogeographique des Didelphidae (Marsupialia). 1979, Compt Rend Academy of Science Paris, Ser D 288, p 1457-1460 °°7 The Paleobiology Database, www.paleodb.org. Search Parameter: Taxon "Pediomyidae," data were downloaded Sep 20, 2008 °°8 Simpson, G G. Early Mammals in South America: Fact, Controversy, and Mystery. 1978, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 122, p 318-

328 99 De Muizon, Christian; Cifelli, Richard L. A New Basal "Didelphoid" (Marsupialia, Mammalia) from the Early Paleocene of Tiupampa (Bolivia). 2001, Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 21(1), p 87-97

253

Monkeys Ever since monkeys first emerged in the Oligocene, they appear to have lived on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean. The Atlantic Ocean is nearly 1,800 miles from the western-most coasts of Africa to the easternmost coasts of South America. In the early Oligocene, the distance was perhaps 1,000 miles — still a formidable obstacle for any land animal to cross. Moreover, the impossibility of a land bridge or series of islands that could facilitate migrations is confirmed by the fact that this region of the South Atlantic is consistently deep and devoid of underwater mountain building. No Bering Strait here. The Old World monkeys and the New World monkeys are so similar that convergent evolution may be ruled out. Science believes that the monkeys migrated from Africa to South America about 37 million years ago. Furthermore, this remarkable journey across the Atlantic only happened once. According to Wicander and Monroe,

No evidence exists of any prosimian or other primitive primates in Central or South America nor of any contact with Old World monkeys after the initial immigration from A frica.7””

That a migration happened might be remotely plausible, given the possibility that the monkeys rafted across the Atlantic on dead trees; but if it happened once, we should expect it to happen again and again. Yet such is not the case. There is but one single lineage of New World monkeys, which demands that there was at most just one single migration event. Moreover, this migration event just happened to occur at the very same time the monkeys first evolved. Is this coincidence or something more? Perhaps the gods were having more than a barrel of fun with the monkeys, so they transported some monkeys to South America to enlarge their habitat and population. Or, perhaps they considered it advantageous to have the ancestors of potentially intelligent life forms evolving on two different continents, to enhance the potential of positive evolutionary advancements within the primate group. A similar situation exists with the carnivores of Madagascar, for molecular DNA evidence demonstrates that they are all one single lineage. This fact indicates that there was one and only one migration of

*!° Wicander, Reed; Monroe, James S. Historical Geology: Evolution of Earth and Life Through Time, 4" Ed. 2004, Brooks/Cole — Thomson Learning, Belmont, CA p 374-375, 335

254

carnivores from Africa to Madagascar.’'' Again, the same question should be asked — if animals can cross the ocean once, why didn't they do So again and again? Why was there only one migrational event of carnivores across the ocean from Africa to Madagascar?

Large Animals Crossing the Ocean It would be quite amazing to see a marsupial or a monkey gripping a log and crossing the ocean on it, but it would be utterly unthinkable to see an elephant or a giant ground sloth doing the same thing. In the mid-Cenozoic, Africa and Arabia were moving north together, slowly closing the ancient Tethys Sea. Eventually, this northward drift caused Africa and Arabia to join with Asia. The fusion of these continents split the Tethys Sea into the current day Mediterranean Sea and Persian Gulf. The time of this event was at first thought to have been 17.5 million years ago. Before then, Africa and Arabia were supposedly isolated from Eurasia. However, this has subsequently been called into question on account of African elephants appearing in Asia during the late Oligocene, which is at least 7 million years beforehand. This leaves open the question of how the elephants got across the Tethys Sea, and has spawned a theory that temporary land bridges emerged before the collision.”’” Alternatively, it could mean the elephants were transported. Concerning the large-bodied terrestrial South American mammals known

as xenarthtra,

which

includes

anteaters,

armadillos,

and giant

ground sloths, Pujos et al reported:

The presence of xenarthra in other continents remains ambiguous. Purported xenarthrans have been reported from the Eocene of Europe (the "anteateroid" Eurotamandua from Messel, Germany; Storch, 1981) and Asia (the "pseudoxenarthrans,". Ernanodon and Asiabradypus from the late Paleocene of China; Ding, 1979; Radinsky and Ding, 1984;

°11 voder, A D; Burns, M M; Zehr, S; Delefosse, T; Veron, G; Goodman, S M; Flynn, J J. Single Origin of Malagasy Carnivora from an African Ancestor. 2003, Nature, 421, p 734-737 912 Antoine, Pierre-Olivier; Welcomme, Jean-Loup; Marivaux, Laurent; Baloch, Ibrahim; Benammi, Mouloud; Tassy, Pascal. First Record of Paleogene Elephantoidea (Mammalia, Proboscidea) from the Bugti Hills of Pakistan. 2003, Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 23(4), p 977-980

255

Nessov,

1987 and Chungchienia

from the Middle Eocene of

China; Chow, 1963; Chow et al., 1996; Rose

et al., 2005).7?

Hunter and Janis also noted the anomalous presence of xenarthrans in Europe and Asia, such as Palaeanodonta, Ernandon, and Eurotamandua?"* Given that xenarthra originated in South America and are common only to that continent, and given that South America was isolated from the rest of the world during the entire time of xenarthran existence, up to 4 million years ago when Panama rose from the sea; it is strange to find xenarthrans on other continents prior to 4 million years ago. Could it be that something, or someone, transported them there?

George Gaylord Simpson's Sweepstakes George Gaylord Simpson, one of the most widely respected paleontologists of all time, mentioned a few bio-geographical oddities himself. Among them was the horse Anchitherium, which existed in both Spain and North America, and the elephantine Mastodon, which

originated in Africa but somehow got to North America. Simpson proposed that such distributions of animals across continents was best attributed to plate tectonics — that is, continents moving around and crashing into one another, thus allowing animals to migrate from one continent to another across dry land.’'? Today, plate tectonics are relatively well understood, and we can date the approximate times that certain continents were connected by land bridges, and when they were not. The ability to date the locations of the continents imposes some limitations to Simpson's theory, because not all strange distributions of animals across continents can be explained when certain constraints in deep time place vast oceans in the way of immigrations that we know must have happened. But Simpson also had a second theory on migration which addresses this problem.

*18 Pujos, Francois; de luliis, Gerardo. Late Oligocene Megatherioidea Fauna (Mammalia: Xenarthra) from Salla-Luribay (Bolivia): New Data on Basal Sloth Radiation and Cingulata-Tardigrada Split. 2007, Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 27(1), p 132-144 *I* Hunter, John P; Janis, Christine M. Spiny Norman in the Garden of Eden? Dispersal and Early Biogeography of Placentalia. 2006, Journal of Mammal Evolution 13, p 91

*!5 Simpson, George Gaylord. Mammals and Land Bridges. 1940, Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences 30, p 137-163

256

Simpson proposed that some animals get "sweepstakes tickets" across large bodies of water. According to the theory, a pregnant animal hops on a log or sturdy mat of vegetation that floats out to sea, and somehow the animal stays afloat and hydrated until it reaches a foreign continent. The new continent is then populated by means of incest among the children of the immigrant. However unlikely such a journey may be, it stands to reason, so they say, that it happens once every billionth blue moon. In such a fashion, it is believed, monkeys and marsupials crossed over to South America, and a multitude of other lucky land mammals traversed the waters between Eurasia and the islands of proto-Spain and proto-India, and others from Asia to the East Indies.

Rodents — A Challenge to Simpson's Sweepstakes A problem with the theory concerns the lack of rodents who made these alleged epic journeys on the high seas. If monkeys and marsupials can hop on logs and cross an ocean, then certainly squirrels and rats should be capable of doing so also. There are several factors which make rodents prime characters for testing the sweepstakes theory. First, rodents are small enough to float on a log without weighing it down. Second, they have claws which can cling to a log tossed about by waves. Third, rodents have an excellent fossil record.

Their fossils can be found

in abundant numbers, much more so than the majority of other terrestrial vertebrates. If they made it to a certain continent, we should expect to find fossil evidence for their arrival. However, such is not the case. Of the 151 genera of mice and rats listed in McKenna and Bell, not a single genus appears indigenously on both sides of a large ocean when there is no plausible terrestrial connection — not a single one.

Granted, they got to Australia, but this

only happened at a very late date, and only because of the low sea levels caused by the ice ages. For the vast majority of the time mice and rats have been on this planet, the bulk of which was before the ice ages, they were absent from Australia. Mice and rats never did make it to the Americas — not by natural means.”'° It took Christopher Columbus to bring them to the New World. If there were ever an animal that was small enough, agile enough, with claws clingy enough, and with enough of a limit to its fresh water requirements due to its small size, to climb

°16 McKenna, Malcolm C; Bell, Susan K. Classification of Mammals Above the Species Level. 1997, Columbia University Press, New York, NY, p 161-172 257

aboard a tree branch and float across the turbulent high seas, shouldn't we expect a mouse to do it? Concerning the broader category of rodents as a whole, of the 246 families, subfamilies, tribes, and subtribes listed in McKenna and Bell, three clear examples exist where the same group appears on both sides of a wide ocean without a plausible landbridge.”"” Porcupines are the biggest of the three mysteries. Of all the rodents that might grip a log and hold on for a thousand miles of mighty waves, porcupines are one of the least likely candidates. They are large and unstable compared to squirrels, mice, and a host of other rodents, both extant and extinct. Porcupines first appear in the Oligocene of South America. Rodents as a whole had originated in Asia — the farthest place on Earth from South America. So how did porcupine ancestors get from Asia to South America? One thing is certain: they could not have come via North America. Although Beringia (Alaska-Siberia) was functioning as a landbridge for much of the Cenozoic, the Panamanian landbridge did not exist until just 4 million years ago. Moreover, there are no fossil porcupine species in North America until after the Panamanian landbridge was established — meaning that North American porcupines came from South America, not vice-versa. Could they have come from Africa? The problem here is also two-fold; first, because Africa was already separated from South America long before rodents even existed, and second, because porcupine relatives in Africa do not appear until the

Miocene, which is after they first appeared in South America. It is possible that porcupines were in Europe during the Oligocene,”’® in which case we are left with the unlikely proposition that the porcupines pulled a Christopher Columbus across the widest part of the Atlantic. The other two inexplicable rodent distributions are the case of the African rodent family Zegdoumyidae, and the genus Protophiomys.’”” These appear in the African Eocene long before Africa was attached to Asia via the Suez. The Afro-Arabian continental plate separated from Eurasia while the age of the dinosaurs was still young, and it did not rejoin Eurasia until the time of human-like apes. The Eocene is after the former but before the latter.

Thus, Africa was an island continent when

these lineages of rodents somehow immigrated to it. The history of rodents is well known from the fossil record. They originated in Asia during the Paleocene, from whence they quickly

*!7 McKenna, Malcolm C; Bell, Susan K. ibid, p 114-210 *!8 McKenna, Malcolm C; Bell, Susan K. ibid, p 191-193

*!9 McKenna, Malcolm C; Bell, Susan K. ibid, p 185, 187 258

migrated to Europe and onward to North America across the GreenlandNorway landbridge. After Greenland and Norway were permanently separated by ocean about 40 million years ago, Beringia still provided for North America and Eurasia to continue sharing their mutual rodent infestations. In the Miocene, temporal landbridges or closely spaced islands allowed rodents to cross into Africa in large numbers. But from Africa, they could not cross over to Madagascar until the ice ages lowered the sea level. Therefore, Madagascar was free of rodents even while Africa swarmed with rodents for over 10 million years! The same is true for New Guinea and Australia, which were entirely free of rodents until the ice ages lowered sea levels, thus creating opportunities for the rodents of Asia to island hop their way to the land down under.’”’ Hence,

there

is considerable

evidence

that rodents

are

in fact

constrained by large oceans, and do not cross them much easier than any other type of terrestrial animal. If they cannot cross oceans, even with their small and agile frame, and clinging claws, then how is it that larger animals crossed the oceans? For these reasons, it is at least plausible to suppose that paranormal or extraterrestrial entities have transported creatures across continents. Indeed, it may be the only likely explanation.

Alien Abduction What happened in Enoch’s time, when angels came down from heaven and began to procreate with animals and humans, is also happening today, only today it is no longer attributed to angels, but is recognized as alien abduction. Alien abduction of both animals and humans is a longstanding phenomenon known to those who study UFOs. Sometimes, when the aliens are finished probing, terrifying, defiling, and otherwise abusing their abductees, they unceremoniously dump them in In this manner, we might whatever random location is convenient. on a continent it does not up shows which fossil occasional the explain

belong. The agenda of the extraterrestrials is to use human sexual mechanisms to create one or more new species. At the moment, they don't want to conquer us as Hollywood pictures in the movies, nor do they want to help us as the New Agers hope. Instead, UFO researchers report a scenario much more akin to the situation in Enoch’s time — that is, heavenly entities secretly coexist with us for the purpose of genetic engineering.

920 McKenna, Malcolm C; Bell, Susan K. ibid, p 114, 140, 157, 161 259

One of the most widely respected UFO researchers is Dr. David Jacobs, who has effectively reduced UFO abduction research into a science that can be studied using large sets of quantifiable data. According to Jacobs, The evidence suggests that all the alien procedures serve a reproductive agenda. And at the heart of the reproductive agenda is the Breeding Program, in which the aliens collect human sperm and eggs, incubate fetuses in human hosts, to produce alien-human hybrids, and cause humans to mentally and physically interact with these hybrids for the purposes of their development...””’ The production of a hybrid species appears to be the means to the aliens’ goal. So far, researchers have been unable to uncover any other purpose for the UFO and abduction phenomena, and the Breeding Program.” Leading UFO researcher Budd Hopkins adds confirmation.

About his

first alien abduction case in 1983 he writes that it was,

The first of hundreds of similar cases I subsequently investigated in which women reported being abducted and apparently artificially inseminated, after which they found themselves pregnant. Then equally mysteriously, about the end of the first trimester, but often weeks or months later, the pregnancies disappeared, with no trace of fetal tissue.””” Jacobs adds,

On many occasions, abductees have reported scheduling an abortion only to find an empty uterus during the actual procedure.”

*21 Jacobs, David M. The Threat: Revealing the Secret Alien Agenda. Simon & Schuster, New York, NY, p 61 *22 Jacobs, David M. ibid, p 128

1998,

* Hopkins, Budd; Rainey, Carol. Sight Unseen: Science, UFO Invisibility, and Transgenic Beings. 2003, Pocket Books, Simon & Schuster, New York, NY, p 168

*4 Jacobs, David M. The Threat: Revealing the Secret Alien Agenda. 1998, Simon & Schuster, New York, NY, p 70

260

For the skeptics, Jacobs abductions are real:

lays down

several

reasons

for why alien

Abductees are physically missing during the event. The abductee is not where he is supposed to be; people who search for him cannot find him. The abductee is usually aware that there is a gap of two or three hours that neither he nor anyone else can account for... Approximately 20 percent of abductions include two or more people who see each other during the abduction event.””° These factors make it improbable, even impossible, that the abduction

phenomena are only psychological delusions. Hopkins and Jacobs claim that female abductees typically develop health problems associated with their reproductive organs, even to the point where hysterectomies are common. During hysterectomy operations, doctors sometimes notice scar tissue has developed on the ovaries or the fallopian tubes, indicating that something or someone penetrated the abductees’ stomachs to retrieve or impregnate eggs.””° ””” This aspect of the alien abduction phenomena is consistent with the fact that female abductees typically report the aliens inserting a long needle into their stomach. This procedure is a constant component of the abduction experience, going back to the very first time a woman was allegedly abducted by aliens. In 1961, Barney and Betty Hill made history by becoming the first victims of alien abduction to have their experience widely published. The couple reported that the aliens ran a long needle into Betty’s stomach, telling her it was a pregnancy test. Such a procedure was entirely unknown in 1961, but is commonly done today for the purpose of removing eggs for in-vitro fertilization. After the abduction experience, Barney contracted genital warts, possibly from the aliens.”*

Jacobs attests that of 700 abduction cases he has studied,

925 Jacobs, David M. The Threat: Revealing the Secret Alien Agenda. 1998, Simon & Schuster, New York, NY, p 38-39

926 Hopkins, Budd; Rainey, Carol. Sight Unseen: Science, UFO Invisibility, and Transgenic Beings. 2003, Pocket Books, Simon & Schuster, New York, NY, p 398 27 Jacobs, David M. The Threat: Revealing the Secret Alien Agenda. 1998, Simon & Schuster, New York, NY, p 64 28 Marrs, Jim. Alien Agenda: Investigating the Extraterrestrial Presence Among Us. 1997, HarperCollins Publishers, New York, NY, p 296-298

261

almost 150 of them contain abductee testimony that eggs were taken during the abduction.” Another very early UFO abduction incident, which allegedly took place in 1957, concerned a Brazilian farmer named Villas Boas who was ostensibly forced to engage in sexual intercourse with a naked female human-like alien. After the sexual encounter, the alien pointed to her stomach and then pointed upward to the sky, suggesting that she would become pregnant with his child, and that it would be born in the sky with her. The pattern of alien-human sexual activity for the purposes of reproducing a hybrid species has been a consistent component of the alien abduction phenomena ever since it began in the 1950's, and ever since it first began in the time of Enoch. Concerning bestiality, cattle mutilations also play a likely role in the reproductive goals of the aliens. In typical cattle mutilations, animals such as cows, sheep, goats, or horses are slaughtered, but without any

trace of blood. Internal organs are removed, and UFO sightings often accompany the event. UFO writer and Ugaritic scholar Heiser notes that a bovine uterus is very similar to a human uterus. The aliens are apparently killing cows to take their uteruses. Then they incubate hybrid human-alien fetuses inside of the bovine uteruses.”*” This explains why the cattle mutilations are occurring.

A Condylarth Who Crossed Two Oceans The condylarths were an ancient group of mammals that lived soon after the dinosaurs became extinct. From 65 to 40 million years ago, they roamed across the northern supercontinent of Eurasia-North America, which was at first connected via Greenland and later by Beringia. The earth was much warmer then, and the continents farther south, so many species easily traversed Greenland and Alaska. There were also condylarths in Africa and in South America. However, the species on those two southern continents were different from those in the north. While the ancestors of deer, horses, and pigs roamed

the northern

continents,

a weird

camel-like

creature

called

litopterna roamed South America, and the hyracoids roamed Africa. This was because the condylarths were separated by vast oceans, which kept them from intermingling. Africa was separated from Europe by the Tethys Sea — a large and turbulent ocean that had existed deep into the

”° Jacobs, David M. The Threat: Revealing the Secret Alien Agenda. 1998, Simon & Schuster, New York, NY, p 22-23

*° Heiser, Michael S. The Facade. 2001, SuperiorBooks.com, p 163 262

age of the dinosaurs. Spain was far distant, and a good deal of the Middle East had not even risen from the ocean yet. Africa was an island continent. So too was South America. Yet despite this, a certain lineage of condylarths was able to cross the ocean — not just once, but twice. This was a rare feat seeing that few other condylarths accomplished even one oceanic crossing. This lineage, variously called the Mioclaenidae or the Kollpaniinae, was previously known from North America, South America, and Europe.”*' Recently, it Although the African condylarth was discovered in Africa also. Abdounodus displays a fair degree of difference from its cousins on other continents, it is referred to the same family Mioclaenidae. Gheerbrant et al mention the possibility of convergent evolution, yet prefer to view the African specimen as a descendent of condylarths from the northern continents, and suggest the condylarths found a way across the Tethys Sea. The possibility of a viable land bridge or series of closely spaced islands connecting Europe with Africa is a convenient assumption, but rests on shaky evidence. If such a land bridge truly existed, then we should see a mass migration of many species between Africa and Europe. In other landbridge events, the fossil record clearly proves that there was a massive exchange of species between North and South America when the isthmus of Panama arose 4 million years ago, and also proves a massive exchange occurred between Siberia and Alaska when Beringia was dry-shod. Yet the supposed trans-Tethyan link, if it existed, certainly did not allow large numbers of European species to migrate into Africa, nor vice-versa.

Hence, the existence of such a land bridge is not

well supported. If one species can cross a landbridge, others can too. But in this case, only the condylarth crossed. Hence, if the supposed land bridges never existed, then this would mean that the Mioclaenidae crossed two oceans. They crossed the ocean dividing South America from North America, and they also crossed the If they crossed by Tethys Sea which divided Africa from Europe. swimming, then this was quite an accomplishment for a condylarth, since

31 McKenna, Malcolm C; Bell, Susan K. Classification of Mammals Above the Species Level. 1997, Columbia University Press, New York, NY, p 362-363 32 Gheerbrant, Emmanuel; Sudre, Jean; larochene, Mohamed; Moumni, Abdelkader. First Ascertained African "Condylarth" Mammals (Primitive

Ungulates: cf. Bulbulodentata and cf. Phenacodonta) from the Earliest Ypresian of the Ouled Abdoun Basin, Morocco. 2001, Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 21(1), p 107-118 263

condylarths possess long narrow limbs made for running, not swimming. Likewise, it is hard to see how they rafted on driftwood, since their lanky legs are ill-suited for gripping driftwood, and because ocean currents

would have been mainly contrary to the directions they traveled. Thus, the possibility of supernatural or extraterrestrial transport provides a plausible solution for an otherwise inexplicable problem.

India and the Rest of Gondwana In the Jurassic, the Indian subcontinent was part of a large supercontinent called Gondwana, comprised of Africa, Antarctica, South America, Madagascar, Australia, and India.

India broke away from this

massive continent early in the Cretaceous about 140 or 130 million years ago. It began a long voyage northward, through the Indian Ocean, finally colliding with Asia in the late Paleocene and/or early Eocene. The collision probably began about 55 million years ago and culminated just under 50 million years ago.”*? Hence, India was an island continent for the great majority of the Cretaceous period and on into the Paleocene. However, a variety of mammals from the Cretaceous have been found on India which should not be there if India were isolated by ocean. During the Cretaceous, there was a definite distinction between the typical mammals of the southern continents of Gondwana on one hand, and the mammals of the northern continents on the other hand. Since India was part of Gondwana, we should generally not expect to find

northern-type mammals on it before its collision with Asia 55 million years ago. Nevertheless, several fossils of northern-type Cretaceous mammals on southern continents have been found, despite a lack of geological evidence for terrestrial connections between the continents. Wilson et al called such north-south migrations "infrequent dispersal events," and posed the question, "What biogeographic filters allowed their dispersal but prevented the dispersal of other taxa??** The implication is that something other than a land bridge was responsible for the transportation of northern animals to southern

*® Rose, K D; Smith, T; Rana, R S; Sahni, A; Singh, H; Missiaen, P; Folie, A. Early Eocene (Ypresian) Continental Vertebrate Assemblage from India, with Description of a New Anthracobunid (Mammalia, Tethytheria). 2006, Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 26(1), p 219-225

°4 Wilson, G P; Das Sarma, D C; Anantharaman, S. Late Cretaceous Sudamericid Gondwanatherians from India with Paleobiogeographic Considerations of Gondwanan Mammals. 2007, Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 27(2), p 52153

264

continents,

for when

a landbridge

is crossable,

a large and diverse

assemblage of species migrates across it, yet in the Cretaceous of Gondwana, such a large scale interchange is not readily apparent. Even though terrestrial connections with other continents have not been ruled out,”

terrestrial

connections

themselves

cannot

account

for

the

migrations, because if they did, then there should have been a wholesale interchange of species across continents. As it was, only a few species crossed over to other continents.

Arctostylopids In 1915, a certain group of North American mammals called arctostylopids were identified as relatives of the notoungulates.”° The problem is, the notoungulates are only found on South America. Years later, when this was realized, the similarities between the arctostylopids and the notoungulates were deemed due to convergent evolution, and the arctostylopids were reassigned to their own order.”*’ ** This is only one example of how cladists tend to raise new taxa when geographical considerations prohibit identification with existing taxa. This tendency is rooted in the assumption that the dispersal of animals is limited by geography — an assumption which, although it is well substantiated in the fossil record most of the time, does not always hold true, as we have seen. This tendency to raise new taxa in light of biogeographical considerations results in the danger that extraterrestrial transportation events may fail to be recognized as such, and thus evidence for divine and/or alien involvement in earth history may be inadvertently masked by the biogeographical assumptions of cladistics.

35 Anantharaman, S; Wilson, G P; Das Sarma, D C; Clemens, W A. A Possible Late Cretaceous "Haramiyidan" from India. 2006, Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 26(2), p 488-490 36 Matthew, W D. A Revision of the Lower Eocene Wasatch and Wind River Faunas. Part IV. Entelonychia, Primates, and Insectivora (Part). 1915, Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 34, p 429-483 CR; McKenna, MC. The Relationships of the 37 Cifelli, R L; Schaff, Arctostylopidae (Mammalia): New Data and Interpretation. 1989, Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology 152, p 1-44 938 Zack, Shawn P. An Early Eocene Arctostylopid (Mammalia: Arctostylopida) from the Green River Basin, Wyoming. 2004, Journal of Paleontology 24(2), p

498-501 265

The Case of the Kidnapped Opossum A genus of possum-like creatures called Peradectes lived in North America in the Paleocene and Eocene periods, after the dinosaurs went extinct.” Some apparently migrated to Europe over the GreenlandNorway land bridge about 50 million years ago, for they are found in the Messel Pits of Germany. At that time, the expanding Atlantic Ocean had not yet completely separated Greenland from Europe. What is more difficult to explain is how this ancient possum got to South America. It is known that at least one of these possums existed in South America about 63-65 million years ago, for a specimen was found in the Tiupampan strata of Peru.” But there was no land bridge to South America at that time, so there was really no way this possum could have migrated to South America via dry land. Lofgren et al suggested that the fossil record indicates two migrations from North America to South America during the Paleocene, the first one in the late Puercan or early Torrejonian (63 million years ago), and another in the late Tiffanian (57 million years ago). It cannot be explained by convergent evolution on both continents, as the mammals of South America immediately preceding them in the late Cretaceous were of an entirely different structure.” As in Europe, the mammals of South America suffered mass annihilation in the dinosaur extinction — to a greater degree than did the mammals of North America and Asia. After the extinction, new mammal populations were imported into Europe and South America from North America, and to a lesser extent from Asia.” There is really no chance this same type of possum could have evolved by coincidence in two separate places. This is because duplicate evolutionary events generally do not happen in the fossil record at the level of genus and family.

°° The Paleobiology Database, www.paleodb.org. Search Parameter: Taxon "Peradectes," data were downloaded Oct 6, 2008

°° Marshall, L G; de Muizon, C. The Dawn of the Age of Mammals in South America. 1988, National Geographic Research 4, p 23-55; see also Jehle, Martin. Paleocene Mammals of the World, www.paleocene-mammals.de/ 4 Lofgren, Donald L; Lillegraven, Jason A; Clemens, William A; Gingerich, Philip D; Williamson, Thomas E. Paleocene Biochronology: The Puercan Through Clarkforkian Land Mammal Ages. Compiled and edited in Woodburne, Michael O. Late Cretaceous and Cenozoic Mammals of North America: Biostratigraphy and Geochronology. 2004, Columbia University Press, New York, NY, p 95

*” Lofgren, Donald L; et al. ibid, p 92 ** | ofgren, Donald L; et al. ibid, p 88, 90, 92 266

There is some question whether the Peruvian specimen should be assigned to the genus A/phadon, which is a close relative of Peradectes. Alphadon existed in North America during the Campanian and Maastrichtian times of the late Cretaceous, over the period of 84-65 million years ago. Not that it matters, since there was no more a land bridge to South America for A/phadon than there was for Peradectes.

Puzzling Snake Distributions In another example, snake fossils recovered from the Cerro Azul Formation of Argentina confirm that viperid snakes were present in The timing of the South America from the late Miocene forward. viperids' first appearance in South America occurs after they first emerged on other continents during the early Miocene. Hence, it is agreed that the viperid snakes must have migrated to South America from another continent. The problem is, how did they get there? There is no proof for the existence of a terrestrial connection between North and South America during the Miocene,” and Africa had separated from South America long before the Miocene. Could snakes have found a way across the ocean? One may note that snakes inhabit Australia.

However, many islands such as Iceland, New

Zealand, and even Ireland are devoid of indigenous snakes. If it were so easy for snakes to cross an ocean, why did they not cross the narrow channels of the British Isles?

Tetrapods The earliest legged vertebrates are called tetrapods. They arose first on Old Red Sandstone, where they were geographically confined for a short while.” Old Red Sandstone was comprised of eastern North America,

Greenland,

and transalpine Europe, which were at that time

joined as a single, tropical continent. But tetrapod fossils soon appeared in other widely diverse locations. The first tetrapods in China appear at 355 million years ago.’ China was at that time a series of large islands °44 Albino, Adriana M; Montalvo, Claudia |. Snakes from the Cerro Azul Formation (Upper Miocene), Central Argentina, with a Review of Fossil Viperids from South America. 2006, Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 26(3), p 581-

587 °45 Clack, Jennifer A. Gaining Ground: The Origin and Evolution of Tetrapods. 2002, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN, p 97 °46 Zhu, Min; Ahlberg, Per E; Zhao, Wenjin; Jia, Liantao. First Devonian Tetrapod from Asia. 2002, Nature 420, p 760 267

on the other side of the world, and was separated by a vast ocean. The tetrapods also spread to Australia about the same time, as known from the discovery of Metaxygnathus.”*’ By 333 million years ago, tetrapods in Australia were diverse, advanced, and they represented those known elsewhere in the world.””* Interestingly, the tetrapods in Australia looked a lot like those in North America, implying that some kind of migration occurred. The wide distribution of terrestrial and fresh water tetrapods raises interesting questions on how migrations happened. Ahlberg et al, who described the Australian specimen, suggest that the conventional wisdom concerning the position of the continents is just plain wrong, and that Australia was further north and nearly adjacent to Greenland.” Daeschler pointed to the fact that early tetrapods existed on North America, Europe, Eurasia, and Australia; and therefore surmised that tetrapod migrations to such diverse locales must be explained either in terms of the tetrapods' abilities to navigate salt water oceans or by continental connections.””’ Carroll submitted that they at least inhabited the coastal waters, pointing to the marine affinities of Tulerpeton.””! As a case in point, the proto-tetrapod-like lungfish Soederberghia has been found in southeastern Australia, which is on the other side of the world

Australia Greenland,

from

was

Greenland,

at that time

in contrast, was

where

it was

located smack

very

first found.

close

Southeastern

to the South

dab on the equator,

Pole.

and halfway

around the globe. It is strange to find the same genus occupying such diverse ecosystems. Moreover, this fish was confined to fresh water and estuaries. We know because it is only found in fossil beds where marine invertebrates are lacking. In the Devonian, there was a very large ocean separating Greenland on one hand from Australia on the other — the

**7 Campbell, K S W; Bell, MW. A Primitive Amphibian from the Late Devonian of New South Wales.

1977, Alcheringa 1, p 369-381

*48 Thulborn, Tony; Warren, Anne; Turner, Susan; Hamley, Tim. Early Carboniferous Tetrapods in Australia.

1996, Nature 381, p 777-779

” Ahlberg, Per E; Johanson, Zerina; Daeschler, Edward B. The Late Devonian Lungfish Soederberghia (Sarcopterygii, Dipnoi) From Australia and North America and Its Biogeographical Implications. 2001, Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 21(1), p 1-12

*° Daeschler, Edward B. Early Tetrapod Jaws from the Late Devonian of Pennsylvania, USA. 2000, Journal of Paleontology 74(2), p 301-308 °°! Carroll, Robert L. The Origin and Early Radiation of Terrestrial Vertebrates. 2001, Journal of Paleontology 75(6), p 1203

268

former being part of Old Red Sandstone and the latter being part of Gondwana. How did this non-marine fish get across that ocean? Thulborn et al described North America, which was connected to Greenland, as being "virtually at the opposite pole of the Early Carboniferous globe" from Australia.

To overcome this, they asserted

that Gondwana had already collided with North America, thus linking Old Red Sandstone to Gondwana, and that Australia was in a tropical location — somehow being positioned northeastward from its presumed near Antarctic position.” Yet, if Australia was tropical, then Antarctica was temperate, since it

was connected to Australia's southern edge at the time; and if Antarctica was temperate, then why don't we find tetrapods on Antarctica at that time? Tetrapods took a lot longer to get to Antarctica, where they first appeared in the earliest Triassic, over 100 million years since they first appeared on Old Red Sandstone, China, and Australia.”

Moreover, the

Carboniferous ice age scarred Antarctica with glaciers — hardly the mark of a temperate climate. To surmount the Carboniferous ice age problem, it must be supposed that Australia-Antarctica sped southward from the tropics to the South Pole in about 20 or 25 million years — a speed much greater than that which hurled India into Tibet thus forming the Himalayas. In terms of climate and the Antarctic fossil record, it is perhaps better to stick with the original map drawn by plate tectonics, which shows Antarctica near the South Pole, and hence Gondwana still a

good ways south of Old Red Sandstone, not in collision with it. This is more consistent with what we know of the Carboniferous era than supposing Australia was tropical. If this more conventional map is accepted, then the tetrapods must have traversed cold ocean water to the other side of the world in Australia. Or, if cold ocean water be thought too harsh for them, they were airlifted by extraterrestrials. If we assume that continental connections between Gondwana and Old Red Sandstone were already happening in the late Devonian, then why don't we find any early tetrapods in Africa? The point of contact between the two super-continents happened along the Morocco-

°52 Thulborn, Tony; Warren, Anne; Turner, Susan; Hamley, Tim. Early Carboniferous Tetrapods in Australia. 1996, Nature 381, p 777-779 953 Collinson, J W; Hammer, W R. Migration of Triassic Tetrapods to Antarctica: A Keystone in a Changing World. 2007, Online Proceedings of the 10" ISAES X; edited by Cooper, A K; Raymond, CR, et al. US Geological Survey Open File Report 2007-1047, extended abstract 047 269

Appalachian mountain ranges, at a time when they were positioned in the tropics. The tetrapod-rich fossil beds that are found in Pennsylvania and eastern Canada are lacking in northwestern Africa. Where are the tetrapods of Morocco? This problem can be submitted as evidence for a supernatural or extraterrestrial presence in distant antiquity, which transported living creatures to places they could not otherwise have traveled.

Freshwater Fish Across Continents For freshwater fish, obstacles such as mountains, deserts, and climate

can slow the spread of their range, but do not prohibit their geographic expansion indefinitely. According to Darlington, "The only barriers that are fully effective against freshwater fishes seem to be those of salt water."”* Perhaps the best example of this is the Australian continent and its subsidiaries, New Guinea and New Zealand. Although these locations do contain aboriginal freshwater fishes, they are generally of a type not found elsewhere. One exception occurs in the genus Scleropages, which is found in both Australia and on the Asian mainland. Darlington writes, Whether Scleropages reached Australia through river systems, over ancient land connection, or partly through the sea I shall not try to say.

River systems or land connection is very improbable, since if such a situation existed, more than just one genus would have crossed from Asia into Australia — because massive migrations of many species occur when land bridges are formed. There is also a British fish in Africa. The freshwater fish Clupisudis is known from the Eocene of Britain, but is found also in Africa.’ The fact that the Straits of Gibraltar, which separate Europe from Africa,

were at one time a wide ocean in the not-so-distant past complicates any supposed terrestrial connection, and may indicate some paranormal or extraterrestrial source of transportation was involved.

**4 Darlington, Philip J Jr. Zoogeography: The Geographical Distribution of Animals.

1957, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, p 79

*°° Darlington, Philip J Jr. ibid, p 52 °° Darlington, Philip J Jr. ibid, p 52 270

Catfish Catfish first emerged in the Campanian of South America. In less than 18 million years, these mostly freshwater fish had become established all over the world. Catfish fossils are found in North America,

Spain,

Africa,

and

in India

before

the

extinction

of the

dinosaurs. What's remarkable is that all these continents were isolated from each other by large oceans during this time. A few catfish are tolerable to brackish or marine waters. It is possible that they traversed the oceans to all continents. If true, they quickly adapted to freshwater, for the Mesozoic catfish of India appear to have been freshwater fish. India was in the middle of the ocean at this time, halfway between Asia and Madagascar, hence entirely isolated from non-native freshwater fish migrations.””’ The probability that catfish ventured outside the lakes and rivers of South America, into the ocean, even beyond the continental shelves into

the deep ocean, and subsequently adapted again to freshwater on all continents, finally loosing their saltwater tolerance on nearly a worldwide basis, and accomplishing all this in just the last two phases of the Cretaceous, while other fresh water fish have not been able to do the

same — the odds of this happening are not too far from the odds a skeptic would give extraterrestrial transport. It is easy to see why sexually perverted space aliens might have been attracted to catfish. They have so much in common — both are slimy, gray, mean, and ugly.

GV R. The Oldest Known Catfish 57 Cione, Alberto L; Prasad, (Teleostei:Siluriformes) from Asia (India, Late Cretaceous). 2002, Journal of Paleontology 76(1), p 190-193

271

¢

23

4

We Are Not the First

The Aliens Beat Us to the Punch There are at least 200 billion stars in our Galaxy. Is our sun the only one to spawn intelligent life? Who cares — that's the wrong question. Here is a better question: There were at least 200 billion stars in our Galaxy before our sun even existed. Did one of them spawn intelligent life a long time before us? And if so, should we not expect such an ancient intelligent species to be much more advanced than we are? Earth is 4.6 billion years old, but the universe is 13.7 billion years old. That's a difference of 9 billion years during which intelligent life could have been evolving before earth even existed.

The Building Blocks of Life To exist, life needs certain elements. Among them are hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorous, and sulfur. Many complex life forms also require heavier elements such as iron, zinc, copper, manganese, magnesium, calcium, potassium, and sodium.

The first of these, hydrogen, is easy to come by. Accounting for nearly three quarters of all atomic matter in the universe, hydrogen is by far the most common element. Moreover, hydrogen came into existence very soon after the Big Bang. Chances are good that early life did not suffer from a lack of hydrogen. All the other elements necessary for life came on the scene somewhat later. They were the product of nuclear reactions deep inside large stars, which dispersed their payload of life-giving elements across the vast reaches of space by means of massive stellar explosions called supernovae. These supernovae debuted about 400 million years after the Big Bang. They were formed from colossal hydrogen gas clouds that had self-compacted under the force of gravity. The gravity was so intense that it compressed hydrogen atoms together, making new atoms that were larger and heavier than hydrogen. This is called nuclear fusion. As Carl Sagan explained it,

272

Hydrogen fuses into helium, helium into carbon, carbon into oxygen... all the way to iron.” In extremely dense hot stars, silicon burns to create iron, and in lesser

quantities, the elements of intermediate weight between silicon and iron. Among these are the life-giving elements phosphorus, sulfur, potassium, calcium, and manganese.””’ After only 10 million years or so, the massive stars blew apart in supernovae, scattering their diverse treasures of elements far into space, where they were subsequently incorporated into future solar systems, such as ours, which are rich in these heavier life-giving elements. In supernovae explosions, large numbers of neutrons are released from the interior of the star. They use the energy from the blast to fuse with iron atoms, thus forming elements heavier than iron. Among these are nickel, copper, zinc, silver, tin, iodine, platinum, gold, mercury, lead, and finally uranium. At uranium, the elements become unstable and radioactive, the

nuclear fusion process stops, and radioactive decay begins.’” °°' When this radioactive uranium is subsequently incorporated into planetary bodies, it, together with gravity, causes volcanic and geothermal activity, which is essential to life, because volcanic activity is necessary for the creation of an atmosphere.”” Hence, the massive hydrogen supernovae stars of deep antiquity were the first vital step toward the evolution of life, because they seeded the universe with the elements necessary for life. Stars similar to the earliest stars still exist today, because there are still so many clouds of hydrogen collapsing into balls of burning gas. Two

stars in particular, HE1327-2326

extensively analyzed under telescope.

aed Sagan, Carl. Cosmos.

and HE0107-5240,

have been

These two stars have created a

1980, Carl Sagan Productions with Random House,

New York, NY, p 233 °° 7ubay, Geoffrey. Origins of Life on the Earth and in the Cosmos, 2” Ed. 2000, Academic Press, a Harcourt Science and Technology Company, San Diego, CA, p 26-28 9 Zubay, Geoffrey. ibid, p 26-28 °6! Sagan, Carl. Cosmos. 1980 Carl Sagan Productions with Random House, New York, NY, p 233 °® | opes, Rosaly M C; Gregg, Tracy K P. Volcanic Worlds: Exploring the Solar System's Volcanoes. 2004, Praxis Publishing, Chichester, UK; with SpringerVerlag, Berlin & Heidelberg, Germany, p 2, 72

273

large amount of carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen.” ° Hence, those stars in the first and second generation with a mass twenty times larger than our sun are empirically demonstrated to have seeded the universe with carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen.”

Sodium, magnesium,

and aluminum

may also be made inside these stars,” together with a large quantity of

phosphorus.”*” How Soon Did Life Evolve in the Universe? The first supernovae stars began to exist about 400 million years after the Big Bang. From birth to death, these stars only lasted about 10 million years. The universe is 13.7 billion years old. If you could fit 13.7 billion years into a 24 hour day, then 10 million years would be just one minute. 410 million years would be 43 minutes. So in astronomical terms, if the lifetime of the universe is compared to a single day, all the elements necessary for life were spawned within the first hour of that day. Moreover, heavy organic elements tend to sink toward the center of the Galaxy, so we should expect life to emerge first toward the central core of the Galaxy — perhaps not directly in the central core, because of the frequency of collisions, but rather just outside the central core. Yet °° Norris, John E. Stellar Abundances, First Generation to Solar. Compiled in Origin of Matter and Evolution of Galaxies. Compiled in and edited by Kubono, S; Aoki,W; Kajino, T; Motobayashi, T; Nomoto, K. Origin of Matter and Evolution of Galaxies. 2006 American Institute of Physics 847, p 47, 49

°° Aoki, W; Frebel, A; Christlieb, N; Norris, JE; Beers, T C; Minezaki, Z; Barklem, T S; Honda, S; Takada-Hidai, M; Asplund, M; Ryan, S G; Tsangarides, S; Eriksson, K; Steinhauer, A; Deliyannis, C P; Nomoto, K; Fujimoto, M Y; Ando, H; Yoshii, Y; Kajino, T. An Abundance Study of the Most Iron-Poor Star HE1327-2326 with Subaru/HDS. Compiled in and edited by Kubono, S; Aoki, W; Kajino, T;

Motobayashi, T; Nomoto, K. Origin of Matter and Evolution of Galaxies. American Institute of Physics 847, p 54

2006

°° Hirschi, Raphael. Rotating Massive Stars at Very Low Z: High C & N Production.

Compiled in and edited by Kubono, S; Aoki,W; Kajino, T;

Motobayashi, T; Nomoto, K. Origin of Matter and Evolution of Galaxies. 2006 American Institute of Physics 847, p 73-75

°° Suda, T; Nishimura, T; lwamoto, N; Aikawa, M; Fujimoto, M Y; Iben, |Jr. Nucleosynthetic Signatures of Pop.III Survivors and the Origin of HEO107-5240 and HE1327-2326. Compiled in and edited by Kubono, S$; Aoki,W; Kajino, T; Motobayashi, T; Nomoto, K. Origin of Matter and Evolution of Galaxies. 2006

American Institute of Physics 847, p 59, 60

°°7 Suda, T; et al. ibid, p 63 274

earth is more than half-way to the outer rim, which means we are comparatively lacking in organic elements. Since the earliest possible date for life is dependent upon the calculation of the earliest date that heavy organic elements were available in sufficient quantities, it is very likely that regions more toward the center of the Galaxy produced life at an earlier date than our earth did. This fact significantly reduces earth's chances of being the first planet to produce intelligent life in our Galaxy. The pertinent question is this: At what time in the history of the universe did the life-giving elements become common enough for life to first evolve? Measuring the occurrence of iron is a good benchmark by which to answer the question. The iron content of stars is comparatively easy to establish because it exists throughout the universe in sufficient quantities to measure.

Also, iron is one of the heaviest, and therefore one

of the last of the organic elements to fuse. Where iron is present, the other life-giving elements are also likely present. Iron rich stars emerged early in the history of the universe. A sample of 462 single F and G class stars (that is — stars similar to our sun) studied by Nordstrom suggest that iron rich stars appear to have existed very early in the history of the universe, and have remained more or less consistently present in the universe at a surprisingly stable distribution. The first iron rich stars appeared at approximately 13 billion years ago, and a substantial number apparently existed about 11 billion years ago. Nordstrom remarks,

There is clearly no significant rise of overall iron abundance

({Fe/H]) with time.”* The rapid creation of iron, which occurred during the youth of the universe, may be a function of the fact that the early supernovae had relatively short life spans compared to our sun, many just 10 million years or less. Consequently, the first few generations of stars came in rapid succession, seeding the universe with large amounts of iron and other life-giving elements even while the universe was still quite young. Even the proponents of the Rare Earth Hypothesis admit that the

968 Nordstrom, Birgitta. Chemical Evolution in the Milky Way Disk. Compiled in and edited by Kubono, S; Aoki,W; Kajino, T; Motobayashi, T; Nomoto, K. Origin of Matter and Evolution of Galaxies. 2006, American Institute of Physics 847, p 86-87 275

universe was seeded with a sufficient quantity of life-giving elements just 2 billion years after the Big Bang.” Therefore, stars capable of producing life appear to have been just about as plentiful 11 billion years ago as they are today. Insofar as our sun is about 5 billion years old, and life first evolved no later than 1.5 billion years afterward, we may reasonably postulate that simple life forms first evolved 1.5 billion years after iron-rich stars became plentiful. In other words, simple life forms similar to bacteria probably first evolved about 9.5 billion years ago, at the latest.

How Soon Did Intelligent Life Evolve? But who cares about bacteria? We want to know about intelligent life. In earth's history, it has taken 3.5 billion years for us to evolve from bacteria into humans. If evolution on other planets happens similarly, we may postulate that the first intelligent species in the universe evolved roughly 6 billion years ago (3.5 subtracted from 9.5 billion years ago). Hence, the most intelligent species in the universe is 6 billion years ahead of us in its evolutionary improvements. No wonder they seem like gods to us. Actually, the evolution of intelligent species probably took even less time on other planets. This is because the early earth was comparatively too hot to handle, a fact which may have significantly retarded the evolution of higher life forms. Earth's geothermal activity, that is volcanoes and earthquakes, is still going strong even after 4.6 billion years. Geothermal activity is caused by two things — gravity and radioactivity — which in turn are caused by high levels of dense materials such as iron and even denser radioactive materials such as uranium. On lighter planetary bodies, like the Moon, geothermal activity died out a long time ago, because they have less gravity and because their uranium became depleted. But earth is still pumping out steam and lava because it is heavier and contains more radioactive material deep within its core. As planetary geologist Ellen Stofan says,

The larger a planet is, the more heat will be generated in the interior, and thus the more active the surface will be.’””

*® Ward, Peter D; Brownlee, Donald. Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe. p 30

2000, Copernicus, Springer-Verlag, New York, NY,

*” Stofan, Ellen. Earth's Evil Twin: The Volcanic World of Venus. Compiled in Lopes, Rosaly M C; Gregg, Tracy K P. Volcanic Worlds: Exploring the Solar 276

Geothermal activity also pumps out carbon dioxide, which is a greenhouse gas, and thus causes global warming. If geothermal activity causes too much global warming, then water is too hot and life dies. Such was the case in the earth's early oceans. Earth's oceans first appeared 4 billion years ago, but were extremely warm, almost to the point of boiling. Although simple prokaryotic cells like bacteria could survive under near-boiling conditions, more complex eukaryotic cells could not, because the best of them can only withstand temperatures up

to 60 degrees Celsius, or 140 degrees Fahrenheit.””'

Eukaryotic cells

absolutely must be the building blocks of all complex and intelligent life, because prokaryotic cells do not have the organelles necessary to sustain an organism beyond just a single cell. Prokaryotic cells seem to have evolved very quickly after the first oceans, the first evidence of them standing at 3.85 or 3.5 billion years ago. In contrast, eukaryotic cells emerged much later. This is not a function of the time it takes for eukaryotes to evolve, but rather resulted from the fact that early earth was simply too hot for eukaryotic cells to even exist at all, regardless of their evolutionary potential. On a less radioactive planet, eukaryotic life may have evolved much more quickly. If this is true, then the first intelligent species is even older than 6 billion years. Also, early earth had too much iron on its surface. There was so much iron that it soaked up great quantities of oxygen for well over a billion years after life first appeared on earth. This is recorded as bands of gray and red in archaic rocks. Animal life cannot exist without free oxygen in the air. Therefore, surface iron severely delayed the emergence of even the most primitive worms and creepy-crawlies. In another world, where surface iron was less plentiful in earth's early years, intelligent beings might have evolved much more quickly. For these reasons, the earth is too iron-rich and too radioactive to

make a likely candidate for the first intelligent life. This possibly speaks for the universe at large being past its prime. Supernovae stars have perhaps over-seeded the universe with heavy elements, such that it can no longer produce life with the same degree of efficiency as it used to. Thus the universe is facing its midlife crisis. In its younger days, the

System's Volcanoes. 2004, Praxis Publishing, Chichester, UK; with SpringerVerlag, Berlin & Heidelberg, Germany, p 72 °7! Clancy, Paul; Brack, Andre; Harneck, Gerda. Looking for Life, Searching the Solar System. 2005, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, p 63

Zhe

universe may have spawned intelligent species much more efficiently than it does now. In another event which may have significantly retarded the development of life on earth, we may note that 700 million years ago, the earth was covered in ice. This situation persisted for millions upon millions of years. If other planets did not suffer from this, it follows that they developed intelligent life many millions of years before us.

Look to the Trees 250 million years ago, mammal-like reptiles dominated the earth. Some of them even climbed trees, and if it weren't for the pointless evolutionary diversion of the dinosaurs who temporarily replaced them, the tree dwellers may have even developed opposable thumbs, which is a prerequisite to having the ability to use tools. With tools, a species can become technological, and thereby become an intelligent advanced civilization like humans. Animals that live on the ground need all four feet to run fast, so they have little chance of developing hands that can grip tools. Animals that live in the water need fins or flippers, so the same is true for them. Animals of the air exchange hands for wings. So when we look for intelligent life, we should look to the trees, for it is in

the trees that hands evolve. Although dolphins and whales are intelligent, they will never be technological, because they lack the ability to grip and use tools. You can't write Moby Dick with a flipper. You need hands, and hands evolve from swinging in trees, and tree-swingers cannot coexist in a world filled with very tall carnivorous dinosaurs whose heads are above the treetops. The long-term dominance of giant carnivores like Tyrannosaurus and Allosaurus may have significantly retarded the development of technological species on this planet. Such dinosaurs dominated earth for well over 100 million years, until finally the mammals made a comeback, thanks to the luck of a fallen star slamming into the Yucatan. If the dinosaurs never existed, then intelligent life may have evolved on earth over 100 million years earlier. If the evolution of interstellar intelligent species is a race between planets, and if earth was distracted in the middle of the race by so many complications, how is it possible for us to have won the race? If earth was running around in a reptile zoo instead of running the race track, while other planets were sprinting toward the finish line, then how can we possibly believe that we are the first intelligent species to evolve? It is not difficult to imagine a tree-covered planet filled with monkeys where dinosaur-sized predators never existed. Such a planet 278

would have more gravity than earth, which would get rid of the dinosaurs and carnivorous birds and pterosaurs, since large terrestrial animals and flying creatures take a long time to evolve mechanisms to cope with gravity. But the extra gravity would not deter trees, for the physical properties of water cohesion pull water up the trunks of trees with a force of 130 megapascals, which is several times the cohesion strength needed to overcome gravity, even for tall sequoia redwoods.”” But what of the extra geothermal pressures resulting from more intense gravity? If the planet were high in iron and silicon, but low in uranium, geothermal activity would increase in proportion to iron and silicon, but decrease in proportion to uranium, and thus a favorable level of geothermal activity would be maintained despite the higher level of gravity. As an added benefit, such a planet would also enjoy more constant levels of geothermal activity over time, instead of being skewed in favor of the early years of the planet — a fact which would make such a planet cooler than earth in its early life and thus likely to evolve eukaryotes at an earlier date than earth. Hence, the ideal planet for intelligent life, I think, would be heavier than earth, but with less uranium. Such a planet could probably produce intelligent life much more quickly than earth did.

Answering Theories on Earth's Uniqueness Some argue that earth is unique in so many ways that life is unlikely to exist elsewhere. Among the points that make earth supposedly unique are our sun, our distance from the sun, a nearly circular orbit, liquid

water, density, rotation, volcanism, the moon, and the presence of a gas giant to act as a shield from meteors. Each is answered in turn below.

The Sun A conservative estimate for the number of stars in the Galaxy is 200 billion. Of these, 5.6% are estimated to be G-type stars like our sun.” Stars larger than the G-type generally have too much ultraviolet light, and they burn through their fuel too quickly for life to evolve. Smaller stars, such as brown dwarfs, don't have enough gravity to produce energy by nuclear fusion, and so they don't give much heat. By the time a planet

gets close enough to receive adequate heat from a brown dwarf, it is

972 Raven, Peter H; Evert, Ray F; Eichhorn, Susan E. Biology ofPlants, 5" Ed. 1992, Worth Publishers, New York, NY, p 622 73 LeDrew, Glenn. The Real Starry Sky. 2001, AstroNotes, Ottawa Centre Newsletter, JRASC, p 32-33 279

believed that its proximity to the star will place it in tidal lock, which means that the same side of the planet faces the star at all times; the "dark side" of the planet gets very cold and freezes the whole atmosphere, including all water as it evaporates and moves across the dark side by the wind, where it permanently freezes; or, if the planet is large, then wind speeds will constantly be of ultra-hurricane strength, in an effort to redistribute heat to the dark side. Other stars include pulsars, which kill everything nearby; neutron stars, which are dead xsupernovae; red giants; and white dwarfs — all of which are entirely

unsuitable for intelligent life. Hence the probabilities for intelligent life should be factored by the number of G-type stars. Yet as a side note, the red giants and white dwarfs were at one time stars similar to our sun, and thus give testimony that potentially lifegiving stars like our sun have existed even in extremely ancient times. Our own sun will become a red giant and then a white dwarf within about 5 billion years. Hence, it is quite possible that a few of the red giants and white dwarfs we see in our telescopes today had at some time in the distant past given rise to intelligent life before us. Two-thirds of stars in our neighborhood are in systems with multiple stars, and this number is expected to rise in areas with a higher density of stars, such as clusters and the Galactic center. Insofar as systems with multiple stars are likely to produce radical effects on orbit, and therefore on climate, these might not normally be capable of producing complex life.””* Also, the possibility of being struck with excessive radiation from pulsars, supernovae, neutron stars, and gamma rays, is greater in clusters and in the Galactic center. Hence, the odds that any given star would produce intelligent life may be confined to something like 0.5-2%. Still, this is 1 to 4 billion stars in our Galaxy. Some believe that there exists a "Galactic Habitable Zone" or "GHZ" outside which life-giving stars cannot exist. This theoretical zone excludes the Galactic center, star clusters, and the presumably metalpoor areas of the outer rim. However, the idea is controversial, and scientists cast doubt on it. Prantzos states,

We conclude that, at the present state of our knowledge, the GHZ (Galactic Habitable Zone) may extend to the entire MW (Milky Way) disk... Even if 100% lethality is assumed for all °74 Ward, Peter D; Brownlee, Donald. Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe. 2000, Copernicus, Springer-Verlag, New York, NY,

p 23-28

280

land animals after a nearby SN (Supernova) explosion, marine life will certainly survive to a large extent, since UV is absorbed from a couple of meters of water. In the case of Earth, it took just a few hundred million years for marine life to spread on the land and evolve to dinosaurs and, ultimately, to humans; this is less than 4% of the lifetime of a G-type star. Even if land life on a planet is destroyed from a nearby SN explosion, it may well reappear again after a few 10° (100 million) yrs or so... the probability for surviving SN explosions, which is null in the imner disk at early times, becomes quite substantial in late times.”

If it were common for fledgling life forms in the universe to be wiped out by such radiation from deep space, then shouldn't we see at least a few extinction events in the fossil record that have no explanation save radiation? As it is, all major extinction events known to science in the fossil record are clearly tied to other events besides interstellar radiation. The Permian was tied to geothermal activity, the Ordovician and Pleistocene to ice ages, the terminal Cretaceous and FrasnianFamennian to extraterrestrial impacts, the Miocene to climate change, and the Ediacaran to higher life forms. If gamma rays and supernova bursts have completely wiped out other planets, they should have at least partially wiped out ours, but such is apparently not the case. Therefore, the danger from interstellar radiation is probably next to nothing.

Planets 270 planets have been found outside our solar system, most of them around stars like our sun. Most of these planets are giants like Jupiter and Saturn, because they are the easiest, and until only very recently, the only planets that could be detected. About 7% of stars are believed to have such giants. Based on the observation of "super-Earth" planets, 33% of stars like our sun are believed to have planets between the size of Earth and Neptune orbiting close to the star. Udry states,

°7> Prantzos, Nikos. On the "Galactic Habitable Zone." 2006, Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, Strategies for Life Detection, ISS! Bern, Institut d'Astrophysique de Paris

281

It is most probable that there are many other planets present: Not only super-Earth and Neptune-like planets with longer periods, but also Earth-like planets that we cannot detect yet.” Unfortunately, as of this writing, planets the size and distance of earth cannot be detected. Planets are detected by measuring their gravitational impact on their star, which necessarily means that more massive planets that are closer to their star are easier to detect. The realization that so many stars have very large planets orbiting their stars at a distance only a fraction of earth's distance to the sun is disconcerting, because it means that these planets probably formed far away from their stars as gas giants, and later lost their distance — a phenomenon that would most likely strip a solar system of any planets in the habitable zone, for as the orbit of the gas giant deteriorates, it brings the smaller inner planets closer to the sun with it. However, this might be a problem only for very heavy solar systems. It is demonstrated that stars with a greater metal content than our sun are the same which harbor "hot Jupiters" and "super-earths.". This makes sense because more metal means more gravity, which in turn causes planets to loose their orbit. In contrast, stars with a lower metal content are believed to still have enough metal in their proto-planetary disks to form earth-like planets, even though they might not be able to produce hot Jupiters, and thus, earth-like planets should, according to current data, be rather common.”

The Quest for Liquid Water Liquid water is necessary for life to exist. Thankfully, liquid water is very common in the universe.

It exists on comets, Jupiter's moons, and

probably even once existed on Mars. Water in ice form exists on Uranus and Neptune. Outside our solar system, liquid water might exist just 41 light years away, on a planet of a star that is already known to have five planets orbiting around it. According to Marcy, the star 55 Cancri has a mysterious gap between its fourth and fifth planets, in which it is

*7° Udry, Stephane; Mayor, Michel; Queloz, Didier; Lovis, Christophe; Pepe, Francesco; Bouchy, Francois; Benz, Willy; Mordasini, Christophe; Bertaux, JeanLoup. A Trio of Super-Earths. 2008, European Organisation for Astronomical Research in the Southern Hemisphere (ESO)

*”” Prantzos, Nikos. On the "Galactic Habitable Zone." 2006, Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, Strategies for Life Detection, ISSI Bern, Institut d'Astrophysique de Paris, p 4-7

282

believed there are smaller planetary bodies that could be much like earth. Telescopes and gravity measurements are not strong enough yet to see earth-sized planets. What they can see is a gas giant beyond it, which likely serves like Jupiter, blocking meteors from the smaller life-giving planets.” In another case, a red dwarf star only 20 light years away was found to have two planets believed to be near the habitable zone, Gliese 581c and 581d. Upon studying them, it was found that 581c is too close to the star and 581d is in tidal lock with the star. Hence, neither is very promising for complex life, although 581d may have microbial life.’” Water in steam and solid form is also known to exist on a planet orbiting the star GJ 436, which is 30 light years away.’”*° Although none of these planetary discoveries really hits the mark, they do provide indisputable evidence that planets are common. The fact that no truly earth-like planet has been found is merely a function of earth's small size and long distance to the sun. In less than a decade, astronomers have gone from seeing "hot jupiters" close to their stars, to now seeing "super-earths" smaller than Neptune. Technology is in the works to eventually see planetary systems in higher resolution, and thus find earth-like planets. So how do planets get liquid water? Answer: from volcanoes. Volcanoes bring carbon dioxide and hydrogen to the surface of planets. The chemical reaction of carbon dioxide (CO) with hydrogen (H) leads to the production of steamy water vapor (H2O), and methane (CH,).”* As the steam rises, it cools, then turns to water and falls as rain. Sometimes planets acquire additional water vapor and methane from

their moons. Water must be in Jiquid form for life to exist — not steam or ice. Ifa planetary body is too hot, all its water will be steam. If too cold, it will all be ice. We are 93 million miles from the sun. Some people assume that if we were a little further we would freeze like Mars, and that if we "2 Marcy, Geoff; as quoted in Bowdler, Neil. Astronomers Discover New Planet:

Astronomers in the US Say They Have Found a New Planet in Orbit Around a Star 41 Light Years from Earth.

2007, BBC News, downloaded Sep 20, 2008,

www.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/7082257.stm 79 \ion Bloh, W; Bounama, C; Cuntz, M; Frank S. The Habitability of Super-

Earths in Gliese 581. 2007, Astronomy & Astrophysics 476(3), p 1365-1371 989 University of Liege. Astronomers Detect Shadow of Water World in Front of Nearby Star. 2007, ScienceDaily, downloaded Sep 20, 2008, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070516151053.htm 981 Schulze-Makuch, Dirk; Irwin, Louis N. Life in the Universe: Expectations and Constraints. 2004, Springer-Verlag, Berlin and Heidelberg, Germany, p 21-22 283

were a little closer we would be scorched like Venus.

But this is not

correct. Believe it or not, Venus, Mars, and the Moon are all close enough to the sun to sustain life. What killed them was not proximity to the sun, but rather an imbalance of carbon dioxide. In Venus' case, a

collision was the likely culprit. In Mars' and the moon's case, lack of size was responsible. Venus has too much carbon dioxide because its slow rotation cycle caused excessive vulcanization. Its slow rotation was perhaps caused by a collision with another object. Hence, our solar system is actually unlucky, for if we had not suffered the untimely death of our twin, Venus, we would have two life-giving planets in our solar system. The problem with Mars is too little carbon dioxide. Mars cannot retain heat without it, and without heat, all its water freezes and life cannot exist. Planets get carbon dioxide from volcanoes, which pump it out with their lava. As stated above, volcanoes are a form of geothermal activity which is driven by gravity and radioactivity. Mars is deficient because its small size and lack of density translate into low gravity, and therefore fewer volcanoes. Although Mars does show signs of being currently volcanically active,” it lacks the density and the mass needed to produce and retain enough carbon dioxide to compensate for its distance from the sun. The moon was quite volcanically active about 3 billion years ago,’ but with the depletion of its uranium, it has become even more hopeless than Mars. Small bodies, especially moons, often loose what little carbon dioxide they have because their gravity is not strong enough to retain it. Volcanoes are to planets what blood is to humans. They are the circulatory system, transporting heavy elements and molecules through arteries of liquid rock to the surface. Without volcanoes, the surface would not receive the elements necessary for life. Luckily, volcanoes are quite common. Recent volcanic activity is affirmed on Venus and on Mars — and also on several of the moons of Jupiter and Neptune,

*® Sakimoto, Susan. Volcanoes on Mars: The Global View. Compiled in Lopes, Rosaly M C; Gregg, Tracy K P. Volcanic Worlds: Exploring the Solar System's Volcanoes. 2004, Praxis Publishing, Chichester, UK; with Springer-Verlag, Berlin & Heidelberg, Germany, p 102

*®° Gaddis, Lisa. The Face of the Moon: Lunar Volcanoes and Volcanic Deposits. Compiled in Lopes, Rosaly M C; Gregg, Tracy K P. Volcanic Worlds: Exploring the Solar System's Volcanoes. 2004, Praxis Publishing, Chichester, UK; with Springer-Verlag, Berlin & Heidelberg, Germany, p 93

284

including lo, Triton, and Europa. Europa appears to be especially active. If volcanoes are as universal as numerous witnesses in our solar system testify, then the lifeblood of planets is also universal, and thus life must also be universal. Carbon dioxide is to planets what clothing is to humans. If things get too cold, you can put on more clothing. Conversely, if things get steamy, you can take off your clothes. Here's how it works: Carbon dioxide is pumped into the atmosphere by volcanoes, animals, and anything that burns as fuel. But it is taken out of the atmosphere by the rocks and the ocean. Rocks are made of silicon, which, when eroded by When weather, combine with carbon dioxide to produce limestone.

temperatures are warm, the cycle of evaporation and rainfall becomes more intense, which causes more erosion, which in turn breaks down more silicon rocks, so that carbon dioxide can combine with it. When

this happens, carbon dioxide is taken out of the atmosphere, and temperatures fall. Falling temperatures cause less rain, which causes less erosion, and so the earth is self-stabilizing like a thermostat.” The ocean and the atmosphere also play a balancing game. If the ocean has more carbon dioxide relative to the atmosphere, it yields carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere. Conversely, if the atmosphere gets too much carbon dioxide, the ocean absorbs it.*° Of course, if, in a single century, we burn all the fossil fuels that

have ever been produced, then atmospheric carbon dioxide might rise faster than natural processes can suck it up, which could lead to severe environmental consequences in the short term. But in the long term, the earth will heal itself, as it always has, despite numerous cataclysms which have befallen it over the aeons. Even though carbon dioxide might cause a short term global warming catastrophe, in the long run, it is our eternal friend. Mother Earth is a tough old bitch. Don't underestimate her resilience. For example, she was completely covered in ice 700 million years ago, but the volcanoes just kept belching out °84 Brockter, Louise. Ice Volcanism on Jupiter's Moons and Beyond. Compiled in Lopes, Rosaly M C; Gregg, Tracy K P. Volcanic Worlds: Exploring the Solar System's Volcanoes. 2004, Praxis Publishing, Chichester, UK; with SpringerVerlag, Berlin & Heidelberg, Germany, p 154-159 85 Walker, J CG. Hays, P B; Kasting, J F. A Negative Feedback Mechanism for the Long-Term Stabilization of Earth's Surface Temperature. 1981, Journal of Geophysics Research 86, p 9776-9782 °86 7ubay, Geoffrey. Origins of Life on the Earth and in the Cosmos, 2” Ed. 2000, Academic Press, a Harcourt Science and Technology Company, San Diego,

CA, p 74-75 285

more carbon dioxide until she warmed up. Because everything was ice, there was no rain, and therefore no erosion, and therefore no rocks were broken up to absorb the carbon dioxide. So the carbon dioxide just kept building up until earth got warm again. The realization that earth has a carbon thermostat gives us more hope for finding life on other planets. It expands the distance a planet can be from its star and still have a suitable temperature. Just as the thermostat on your wall allows you, a tropical ape, to build a house in Alaska and survive; so too, nature's thermostat might allow extraterrestrial intelligence to abound in places we might not expect it. Hence, a planet's ability to sustain liquid water, and ultimately its life-giving potential is not as dependent upon the distance to its star as one might think. Depending on atmospheric content regulators, carbon dioxide can bring an otherwise frigid planet within a suitable temperature range, and keep it there, thanks to the thermostat. A planet more distant from its star than earth may still yield life if it has more greenhouse gases. One planet's pollution is another planet's lifeblood. Since the frequency of carbon dioxide in the universe is high, thanks to the ubiquitous presence of volcanoes, expectations for finding life elsewhere in the universe should also be high.

Tilt Earth spins on an axis that runs from the North Pole to the South Pole. This axis is tilted 23 degrees relative to the sun. Axial tilt is "the reason for the season," as they say at Christmas. About Christmastime, the most intense sunbeams hit earth at the Tropic of Capricorn, which runs across northern Australia. On June 21, they hit the Tropic of Cancer, just south of Florida. What would happen if instead of 23 degrees, the axial tilt were 45 degrees? At Christmastime, the South Pole would theoretically be as warm as the equator, but Christmas in Los Angeles would feel like Siberia! The more the tilt, the more extreme the winters. This is a problem, because it constricts life to the tropics, and

increases the likelihood that the planet will slip into a downward spiral of glaciation, whereby heat is reflected by the white snow back into space, the planet cools, and becomes one big snowball. What would happen if instead of 23 degrees there was no tilt? We need only to look at Mercury, which spins at zero degrees relative to the sun. Mercury's equator is seething hot, but its poles are frozen. Without tilt, the poles never receive direct sunlight, and so they freeze. Worse, they freeze all water vapor that the wind blows across them, and this increases the chances of atmospheric freeze out, similar to the planets in tidal lock 286

believed to orbit brown dwarfs. In time, the oceans would all evaporate only to fall as snow on the poles, never to melt. Too little tilt, and irreversible ice ages result. The same is true of too much tilt. Therefore, a planet with life should have moderate tilt.

can the growth of polar ice caps be checked.

Only then

Earth's 23 degree tilt is a

deciding factor, because it distributes warmth across the planet evenly,

thus reducing the chances of atmospheric The next question is, how common planets in the universe have this tilt, or own solar system gives us a good idea. an acceptable range. Mars spins at 25

and oceanic freeze out. is a favorable tilt? Do many are we lucky? Looking at our Of nine planets, four are within degrees, Saturn at 27 degrees,

Neptune at 28 degrees, and Earth at 23 degrees. Of course, Mars, Saturn,

and Neptune cannot have intelligent life for other reasons, but the point here is that tilt is not the cause of their lifelessness.

Thus, a tilt that is

favorable to life is normal, not unique. All the other planets can be explained as abnormal. Mercury is gravitationally tied to the sun, so its tilt is zero. Jupiter is nearly zero also, probably because it is so large that nothing was big enough to knock it off kilter as it was being formed. Uranus spins at 98 degrees, which may be caused by interactions with its larger neighbors. Venus and Pluto are said to spin "backwards," at 177 and 122 degrees respectively, probably because in their early years they got hit with other planets so hard that they got knocked upside down; in Pluto's case, it has a large moon,

Charon, to account for the damage.

Creationists love to point to Venus and Pluto and say, "Why are they spinning backwards? If the solar system formed as a spinning disk of gas and debris, everything should be spinning the same direction. Nothing should be spinning backwards, unless God did it." This is nonsense. They are not spinning "backwards." They only appear to be, because they got knocked upside down by large planetary bodies as they were forming from that cloud of spinning gas and debris.

The Moon Earth has a large moon for its size. The large size of the moon keeps the winds low, stabilizes our tilt, and enriches the ocean with nutrients

because of the tides. This is all good for complex life.”*’ There is no particular reason to believe that the moon is unique. While it is true that the moon is large relative to the earth's size, we must 987 Ward, Peter D; Brownlee, Donald. Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe. 2000, Copernicus, Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, p 223

287

ask, relative to what?

The moons of the gas giants?

Granted, the moons

of the gas giants, such as those of Jupiter and Saturn, are proportionately smaller compared to their planets. But why is that? Is it because we got lucky with a large moon? Or is it because the gas giants are made of gas? While the gas giants were forming, the planetismals that formed in their proto-planetary disk smashed into each other, thereby expelling their lighter-than-air helium and hydrogen, such that the larger of the colliding objects inherited most all their gas. Hence, huge planets formed, hogging most of the gas. The leftovers of the planet-forming process were small, gas-deprived, rock moons. In contrast, the planetismals from the proto-planetary disks of inner planets formed from more solid material, and so when their planetismals collided, some of the smaller planetismals survived as large moons, since

their structure was more solid and less gas, and therefore less likely to be stolen by the gravity of the larger planet. Hence, it is not surprising that our moon is so large. Even in our own solar system, our moon is not alone. Pluto's moon, Charon, is even more disproportionately large compared to its planet. Also Venus has a slow rotation possibly because it collided with a moon it once had. It is possible that Mars might have grown larger, and have larger moons, if the mass of giant Jupiter had not sucked away a great deal of loose material from it, and from the asteroid belt.

In fact, we

might even have had three earth-like planets in this solar system if it weren't for Jupiter sucking up their material — Earth, Mars, and the failed planet represented by the asteroid belt.”** A large moon might or might not be essential, but in any case, there is no particular reason to suppose it is rare. At a minimum, Pluto and earth have one. At a maximum, all the terrestrial planets except Mercury could have had one. Shouldn't we

consider the odds elsewhere to be likewise rather favorable?

Density and Rotation Earth has a density of 5.5 grams per cubic centimeter. Hardly unique, this density is common for inner planets. Venus' density is almost the same at 5.2 g/cm’ and Mercury's density is even closer at 5.4

are Ward, Peter D; Brownlee, Donald.

ibid, p 234-236

288

g/cm.” Therefore, as a prerequisite for life, density requirements are most likely frequently met throughout the universe. High densities such as these indicate an iron core, which together with the speed of rotation give the planet a magnetic field. The magnetic field gives it the ability to fend off the devastating effects of certain kinds of radiation.””” Earth is not unique in rotation speed. Although lacking in other respects, Mercury also meets this prerequisite. Venus might have done so too, if not for the collision earlier in its history. Mars spins fast enough but doesn't have enough iron. So, of the planets in the inner ring of our solar system, three out of four have a favorable rotation speed, three out of four have a favorable density, and two out of four, Mercury and earth, have both. In a Galaxy with 200 billion stars, two out of four is damn good odds.

Gas Giant Meteor Shield It is sometimes argued that a gas giant such as Jupiter is a prerequisite for life because it absorbs meteors and comets that would otherwise strike us. Driving this argument is the assumption that extraterrestrial collisions are detrimental to evolutionary progress. Is this assumption correct? Earth has suffered many collisions throughout its history, but only one has been so devastating that it significantly impacted evolutionary progress — and this impact was favorable — namely, the collision that killed the dinosaurs. The dinosaur extinction stands apart from other extinctions because of its abruptness. Other major extinctions, such as the Permian-Triassic extinction, which was actually even more devastating, happened over longer periods of time, and although comparatively fast in geological terms, were by no means immediate, and thus could not have been caused by a collision. Truly devastating collisions are extremely infrequent. Moreover, it only took 10 million years for life to substantially rediversify after the dinosaur extinction, and this turned out to be a good

thing for intelligent life, because humans would not exist otherwise. Hence, it seems that meteor and comet strikes do not annihilate all life

from a planet, but rather just make room for different life, which in terms of evolutionary progress, is probably a favorable event, not unfavorable. Meteor impacts are like hitting the reset button — you don't want to do it °8° Zubay, Geoffrey. Origins of Life on the Earth and in the Cosmos, 2” Ed. 2000, Academic Press, a Harcourt Science and Technology Company, San Diego, CA, p 48

° Dubay, Geoffrey. ibid, p 72

289

too often, but every once in a while it is necessary to hit it when evolutionary progress freezes. Such was the case with the dinosaurs, because they had made life in the trees impossible for anything with opposable thumbs. Gas giants are likely to exist in other solar systems, because the same laws of physics apply to other solar systems as to our own. Heavy material sinks toward a source of gravity, and that is why stars close to the sun like Mercury, Venus, and earth contain a lot of heavy material like iron and silicon. Lighter material stays afloat, which is why the outer planets are comprised of hydrogen and helium and other light elements. The outer planets are gas "giants" because their gas is not compacted into a small space like the solid rocks of earth, but is swirling around in large clouds. Since these planets result from normal physical processes which we should expect to see elsewhere, we should not consider the presence of a gas giant such as Jupiter to be unique. Rather, we should expect to see billions of similar gas giants in solar systems throughout the universe. Indeed, as mentioned above, large planets are already observed in other solar systems.

Life without Gods or Aliens The discerning soul may question my logic, asking if perverted space alien gods caused evolution on earth, then who or what caused the evolution of the alien gods? First, I do not suppose that evolution is dependent upon divine or extraterrestrial intervention. To be sure, the alien gods have impacted the course of evolution on earth, but this is not the same as saying evolution is impossible without them. They have not systematically engineered evolutionary advancements. They have merely interfered because of their lustful curiosities and bizarre fetishes, and perhaps occasionally because of a desire to experiment with some kind of new form. On the first planet to host intelligent life, there were no gods to interfere, because the gods had not evolved yet. This could mean that there was no Cambrian Explosion on such a planet, or that new forms appeared more gradually than they did on earth. However, this does not mean that no evolution took place. Darwin's theory of natural selection is a proven fact, and although it cannot explain the sudden origins of some forms in earth's fossil record, this does not negate the force of Darwin's theory when applying it to life on earlier planets, nor, for that matter, on earth. Before the Cambrian Explosion, highly complex eukaryotic cells had already evolved on earth, and there is no particular evidence to support 290

that space alien gods had anything to do with it. Also, certain sponges and Pre-Cambrian species of a quasi-complex nature predate the Cambrian Explosion. Therefore, if undisturbed evolution left in its natural state mirrors that of the Pre-Cambrian, and if such life progressed on a planet without divine or extraterrestrial interference, then there is no particular reason to believe that such a planet would have been incapable of producing intelligent life. We might say that there would have been less diversity among life forms, for there was no extraterrestrial tampering, and therefore we may suppose there were only a couple of animal phyla on the planet, not 20 phyla as were produced during the Cambrian Explosion on earth. Nonetheless, a lack of diversity is not the same as lack of intelligence, and there is no reason to suppose that given enough time, another planet could not have developed intelligent life despite lacking the diversity of forms found on earth. Perhaps the gods never evolved beyond the phylum of sponges, and gradually grew sponge-like hands to grip tree limbs and tools, and developed sponge brains to use those tools to create an interstellar civilization. A plethora of diverse phyla is not a prerequisite to intelligence. The gods might be sponges.

201

¢

24

°

We Are Not Alone

Have We Been Visited?

If the first intelligent alien species of the Galaxy evolved 6 billion years ago, as we have demonstrated is a likely approximation, then how long would it take them before they discovered us? Assuming the aliens originated in the most remote region of the Galaxy, in the farthest corner away from earth, they would be approximately 73,000 light years away. This

is a distance

of 411,503,775,886,980,000

miles,

which

is 411

million billions of miles. A jet airplane traveling four times the speed of sound could accomplish this distance in 16 billion years. Much faster is our own 1970's vintage space probe, Voyager. Launched in 1977, Voyager has broken through our sun's gravitational pull and is destined to travel deep space until the sun freezes over — or until some space alien intercepts it and learns to dance the boogie woogie from the oldies music on Voyager's phonograph "Golden Record." Careening through space at approximately 38,000 miles per hour,” Voyager will travel 73,000 light years in 1.24 billion years, provided it suffers no obstructions. Likewise, space aliens could reach our planet in just 1.24 billion years, using nothing but 1970's technology. Assuming they evolved 6 billion years ago, this means that they arrived in our solar system approximately 4 '% billion years ago. At that time, earth was just beginning to form. But let's say that the aliens paused for 10,000 years every 10 light years, in order to build a civilization on a suitable planet, which after 10,000 years would become so overpopulated that they would be forced to move on. Even then, the number is not much different, standing at 1.30 billion years. This is not based on the assumption that they made a beeline for us; rather, it is based on the assumption that they expanded in all directions from their point of origin, and that we are one of many planets they could have visited within their radius of origin, which enlarged as they traveled in deep space, stopping

**! Voyager, the Interstellar Mission. 2007, NASA. Datum was downloaded on November 28, 2007 from http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/interstellar.html; Andrea Angrum, site manager; Enrique Medina, webmaster.

292

every few light years, and pausing until overpopulation of suitable planets forced them to keep expanding. The Galaxy itself is 100,000 light years in diameter. Using these same numbers, the colonization of the entire Galaxy, just by using 1970's technology, should take no longer than 1.8 billion years. It could have happened even more quickly. We could get to Alpha Centauri, the star closest to the sun, with much greater speed, in just 20,000 years, if we used the gravity of a planet to "slingshot" spaceships toward the foreign star.’ Using gravity as a slingshot would greatly enhance the speed at which we could travel. Using this technique, it would allow us to colonize the entire Galaxy in just 565 million years — this number still allowing for 100 million years of down time during which aliens enjoy colonizing suitable solar systems until they become so overpopulated that they must move on. This technology is just outside our current capabilities. If stupid apes like us can achieve it, how much more efficient would the big-headed aliens be? By putting these observations together, we can construct a hypothetical history of life in the universe. The universe was formed 13.7 billion years ago. The first life-sustainable solar systems were formed between 13 and 11 billion years ago. Since intelligent life evolved on earth within 5 billion years, it should do so at least as fast on other planets, and the fastest among them was probably even faster. Therefore, the first intelligent species emerged no later than 6 billion years ago. This species and its descendent species would have colonized the entire Galaxy within 1.8 billion years. Thus, by 4.2 billion years ago, the entire Galaxy was likely populated with space aliens. This is likely the latest it could have happened. Hence, space aliens permeated the Galaxy before life even appeared on earth. They have been with our planet since the beginning, and have played God with us since the beginning. At this point, evolutionary science and religion should stop their bickering and just get married, because the gods are real, and they are the product of evolution.

The Fuel of Space Travel But where would the aliens get the fuel for such long interstellar journeys? How light and compact would the fuel need to be in order to make the journey on a single "tank of gas," so to speak? After all, you can't refuel while you are inbetween stars, so you need to carry a very °° wczel, Amir D. Probability 1: Why There Must Be Intelligent Life in the Universe.

1998, Harcourt Brace & Co, Orlando, Florida, p 30

293

large amount of fuel with you. To be feasible, the fuel must either be extremely light or pack one heck of a power punch. The fuel needed would be the hydrogen isotope deuterium, and the process to burn it would be nuclear fusion. _ According to nuclear scientist Freidberg, "It would take only about a pickup truck full of deuterium laced ocean water to power Boston for a year."”” This is a perfect fuel. Not only does it provide 96 million MJ per kilogram, roughly 2.4 million times the energy provided by the same amount of gasoline,” it also occurs in plentiful amounts throughout the universe. Water in one form or another is known to exist not only on earth, but also on comets, Uranus, Neptune, maybe Mars, and several moons of the gas giant planets of our own solar system. Recently, water in steam form has even been spotted on planets outside our solar system. Just 30 light years away from earth, there is a planet with the same mass as earth which is known to be comprised almost entirely of water. It is much closer to its sun than earth is, ensuring gaseous form on the surface.” Therefore, water must be a cheap and easy commodity on the intra-Galactic market. The fuel required for a nuclear fusion powered space ship is commonly available, very cheap, and packs a power punch powerful enough to justify carrying its weight around in a gas tank for thousands of years while traveling through deep space. But there's a catch. The large size and weight of a nuclear fusion reactor makes it a cumbersome contraption to fly through space. The plasma reaction chamber needs to be 400 cubic meters in order to harvest the energy generated by nuclear fusion. Around the reactor is a complex layering of shields, blankets, coils, and steel filters about 4 feet thick,

together with heavy magnets and a thick steel casing.” The entire contraption is as large as a house or bigger. Adding to the weight of the craft, there must also be a thick shield around the entire perimeter, composed of layers of lead, reflecting materials, and vacuum

chambers, in order to keep the craft warm and

safe from radiation. All this makes for one whale of a spaceship.

*” Ereidberg, Jeffrey. Plasma Physics and Fusion Energy. 2007, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, p 16

4 Ereidberg, Jeffrey. ibid, p 22-24, 27

**° University of Liege. Astronomers Detect Shadow of Water World in Front of Nearby Star. 2007, ScienceDaily, downloaded Sep 20, 2008, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070516151053.htm

”*° Ereidberg, Jeffrey. Plasma Physics and Fusion Energy. 2007, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, p 87-105

294

Genocide But even if other intelligence evolved before us, why would space aliens come here? Why not stay comfortable on their home planet? Deep space travel is a tough life. Quarters are cramped and cold for thousands of years. Everything has to be recycled. Interstellar travelers would have no choice but to eat mushrooms growing on their own excrement, and chemically synthesized food derived from the dead bodies of their comrades. No wonder the aliens are putrid, green, and feeble-looking. Worse, the cost of the project would be astronomical — no pun intended. Given such conditions, why would anyone want to live in deep space? Answer: To escape genocide. Interstellar space travel is inevitable, because genocide will eventually always force certain subgroups of intelligent species to depart from their home planet. Genocide is the drumbeat to which so-called evolutionary progress marches. The whole of natural history is nothing but an endless saga of brutal savagery and mass-murder. Cambrian creatures committed genocide against Ediacaran creatures 550 million years ago, jawed fish committed genocide against the non-jawed fish 350 million years ago, early reptiles committed genocide against amphibians 250 million years ago, and the dinosaurs committed genocide against everybody 150 million years ago. Humans are no better. The Romans committed genocide against the Helvetians, the Mongols against the Arabs, and the Europeans against the Native Americans. Just in the past century, the Turks committed genocide against the Armenians, the Germans against the Jews and Slavs, the Communists

against the Cambodians, the Hutu's against the

Tutsi's, and the North Sudanese against South Sudan and Darfur. Someday, a one-world economy will demand a one-world governing system, and sooner or later that government will fall into the hands of a bloody tyrant who will spare no enemy. Then what will the victims of genocide do? They will have no choice but to blast off toward another planet, no matter what the cost, and no matter how uncomfortable the journey. If it can happen on earth, it has already happened elsewhere in the Galaxy. Among the prey, those who flee survive. Among intelligent species, those who flee and survive are those who fly away to new planets. The first deep space travelers were not brave pioneers. Rather, they were refugees who were driven from home by acts of genocide perpetrated against them.

295

The brutal reality of survival of the fittest is genocide. The essence of evolution is the complete extermination of certain genes from the gene pool. This is a universal law that holds true for all time without regard to intelligence or technological advancement. The same law has continually applied to all, from the smallest bacteria to the largest dinosaur, from the stupidest birdbrain to the smartest human, and from

the smartest human to the smartest alien space god. We are all children of the same Mother Nature, who gleefully watches her children rip each other's heads off and eat each other in barbaric acts of genocide. Genocide is easily rationalized — it's a matter of your own tribe or nation destroying some other tribe or nation to garner the resources that used to belong to them. Genocide is not psychotic, nor is it crazy. Genocide is just the normal course of business. Darwin expressed his satisfaction with survival of the fittest, closing his masterpiece with the words, There is grandeur in this view of life... endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”

Together with his belief in a Creator God,”® it was the most evil statement Darwin ever made. Darwin's science was good, but his God was the demiurge! To say evolution happens is one thing, but to say it is good is quite another. The first is objective, the second subjective. The first is fact, the second is belief. The first belongs in the classroom, the second doesn't. The first is sound science, but the second is a religion that worships Mother Nature and trivializes genocide.

Why Haven't the Aliens Committed Genocide Against Us? We have all been to the movies. Hollywood assumes that space aliens would try to kill us to take over our planet's resources for themselves. But what if we don't compete for the same resources? What if we can peacefully coexist because we occupy different ecological niches? Why would they need to steal our farmland if they can artificially synthesize food? Why would they steal our oil and gas if they use nuclear fusion for energy? Unless they needed to steal resources from us, there is no particular reason to perpetrate a holocaust against us.

**” Darwin, Charles. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection.

1859, p 490 *°8 Darwin, Charles. ibid, p 488

296

Seeing that they don't need our resources, they leave us alone. They merely abduct a few of us to satisfy their occasional sexual curiosities and breeding innovations, and this they do merely for their own purposes — not to advance

human

evolution, but rather to advance

their own

genetic properties by means of genetic engineering, to which end our DNA occasionally proves useful. Why should they care about our evolution? It makes much more sense that they are perpetrating sexual encounters with us to further the cause of their own evolution. Why invade earth when everything you need is in your space ship? If the aliens have been living in deep space for billions of years, not being on a planet, then they are adapted to that lifestyle, and have no Staying in the space ship has certain need of living on a planet. advantages: A space ship can dodge asteroids and meteors, but a planet cannot; a space ship does not suffer from unpredictable natural disasters like a planet does; a space ship may have better temperature controls than a planet; planets may be home to potentially harmful microbes that could devastate alien populations. Also, life on neighboring planetary bodies provides a gene pool from which the aliens can draw, for the purpose of genetically engineering certain useful life forms that they don't already have in their menagerie of alien slave species. If they invaded earth, they might cause contamination of this asset. For these reasons, our alien neighbors may actually prefer to remain in space rather than invade us. Therefore, the aliens don't kill us because they don't compete with us for the same resources. When the Europeans colonized the Americas, they did not exterminate the earthworms of America. Instead, they subdued members of their own species, the American Indians, and they

did this because they competed with the Indians for the same resources. Likewise, we should not necessarily expect space aliens to destroy us. Rather, we should expect them to destroy other space aliens, because they compete with other space aliens more than they compete with us. There is war among the gods, and we are but earthworms on the battlefield, who remain oblivious inside our burrows, relatively safe from the hellish warfare in the heavens. They have been around for so many billions of years that by now the first intelligent species has diverged into many different species entirely dissimilar to each other, to such a great degree that different groups of aliens don't even regard each other as "human," but rather merely see each other as animals to be slaughtered and eaten. They feel no

commonality nor brotherhood as members of the same species, for they are not closely related, and for this reason we should expect that wars 297

among them are even more barbaric and ruthless than the wars among humans.

Endless War It is easy to see how a single government might dominate a planet. Modern communications have recently made it quite plausible. But can a single government dominate an entire Galaxy? Probably not. The transportation of large numbers of imperial storm troopers across the Galaxy would be an exercise in futility because of the time it takes to travel in deep space. Sci-fi enthusiasts dream of traveling at light speed, but even if this were possible, it is not workable, because a spaceship would undoubtedly blow up even upon the slightest impact with a dust particle. Like overdriving your headlights at night, going light speed overdrives radar, and so you cannot see obstacles until it is too late. To travel safely, one must travel slowly. In a Galaxy 100,000 light years across, travel is necessarily very slow. Besides the travel complications, communications infrastructures will forever be too weak to sustain a Galactic Empire. Interstellar communications, even when traveling at the speed of light, take years to reach even the closest neighboring star. To permeate the entire Galaxy, a communication must travel 100,000 light years. Imagine paying your taxes electronically when they can't even receive your electronic payment for 100,000 years. If you skipped town, or skipped planet as it were, the taxman would be none the wiser.

You would have 100,000

years of free tax evasion. Now imagine a whole planet defaulting on its taxes, or rebelling against a Galactic Empire. By the time the imperial storm troopers arrived, the reasons for the conflict would have become superfluous. It's analogous to the American Revolution if the Atlantic Ocean were several thousand times wider than it is. By the time the first British redcoat musketeers arrived to subdue the rebellious colonies, America would have already discovered the A-Bomb and become Britain's ally in World War II. Therefore, a Galactic Empire is not workable because of travel and communications limitations in interstellar space. Alien governments are probably limited to single solar systems or at best neighborhoods of solar systems. No government, therefore, will ever establish complete control of the Galaxy. Consequently, there will always be wars between rival nations of intelligent species as they compete for various ecological niches. Also, rogues and rebels will forever thrive throughout the Galaxy, because they cannot be apprehended when communication infrastructures between law enforcement agencies are weak. In a world 298

where

social

security

numbers,

driver's

licenses,

references,

and

background checks take light years to verify, no interplanetary government can ever become the all-seeing eye that is stamped on the back of the $1 dollar bill. Big Brother might achieve omniscience here on earth, but cannot do so across an entire Galaxy.

But the sci-fi enthusiast might contest, what about warp zones via worm holes? Couldn't they improve communications infrastructure? Worm holes are one of the most excitable subjects in science fiction. Based on a hypothetical break in the space-time continuum, they are more fiction than science, because they presuppose that it is somehow possible to go into a black hole and come out of a white hole intact — a fantasy that is rendered impossible by the simple fact that the immense gravity of a black hole destroys everything it sucks in. So there is no Galactic Empire. There is no space alien God who can govern the Galaxy with absolute power. There is no Almighty God. Rather, there is eternal war among the gods.

From the Mouth of the Gods The gods themselves confirm that they are creatures given over to violence. The Bhagavad Gita is among the most sacred holy texts of the Hindu faith. It allegedly contains the divine words of the god Krishna, who is the most widely loved of all the Hindu gods. The text opens with a battle scene in which the disciple of Krishna, whose name is Arjuna, carries a battle banner with the image of an ape upon it.”” This is quite fitting, for if the Bhagavad Gita is truly extraterrestrially or "divinely" inspired, then perhaps the god Krishna was dropping a hint that we are descended from apes. In this opening scene, the god Krishna explains the moral justification for killing people in warfare — a practice that Krishna enthusiastically endorsed. From the very beginning, the Bhagavad Gita makes clear that Krishna is a god of war. Our first picture of Krishna places him at the head of an army, in a chariot, and blowing a battle trumpet.'°°° Arjuna beseeches Krishna as a god of war, asking him, "Guide my chariot, immortal Krishna, and position it between the two armies.""°"' Krishna immediately heeds his disciples' request, driving his chariot into the fray.'°°* Then Arjuna has a moment of doubt. He says, °°” Bhagavad Gita 1:20

1000 Bhagavad Gita 1:14 1001 Bhagavad Gita 1:21 1002 Bhagavad Gita 1:24

299

I don't see anything good coming from killing my own brethren in battle... how does their death accomplish anything for us?... What sort of evil spirit has possessed us to kill our own people in battle for the sake of an earthly kingdom?!” Krishna responds,

Strong people don't feel remorse like that, Arjuna. neither heaven nor earth.'°”

It wins you

Krishna then explains that warfare is morally permissible, because the people you kill in war will just get reincarnated anyway, so, Start the battle, great warrior... for this war opens the gates of heaven. Blessed are the warriors who fight this war, but if you don't fight, if you forsake your obligation and your honor, then you will fall into sin...'°°° I came here to kill these people... so get up, win the victory, and vanquish your foe...'°°° Clearly, Krishna is a god of war. Indeed, he was a Hindu jihadist! Theologians like Gandhi later reinterpreted Krishna's words into a message of non-violence, but if you read the Gita for what it actually says, it is anything but non-violent. Gandhi's pacifist tendencies actually did not come from Hinduism at all, but from his Jainist upbringing. Jainism is a different religion. Interestingly, its symbol is the swastika. In such manner the gods devise ways to mock humanity through the centuries, for they gave the swastika as a symbol for non-violence, then gave the violent Nazi movement the same symbol. Before Krishna, the Hindus worshipped a different system of deities, chief of whom was a violent god named Indra. Indra was believed to have slain the primordial monster and created the world from its blood and guts, much the same way the Babylonian god Marduk allegedly did as recorded in Enuma Elish. He is called "conquering Indra,"!°’ "strong

103 1004 1095 1006 1007

Bhagavad Gita 1:31,36,45 Bhagavad Gita 2:2 Bhagavad Gita 2:18,32-33 Bhagavad Gita 11:32-33 Rig Veda 1.23.9 300

‘ jaws," 1008

1 "thunder-armed,"!°

. "celebrated — warrior,"! °! "all conquering,"’”'! "the plunderer in the battles of warriors," and he is invoked "to conquer all our enemies in battle,"'°'? and to make us wealthy by "bringing the plunder" to us, and he rides war horses "daring to grab the booty."!°!? It is said of Indra, "Choked by your hand, your enemies were slain, and they lie stabbed and gory in the abyss of death."'°'* He is also said to be "angry in spirit,"'°'° and armies "cannot win without his help."!°'® Indra is also repeatedly associated with the consumption of a narcotic herb called Soma that brings "wild delight" and helps him kill the dragon.’"'’ Indra is said to lead an army of 159,000. He has overthrown the regimes of 20 kings, destroyed 99 castles, razed 7 forts, butchered 99 cloud demons, and he has killed Ahi, Rauhina, Vyamsa, Dasas, and the Dasyus.'°!

Two other Vedic gods, Varuna and Agni, are also gods of war. Called "Lord of the warrior's strength," Varuna is associated with chariots.'°'? Of Agni, it is said he "kills many in war by the hands of few,"° and, "he butchers demons like an axe,"!™! and puts on "a suit of

armor for war."!°7

Sell Your Clothes and Buy a Weapon In terms of shear violence, Jesus Christ is hard pressed to follow this act. Yet the same Jesus who said "Turn the other cheek"'”” also said "If you don't own a weapon, sell your clothes and buy one."!°** He said this in the context of going on a journey,

1008 1009 1010 1011

Rig Rig Rig Rig

Veda Veda Veda Veda

1.29.2 1.80.14 1.102.3 2.41.10

ina Rig Veda 1.8.3

1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024

Rig Veda 1.102.5, 1.81.3, 1.174.4, 2.12.3 Rig Veda 1.133.1 Rig Veda 1.173.11 Rig Veda 2.12.8-9 Rig Veda 1.85.7-10, 2.15.1 Rig Veda 1.53.9, 1.54.6, 1.84.13, 1.103, 1.130.4, 1.174.2, 2.19.6 Rig Veda 1.25.3-5 Rig Veda 1.31.7 Rig Veda 1.127.3 Rig Veda 1.140.10 | uke 6:29, Matthew 5:39 | uke 22:36 301

Jesus said, "Take nothing for the journey except a big stick. No paper, no food, and no money in your bag. Wear sandals, and don't take a change of clothes"... And when the Apostles returned he asked, "Did you lack anything?" "No," they replied. Jesus continued, "Next time, if you don't own a weapon, sell your clothes and buy one."!°” This squares with what Hippolytus said about the Essenes, When the Essenes weapons.

go on a journey, they carry nothing but

The seemingly contradictory sayings of "turn the other cheek" and "carry a weapon" are actually part of a clever and very natural survival strategy. One may observe certain animals in the wild, such as bears, bull moose,

and wildcats; although they are quite powerful and well endowed with natural weaponry, they tend to stay away from potentially hostile creatures. When a human walks into their territory, they "turn the other cheek," so to speak, because they leave and go hide somewhere else. They do not fight merely out of pride, nor do they fight for the wealth of resources on the land from which they are driven. However, they will fight when personally threatened, and they will win, because nature has armed them well with fangs, claws, and horns. Jesus Christ apparently recommended this survival strategy, for he instructed his followers never to fight for pride, nor to carry any wealth, yet to still have a weapon. This doctrine is for the purpose of survival, according to the universal law of survival of the fittest, for when you avoid fights yet still maintain formidable weaponry, then you are the most likely of anyone to survive.

Allahu Akbar Mohamed conquered in the name of a god called Allah, from whom he received revelations. The Islamic holy book, the Qur'an, contains these revelations. The following quotes from the Qur'an reveal Allah's hawkish nature:

1025 Mark 6:8-9, Luke 9:3, 22:35-36, Matthew 10:9-10

'6 Hippolytus. The Refutation of All Heresies 9:15 302

I (Allah) will terrorize the infidel. Smite them on the back of the neck and cut off their fingertips...'°°’ If they rebel, seize them and kill them wherever you find them.'°8 Yet the Qur'an sounds more peaceable elsewhere:

Fight for Allah's cause against those who fight you, but don't transgress the limits...'°°? Terrorize the enemy... but if the enemy is peaceably inclined, then you should also be peaceably

inclined.'”*

Far from being a blind ideology of hate, as some violence has a limit.

depict it, Islamic

A wise god will chose his battles carefully, for he

cannot fight everyone all the time. Therefore, Allah gives the command to "fight those who fight you," not necessarily fight everyone. This is indeed what we should expect from a god who understands survival of the fittest, for everyone must fight to survive, or at least terrorize the enemy enough to dissuade an attack. Yet when there is no threat, there is no reason to jeopardize your own survival by picking a fight — hence the command to be "peaceably inclined." Allah's philosophy on war and terrorism is entirely consistent with what we should expect from a space alien god who lives according to the law of survival of the fittest. That Allah is a real god is demonstrated by the large number of marvelous numerological oddities regarding the number 19 in the Qur'an, and this fact is regularly used by Islamic evangelists to persuade wouldbe converts. However, the number 19 does not prove Allah is God Almighty; rather, it only proves Allah is associated with the moon, for 19 is the ancient occult number of the moon, because it takes 19 years for the lunar calendar to complete a cycle of synchronization with the solar calendar. Allah was the name of the Arab moon god prior to Mohamed, and Islam still sports the crescent moon as a symbol of the faith. Insofar as there exists considerable evidence for intelligent habitation of the moon,'°*’ the real existence of Allah as a space alien god is quite

plausible.

1027 Qur'an 8:12

1028 Qur'an 4:89, 2:191, 9:5 1029 Qur'an 2:190

103° Qur'an 8:60-61 1031 Marrs, Jim. Alien Agenda: Investigating the Extraterrestrial Presence Among Us. 1997, HarperCollins Publishers, New York, NY, p 1-38 303

Buddha Yet wasn't at least Buddha a god of peace? school of Buddhists, the Theravadin

Actually, the earliest

school, considered

him to be a

mortal man, who was "enlightened" over and above the gods. Buddha, being a mere mortal descended from apes, presented his own enlightenment as something that was greater than the gods. He paid for this with his life. Buddha died of a digestive problem.'°’ Interestingly, four bad guys of the Bible also died the same way. Herod the Great tried to kill the baby Jesus, and his reward was worms at both ends — his breath stank and his penis had worms living in it. Antiochus IV smeared pigs' blood all over the Jewish sanctuary and demanded people worship him as God. He got a bad case of intestinal worms and died confessing, "It is not right for mortals to assume the titles of gods." King Jehoram murdered his brothers, and so the Prophet cursed him, and he died of intestinal worms. Another Herod killed Saint James the Tall, and was struck with intestinal

worms.'”*’ Eusebius’ history recorded ten years of persecution, which was the most grievous holocaust the Roman Empire ever inflicted against Christians. At the end of it, the emperor who perpetrated it died of intestinal worms. On one occasion, the emperor had sent pimps to abduct a Christian woman, so that he could rape her. Like Herod, the worms eventually swarmed inside his penis.'°** Therefore, the gods exact vengeance upon presumptuous humans who attempt to usurp their authority. Intestinal worms is one signature of their vengeance.

'°? skilton, Andrew. A Concise History of Buddhism. 1994, Windhorse Publications, Birmingham, UK, 2000, Barnes & Noble, p 80, 74, 19-24

'83 Josephus 17.6.5, Acts 12:23, 2 Chronicles 21:15-19, 24 Maccabees 9:5-12 '4 Eusebius. History of the Church 8:16 304

ae

Of Gods and Mortals

Where Are the Gods? If the universe is filled with space alien gods, then where are they? Why don't we see them on a regular basis? Some might argue that we do see them in flying saucers and during abductions. But if that is true, then why don't they reveal some of the mystery about themselves? The answer probably resides in the fact that they don't want to reveal the mystery. They have played God with us forever, and they would just as soon continue the game. Why not continue the Why stop now? mysteries of the paranormal? Information is power, and so why should they give us power by yielding information about themselves?

Evolution Is Caused by Failures in Laboratory Security The history of evolution on earth may hold the answer for why the aliens

are

so

secretive.

As

demonstrated

earlier, there

have

been

inexplicable sudden appearances of diverse new body plans at certain periods of earth's history, and inexplicable movements of species across oceans. But these events do not seem to have the markings of a welldesigned plan that has been effected down through the ages. Events like the Cambrian Explosion, the rapid evolution of snakes and birds, and the sudden appearance of seals and turtles — these rapid evolutionary events are spaced so haphazardly across such great stretches of time, that it is unlikely they are part a premeditated plan of extraterrestrial guidance across all time. Thus, the bulk of alien involvement in earth's evolutionary history was

not premeditated;

rather, it was

accidental,

temporal,

and non-

directional. It was not intelligent design; rather, it was intelligent interference. A logical hypothesis, therefore, is that the aliens did not create or design new forms to put on earth. Rather, they designed new forms for themselves, and occasionally they accidentally leaked DNA from their genetic engineering laboratories, which unintentionally came to earth. 305

From the aliens’ perspective, why should they care about the course of evolution on earth? Is there any profit in it for them? If not, then why should they try to influence it? If aliens have a stake in the genetic engineering of new forms, it would be in the genetic engineering of themselves, in order to improve themselves, or to diversify themselves in order to fulfill different tasks, or to create subordinate slave species to assist them. They have no reason to cause genetic engineering on earth. Hence, they don't intentionally do so. However, if some forms on earth occasionally produce a DNA sequence they find useful, they may abduct the individual who carries the DNA sequence, and copy that individual's DNA for usage in their own laboratories, for the improvement of their own species.

The aliens, in

essence, create hybrid alien-earthling DNA. Occasionally, every once in a long while, one of the hybrid DNA strings accidentally finds its way back into earth's general population, and breeds with other members of the original species, thus interjecting a new and nearly functional DNA sequence into the gene pool, which is adjusted by means of natural selection to produce a fully functional new form. If several such events occur within a lineage in rapid succession, we have an explanation for the sudden appearance of new forms. Thus, DNA leakage from the genetic engineering laboratories of aliens may very well be the reason for the abnormally sudden appearances of new forms that paleontologists regularly observe in the fossil record. The rich biodiversity of earth, therefore, is made possible because we are the accidental DNA dumpster of space aliens.

Enochian Reprobates What causes such breaches of security in the alien laboratories? How is it that individuals carrying hybrid DNA are allowed to roam free procreating in the general population? If the book of Enoch and other ancient texts are to be believed, these breaches are the result of bestial perversion and lust, which drives "angels," that is aliens and hybrids, to engage in acts of intercourse with the species of earth. This may explain why the angels who had sex with human women were thrown into the dungeons of hell, according to the ancient texts, because the government of the aliens considers it a crime to compromise the security of the genetic engineering laboratories, and so they lock them in some kind of prison, which they have revealed to us as "hell." This also explains why sudden changes in body plan occur only sporadically in the fossil record, not all the time, because the security of the laboratories is tight enough, and the penalties deterrent enough, that 306

breaches in security don't happen every day, but only happen once in a great while. Therefore massive leaps in evolutionary diversity only happen once in a great while. There is also the possibility that the more embarrassing mutants are absconded

with, and thus never

fossilized and found.

For example,

although Bigfoot sightings and footprints are very common, the bones of Bigfoot have never been found. Perhaps the UFO occupants who are responsible for the recent evolution of Bigfoot take precautions to hide Also, the aliens may quickly the bones of such transitory species. annihilate the children of their comrades' indiscretions, as was the case in

Noah's Flood, whereby the alien authorities destroyed the half-breed nephilim giants. | Because such monsters were short-lived, the opportunity for fossilization was greatly abbreviated, and this may explain why frankenstein monsters in the fossil record are the exception rather than the rule. We may never know the true measure of how many monsters have come and gone on this planet, because the alien governments have destroyed them before they become common enough to be seen in the fossil record. Now that we have become an intelligent species, it has become even more necessary for the space alien gods to tighten security and conceal their activities, in order to continue their genetic engineering projects without arousing the suspicion of humans. Consequently, we just don't see them very often, and when we do, they are secretive, illusive, and

they promulgate disinformation campaigns to confuse us. Another factor may be the periodic absence of alien intelligence from our solar system due to interstellar star wars between alien societies, which force aliens to leave the solar system. Alien absence may explain why certain long periods of time passed with no lineages undergoing radical changes. Hence, macro-mutations caused by aliens are infrequent and sporadic, because there were long periods of time during which the extraterrestrial presence was non-existent or self-restrained.

Not Enough Aliens? Space aliens may have expanded the genetic wealth of our planet by means

of casual

sexual

encounters

with

the life of earth, but the

accumulated evolutionary change has not happened overnight. Their slow progress may be due to the limited numbers of such perverts. The

307

book of Enoch claims that there were 200 "angels" which came down from heaven and procreated with the daughters of men.'”” With such a small population of perverts, the space aliens do not have the capability to effect large amounts of evolutionary change across all life forms at all times. Instead, they must focus on a few species or genera at a time, and procreate with them for several dozens of generations, in order to effect a rapid evolutionary event. The degree to which they can exert internal social control among themselves for the purpose of perpetrating such an event might be inadequate for continuous achievement of such endeavors. Without the social discipline and cohesion necessary to accomplish a mutual goal of developing a certain species, each alien goes their own way, procreating with whatever species suits their fancy, the results of which are minimal because their single contributions to the gene pools of various species are watered down and lost in the greater population. Hence, rapid evolution is infrequent because the group of space aliens effecting evolutionary change is too small and too disorganized to consistently accomplish premeditated speciation events.

Aliens Working Against Each Other There is even some evidence from scripture that competing groups of aliens have thwarted each others attempts to effect evolutionary change. Specifically, Satan's angels had sex with humans and procreated with them hoping that when Jesus Christ was born, he would ironically be the great-great-great-grandson of a Satanic angel. In the Bible, God says to Satan the Devil, "I will put enmity between your offspring and the woman's offspring," ° which can mean that Satan has children, and that

he was trying to destroy the human race and pollute its Messianic bloodline by injecting Satanic DNA into the human gene pool. Under these circumstances, it would be very difficult for any faction of space aliens to achieve meaningful evolutionary progress, because they have to contend with rival factions of aliens, who are continuously polluting the gene pools of the species they are trying to enhance. This may be responsible for the slow progress of evolution.

Chimps and Gorillas A lot of people say we evolved from chimpanzees and gorillas. I beg to differ! The chimps and gorillas evolved from us! We are the more

1035 45t Enoch 6:6, 2™ Enoch 18:3 1036 Genesis 3:15

308

primitive species! Perhaps we evolved from some cousin of the orangutans, but we did not come from chimps or gorillas. This argument comes from the fossil record. There are no gorillas or chimpanzees in the fossil record prior to comparatively recent times.!°” Although hominid fossils are common, there has been only one find of chimpanzee

fossils,

dating

to between

284,000

and

545,000

years

ago.'”** As Harrison said, The evolutionary history of extant humanoids (i.e. — gorillas, chimps, and humans) is poorly known, with the notable exception of humans, which have a relatively complete fossil record extending back more than 4 million years... the fossil record for African apes is entirely unknown. The evolution of the orangutan is, by comparison, much better documented.'”° Just going from what the fossils say, the chimps and the gorillas have not been on this planet nearly as long as we have. Some say that we can't find more fossils of chimps and gorillas because they live in the jungle, and fossils don't preserve well in the jungle. But does this make sense? How is it that Pleistocene Orangutan fossils are scattered all across southeast Asia?'°*° Is that not jungle too? In the Miocene, Europe was covered in tropical forests. Ape fossils have been recovered from hundreds of locations all across European strata of that time. In fact, when the European jungles retreated in the late Miocene, so did the apes, for they cannot be found in great numbers in Europe except for where there was jungle.'**’ From the early Eocene to the early Oligocene, 196 fossil primate species are known, and from the late Oligocene to the late Pleistocene, 167 fossil primate species are known. Fossil primates have

1037 NacKenna, Malcolm C; Bell, Susan K. Classification of Mammals Above the Species Level. 1997, Columbia University Press, New York, NY, p 349 be McBrearty, Sally; Jablonski, Nina G. First Fossil Chimpanzee. 2005, Nature

437,p 105 1039 Harrison, T. Fossil Apes. 2002, McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology Vol 7, New York, NY, p 456-459

1040 Larrison, T. ibid. 1041 Eronen, Jussi T; Rook, Lorenzo. The Mio-Pliocene European Primate Fossil Record: Dynamics and Habitat Tracking. 2004, Journal of Human Evolution 47,

p 323-341 309

been found on every continent except Australia and Antarctica. Thus, the primate fossil record is comparatively well-known, both in numbers and across time frames. If chimps and gorillas were in Africa for the past 6 or 7 million years, since the time they allegedly diverged from us, then we should see more evidence for it. Despite the fossil gap, the chimps and gorillas are very much related to us. The chimps share 98.6% of our DNA, or 95.2% if deletions are added to substitutions./°"

They look like us, they have DNA like us, and

they even act like us. But they are not found in the fossil record before us. So we did not evolve from them. If anything, they evolved from us! If you took a chimpanzee, and put both a human and a gorilla right in front of his nose, and then asked him "Who's your daddy," the chimp would point at the human, not the gorilla. Likewise, a gorilla would also point to the human, not the chimp. A test using the agent antiserum against albumin revealed that both chimps and gorillas are more related to us than to each other.'°“* Despite having much in common, such as hairy bodies, knuckle walking, and much smaller brain sizes than we do,

they are more closely related to us than to each other. A Jukes-Cantor measurement of the distance between genomes sheds some light on the subject. When comparing the chimp genome to gorilla and human genomes, the chimp is in all tests more closely related to humans than to gorillas. When comparing the gorilla genome to chimp and human genomes, the non-coding genes, autosomals, pseudogenes, and synonymous genes of the gorilla show a closer genetic relationship to humanity than to the chimp. For non-synonymous genes, the gorilla shows just a hair more affinity toward the chimp — these being the genes under the pressures of natural selection.'°* Here's why: non-synonymous genes are subject to the pressures of natural selection, whereas synonymous genes are not. Gorillas and chimps live in similar jungle environments, and this has caused them to acquire similar characteristics, but the synonymous genes reveal lineages by means of tracing DNA that has been left unaltered by selective

'* Tavare, Simon; Marshall, Charles R; Will, Oliver; Soligo, Christophe; Martin, Robert D. Using the Fossil Record to Estimate the Age of the Last Common Ancestor of Extant Primates.

2002, Nature 416, p 726-729

'5 Jobling, Mark A; Hurles, Matthew E; Tyler-Smith, Chris. Human Evolutionary Genetics: New York, NY, p 215

Origins, Peoples & Disease.

14 Jobling, Mark A; et al. ibid, p 211 1045

Jobling, Mark A; et al. ibid, p 213-214

310

2004, Garland Publishing,

pressures.

That's how we know chimps and gorillas are more closely

related to us than to each other. Natural selection has caused chimps and gorillas to look more similar to each other than to us. However, when their genomes are analyzed, chimps and gorillas both turn out to be more

closely related to us than to each other.

The Evolution, Devolution, and Devilization of Humanity It appears that some aliens don't really want humans on this planet, so they have attempted to devolve us back into less intelligent animals. To reverse human evolution, they have inserted ape-like DNA into our gene pool, thus causing gorillas and chimps and other small-brained hominids to evolve from us. The predictions of the so-called "molecular clock" tell us that humans and chimps diverged from each other 6 million years ago, and that humans and gorillas diverged 7 million years ago.'"° Some give it a wider range, from 5 to 8 million years ago.'°*’ This information is in tension with the fossil record, which does not show chimp or gorilla fossils until much more recent times. Be that as it may, let us suppose that the molecular clock is correct, and that the fossils just have not been found. In this scenario, then, if we trace our ancestry back through the fossil record, we should expect to find our ancestors from 6 and 7 million years ago to look like primitive chimps and gorillas. Yet the fossils of this age that are potentially ancestral to humans reflect more similarity to humanity than to chimps or gorillas. Sahelanthropus was an ape-like human in precisely this time frame of 6 to 7 million years ago. It had human characteristics such as a flatter face, smaller canines, and thicker

tooth enamel than in other apes, and a human-like attachment of the spinal chord to the brain, which indicates that Sahelanthropus probably

walked on two feet, instead of on his knuckles.'**

As Jobling et al say,

1046 Dawkins, Richard. The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution. 2004, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA, p 96, 107 1047 \Wood, Bernard A. Human Evolution: Early Radiations. 2002, John Wiley & Sons, Encyclopedia of Life Sciences, www.els.ne 1048 Brunet, M; Guy, F; Pilbeam, D; Mackaye, H T; Likius, Andossa; Ahounta, D; Beauvilain, A; Bondel, C; Bocherens, H; Boisserie, JR; de Bonis, L; Coppens, V3 Dejax, J; Denys, C; Duringer, P; Eisenmann, V; Fanone, G; Fronty, P; Geraads, D; Lehmann, T; Lihoreau, F; Louchart, A; Mahamat, A; Merceron G; Mouchelin, G; Otero, O; Campomanes, P P; de Leon, M P; Rage, J C; Sapanet, M; Schuster, M; Sudre, J; Tassy, P; Valentin, X; Vignaud, P; Viriot, L; Zazzo, A; Zollikofer, C. A

Eyal

"these findings can barely be reconciled with a chimp-human split of 5-7 million years ago."!°"” About this same time there appears Orrorin,\°”° walking on two feet, and with thick enamel on its teeth — two distinctly human characteristics not shared by chimps or gorillas. There is also Ardipithecus, which has chimp-like characters (thin enamel to name one); yet it could stand on two feet more efficiently than a chimp.'°”! From this, we might conclude that humans are devolving into apes, as Jobling et al said, All these early hominid fossils appear to represent chimpanzeesized, upright-walking species... The most radical possibility is that bipedalism is the primitive trait and knuckle-walking in chimpanzees is derived...'°” One possible explanation is that the molecular evidence is just wrong, and that chimps and gorillas diverged much earlier. Suwa et al propose this, based on some 10 million year-old gorilla-like teeth, yet unlike

modern gorilla teeth, these have thick enamel and other differences.'”” Our Unfortunate Relatives The fossil remains of the hominid Homo floresiensis are only 38,000 to 18,000 years old, yet the forehead is receding, and the brain size is smaller than that of the ape-man Australopithecus — only 380 cubic centimeters, which is surprisingly tiny even for its relative body size. Australopithecus and Paranthropus had gone extinct 2 million years New Hominid from the Upper Miocene of Chad, Central Africa.

2002, Nature

418, p 145-151

19 Jobling, Mark A; Hurles, Matthew E; Tyler-Smith, Chris. Human Evolutionary Genetics: Origins, Peoples & Disease. New York, NY, p 237

2004, Garland Publishing,

'0°° Senut, B; Pickford, M; Gommery, D; Mein, P; Cheboi, K; Coppens, Y. First Hominid from the Miocene (Lukeino Formation, Kenya). Science 332, p 137-144

2001, C R Academy of

'>! Wood, Bernard A. Human Evolution: Early Radiations. 2002, John Wiley & Sons, Encyclopedia of Life Sciences, www.els.ne

152 Jobling, Mark A; Hurles, Matthew E; Tyler-Smith, Chris. Human Evolutionary Genetics: Origins, Peoples & Disease.

2004, Garland Publishing,

New York, NY, p 237

'°3 Suwa, Gen; Kono, Reiko T; Katoh, Shigehiro; Asfaw, Berhane; Beyene, Yonas. A New Species of Great Ape from the Late Miocene Epoch in Ethiopia. 2007, Nature 448, p 921-924

312

previously, and even they had larger brains for their body size! H. floresiensis is in most other respects human, including its teeth, basic skull shape, and ability to walk upright on two feet.'°* Despite its small brain,

it appears

to have

used

tools

and

lit fires.

For

some,

its

technological achievements indicate it must have been derived from more advanced hominids such as possibly Homo erectus. Yet H. erectus had a brain more than twice the size and was already extinct by then. Multiple specimens have been found, which means we are not dealing with a dwarf or abnormal mutant, but rather with a regular population.'°”° Humans just like us were contemporary with H. floresiensis. Even the Neanderthals were almost extinct. We might say we are their nearest relative, if it weren't for the fact that the wrist of H. floresiensis is apparently more primitive than both human and Neanderthal wrists.'°”° Some even argue that the root of its divergence from the human line is quite ancient — going back to Homo habilis.'”’ The problem is, H. habilis died out nearly 2 million years ago. Where are its fossils for the past 2 million years? Could this strange creature be the product of malicious space aliens, who were attempting to thwart human evolution by devolving us into lower apes? The natives of Indonesia claim that a small hairy clan of people who spoke a different language was still present some 300 years ago.'”® H. floresiensis was found in Indonesia. Apparently, the apemen are coming back. There is also the ape-man Paranthropus, which, although it is not necessarily a step down in terms of brain size, certainly was not a step up

1054 Brown, P; Sutikna, T; Morwood, M J; Soejono, R P; Jatmiko; Saptomo, E W; Due, RA. A New Small-Bodied Hominin from the Late Pleistocene of Flores, Indonesia, 2004, Nature 431, p 1055 1055 Norwood, M J; Soejono, R P; Roberts, R G; Sutikna, T; Turney, CS M; Westaway, K E; Rink, W J; Zhao, J- x; van den Bergh, G D; Due, R A; Hobbs, D R; LK. Archaeology and Age of a New Hominin Moore, M W; Bird, M |; Fifield, from Flores in Eastern Indonesia. 2004, Nature 431, p 1087-1091 1056 Tocheri, M W; Orr, C M; Larson, S G; Sutikna, T; Jatmiko; Saptomo, E W; Due, R A; Djubiantono, T; Morwood, M J; Jungers, W L. The Primitive Wrist of Homo Floresiensis and Its Implications for Hominin Evolution. 2007, Science 317, p 1743-1745

1057 Gordon, A D; Nevell, L; Wood, Bernard. The Homo Floresiensis Cranium (LB1): Size, Scaling, and Early Homo Affinities. 2008, PNAS 105(12), p 46504655 1058 Laines, Tim; Chambers, Paul. The Complete Guide to Prehistoric Life. 2006, Firefly Books, Buffalo, NY, p 206 313

either. It's non-technological, apparently root-digging lifestyle, was an evolutionary dead end. Wood called it a "bushpig."°? Similar types of alien devolution and corruption of the human genome is attested for in the ancient legends of the Germanic peoples, who recorded the existence of hobbits, dwarfs, elves, and trolls as subhuman hominids. The Germanic legends even preserve the word nephilim from Genesis 6 as niflheim.

Bigfoot Then there is Bigfoot, which is sometimes seen in connection with

UFOs. Bigfoot DNA was attained when one of them accidently stepped on some screws and bloodied his foot. This incident occurred at Snow Grove Lake in the Canadian wilderness. The DNA sequence revealed that Bigfoot's genome is actually closer to humans than to our closest relative — chimpanzees.!° Perhaps Bigfoot is the aliens’ most recent attempt to devolve our species with apelike DNA. Bigfoot has no fossil record, which causes many skeptics to doubt its existence. But no fossil record could also mean that its origins are very recent, which is consistent with the hypothesis that aliens devolved it from us in the not-to-distant past. Some skeptics believe Bigfoot sightings are just misidentified bears. However, that theory cannot hold water in light of bear population data. There have been 419 Bigfoot sightings in the state of Washington, but only 13 in the state of Maine.'°*' Yet, the bear populations of the two states are comparable. Washington has a bear population of about 30,000, and Maine has a bear population of just over 20,000.!°° Washington has over 30 times as many Bigfoot sightings as Maine, despite having a comparatively similar bear population. The same story is evident from other states. Montana and Idaho are home to over 40,000 bears, which is more than Washington contains, but Montana and Idaho

1059 Wood, Bernard A. ibid.

10 History Channel — MonsterQuest Series. Sasquatch Attack? 2007, A&E Television Networks, Item No. AAE-108300, Shown on Nov 25, 2007

961 All Bigfoot data in this paragraph were downloaded from the Bigfoot Field Researchers Association, www.bfro.net, Oct 29, 2007

10% All bear data in this paragraph were downloaded from Maryland Bears, www.marylandbears.com, Oct 29, 2007; source:

Williamson, D.F. In the Black:

Status Management and Trade of the American Black Bear (ursis americanus)in North America. 2002, TRAFFIC North America, Washington DC, World Wildlife Fund.

314

together have recorded only 77 Bigfoot sightings, which is far fewer than Washington's 419. Minnesota has about 20,000 bears, but only 35 Bigfoot sightings. Wisconsin has 14,000 bears, but only 42 Bigfoot sightings. If Bigfoot sightings are just misidentified bears, then why don't we see more Bigfoot sightings in these bear infested states? In response, a skeptic might say that the frequency of Bigfoot sightings in the Pacific Northwest is a function of the disproportionate rate of marijuana consumption in that region of the country. However, there are some states with comparatively little marijuana usage, and with virtually no bears, yet they have a lot of Bigfoot sightings. Florida has a meager 1,000-1,500 bears, and old folks categorically don't smoke pot, yet Florida has 129 recorded Bigfoot sightings. Texas and Ohio have virtually no bears, yet Texas has 160 Bigfoot sightings and Ohio has 191. Clearly, Bigfoot sightings should not be ascribed to misidentified bears. Below is a chart showing a hypothetical phylogeny of humans and the species that aliens have devolved from us.

Human Evolution,

Monkey Common

ifAncestor Devolution, and Devilization Orangutan Proconsul

EXTRATERRESTRIAL

Australopithecus

ATTEMPTS TO KEEP

G US FROM EVOLVIN ao . ee

: Gorilla

Homo bili

| Homo

315

Government Cover Up? The idea that aliens work closely with the US Air Force is nothing new. In 1983, a document was revealed from the Kirtland Air Force Base in New Mexico which said,

All questions and mysteries about the evolution of homo-sapiens have been answered and this project is closed.'°”* Also, a man named Bob Lazar who claims to have worked at the famous

top-secret base at Area 51, where UFO’s have allegedly been spotted, claims that aliens have been visiting for thousands of years, and they have made a total of 65 genetic corrections to our species.'””

A Laughingstock One of the principle faculties by which aliens relate to humans is in the capacity of story teller. Aliens love telling humans tall-tales in order to test our credulity and thereby gain an opportunity to laugh at us when we believe their outrageous stories. According to some, a group of hostile aliens from the constellation of Orion is on its way to attack us. This is entirely preposterous, and an outrageous lie, because the stars in the constellation of Orion are massive blue stars. Not only do they emit too much heat for any life to exist, but also their output is highly ultraviolet, which means they would zap any living creature with enough radiation to fry it from the outside in. Life is not possible under such conditions. To some parents, the aliens reveal that their children are more highly evolved than other children. Many who have passed this information along to their kids observe that their children develop feelings of superiority and become sociopathic, which they take as verification of the child's special gifts. These they style "indigo children." In another example, it was allegedly revealed to the self-identified alien contactee and "prophet" Billy Meier that there exists a very attractive female space alien named Semjase who is temporarily mentally handicapped. She is extremely gorgeous, even though she is 344 years old. She has big earlobes and a pretty face, but the best part about her is that she is available. Her former husband crashed into a star while going light speed.

1° Marrs, Jim. Alien Agenda: Investigating the Extraterrestrial Presence Among Us. 1997, HarperCollins Publishers, New York, NY, p 402

1064 Marrs, Jim. ibid, p 270-271 316

It is also circulated that the little gray aliens called Zeta Reticula

have no mouth and no rectum. Instead of normal bodily functions, they must periodically swim around in a purple stew of dead body parts, into which they excrete all wastes and absorb food through the skin. Then there is the case of the extraterrestrial sodomizers. According to one abduction report, a man was rectum-raped by a space alien, but the alien withdrew when the man called on the name of Jesus.'°° In ancient times, King Solomon also met up with a certain butt-loving paranormal entity who bluntly stated, "I don't have sex with a lot of women — only the pretty ones... I ejaculate into their butt.""°° It is precisely this kind of mentality that has driven space aliens to insert their DNA into our gene pool. It is also known that a certain group of early Christians believed that Adam and Eve took turns being the girl with a bisexual snake in the Garden of Eden.'°°’ One must wonder about the purpose of such revelations. Perhaps human credulity is being broadcasted on alien sitcoms for the entertainment of couch potato space monsters who sit around laughing at us all day.

Can we blame them?

In a world with no God, no love, no

justice, and no promise of heaven, where the best you can hope for is killing others before they kill you, what better way to pass the time than making dirty jokes? Sex and violence is entertaining because it fulfills instinctual cravings that have been molded by evolution. The whole process of evolution depends on sex to make new life and violence to destroy incompetent life. Therefore, we are biologically hard-wired to be entertained by sex and violence.

The Fear of an Apocalypse As I write this, global financial markets are facing meltdown ever, caused by corruption and reckless hedonism It would be easy for me United States of Disneyland. beginning of the days of wrath is upon us, and that the Second

the worst within the to say the Coming is

right around the corner. But this would be a foolish prediction. Numerous dictators have proven that fear is the best way to control the masses. What better way for aliens to control us than with fear? And what is more fearful than the end of the world? In recent years, the list 1065 Clark, Wes; Jordan, Joe. The Premise of Spiritual Warfare. Research Group. Downloaded Oct 6, 2008, www.alienresistance.org/ce4premise.htm. 1066 Tastament of Solomon 14:3-4 1067 Hinpolytus. The Refutation of All Heresies 5:21

317

2003, CE-4

of pop-culture apocalyptic predictions has grown quite long — Nostradamus, the end of the Mayan Calendar, the prophecies of the Bible Code, certain apocalyptic oracles of the Virgin Mary, the Hale-Bopp suicide, New Age mediums and prophets, the arrival of the indigo children, meteor strikes, worst-case global warming scenarios, Islamic and Jewish messianic movements — these only worsen the never-ending cacophony of various dispensationalist Christian eschatologies that have grown increasingly louder since they first started making false predictions in 1844. Who or what is behind this apocalyptic frenzy? And why do the predictions keep pouring in despite so many false alarms? The constant fear of the end of the world is by no means a product of our imagination, nor is it a feature of normal human psychology. To the contrary, for the vast majority of the time our species has existed, we have barely even considered the concept of an apocalypse. What stoneage cave painting envisions an apocalypse? For nearly 2,000 years, the Christian churches de-emphasized the apocalyptic predictions of Jesus Christ, preferring allegorical and amillennarian interpretations instead. Islam saw the end of the world as a resurrection, not a calamity. Hinduism saw time as a wheel without end. Buddhism barely considered the issue at all. Such was the status of most world religions for the great majority of the Common Era. Even before then, the legends of the ancient Babylonians, Egyptians, and Hebrews were more concerned with origins and temporary political situations than with the end of the world. The Greek and Germanic myths were no more governed by apocalyptic thinking than with sobriety and decency. Apocalyptic thinking is by no means a normal human thought pattern. Religion across the globe was decidedly non-apocalyptic for millennia. Then, something changed. In recent decades, there has been a dramatic increase in the popularity of religions that feature the apocalypse as a doctrine of primary importance. Wholly apocalyptic religions such as the New Age and dispensationalist Christianity did not even exist until very recently. Yet they have quickly spread to permeate the consciousness of our entire society. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the constant fear of the apocalypse which grips us today is a phenomenon unique unto our own time. This fact is evidence that apocalyptic thinking comes from a source other than from our own human psyche. It comes from subversive influences outside the human mind. These influences are attempting to control us by making us fear an apocalypse.

318

As scientific knowledge has freed us from the shackles of ignorance, we humans have come to understand our world much better. We now know that lightning is not a projectile thrown by an angry god. We now know that the sun is not a god who is driven across the sky in a chariot. And,

although

some

environmentalists

may

differ, we

have

yet to

discover the bottomless pit of hell lurking around our deep sea oil drilling facilities. Consequently, we have lost our fear of the supernatural. This causes apprehension among the space aliens, for they cannot control the human mind except by fear. To replace the discarded superstitions of the past, they have invented a new superstition. The fear of the apocalypse is this new superstition. It is the solution to their problem, for it is a means by which to reestablish their control over the human mind. The aliens will continue this fear-mongering apocalyptic strategy for as long as people believe it. When their warnings are no longer credible, then they will create real apocalyptic events.

319

¢

26

°

Who's Running Things? Cave Paintings The aliens have been here for a long time. We can see this from ancient cave paintings. From McConkie Utah to Victoria Australia, several localities report prehistoric works of art that depict UFO's and space aliens. The Wandjina, found in Kimberley Australia, are among the most striking. Their pale white or gray skin, large dark eyes, narrow chins, and lack of a nose constitute synapmorphies with the established description of the commonly reported small feeble Zeta-Reticula aliens, which are also known as "the grays." There exist numerous other examples of plausible ancient space aliens that are pictured in the cave art of the Anasazi Indians and other native peoples of the American Southwest. One time, I was surprised to find ancient alien cave art in the Paleozoic section of a natural history museum, positioned right by the trilobite fossils from the Cambrian Explosion. I scratched my head, wondering why crude sketches of prehistoric space aliens were on display in a museum that ostensibly teaches naturalistic evolution. Are the aliens dropping subliminal hints?

Ancient Texts Many ancient texts and folk legends also implicitly tell of UFO's and aliens. Researcher Jim Marrs sums up some folk legends to this effect:

In India it is believed that man descended from gods who flew in fiery craft. The Teutons point to ancestors in flying "Wanen." The ancient Mayans thought their predecessors came from the Pleiades, while the Inca said simply they were the "sons of the sun." Native Americans claim to be the sons and daughters of the great "Thunderbird." Chinese texts tell of long-lived rulers from the heavens who sailed through the sky in "fire breathing dragons."'°°

'068 Marrs, Jim. Alien Agenda: Investigating the Extraterrestrial Presence Among Us. 1997, HarperCollins Publishers, New York, NY, p 43

320

Marrs also mentions an Egyptian legend concerning gods who traveled the sky in flying boats, coming down to fraternize with pretty young women. He goes on to describe some three thousand year old statues in Japan which depict creatures similar to the modern day concept of aliens.'°° Conventional wisdom tells us that Santa Claus and his legendary flying reindeer are mere child's play. But there is actually a lot more to Santa Claus than spiked eggnog and happy children. The ancient Hindus apparently saw Santa Claus 3,500 years ago. The incident is recorded in the Rig Veda as follows: Like animals drunk on wine are you gods with your entourage. You have hitched spotted deer to your chariot, and a red deer is their leader.'°”° Rudolf the Red-Nosed Reindeer is at least 3,500 years old, and he drives

a UFO. Santa Claus is real, and the Hindu's believed in him long before Christmas was ever kept. Some researchers purposefully espouse outrageous nonsense because they prefer to be labeled as part of the lunatic fringe. They do this to keep from getting shut down by the cosmocrators, for as long as they appear so ridiculous as to be entirely unbelievable, they are not a threat to the cosmocrators. The Rig Veda also records other UFO sightings, such as the "winged things" that flew around for three days.'°”! We have already mentioned how Jeremiah the Prophet made a mockery of the Genesis 1 creation myth. Now we will show that this passage also implicitly tells of aliens. Jeremiah relates a vision he saw, I beheld the earth, and lo, it was without form and void; and the

heavens, they had no light... I beheld, and lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the air had fled.

I beheld, and lo, the fertile

place was a desert, and all the cities in it were broken down by the presence of Yahweh.'?”

1069 Marrs, Jim. ibid, p 81-82 1070 Rig Veda 1.39.5-6 1071 Rig Veda 1.116.4 1072 Jeremiah 4:23-26

321

The implication is that Jeremiah is viewing earth before creation — when "there was no man," and "the earth was without form and void." But Jeremiah sees "cities that were broken down," and "birds of the air." Could the cities be the cities of aliens, and could the birds of the air be

UFO's? Here, Jeremiah is telling us that aliens used to live on earth.'°? In an unrelated report, an alleged modern alien contactee was informed that earth's surface used to be the home of the reptilian aliens before they were driven from it in a most ancient war.'°’* Could Jeremiah have seen this war in his vision?

New Age Revelations Among traditional Christians, Bates brings attention to a New Age alien named Ashtar, who allegedly keeps a high profile in the occult world by giving numerous oracles. Bates supposes that such "aliens" are actually demonic.'’” Ashtar, as a name, is an etymological combination of the Babylonian goddess Ishtar and the Canaanite goddess Astarte. The latter has a certain species of Alaskan mollusk named after her, whose fossils mark the first flooding of the Bering Strait.'° In occult circles, it is believed that Ashtar or Astarte, also called Astaroth, has undergone a sex change and is now male.'°”’ Ashtar's status as both space alien and ancient goddess indicates that there is truly some connection between modern aliens and the ancient pagan gods. The "prophet" Billy Meier allegedly received a holy text inspired by space aliens, called the OM

Kanon, but parts of it smell more

like a

regurgitation of Enoch than an original prophecy. It would not be the first time Meier has faked it. He is already widely suspected of fabricating the Talmud Jmmanuel, and of doctoring photographs to place UFOs in them. Nevertheless, he claims the OM Kanon was revealed to

'°73 Guenther, Jason. Fallen Watchers: An Exegetical Analysis on the Correlations between Biblical Demonology and Contemporary UFOlogy. Downloaded Oct 6, 2008, www.ryanmcginty.com/fallen

'°4 Icke, David. Children of the Matrix: How and Interdimensional Race Has Controlled the World for Thousands of Years — and Still Does. Love Publications USA, Wildwood, MO, p 265

2001, Bridge of

'°> Bates, Gary. Alien Intrusion: UFOs and the Evolution Connection. 2004, Master Books, Green Forest, AR, p 291-293

'°76 Marincovich, Louie Jr; Barinov, Konstantin B; Oleinik, Anton E. The Astarte (Bivalvia:Astartidae) that Document the Earliest Opening of the Bering Strait. 2002, Journal of Paleontology 76(2), p 239-245

'” Greer, John Michael. The New Encyclopedia of the Occult. 2003, Llewellyn Publications, St Paul, MN, p 42

322

him by an alien named Ptaah, and that he is the reincarnation of all the various prophets of all world religions. According to the OM Kanon, there is an alien named Semyjasa, the father of the lovely and temporarily retarded Semjase, and this Semjasa encouraged aliens to breed with humanity. Semjasa equates to the angel Semyaz in Enoch. German is the language of the OM Kanon, and they refuse to translate the text - German being something of a sacred tongue to them. Since "j" in German makes a "y" sound, therefore Semjasa and Semyaz are the same. Here is Enoch compared to the OM Kanon: Enoch: And it came to pass that deliciously dazzling daughters were born to the humans.

So the children of heaven, the angels,

noticed them and fantasized about them, and they plotted, "Let’s go choose wives for ourselves out of the daughters of humanity, and let’s have kids." And Semyaz was their leader.'°” Om Kanon:

And it was, among the 200, the greatest of the little

fuehrers was Semjasa... and so the daughters and sons of heaven snatched men and women away from their earthly human kinfolk... and those who came afterward grew to be giants that stood 33 feet tall... and they slept with animals, birds, terrestrial beasts, and with fish that live in the water.'?”

Here, the OM Kanon says that the giants were 33 feet tall. sacred number of Freemasonry.

33 is the

Freemasonry in the Fossil Record The 365 million year-old salamander-fish Acanthostega is the most

well-known and the most relevant species for studies in how fish grew legs and wobbled out on land. It appears that Acanthostega may have been assisted by the forces that are behind Freemasonry. A famous specimen of Acanthostega is given the location 13311. Moreover, in the notes it is given the number 33.!°%° The numerological significance of

this is quite intriguing.

The number 33 is the sacred number of the

secretive occult organization known as Freemasonry, which is notorious

1078 Enoch 6:1-3, OM Kanon 31:114 1079 OM Kanon 31:118-119, 31:124, 31:133 1080 Courtesy of the Paleontology Portal, www.paleoportal.org. Search in "Collections": Genus = "Acanthostega" & choose "extended fields." Downloaded Sep 2008 323

for its good-ole boy networks among the rich and powerful, and for its historical exclusion of blacks, Catholics, and women. 33 is also the number of gods in the ancient Vedic religion — that is the religion that The location number of brought India the caste system. ke Acanthostega, 13311, also contains the number 11, which symbolizes the New Age of Aquarius, because the Age of Aquarius is the | 1" sign in the zodiac. 33 is also significant because it is 3 times 11; that is, 3 is the number of magic, according to the proverb "magic happeris in threes," and 11 is the number of the New Age, hence 33 symbolizes the magic of the New Age or the magic of the New World Order. Perhaps the space gods put their markings on little Acanthostega to remind us who is really running things here on earth, and that their genetic engineering will continue even into the New Age and beyond. Then there is the case of Kuehneon duchyense from the family Kuehneotheriidae, which is the earliest mammal listed in McKenna and Bell's summary of the mammal fossil record.'°** The name Kuehneon

duchyense means "Duchy 33." Hence the first mammals are marked with the number of the name of Freemasonry upon them. Moreover, their

fossil

birthplace

remains

were

first discovered

of Freemasonry.

Kuehneotherium,

which means

Later, "Therium

the

in the British

name

was

Isles,

the

changed

to

33," in accordance

with the

International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. It has even been published that there are 33,000 genes in the human genome.'°*? However, that number has been revised to roughly 20,000 to 25,000.'°* It is interesting to note that while the number was still unknown, it was conveniently rounded to 33,000.

Freemasonry has many spiritual is the Bavarian Illuminati; but even infinitely respected Hermetic Order have descended Aleister Crowley's

descendents. The most well-known more important is the ill-known but of the Golden Dawn, from which doctrine and its inspirations — the

Church of Satan, and much of modern Wicca, including the all-important

Wiccan Rede:

An it harm none, do as thou wilt, this shall be the whole

181 Rig Veda 1.45.2 '82 McKenna, Malcolm C; Bell, Susan K. Classification of Mammals Above the Species Level. 1997, Columbia University Press, New York, NY, p 43

1°83 Miglani, Gurbachan S. Advanced Genetics. 2002, Alpha Science International, Pangbourne, UK, p 557

'°*4 Snustad, D Peter; Simmons, Michael J. Principles of Genetics, 4°” Ed. 2006, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, p 39

324

of the law.'°° The Golden Dawn devotes itself to a god called Hermes Trismegistus, who happens to be mentioned in the Gnostic collection, Nag Hammadi 6:66.'"° Another Hermetic text of Nag Hammadi speaks of a city called "The Nine Gates."’"*’ Exactly 33 minutes into Polanski's unabashedly Luciferian movie The Ninth Gate, a dead man is displayed hung upside down by one leg, with his penis hanging out of his pants. '°°* This is the image of the hangman card in Tarot, and it symbolizes the nine days during which the Germanic god Odin hung himself in a tree to attain all the secret mysteries of the occult.

In medieval times, humans

are known to have been sacrificed and hanged in trees on account of Odin's cult.’ In still another Hermetic text of Nag Hammadi, an old sage of the order warns a young initiate, "Don't speak a word of it, my son, for we must be true to God, keeping secret what is hidden."'°””

Witchcraft by Space Gods The occult lends a great deal of data to substantiate the hypothesis that intelligent forces unknown to us are guiding certain events to occur. Observant members of the Craft celebrate eight holy days or "sabats," which correspond to the winter solstice (Yule), the summer solstice (Litha), the autumnal equinox (Mabon), the spring equinox (Ostara), and four "cross-quarter" sabats on February 2 (Imbolc), August 1 (Lughnasadh), October 31 (Samhain), and the most important of all, (Beltane), which is celebrated on the night of April 30 thru the next day, May 1. Many earth shattering events throughout history have happened on these days, as well as many plots hatched in secret. In addition to these, the 13% day before Beltane, April 19% seems to attract a lot of bad

luck. Together, these 9 days account for only 2.46% of the year, but the frequency of ominous events happening on these days is much higher than 2.46%. For example, the two major events associated with the dissolution of the French monarchy during the French Revolution fell on witch sabats.

1085 Greer, John Michael.

The New Encyclopedia of the Occult. 2003, Llewellyn

Publications, St Paul, MN, p 202, 116, 70, 514, 268, 106

1086 Asclepius, Nag Hammadi 6:66; refers to the 66"" verse of the 6"" scroll

recovered from the 4"" century Nag Hammadi texts 1087 The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles, Nag Hammadi 6:6 1088 Bolanski, Roman. The Ninth Gate. 2000, Artisan Pictures as Crossley-Holland, Kevin. House, New York, p 187

The Norse Myths.

1980, Pantheon Books, Random

1090 The Discourse on the Eighth and Ninth, Nag Hammadi 6:59 325

On the sabat of Litha 1791, the royal family was caught trying to escape to Austria, which was an act of treason because Austria was on the brink of war with France. This act of treason gave the revolution an excuse to publicly end the monarchy, an event which officially happened on the sabat of Mabon 1792. It is also interesting to note that the convention of the Estates-General was at first planned to begin on Beltane 1789.

Nazi's, UFO's, and the Occult In addition to the widely published theory that Hitler's regime was responsible for building UFO's such as the foo fighters and the first flying saucers, there is much subliminal evidence from correlation of major events to witch sabats that the Nazi movement was engineered by occult forces. The term "Third Reich" derives from the fact that the Nazi regime was the third German Empire in history. The First Reich was born on the witch sabat of Imbolc 962, when Otto I was crowned first

emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. The Second Reich was founded on the witch sabat of Ostara 1871, when the previously independent German states were officially united as one nation. The Third Reich was born on the witch sabat of Imbolec 1933, when Hitler formally dissolved the German democracy. Hitler's major endeavors and major events in his life often fell on witch sabats. His mother died on the witch sabat of Yule — an event which prompted him to move to the multicultural city of Vienna, where he first learned to be a virulent racist and anti-Semite. The first concentration camp, Dachau, was put into service on the witch sabat of

Ostara 1933, and thus the Holocaust began on a day sacred to witchcraft. Interestingly, the Spanish Inquisition officially forced all Jews from Spain on the witch sabat of Lughnasadh 1492. An ill-designed reorganization of the concentration camp system occurred on the witch sabat of Mabon 1942, which was so lacking in humanitarian consideration that it caused mass death to sweep through the camps. Hitler's choice to initiate concentration camps on Ostara is especially interesting, because he was greatly influenced during his youth by an anti-Semitic occult magazine named Ostara, which taught that humanity has been degraded by breeding with ape-like dwarfs.'”’ Knowledge of the ancient nephilim is everywhere in the occult, and when combined with certain leaps in logic, it can easily lead to the most virulent racism imaginable.

'°! Greer, John Michael. The New Encyclopedia of the Occult. 2003, Llewellyn Publications, St Paul, MN, p 351, 266-267

326

As for the military endeavors of the Third Reich, France officially surrendered to Germany on the witch sabat of Litha 1940. One year later, to the day, Germany launched its invasion of the Soviet Union. It was not the first time Germany invaded Russia on a witch sabat. In the previous war, Germany had invaded Russia on the witch sabat of Lughnasadh 1914. The German air force launched its largest air assault of the war on the witch sabat of Beltane 1941. The Nazi regime launched its first attack against the United States on the witch sabat of Samhain 1941, sinking the USS Reuben James. Overshadowed by Pearl Harbor, this was actually the first military engagement of the war in which the United States was involved. What began on a witch sabat ended on a witch sabat — Hitler died on Beltane 1945, when he sent himself to Valhalla with a bullet to the brain. Hitler understood survival of the fittest, and he acted accordingly. Some of the aliens noticed this and supported him because of it. They left their signatures on Nazism to show that they support killing in the name of making one's own genes dominant, for truly genocide by means of savage brutality is a game Mother Earth has always loved to play.

Communism and the Witch Sabat of Beltane On the witch sabat of Beltane 1776, the secret society known as the Bavarian Illuminati were founded by a band of rogue Free Masons. The objective of the Bavarian Illuminati was the abolishment of established religion, the overthrow of monarchies, and the creation of a new secular

establishment. 141 years later to the day, their dreams came true. In the Bolshevik Revolution, which happened on the witch sabat of Beltane 1917, the Communists ousted both religion and monarchy from Russia, and implemented an intolerantly secular dogma across the Soviet Union. The witch sabat of Beltane is the most sacred day of the Communist faith. Fidel Castro declared the Communist state of Cuba on Beltane 1961. North Korea officially became a Communist state on Beltane 1948. The Red Army conquered the Nazi capital of Berlin on Beltane 1945.

Communist

China's nationwide Labor Union, the ACFTU,

was

formed on Beltane 1925. China commemorates the Nanchang Uprising and the formation of the People's Liberation Army on Beltane, which happened on Beltane 1927. Communism took the lives of more people than any other ideology in history. Fittingly, on the witch sabat of Beltane 1930, the cold dead planet Pluto was named for the ancient Roman god of the underworld. 13 days after the Communist takeover of Russia, according to the holy number of witchcraft, which is 13, the Virgin Mary appeared at 327

Fatima and uttered prophecies concerning the Communist era. 64 years later to the day, Pope John Paul II was shot and nearly killed. The Pope credited the prophecies of Fatima with helping him survive the assassination attempt. Interestingly, Fatima was the name of the daughter of Mohamed, who founded the Islamic faith. Saint Mary was even first reported to be wearing something akin to Fatima's Islamic clothing when she appeared at the town of Fatima. The final demise of the Soviet Union happened largely through the efforts of Islamic fundamentalists who battled the Communists in Afghanistan, and the Pope who battled them in Eastern Europe. Perhaps Jesus and Allah were in an alliance against the Communists. Mary would be a natural diplomat for solidifying such an alliance, because she is deeply venerated in both the Christian and the Islamic faiths, and thus she could rally the jinns of Allah and the angels of Christ under one battle banner. Is it possible that the events at Fatima signaled such an alliance? If so, it goes to show that the gods are not all powerful, for if they were, what need is there to join forces to defeat a common enemy? The Church of Satan was founded on Beltane 1966.'°”

Skeletons in the Iraq War Closet The frequent occurrence of ominous events on witch sabats continues to this day, as is documented monthly by Meyer — a Christian minister with an occult background. Perhaps the most convincing example in recent times has been President Bush's attack on Iraq, which began on Ostara, Baghdad time, under a nearly full moon. Bush declared the war officially over on the all-important witch sabat of Beltane, when, in fact, the war was far from over. So hasty were the gods to mark their endeavor with occult formalities that they failed to accomplish the substance of the matter. Shortly after Bush declared victory, Meyer had this to say about the Iraq War:

On May 1, 2003, President George Walker Bush declared that the war with Iraq was over. The war ended just as it started — on a high sabat of witchcraft... It is a fact for all to see that the war with Iraq began on the witches' sabat of Ostara and ended on the

'°? Greer, John Michael. The New Encyclopedia of the Occult. 2003, Llewellyn Publications, St Paul, MN, p 268

328

high cross-quarter sabat of Beltane. We could call this the "war between the sabats."!0” Meyer also notes that the expansion of the European Union happened on Beltane 2004,'°” and he correlates the news to many other earth-shaking events that have recently happened on witch sabats. To deepen the mystery regarding America's government, we should note that both candidates in the 2004 US Presidential election were members of a secret society, called Skull and Bones, which is extremely exclusive and its members allegedly drink alcohol from a human skull. When Tim Russert asked John Kerry about The Skull and Bones on Meet the Press, Kerry did not deny it, but instead tried to change the subject to healthcare. Russert's conversation with Bush was even more interesting. Below is an excerpt from the transcript posted on NBC's own website:'°”” Russert:

You were both in Skull & Bones, the secret society.

President Bush: It's so secret we can't talk about it. Russert: What does that mean for America? theorists are going to go wild.

The conspiracy

Indeed we do go wild! Tim Russert suddenly died much too young on Friday the 13"! Many pooh-pooh conspiracy theorists as if we are incapable of sound logic. However, we are merely carrying certain assumptions to their logical conclusions — for example, if you believe that there exists a hidden cosmic struggle among aliens, or for that matter between God and Satan, then it logically follows that many hidden events occur related to that struggle. If conspiracy theories are wrong, it is not because conspiracy theorists lack logic, but rather because their assumptions about how the world works are wrong. I petition the reader,

in light of the scientific evidence that intelligent extraterrestrials have

10°3 Meyer, David J. Last Trumpet Newsletter Vol 22 Issue 6, Jun 2003, Last Trumpet Ministries, www.lasttrumpetministries.org, Beaver Dam, WI, p2 au Meyer, David J. Last Trumpet Newsletter Vol 23 Issue 6, Jun 2004, Last Trumpet Ministries, www.lasttrumpetministries.org, Beaver Dam, WI, p 4 1095 Russert, Tim; Bush, George W; Kerry, John. NBC News' Meet the Press. Feb 8, 2004 & Apr 18, 2004, transcripts at www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4179618/ and www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4772030

329

probably evolved before us, and that they secretly guide events, is it likely that our assumptions about how the world works are wrong? On the eve of Beltane, I visited the Skull & Bones tomb.

It is a real

place. From the Starbucks on the corner of Chapel and High in New Haven Connecticut, go northeast on High Street, and it is the second building on the left, just after you cross under the enclosed stone walkway. The laminated campus map on York Street, which is the next street over, even has it labeled on the map.

The building was dull red,

unmarked, and the front door sported conspicuous locks. The front yard was very poorly maintained, and a large dumpster was across the street. There is a back door which is filled in with stone, and the few windows are also filled in with stone. There was a rather large infestation of campus security and police cars continuously circling the area. I witnessed a student knock on the door, and an officer quickly apprehended him. Since when is it illegal to knock on someone's door? When I took a picture of them, the officer started barking at me, and so I took off running. In such manner the cosmocrators of darkness secretly control both the Demon-crats and the Re-poop-lickings.

Anglo-American Witchcraft The most dominant language and culture the world has ever seen is that of the English. They had a little help from occult forces. The nation of England officially became the Empire of Great Britain on the witch sabat of Beltane 1707, upon the annexation of Scotland. Four centuries earlier, Scotland had won its independence from England on Beltane 1328. On Litha 1798, Irish patriots fought against British oppression at the Battle of Vinegar Hill. In the aftermath of the English victory, the English army reveled in an unusually undisciplined orgy of rape and murder against Irish civilians. This battle effectively ended Irish resistance, and paved the way for Ireland becoming part of the British Empire — an event which formally occurred on the sabat of Lughnasadh 1800. In modern times, the British embassy in Ireland was attacked by Irish rogues on the sabat of Imbolce 1972. On the other side of the Atlantic, many important events in American history happened on witch sabats. Southern slavery began for the first time at Jamestown Virginia on the witch sabat of Lughnasadh 1619. In the North, the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock on the witch sabat of Yule 1620. New York City was incorporated as a municipality on Imbolc 1653. The burning of the hoodoo central, i.e. New Orleans, occurred on Imbolc 1788. In the same year, the United States Constitution officially became law on Litha 1788. The United States 330

Supreme Court held its first session on Imbolc 1790. The United States stole half of Mexico on Imbole 1848 — that is, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo which ended the Mexican-American War. To commemorate Manifest Destiny, which is the robbery of land from Mexico and from Native Americans, Mount Rushmore was completed on Samhain 1941.

To add injury to insult, it was even built on land promised to the Indians

by treaty. The United States officially transitioned from democracy to imperial tyrant on the witch sabat of Beltane 1898, upon the acquisition of the Philippines from Spain in the Battle of Manila Bay — a war which was made possible by lies from the news media. In modern times, President Johnson stopped bombing North Vietnam on the witch sabat of Samhain 1968, which effectively allowed the Communists to win. MTV was started on Lughnasadh 1981, in order to sedate the masses. The Supreme Court acquitted John Hinckley, the man who attempted to assassinate President Reagan, on Litha 1982. Rush Limbaugh's radio program also went nationwide on Litha 1988. The most destructive church burning incident in American history occurred on Imbolc 2006. In addition to the eight witch sabats proper, the 13” day before Beltane, April 19, is a day which has symbolized the beginnings of mass murder throughout America's history. The trial of Bridget Bishop, the first to be executed in the Salem witch trials, began on this day (1692); as did the first casualties of the American Revolutionary War, which was started by a mysteriously anonymous gunshot (1775). The first casualties of the Civil War (1861); Abraham Lincoln's funeral (1865); the unsuccessful attack on the Bay of Pigs in Cuba (1961); the Waco Massacre (1993); the Oklahoma City Bombings (1995); and as concerns the murder of the currency, taking the US Dollar off the gold standard

(1933) —all these occurred on the 19" of April. False Doctrines Appear on Witch Sabats Several major heresies formally began on witch sabats. Of particular interest to our discussion on the Priestly corruption of the Old Testament and its resulting inclusion of the unscientific Genesis 1 creation myth, Ezra officially read the Old Testament Law to the congregation on the witch sabat of Samhain 445 BCE.'°* Thus, the patchwork Bible that Ezra spun together from forgeries, dirty bedtime stories, and genuine prophecies was officially sanctified as scripture on a day important to the 1096 New Living Translation of the Bible, 2004, Tyndale House Publishers Inc, Wheaton, IL, note on Nehemiah 9:1 331

dark arts of witchcraft.

Such is the secret seal of Satan upon the Old

Testament, and upon the creationist heresy he established.

What's more,

this wasn't the only time Ezra read the Law. He also read it on the first day of the seventh month.'°’ Why did he read it twice? Were their two Laws? And if so, this gives further evidence for the scholarly opinion that the Priestly text was originally separate from the real Bible of the legitimate Prophets. On the very same witch sabat, Samhain, October 31, 1517, nearly 2,000 years later, Martin Luther started the Protestant Reformation. Then, on April 19, 1529, the Diet of Speyer officially made reconciliation between Catholics and Protestants impossible. Luther taught that the extra-Biblical traditions of the ancient Christians should be discarded because they are not in the Bible, something which his own favorite apostle, Paul, and even the Bible itself, specifically rejects, stating, "Cling fast to whatever was told to you by letter or by word."'”® In stating this, Paul indicated that some necessary teachings were never stated in the New Testament letters, but were only handed down by word of mouth. Therefore, we ought to embrace the oral apostolic traditions of the ancients, which were written down in the early years of the faith by a multitude of authorities whom I have frequently quoted throughout this work. Luther's creed of "scripture alone" is therefore a false teaching. The Protestant Bible consists of 66 books, one 6 less than 666, and

thus it is almost antichrist. Its Old Testament is the same as that used by the ancient Pharisees, which is not the same as that used by the early Christians. The apostolic church used the Septuagint. We know this because the New Testament quotes from the Septuagint — not from the Pharisee Bible.

Also, Jesus was

familiar with the Dead

Sea Scrolls,

which represents still a third Bible. Hence, the Protestant doctrine that only the Bible constitutes legitimate authority is not only erroneous, but also superfluous, because they don’t have the right Bible anyway. Luther's ghost haunts the evolution-creation debate. Most creationists are Protestant. The Protestant Reformation was largely responsible for the idea that the Bible should at all times be literally interpreted — something which has prolonged creationist thinking among many Protestant groups. Hence, Protestant Biblicism unwittingly does the devil's work by promoting literal interpretations of Genesis 1. They accuse me of heresy because I rip Genesis 1 from the Bible, but they

'°7 Compare Nehemiah 9:1-3 and 8:1-2 1098 9°¢ Thessalonians 2:15 332

should examine the plank in their own eye; they venerate Luther as if he were Moses, yet Luther himself ripped apart the Bible too. He ripped James away. He had no scientific or scholarly reason for doing so. He merely disliked the statement, "Faith without good deeds is dead,"'°”’ so

he ripped it out. Luther was not thinking rationally when he did this, but was reacting emotionally to his own guilt complex. Thankfully, the Paraclete has led the Protestants to restore James to the Bible. The Roman Church, for its part, elected its current pope 13 days before Beltane, on April 19.''°° Pope Benedict XVI has wasted no time reopening old wounds with Orthodox Christians. Eastern Orthodoxy and Gnosticism are equally ancient with Rome. All three can trace their teachings to apostolic sources. Catholic means universal, and Rome is in no way universal when it excludes the opinions of churches equally ancient with itself, and so the Pope is head of the Roman Church, not the

Catholic Church. When Polycarp, the disciple of the Apostle John, came from the East to argue with the Pope, he and the Pope still took bread and wine together, despite the argument.''®' Yet today, they exclude each other, and thus by their intolerance they break the Law, because they violate a precedent set by apostolic authorities greater than themselves. Their schism is illegal. The Mormon

Church, according to its own publication, admits that

the Book of Mormon was revealed to Joseph Smith on September 21, 1823,''°° which happens to be the witch sabat of Mabon. Smith himself was an occultist, and was forced out of the Methodist church under suspicion of practicing necromancy. William Miller, the founder of the Adventists, predicted that Jesus Christ would return on March 21, 1844, i.e. — the witch sabat of Ostara.

Not easily deterred, his followers have been looking forward to the end of the world ever since, and have successfully perpetuated the notion of an imminent apocalypse for over 150 years.

1099 James 2:14-26 1100 Meyer, David J. Last Trumpet Newsletter Vol 24 Issue 6. Jun 2005, Last Trumpet Ministries, www.lasttrumpetministries.org, Beaver Dam, WI, p 2

01 Irenaeus. Fragment 3 Jesus Christ. 1981, '102 The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Christ of Latter-day Saints, Jesus Corporation of the President of The Church of Salt Lake City, UT, Introduction p 1, 3 333

Although these comments seem intolerant, I actually do not intend to condemn the various denominations. Rather, we see through a glass darkly, and the devil deceives even the elect.'!®° Outside Christianity, the worship of Reason officially began on Mabon 1792, when the French Revolution outlawed the monarchy. The Revolution produced Napoleon, who instituted his code of law in Europe on Ostara 1804. This legal code became the primary foundation for law throughout continental Europe, and remains influential even today. The Baha'i Faith keeps its New Year on the witch sabat of Ostara, and keeps its "Feast of Protection" on Lughnasadh. To top it all off, the Mayan calendar predicts that the end of the world will happen on the witch sabat of Yule, December 21, 2012. Merry Christmas.

"1 4* Corinthians 13:12, Matthew 24:24 334

Carp

cee’

Behind the Veil and Beyond the Pale Serpent Gods What is the nature of the space aliens? To what life form on earth might we compare them? Researcher Icke points to numerous Chinese, Mayan, Irish, and Hopi Indian legends that indicate they are serpent-like or dragon-like entities, and that we are descended from them.'’™ Among the oldest civilizations, Egypt worshipped snakes, and China paid homage to dragons. The ancient near eastern civilizations of Babylon, Canaan, and Israel all spoke of a primordial serpent-like monster of the ocean, which was called Tiamat in Babylon, Yamm in Canaan, and Leviathan in Israel. Likewise, the most ancient scriptures of India assert that the chief god Indra is associated with serpentine shape shifters, and the second most important god, Agni, is called a "raging serpent."'! The god of India to whom most devotion is paid, namely Krishna, had this to say about himself:

Among serpents, I am the serpent that lasts forever.'!°° The more knowledgeable and occult minds among the ancient Greeks also paid homage to serpent-gods, such as Asclepius. The Peratic Gnostics believed that Jesus Christ was a serpent-god,''”’ and the Naas, another Gnostic group, believed an omniscient serpent watches over us from above. Specifically, Hippolytus had this to say about their beliefs:

1104 Icke, David. Children of the Matrix: How and Interdimensional Race Has Controlled the World for Thousands of Years — and Still Does. 2001, Bridge of Love Publications USA, Wildwood, MO, p 117, 119, 120, 127

N05 Rig Veda 1.3.9, 1.79.1 1106 Bhagavad Gita 10:26-28 107 Hipnpolytus. The Refutation of All Heresies 5:12 335

They think that the serpent dragon is situated at the North Pole looking down on everything. 'i:

Something Wicked from the North This idea that something wicked is hovering around the North Pole echoes through the ages down to the present. Meyer points out that the official flag of the United Nations is a view of the globe from a region of space above the North Pole looking down, and relates it to the Biblical Prophet Isaiah, who said that Lucifer also exalts himself to lofty positions in the north.'’” !1'° The 1“ century Christian leader Elchasai believed that war rages among the evil angels of the northern stars, and therefore immoral nations are in a state of confusion.''!'! This is echoed in 2" Enoch, from about the same time, which states that there is a hell of black fire in the heavens of the north, and a bunch of witches, vampires, and pedophiles

dwell there in torment.'!” The Prophet Zarathustra was also informed of an evil entity that comes from northern climes, as the holy texts of the Zoroastrians record: The Lord of Wisdom said, "Listen Spitama Zarathustra; the liar

Nasu attacks dead bodies as soon as the soul leaves after death. Nasu comes from the north, in the image of a filthy fly...""'” Die you liar! Go back to the north and die! And don't come back! You bring death to the living realm of the Holy Spirit!'''* This quote is actually part of an exorcism demonic northern entity.''°

ritual for expelling this

Serpent Messiah Snakes in the Bible are both evil and good. Pharaoh had evil snakes, but Moses had a good snake.'''® Poisonous snakes killed the Israelites in

118 Hinpolytus. The Refutation of All Heresies 4:47 1 Meyer, David J. Last Trumpet Newsletter Vol 19 Issue 10, Oct 2000, Last Trumpet Ministries, www.lasttrumpetministries.org, Beaver Dam, WI, p 4

''! Ieaiah 14:12-13 "ll Hippolytus. The Refutation of All Heresies 9:11 112 9"4¢ Enoch 10 ''3 The Vendidad of the Zend Avesta, Fargard 7.1.2 ''l4 The Vendidad of the Zend Avesta, Fargard 8.3.21, 8.7.72

''lS The Vendidad of the Zend Avesta, Fargard 8.7 336

the desert, but a bronze snake named Nehushtan saved them.'!!!” Jesus claimed to be that bronze snake.'''® Interestingly, that same bronze snake was destroyed by King Hezekiah,''!? who had also allowed the Jerusalem temple priests to take over the nation.'!”? Hezekiah also tore down the altars of Yahweh and made an unholy alliance with Babylon, upon which the Prophet Isaiah placed a prophetic curse.'’?! Hence Hezekiah was a type of antichrist who brought the wrath of God upon the Israelite nation. Such was his penalty for destroying the snake-god Nehushtan, for Nehushtan was a prototype of Christ.

Jesus, Lucifer, and the 888 Prophecy Jesus and Lucifer are actually both snakes. According to the Hebrew numerological system, the word mashiach, which means "Messiah," calculates to 358, as does also the Hebrew word nachash which means

"snake" or "serpent."

Nachash is used in Genesis for the snake in the

Garden of Eden, and nachash is also used for the snake in the wilderness

that represented Jesus. The same was called Nehushtan, which is akin to the Hebrew words nechash and nechosheth meaning "bronze" or "shiny." Heiser takes this to mean that the entity which deceived Adam and Eve was not really a serpent, but a luminous shining being.'’”” If this view is accepted, then it provides the basis for calling Satan the Devil by the name of Lucifer, for the name Lucifer is derived from two Latin words —

luci is the possessive of /ux, meaning "light," and fer is the root of the verb ferere, meaning "to carry;" hence, Lucifer is a shining one, a nechash, because he is the "Carrier of Light." Serpents are symbols of knowledge because they bring light — they illuminate. According to the English numerological system by increments of 6, whereby A= 6, B=12, C=18, etc, the number of the name of Jesus is 444, and the number of the name of Lucifer is also 444. Hence, Jesus = Lucifer. Both are shining serpentine beings, and both have at one time or

1116 Exodus 7:8-12

"17 Numbers 21:5-9

118 John 3:14

1119 9"4 Kings 18:4 1120 Friedman, Richard Elliot. Who Wrote the Bible? 1997, HarperCollins Publishers, New York, NY, p 207-216

1121 9°4 Kings 18:4, Isaiah 39:3-8 1122 Weiser, Michael S. The Nachash and His Seed: Some Explanatory Notes on Why the "Serpent" in Genesis 3 Wasn't a Serpent. Downloaded Oct 5, 2008, www.thedivinecouncil.com/nachashnotes.pdf

337

another been bringers of light. Not that they are the same entity, but rather they are the same or similar species. In Jesus' last words of the New Testament, he said, "I am that bright morning star,"!'"3 which hearkens back to Isaiah, where it is written, "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!"’!”4

The Hebrew here for "Lucifer" is hilel ben shaker, which refers to the bright morning star, Venus. Hence, Jesus is that bright morning star, the son of the morning, symbolically Venus, and he is called by this name because he is the carrier of light. Jesus replaces the first carrier of light who fell from grace, and thus Jesus is the new Lucifer. This is further borne out by the fact that when 444 and 444 are added together, that is Jesus and Lucifer being added together, the sum is 888. 888 is the number of the name of Jesus according to the Greek system of numerology. Hence, Jesus + Lucifer = Jesus, 444 + 444 = 888; which ironically also means that Lucifer mathematically is a zero, a looser, if

the equation is changed to Jesus + looser = Jesus, that is 888 + 0 = 888. This makes sense because Lucifer fell from grace, and so he is counted as a zero, a looser.

The forces that make crop circles have signaled that 888 is a holy number. A crop circle in the shape of an "8" appeared on August 8, 2008, that is 08/08/08, over Wiltshire England.'!”°

From the pictures,

you can tell it was not made by plank and string; rather, the vegetation was whirled and twisted together, and laid down flat without breaking the stock. This is the sign of a true crop circle, because it is impossible for hoaxers to duplicate.

On the same day, 08/08/08, a beneficial event

happened to me that enabled me to establish the continuous promotion of the ideas written in this book, as well as other good things. This was not by my own design, but the particular day was chosen by a power other than myself. It is well documented that 888 has always been the number of the name of Jesus. For example, Hippolytus stated "888 is the number of Jesus,"''”° and Irenaeus likewise "This is the name of Jesus: If you count up the numerical value of the letters you get 888."'!”’ If seeking Biblical

1123 Revelation 22:16

1124 Isaiah 14:12

"5 Eussell, Mark; Dike, Stuart. Below Milk Hill, nr Alton Barnes, Wiltshire. Reported 080808. Reported in 2008, www.cropcircleconnector.com/2008/080808/080808.html

"26 Hippolytus. The Refutation of All Heresies 6:45 '!27 Irenaeus. Against Heresies 1.15.2 338

confirmation,

one may

look to the book of Revelation,

implies that Jesus is 888. The beast, Revelation is followed says "I am

since it also

The chronology of Revelation is as follows:

666, is followed by the wrath of the apocalypse, which in is 7 trumpets, 7 plagues, and 7 bowls of wrath, 777, and this by the triumphant second coming of Jesus, 888, who then the bright morning star," which is Lucifer, 444, and when

added to himself, who is also 444, the sum is 888.

And so there is a

numerological pattern to Revelation. The actual calculation of the number of the name of Jesus is as follows: The Greek letters of his name, IESOUS, carry the values 10 for Iota, 8 for Eta, 200 for Sigma, 70 for Omikron, 400 for Upsilon, and 200 for Sigma, which when added together total 888. Numerology is by no means arbitrary, for the values of the letters do not change from word to word, but stay constant; thus, there are most certainly a very limited number of interpretations for any given word. Moreover, the number 888 is borne out by an Old Testament prophecy that foreshadowed Jesus long before his coming. The famous prophecy that Judah would continue its government until Shiloh came, that is, until the kingdom of Judah came to whom it belonged,’ has traditionally been interpreted to be a prophecy that when Jesus came, the nation of Judah would cease to exist — a fact which actually happened in history, because shortly after Jesus came, the Jewish nation was abolished by the Roman Empire. The Hebrew word Shiloh calculates to 345. When combined with the Holy Name of God which was spoken

through the burning bush to Moses, "I AM WHO

I AM,""” which

calculates to 543, these two added together are 888. Jesus claimed to be the I AM of that statement,’'*° and so it too is traditionally interpreted to be a foreshadowing of him. The calculations are as follows: Shiloh in Hebrew letters is SYLH, which carry the numbers 300 for Shin, 10 for Yod, 30 for Lamed, and 5 for Heh — these added together are 345. I AM WHO I AM in Hebrew is AHYH ASR AHYH. Aleph is | and Reish is Hence, we have AHYH 1+5+10+5 and ASR 1+300+200 and 200. AHYH 1+5+10+5, which is 21+501+21 = 543. Thus, when IAM WHO

I AM is added to Shiloh, which symbolically means that when the Unfathomable God becomes king of the Jewish nation in the form of the Messiah, then his numerological equation will be 543+345 = 888, that is,

1128 Genesis 49:10

1129 Exodus 3:14

1130 John 8:58 339

AM + Shiloh = Jesus. Hence, this numerological prophecy

I AM WHO]

of the Old Testament confirms that Jesus is the Messiah.

The Trinity and the Goddess of Christianity 888, when turned on its side, is three infinity symbols, which symbolizes the infinity of the Holy Trinity. The Trinity is by no means particular to traditional orthodoxy. To be sure, a lot of ancient so-called "heretics" believed in the Trinity too,

along with the ancient Orthodox-Catholics who also believed in it. Some Gnostics called the Trinity the "Triple Power," the "Triple Powered Aeon," the "Triple Male," or the "Triple of Both Genders."''*!

Others

"expressly declared that there are three Gods, three Logoses, three Minds, and three Men."'!*? Still others, like Simon Magus, understood the Triune God to manifest as the Son to the Jews, the Father to the

Samaritans, and the Holy Spirit to the gentiles.''*’ Some of the Gnostics even used the traditional Trinitarian formula, "The Father, the Son, and

the Holy Spirit."""** Among the most ancient Christians it was understood that the Holy Spirit is female. The earliest gospel, Mark, states that the Holy Spirit descended like a dove. The word for "dove" in Greek is peristera, and it carries the feminine gender. The Hebrew word ruach meaning "Spirit" is also feminine. Here are some quotes from early Christians: The

primordial

consciousness

permanently

exists

as

three:

Father, Mother, and Son.!'*°

The Holy Spirit is the mother of all living.'*° Elchasai asserts that the male is the Son of God, and that the

female is the Holy Spirit.''*’

"3! The Apocryphon of John, Allogenes, The Three Steles of Seth, Nag Hammadi 2:5, 11:45, 11:58, 7:120-121

"3? Hippolytus. The Refutation of All Heresies 5:7 3 Irenaeus. Against Heresies 1.23.1; Hippolytus. The Refutation of All Heresies 6:14

"34 "39 "136 "37

The Tripartite Tractate 15, Nag Hammadi 1:127 The Trimorphic Protennoia, Nag Hammadi 13:37 The Apocryphon of John, Nag Hammadi 2:10 Hinpolytus. The Refutation of All Heresies 9:8 340

Christ sits ona throne at the right hand of God, and "On God's left sits a Virgin on a throne, the Holy Spirit, and she praises him. Seven virgins are at her command."!!*8 The seven virgins are apparently a reference to the seven spirits of the Holy Spirit mentioned by the Prophets.'!? The Gnostics called the primordial

Goddess

"Mother,"

"Virgin,"

"Womb,"

and

"Voice."!!*°

Indeed, there are so many Gnostic sources that clearly assert that the Holy Spirit is female that space does not permit me to quote them all, but I have listed the remainder in this footnote.'!*! Early Catholic circles were no exception. They also declared the femininity of the Holy Spirit, calling her "Sophia," which is the Greek name for Divine Wisdom personified as a woman. The Logos, who is the Son, was always with the Father.

Sophia

also, who is the Spirit, was in God's presence before anything was created.'!”

The Trinity is God, his Logos, and his Sophia.

1143

This was before the Virgin Mary replaced the Holy Spirit as the primary symbol of female divinity in the Orthodox and Catholic Churches — something that did not happen until several hundred years after Jesus walked the earth. As for the Virgin Mary, she was not the real biological mother of Jesus. Mary was only a womb into which he was placed after he was conceived. The real mother of Jesus is the Holy Spirit. Jesus himself testifies to this effect, as did his early followers:

My Mother, the Holy Spirit, took me by one of my hairs and carried me to Mount Tabor...''“* My mother, my trve mother, gave me life.. ete

1138 On the Origin of the World, Nag Hammadi 2:105

1139 Zechariah 4:2, 4:10; Revelation 1:12-20

1140 The Trimorphic Protennoia, Nag Hammadi 13:38

1141 The Gospel of Truth, The Apocryphon of John, The Dialogue of the Savior 89, Nag Hammadi 1:24, 2:2, 2:4-5, 2:9, 3:144; Irenaeus. Against Heresies 1.7.1;

Hippolytus. The Refutation of All Heresies 6:30, 9:7 1142 lrenaeus. Against Heresies 4.20.3-4, 4.20.1 '143 Theophilus. To Autolycus 2:15 341

People say Mary got pregnant by the Holy Spirit, but they are wrong. Since when has a woman procreated with another woman? Mary is a virgin. Nothing had sex with her.'!* This idea is corroborated by Luke, where the angel says to Mary,

The Holy Spirit will come to you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore, that holy one to whom

you shall give birth will be called the Son of God.'!*” We have all heard that the Holy Spirit came to Mary, but who is this other character named the "Most High?" Translated into Hebrew, the "Most High" is Elyon, who is mentioned many times in the Old Testament, and in the English Bibles is translated consistently as the "Most High." Elyon is a derivative of El, the Father-God of the ancient Hebrews and of their Western Semitic kinfolk. In other words, it was God the Father and the Holy Spirit who conceived Jesus Christ. The "biological" parents of Jesus are the other two members of the Trinity. Mary had nothing to do with it. Rather, her womb was merely used to incubate Jesus after conception. God did this in order to deceive the hound of hell, the princes of the pit, and the archons of Abaddon into believing Jesus was more human than he really was, so that when he descended into the underworld to preach the gospel to the dead, Abaddon would believe he was only a dead man, and fail to recognize him as a living God. Thus Jesus was a Trojan horse in hell who "led captives out of hell and gave gifts to human kind — for what does it mean that he ascended but that he first descended?" As the Apostle wrote, "The gospel was preached to the dead."!"*8

UFO's and the Meaning of Christmas The Annunciation with Saint Emidius is a painting from 1486 AD. It commemorates the Virgin Mary's pregnancy with Jesus. Oddly, there is a very conspicuous and unmistakably disk-shaped UFO in it. The UFO

'l44 The Gospel of the Hebrews; this extra-Biblical gospel got a qualified endorsement from Eusebius. The History of Church 3:25

"45 The Gospel of Thomas 101 "46 The Gospel of Philip, Nag Hammadi 2:55

471 uke 1:35 "148 Enhesians 4:8-9, 1° Peter 4:6, 3:19 342

is beaming down a thin yellow ray of light onto Mary's head as she is praying. Even more bizarre, Mary is indoors, where an object in the sky would normally not shine its light.''*? This is consistent with reports of alien abduction, which often tell of people being safely indoors when strange lights appear and the abduction begins. Is it possible that the Virgin Mary was abducted by space aliens, and that Jesus was incubated during the abduction? In the Basilica at Notre-Dame, there resides another painting, this one called The Magnificat. The word Magnificat is another name for the Song of Mary recorded in the gospel, which Mary sang in response to the angel who told her that she would become pregnant with the Christ.’’*° In the painting, a hat-shaped UFO can be clearly seen in the sky.'!”! In still a third painting, this one depicting Mary with the baby Jesus, a disk-shaped UFO can be seen in the sky above Mary's head. A man and a dog can also be seen in the background, looking up in the sky at

the UFO."'””

All three of these paintings are from in the 15" century. Leonardo Da Vinci was painting fabulous war machines around that time, some of which looked much like UFO's.

Therefore, one might argue, these are

simply extensions of Da Vinci's influence, and not necessarily indicative of UFO's being present at the conception of Jesus. However, this explanation fails to account for yet a fourth painting — this one from a much later time and significantly different in style. The Battesimo de Cristo, painted in 1710, depicts a yellow distinctly diskshaped light shining through the clouds, and beaming four yellow rays on Jesus as he is baptized.''*? Unlike the UFO's in the other paintings, this UFO is not clearly seen. Only a yellow disk of light beyond the clouds is visible. Hence, the painting is clearly not intending to depict a Da Vinci flying war machine, yet it still very much resembles a UFO.

Christology Meets UFOology Who, or what, was Jesus Christ?

Within just a few short decades

1149 Crivelli, Carlo. The Annunciation with Saint Emidius. 1486, National Gallery, London, UK

150 |uke 1:46-55 ‘15! The Magnificat. 15" Century AD, Basilica at Notre-Dame, Beaune, France 1152 Ghirlandaio, Domenico; or the school of Lippi, Filippo. The Madonna with Saint Giovannino. c. 1490, Palazzo Vecchio, Florence, Italy 1153 De Gelder, Aert. Battesimo de Cristo. 1710, Fitzwilliam Museum,

Cambridge, UK 343

after he walked the earth, a vast array of completely different theories had emerged to answer this question. These theories often had little in common with each other. Many of them were entirely heretical, even downright blasphemous, by traditional Christian standards. Christian historians recorded the beliefs and origins of these theories in great detail. By the early date of 110 AD, a large mosaic of differing opinion was already established. The theological differences between competing groups of early Christians were so great that they make modern day differences between Catholics and Protestants look rather insignificant. The early Christians were very deeply divided over who Jesus Christ was. Yet they all had one thing in common. They all acknowledged that Jesus Christ was not entirely human. He was more than just a man. He was more than just another Prophet. There was something definitely unearthly about him. Besides this agreement, the early Christians reached no consensus of opinion. There was no consensus that he was the Creator. There was no consensus that he was born of a virgin. There was no consensus that he was God in the flesh. There was no consensus that he was even flesh at all! This is interesting because it fits well with Jesus Christ being a space alien. If he were the Almighty Creator God in the flesh, there would have been more of a consensus to that effect. If he were merely a mortal man around whom a legend of divinity evolved, there would have been at least one so-called "heretic" on record who taught that. As it is, the earliest histories indicate that every early group agreed that there was a component of his nature which was not of this world. This situation seems natural if Jesus Christ was a space alien, for a space alien would appear to be in some way divine to ancient eyes, yet not entirely congruent with a monotheistic concept of God. Below are some quick summaries of the theories that attempted to explain who Jesus Christ really was. All of these emerged within living memory of the first generation after Jesus Christ’s time on earth. These are the very earliest interpretations: The Simonians believed that God got reincarnated from body to body. Jesus Christ was one incarnation. Simon Magus was another. Simon’s disciple Menander was a third. This theory had its origin with Simon Magus, whom Saint Peter is said to have rebuked.'!** Cerinthus and Theodotus believed that Christ and Jesus were actually 154 Acts 8:9-24

344

two different people. Jesus was human in every normal biological sense, but Christ was divine. Christ entered into Jesus, such that they shared the same body, while remaining two different people.!!*> The Ebionites agreed with Cerinthus on these points, and they were mentioned at a very

early date by Ignatius of Antioch about 100-110 AD.''*° Cerinthus was

very early, for it is recorded that he was a hostile acquaintance of Saint John the Apostle.''*” Apelles agreed with Cerinthus, except that he believed Jesus Christ's body was not entirely human, but rather was composed of various states of matter that exist throughout the cosmos.'!** Carpocrates believed Jesus was a human conceived in the normal way, but that he was different because he was pure, and because he had a perfect memory, and because he had a special ability to escape from the evil angels who created the cosmos.''” Other Gnostics asserted that Jesus Christ was "born as God,"!!™ and they affirmed that he was born of a virgin.''®’ Marcion taught that Jesus was eternally unbegotten and that he

descended from heaven. Moreover, Jesus only appeared to be flesh, but was really a phantasm. Jesus' Father was not the God of the Old Testament, but was rather a different God above him.''?

Likewise, the Docetae believed that Jesus Christ was entirely divine and heavenly. As such, he was not human at all. He only looked like he was human. The earliest evidence for the existence of this theory occurs in the New Testament,''® and also in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch. These date from 80-110 AD.""™

1155 jrenaeus. Against Heresies 1.26.1-2; Hippolytus.

The Refutation of All

Heresies 7:21, 7:23, 10:17

1156 Ignatius of Antioch. Philadelphians 6 57 renaeus. Against Heresies 3.3.4 1158 Hinpolytus. The Refutation of All Heresies 7:26 1159 Irenaeus. Against Heresies 1.25.1; Hippolytus. The Refutation of All Heresies 7:20 11% The Trimorphic Protennoia, Nag Hammadi 13:38

16! Hinpolytus. The Refutation of All Heresies 8:2, 10:12 1162 trenaeus. Against Heresies 1.27; Hippolytus. The Refutation of All Heresies 7:19) 10:35

1163 45 John 4:2-3 1164 Ipnatius of Antioch. Trallians 10, Smyrnaeans 1, 3, 7, Ephesians 7 345

The Peratae saw Jesus as a three-fold power who descended from heaven without ever being born, and contained within himself the fullness of all the potentialities of the cosmos.'!® The most popular branch of Gnosticism asserted that in the beginning, there were a certain number of primordial elements from which everything has its essence. They believed Jesus Christ was the "fullness" of these "elements" — in Greek, the pleroma of the aeons.''°° Different Gnostic groups argued extensively over precisely what this meant. The earliest mention of this type of theory occurs in the New Testament

book of Colossians,

"the elements

of the world...

all the

fullness of the Godhead..."'’®’ Colossians is dated from 50-68 AD by Bible believing Christians and 60-90 AD by more secular critical scholars. This view reached the height of its popularity with Valentinus, who went further by separating Jesus from Christ, alleging Jesus was of the animal nature and Christ of the spiritual.'’® Basilides saw Jesus as the manifestation of a heavenly conglomerate of seeds, who sits at the right hand of the demiurge in the heights of the firmament and advises him, and that the reason for his passion was to accomplish the ordering of the seeds — that is, to distinguish things and to put all things in the cosmos in their proper order.'"” Saturninus believed Jesus only appeared to be human, but was really unbegotten and incorporeal, and that the Father who is above all sent him to overthrow the god of the Jews, and to bring salvation to those who

believe in him.''”

The Catholics were first mentioned by Ignatius of Antioch about 100-110 AD."'” They believed that Jesus Christ was both fully God and fully human united in a single person. The earliest definite and explicit mention of this belief occurs in the New Testament book of John, "in the

beginning was the Word... The Word was God... and the Word became flesh."''” John wrote the rough draft himself, and asked his associates to

edit it for him.'’” John is dated from 80-110 AD. Ignatius of Antioch "6 Hinpolytus. The Refutation of All Heresies 5:7, 10:6 ''® Irenaeus. Against Heresies 1.2.6; Hippolytus. The Refutation of All Heresies 6:27

"167 "168 '1 '\7°

Colossians 2:8-9 Irenaeus. Against Heresies 1.21.2 Hinpolytus. The Refutation of All Heresies 7:11, 7:15 Hippolytus. The Refutation of All Heresies 7:16

"171 Ignatius of Antioch. Smyrnaeans 9

ve, Jonm it 114 "73 Wuratorion Canon, c. 170 AD 346

concurred that Jesus was "God existing as flesh."!'*

By the late 2™

century, Catholic theology had become dominant. Today, nearly all Christians, both Catholic and Protestant, accept this opinion. Then there are other interpretations that cannot certainly be dated until after apostolic times, yet are still ancient: The Sethians believed that the Father produced the Son from some kind of cosmic heated turbulence, and that the Son "was transformed into the shape of a serpent and entered a womb." To justify their concept of Christ's divine nature, the Sethians quoted Paul, "Who, being in the form

of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God."'!” Another group of Sethians or Ophites believed that the heavenly Christ joined with Sophia and descended into the man Jesus Christ, and that this is why he was able to perform miracles. These miracles enraged other powers, and so they killed him. Christ and Sophia departed from Jesus before he died on the cross, yet Christ was nice enough to resurrect Jesus afterwards.''’° The Noetians believed that Jesus Christ was divine, but not as the

Trinity says, for they asserted that the Father and the Son are really the same person, not distinct.''’’ Their opinion was originally conceived toward the end of the 2™ century, and still survives today among those who style themselves "Apostolic Pentecostals." The Arians believed that Jesus Christ was a God separate and distinct from the Father-God, who was neither joined to him in a Trinity nor equal with him. They emerged in the early 4" century. Their opinion survives today among the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. The Muslims believe Jesus was only a man, and in no way divine at all. Yet they believe that he was a great Prophet, that he was born of the Virgin Mary, and that he was the Messiah. Like the Docetae, most Muslims think that he was whisked away while on the cross, only appearing to die when in reality he did not. Many believe he will come again at the time of the apocalypse. The Muslims first emerged in the 620's AD. Thus, it took six centuries for legend to devolve Christ from God to mortal.

Jesus Is a Space Alien God From this, it is clear that several deeply differing Christologies 1174 isnatius of Antioch. Ephesians 7 175 Hipnpolytus. The Refutation of All Heresies 10:7; Philippians 2:6 176 jrenaeus. Against Heresies 1.30.13 177 Hinpolytus. The Refutation of All Heresies 8:12, 9:5 347

sprang up within living memory of Jesus Christ, and a few more in the ancient centuries afterward. Despite their differences, these Christologies, with the exception of Islam, all acknowledged in one way or another that at least some component of Jesus Christ’s nature was definitely not of this world. Noticeably absent from this assemblage is the belief that he was a mere human with no supernatural presence within him. Even at Nicea, the issue was not if Jesus Christ was divine, but rather how he was divine. Nobody at Nicea believed he was merely human. Christian history written before Nicea fills up ten volumes of encyclopedic books called the "Ante-Nicene Fathers." Additionally, the Gnostic gospels and various apocryphal works of antiquity make our knowledge of the earliest Christians essentially complete. From this material, it is apparent that Jesus Christ was not a mere man who gradually evolved from legend into God. Instead, both proto-Catholic and so-called "heretical" sources from antiquity agree that there was some kind of divine component to Jesus Christ, and that belief in his divinity was widespread from the very earliest days of the faith. However, the precise nature of this divine component was a matter of hot debate among them. Jesus Christ being a space alien god fits this pattern. If he were the Almighty Creator God, he would have told people that, and everybody would have known what it meant.

If he had done so, there would be no

reason for the vast divergence of Christologies that are known to have existed within living memory of him. But instead of confessing that he was Almighty God in the flesh, he used vague terms to describe himself — "Son of Man,"

"Son of God,"

"Messiah,"

— all of which

hint at

something heavenly or quasi-divine, yet subtly ambiguous enough to make us wonder. It’s as if everybody knew there was something supernatural about him, but nobody knew what it was for sure, and Jesus himself didn’t care to explain it. Perhaps this is why the earliest gospels, Mark and Quelle, have such an underdeveloped and uncertain Christology — because the authors of Mark and Quelle were themselves uncertain, and so they intentionally left the Christology of their gospels incomplete. If Jesus Christ told people he was a space alien, nobody would have known what it meant. The ancients had no concept of extra-terrestrial life, nor of outer space. To them, the stars were imbedded in a ceiling just above the earth. To them, the planets were nothing but wandering stars on their astrology charts. If they saw a UFO, it was attributed to the gods. If they saw a space alien, it was said to be a demon or monster of 348

some sort. Telling people about space aliens back then would have resulted in unnecessary confusion. If Jesus Christ were a space alien, the best thing for him to do would be to do exactly what he did — tell people he was from heaven, but leave his precise nature a mystery. Indeed, he

did just that, and his actions in this respect are congruent with what we

would expect from a space alien who visited us before we had the scientific knowledge to understand him properly. The result was a vast array of differing opinions concerning who he was, all of which emerged rather spontaneously within a few short decades of his lifetime. Jesus Christ did not want people to know who he was.

In fact, he

was quite satisfied to allow confusion about him to persist. As Mark, the earliest gospel, records, he asked his disciples, "Who do people think I am?" They answered that a variety of opinions about his nature were in circulation.

Jesus then asked, "Who do you think I am?"

“The: Messiah." this." On

another

They replied,

Then Jesus "sternly warned them not to tell anyone occasion,

recorded

outside

the Bible,

a man

named

Abgar wrote a letter to Jesus Christ saying, "I reasoned that you must be either God or the Son of God." Jesus wrote back to Abgar saying, "Blessed are you because you have believed."''” What is interesting here is that Jesus Christ did not care to answer the implicit question — was he God or was he the Son of God? This question was responsible for the Arian schism, the debate at Nicea, and the Gothic Wars which

plunged Europe into the dark ages. It was a very important question, yet Jesus did not answer it.. He wanted people to believe in him, but didn’t really want them to know exactly who he was. This is fully congruent with what we might expect from a space alien who never bothered to explain his precise nature because it was beyond the comprehension of his audience, or because he wanted to maintain some level of secrecy. Consequently, speculation about Jesus Christ’s true nature ran wild in the early days of the faith. Nobody knew for sure who he was, so everybody started guessing. But the speculation always assumed he was not of this world, because that was the one thing everybody who saw him could agree upon.

To Prepare a Place for You In my Father's house are many mansions. If it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go

1178 Mark 8:27-30 1179 Eusebius.

The History of the Church 1:13 349

to prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you to me, so that where I am, you might also be there.'!*° So said Jesus. If we dare to take this passage at its most literal face value, then the meaning is quite clear: Jesus' Father has a lot of big houses in his kingdom, but he doesn't have enough for us earthlings yet; and that's why Jesus left earth, to prepare a place for us, so that there would be enough room in the kingdom of God for us. In light of the gods being physically real extraterrestrial entities, the passage becomes a lot more tangible and straightforward: The Christian God doesn't control enough planets in the Galaxy to properly accommodate his servants, and so he is going to find some more planets in outer space that they can colonize. Thus, he will add "mansions" to his kingdom. Although this interpretation might seem outlandish, it is actually supported when read in conjunction with another dark parable of Jesus — a parable that theologians often reinterpret because of its violent nature and because of its incomprehensibility when read within the confines of the traditional Christian paradigm. What centuries of theology have missed in this parable becomes entirely understandable when we understand that Jesus is a space god who left earth in order to conquer a planet for his servants to colonize. People were thinking that the kingdom of God would appear immediately, and so Jesus told them, "A certain nobleman went to a far away country to acquire a kingdom for himself, and to return... but his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, 'We do not want this man to reign over us...' (and the nobleman replied), 'Bring those enemies of mine who did not want me to reign over them. Bring them here, and slay them in front of me.""""*! The nobleman is Jesus. The far away country is a planet beyond this earth. The citizens are the occupants of the planet Jesus intends to conquer. They don't want to be conquered, so Jesus is going to kill them. This parable is part of the very early gospel source Quelle, found in both Matthew and in Luke, and as such is one of the most certainly authentic oracles of Jesus.

1180 John 14:2-3 "811 uke 19:11-12,14,27 350

The idea that the Christian God is a God of conquest should not be

surprising at all. One of the most frequently used names for God in the

Prophetic oracles of the Bible is "LORD of Hosts." actually the Hebrew

word sabbaoth,

which

The word "hosts" is

means

"armies,"

and so

"LORD of Hosts" is actually "Yahweh of Armies." It is a military title for God. The prophesies of Revelation corroborate that Christ is a militant God: He (Christ) judges and makes war... the armies which were in heaven followed him... and I saw the beast, and the kings of the

earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him and against his army.''*” The Christian God is a God of military conquest. The "church militant" is truly a militant church. After 540 million years of animals ripping each others heads off and eating each other, it is safe to say there is certainly no Natural Law of Love. The only Natural Law is Natural Selection, the Law of the Jungle — and everyone, both gods and mortals, must abide by this law in order to survive. Survival of the fittest does not permit the gods to be anything better than violent creatures.

For this reason Jesus said,

Unless you bear your cross every be my disciple. Whoever tries to whoever looses their life for my same shall save it. If you wish first count the cost.''®

day and follow me, you cannot save their life will loose it, and sake and for the gospel's, the to build a fortress, you should

If God were the Almighty God of Unconditional Love and Grace, then shouldn't he endeavor to save all his children?

On the other hand, if God

is a space alien who is locked in a violent death match with other space aliens, then it makes sense that he would only save his most loyal followers, because only those who are loyal have the will to fight for him in the never ending wars of the gods. Jesus Christ's statement above indicates that the latter is the case, for the cost to follow him is great, on

account of the incessant warfare it entails.

1182 Revelation 19:11-19

1183 \ark 8:34-35, Matthew 16:24-25, Luke 9:23-24, 14:26-27 351

>.

Of Heaven and Hell

Supernatural Biological Entities Survival of the fittest favors those who have a strong desire to survive. In the wild, those who do not have a strong desire to survive probably won't. They die, and their genes die with them. Therefore, the aliens have evolved a strong desire to survive. Like us, they dream of living forever. So how might an intelligent life form, which has evolved beyond our capabilities, set about to make itself immortal? How would a space alien cheat death? Like us, they probably discovered the technology of cloning. Like us, they probably experience ghostly phenomena, whereby the energies of the dead continue to haunt the world they left behind. Like us, they might have even been familiar with the demonic phenomena of possession, whereby a non-corporal life form enters into another life form and takes control of its host. At this point, all of the obvious components for immortality are apparent. If you were more technologically advanced than a human, and if you had certain clairvoyant or psychic gifts beyond that of a human, then, in order to achieve immortality, you might do the following: Clone yourself. Then study ghosts so that you will know how to control your ghost after you die. Then, when you die, steer your ghost so that it can take possession of the clone. In this manner, a person might be able to achieve immortality, by transferring oneself from body to body. The biological component wears out and dies, but the soul of the person can overcome this by acquiring new biological bodies. Obviously, we do not have the technology for this. Nevertheless, the basic components and general process for how it might be achievable is well within our comprehension, and perhaps is even within our ability, if we were to study the matter in more depth. If it were achievable, then those who were able to achieve it would move beyond the realm of mere intelligent life. They would become, in fact, supernatural biological entities.

352

The Resurrection In this context, the resurrection of the flesh becomes

scientifically

understandable, for it is the movement of a ghost into a living body. According to the Biblical account of the resurrection of Jesus, those who saw him often did not recognize him right away, but upon closer look, they saw that it was him. Mary Magdalene mistook him for the gardener at first, but then recognized him after a minute or so.'!*4 Likewise, two

men on the road to Emmaus

did not recognize him at first, but then

realized it was him later on.''*?

When they were eating together in

Galilee, "Nobody dared ask if it was the Lord, for they all knew it was him."''®© Why did they want to ask? If Jesus looked like Jesus, then why would there be any question? Apparently, Jesus had taken on some sort of different appearance, yet they still knew it was him. This is entirely consistent with what we would expect if the resurrected Jesus were a clone, which was taken over by the ghost of Jesus. A clone would have had shorter hair. A clone would not have had a chance to grow a beard yet. A clone would have had perfect teeth. A clone's face would not have been weathered. A clone would have looked different. But upon closer examination, those who knew him best would have known that it was him.

His height, shoulder width, body type, tone

of voice, personality, and especially his recollections of past events would have eventually convinced them. It would take a minute to suspect it was him, and even a little longer to fully accept it, but with enough "incontrovertible proofs," as Luke says,''*’ they would have eventually accepted that it was him. This is exactly the scenario we see mentioned several times in the multiple gospel accounts of Jesus Christ's resurrection. On the other hand, if the resurrected Jesus were just an imposture pretending to be Jesus, the exact opposite would have been true. They would have immediately recognized the imposture as looking like Jesus, but upon closer examination, they would have subsequently realized he

was not. Likewise, if Jesus somehow survived the crucifixion, they would have recognized him immediately because he was badly wounded

and scarred all over his body. The fact that they did not recognize him at

first, but later realized it was him is consistent only with the clone theory.

1184 M85 186 MEP

John | uke John Acts

20:14-17 24:13-32 21:12 1:3 353

The resurrection is not spiritual, but physical. biological. The resurrected Jesus ate food, and said,

Specifically, it is

Put your hands on me and handle me. A spiritual entity does not have flesh and bones, but you can see that I do.'1*8 Hence, Jesus was not a spiritual entity; rather, he was a supernatural biological entity. Early Christians and Essenes insisted that we would likewise be resurrected into actual physical bodies, not as mere "spirits in heaven" or "spiritual bodies" or anything of the sort — but rather as physical flesh and bone. Here is what they said: The Essenes also say that when the flesh is resurrected, it will be immortal.''* We await the salvation of the entire human — that is, both soul and body.''”°

Humans will truly rise from the dead, not metaphorically, as | have shown repeatedly."!”!

This is also in line with what the Prophet Zarathustra says, for he understood that the resurrection was biological in nature. He speaks of a future kingdom of material prosperity wherein, The righteous, in the future life, shall be given two pregnant cows, an ox, and everything else they can think to desire.!’”” This is not cyclic reincarnation. Zarathustra says nothing of reincarnation, but rather speaks of the Bridge of Separation, which divides everyone between two eternal destinies — salvation and doom.!’” The Zoroastrians still believe in a physical resurrection with materialistic rewards to this day.

"88 | uke 24:39-43, John 21:10-15 "89 Hippolytus. The Refutation of All Heresies 9:22 '199 Irenaeus. Against Heresies 5.20.1 "91 Irenaeus. Against Heresies 5.35.2

1! Vasna 46:19, 28:9, from the Gathas of Zarathustra 193 Vasna 43:12, 46:11, 51:13, from the Gathas of Zarathustra 354

Scientists, ghost hunters, and exorcists also lend credibility to this understanding of the resurrection. Mainstream science does not even

recognize the existence of incorporeal spiritual entities, but rather sees all life as being necessarily biological, and therefore, any resurrection must necessarily be biological or it is not really life. Ghost hunters differ in that they believe spirits exist; however, they observe that ghosts are generally very weak, only being able to lift a few pounds, and that they require enormous concentration to accomplish even the least strenuous of tasks. Exorcists regularly observe that incorporeal spirits exist; however, these spirits crave physical bodies, so much so that they attempt to possess the bodies of biological entities. Incorporeal life craves to become corporeal, for such is the natural state of life. Therefore, science,

ghostology, and demonology all give testimony to the effect that life must be biological, or else it is not really life at all. Accordingly, the resurrection requires a biological body.

Demons, the Ghosts of the Nephilim The gods attain effective immortality by possessing new biological bodies as their old bodies wear out. However, when a god procreates with a mortal, the resulting hybrid child may not have the ability to do this, because it is only half god. Yet the hybrid still thinks it potentially might have this ability, because one of its parents did, and so when the hybrid dies, it attempts to possess a new biological entity, but cannot completely effect the possession, and so it becomes a demon that torments its host in an effort to drive the soul of the owner out of the body it seeks to possess. This explains demons. The deceased soul of a hybrid god-mortal falls on the continuum between the soul of a dead god and the soul of a human ghost. The demon has the soul of a god in terms of ability to move its soul into another body. However, it does not have the full power

of a god, because

it is half mortal, and so it cannot

completely take over another body. The demon is doomed to a most frustrating existence, for it desires to move from body to body as a god does, but cannot do so. This is why the demons volatile, and forever in a bad mood.

are so frustrated,

There is considerable historical evidence to suggest that the foregoing conclusions are correct, because these truths have apparently been revealed to us by the gods, and are even somewhat observable by

exorcists and demonologists. The earliest followers of the Christian faith believed that demons are the ghosts of angel-human hybrids who were the nephilim of Genesis 6 and Enoch. As Justin Martyr said,

355

The angels forsook their appointment, and were enthralled with the love of women. They had children, who are the demons. Moreover,

they later subdued the human

race to themselves,

partly by occult writings, and partly by fear and punishment they effected, and partly by teaching them to offer sacrifices, incense,

and libations.''”*

Athenagoras also gave his support to the idea, saying,

These angels fell into impure love of virgins and were subjected by the flesh... Thus, those who are called the giants were sired by these lovers of virgins... These angels, who have fallen from heaven, who haunt the air and the earth, are no longer able to rise to heavenly things; and the souls of the giants, who are the demons, who wander about the world, behave similarly to them.'!° Here, we see plainly that Athenagoras distinguished between fallen angels and demons. The fallen angels were the lustful fathers of the demons. The demons were their half-mortal children, born from human women. Athenagoras was no fool. He was a highly respected advocate of the faith prominent enough to gain an audience with the Roman Emperors Marcus Aurelius and Commodus in 177 CE, to whom he presented his literary work A Plea for the Christians. There were many other ancient voices that testified to the distinction between angels and demons, and to the fact that the demons are the ghosts of angel-mortal hybrids. These include Tatian who affirmed that demons are incorporeal,''”° Origen who affirmed a distinction between angels and demons,''”’ Lactantius who affirmed that demons are the ghosts of angel-human hybrids,'’”® and Commodianus who affirmed the same opinion as Lactantius.''”” The case of Commodianus bears mention, because he was a pastor-bishop of a church around Carthage

'!4 Justin Martyr. The Second Apology of Justin for the Christians: Addressed to the Roman Senate 5. "5 Athenagoras. A Plea for the Christians 24-25 196 Tatian. Address of Tatian to the Greeks 15

''97 Origen. Against Celsus 8:25.

"8 Lactantius. The Divine Institutes 2:15 "9 Commodianus.

The Instructions of Commodianus 3

356

(Tunisia) at a time when Christianity in that region was known for being very strict and ultra-conservative. His environment was not exactly the best forum for unconventional views. To the contrary, his views on demons and angels were the conventional wisdom of the day within conservative Christian orthodoxy. Even the demons themselves attest that they are hybrids. The Zoroastrian demon Akkoman, who is called Asmodeus Christian tradition, once told King Solomon,

in the Judea-

Although I was born from a human mother, I am the son of an angel.'7°°

The Greeks were fascinated by the concept of demons. Plato recorded their nature very specifically, stating that they are disembodied spirits who possess superior knowledge. He said, "The deity does not converse

with

humans,

but

all

communications

and

conversations

between gods and humans is done by demons acting as mediums." Hesiod also supposed that demons existed, yet his interpretation saw them as dead party animals who now haunt the earth and keep watch over humans.’*”' Hesiod is consistent with the Christian and Gilgamesh interpretations, insofar as they were party animals, because they "ate, drank, got married, and were given in marriage," and "partied like New Year's all the time."?””

Demons of Spirit, Angels of Flesh The incorporeal nature of demons contrasts sharply with every ancient representation of angels, for angels most definitely have flesh.

This can be seen in Genesis 18, where the men of Sodom attempted to rape two angels. It is also apparent in several other Old Testament passages, such as Judges' chapters 2 and 13, where the angel of Yahweh eats food, and in the account of Jesus' resurrection, wherein angels In contrast, there is no appear indistinguishable from human men. where demons literature, account in the Bible, nor in early Christian breed. appear in the flesh. Demons are wholly an incorporeal

1200 Testament of Solomon 5:3 1201 pember, GH. Earth's Earliest Ages. Edited by Lang, GH, 1911, Kregel Publications, p 58 1202 Quelle, Matthew 24:36, Luke 17:27; Gilgamesh Epic 11:70-74 of Assyrian tablet

357

Testimony of a Modern Exorcist That's all well and good, but what do today's exorcists say? Since first becoming a Pentecostal minister in the 1940's, Pastor Derek Prince has had dozens of years of experience in the realm of casting out demons.’

In his words,

I describe demons as disembodied spirit beings that have an intense craving to occupy physical bodies.’ On the basis of my experience, I find it hard to believe that demons are fallen angels... Demons, on the other hand, appear to be earthbound creatures. '”°° Prince

distinguishes

between

two

Greek

words

of the

New

Testament, daimon and daimonion, that are both translated "demon" in

English. He postulates that the daimons are a higher angelic order, resident to the heavens in accordance with Ephesians 6:12, but that the daimonions are a lower earthbound order of disembodied spirits. He also claims to have had interaction with both, and that the nature of the two

types of interaction is not similar.'*°° Could it be that the difference is because one group of "demons" are ghosts of the nephilim and the other group of "demons" are fallen angels? Consistent with Pentecostal attitudes on the sole authority of the Bible, Prince does not base his opinions on any of the foregoing material presented from the extra-Biblical ancient Christian writings. Rather, his opinions are rooted in the Bible and in his own extensive personal experience. It is most interesting that, despite the Pentecostal and Protestant tendency to ignore extra-Biblical literature, their own best experienced exorcists tend to corroborate the demonological opinions of the very extra-Biblical literature they ignore. Clearly, there is more to demonology than just an overactive imagination, for the lost wisdom of the ancients is reconfirmed and corroborated by the experiences of today's exorcists, many of whom are unaware of and disinterested in the ancient testimony that they corroborate.

2° Prince, Derek. They Shall Expel Demons: What You Need to Know About Demons — Your Invisible Enemies.

1998, Baker Book House Company, Grand

Rapids, MI, p 30

1204 Prince, Derek. ibid, p 89 '°5 Prince, Derek. ibid, p 91 2° Drince, Derek. ibid, p 94 358

Sulfur Demons One signature of demonic presence is the smell of sulfur. According to Prince, demon possessed individuals sometimes display a yellow

sulfurous glow in the middle of each eye.!”°’ Also, the legendary apemonster Bigfoot is reported to have a very foul stench like sulfur. Insofar as Bigfoot may be an angel-mortal hybrid species aimed at devolving us into lower primates, their connection with the demonic should not be surprising. It is also sometimes reported that the occupants of UFO's smell like sulfur.!*"° A bit of chemistry brings some science into the sulfur phenomenon. It is proposed by some astrobiologists that liquid hydrogen sulfide might be a suitable solvent as an alternative to water, from which life could have emerged. Hydrogen sulfide is common enough in the universe, and it dissolves organic elements readily enough, that it is quite plausibly a solvent for life.

Thus, there is some scientific basis for the existence of

sulfuric extraterrestrials. Hydrogen sulfide is a cousin to water. It is H,S. Water is H,O. Sulfur replaces oxygen. Hydrogen sulfide exists as a liquid only at cold temperatures, which means that any life form based on hydrogen sulfide would be colder than we are.'”°? Perhaps this characteristic explains why people often feel chilly, a literal drop in temperature, when in the company of an evil spirit.

Cycles of Ages or Eternal Kingdom? 13.7 billion years ago, the Big Bang blasted the universe into existence. Ever since then, the universe has been flying away from itself. For a long time, scientists wondered whether the universe will expand forever, or whether gravity will cause it to fall back into itself. No more do they wonder. Science has decisively answered the question. The question has religious implications. An eternally expanding universe accords with Christianity, as the Prophet Isaiah said, "Of the

increase of his kingdom there will be no end,"''° meaning that the Kingdom of Heaven will continually increase because the universe will 1207 Brince, Derek. ibid, p 45 1208 Denzler, Brenda. The Lure of the Edge: Scientific Passions, Religious Beliefs, and the Pursuit of UFOs. 2001, University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA, p 124 1209 Schulze-Makuch, Dirk; Irwin, Louis N. Life in the Universe: Expectations and Constraints. 2004, Springer-Verlag, Berlin & Heidelberg, Germany, p 112-114 1210 Ieaiah 9:7 359

literally expand forever. Jesus added, "The Kingdom of Heaven is like a mustard seed, which is the smallest of all seeds, yet it grows to be the

largest of trees, and the birds of the air nest in it."'7!! Likewise, the Big Bang started as the smallest of seeds, a singularity, infinitely small and infinitely dense, and it has grown to be quite large, such that the UFO's of the air nest in it. In tension with the Prophets, many human philosophers hypothesized that time exists as cycles of ages, which periodically collapse back into the Primordial Oneness of the cosmos, only to be reincarnated in another age. This view accords with the presumption that gravity will overtake the Big Bang, and that the universe will collapse back into itself, only to be reincarnated in another Big Bang, which will again collapse back into itself, and so on, through the never-ending circle of time. Science has resolved the dispute in favor of the Prophets, over and

against the philosophers. It has become generally accepted sound science that the universe will expand forever. The universe has achieved escape velocity. It will never collapse back into itself. Dark matter and dark energy, once poorly understood, have now been studied to the extent that we can scientifically confirm this conclusion. According to the Dark Energy Survey Collaboration, The most surprising discovery in the recent years has been the accelerated expansion of the universe. New high quality data and other measurements have confirmed the fact beyond any

doubt.'7!”

This fact, that the Prophets had it right and that the philosophers of humanity had it wrong, is evidence that the Prophets are truly inspired by an intelligence greater than our own.

The Never-Ending Expansion of the Universe There are three cosmic players influencing the ultimate destiny of the universe — luminous matter, dark matter, and dark energy.

11 Mark 4:31, Luke 13:19, Matthew 13:31 '212 Sanchez, E; on behalf of the Dark Energy Survey Collaboration. The Dark Energy Survey. Compiled in Munez, Carlos; Yepes, Gustavo. The Dark Side of the Universe: 2”? International Conference on The Dark Side of the Universe. DSU 2006, American Institute of Physics, AIP Conference Proceedings 878, Madrid, Spain, p 213

360

Luminous matter is the stuff you can see. It is comprised of atoms and molecules. It accounts for only 4% of the total gravity it would take

to force the universe to collapse. According to Nicolson,

If the universe contained nothing else but luminous matter, gravity would be far too feeble ever to halt its headlong expansion. The universe would be open, and destined to expand forever. '*!? Besides luminous matter, there is dark matter.

Dark matter is the

stuff you cannot see. It is matter, but not in the form of atomic particles. During the explosion of the Big Bang, most matter was unable to form into atomic particles, and thus it exists at the subatomic level. Dark matter provides less than a quarter of the mass required to exert the gravitational force needed to make the universe collapse on itself. One estimate puts the figure at 22%,'*"* and another at 20%.'7!> Thus, when the gravitational force of luminous matter and dark matter are combined, they account for only 26% or 28% of the gravity needed to overtake the velocity of the Big Bang. In other words, there is far too little gravity in the universe to offset the speed at which the universe is expanding. The universe will expand forever. But dark energy is the most mysterious of the three.

Dark Energy and Outer Darkness Astrophysicists believe that dark energy is an unseen force that is literally casting us into outer darkness. They believe that this force is going to cause a very rapid acceleration in the speed at which the universe is flying away from itself, pushing us farther and farther away from the center of the universe at an increasing speed. This theory is called "The Big Rip," because it proposes that the universe will be ripped apart and cast into the oblivion of eternal outer darkness. The Big Rip !213 Nicolson, lan. Dark Side of the Universe: Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and the Fate of the Cosmos. 2007, John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD, p 33, 114

1214 Nicolson, lan. ibid, p 114 !215 Sanchez, E; on behalf of the Dark Energy Survey Collaboration. The Dark Energy Survey. Compiled in Munez, Carlos; Yepes, Gustavo. The Dark Side of the Universe: 2" International Conference on The Dark Side of the Universe. DSU 2006, American Institute of Physics, AIP Conference Proceedings 878,

Madrid, Spain, p 213

361

has apparently already begun. For the first 9 billion years in the history of the universe, gravity was slowing our velocity. But about 5 billion years ago, the situation reversed. The speed at which the universe is flying away from itself started to increase. This is known from a spectrographic study confirming the increasing red shift of a sample of 230 type 1A supernovae in distant galaxies, whose light is just now arriving from 6 billion light years away.’”'° From supernovae like these, it can be determined that the universe is expanding so fast that it will never contract.'*!’ Current theory sees dark energy as a type of cosmic fluid or negative pressure, wherein its pressure equals its density times the negative of the cosmological constant.'*’* Because of it, and because the gravity of matter is insufficient, the universe is flying apart, and it will never come back together again.'?"° Dark energy echoes the words of Jesus Christ, They will be cast into outer darkness.'7”°

Outer Darkness and the Big Rip It is a proven scientific fact that hell fire and eternal damnation literally do exist. Unfortunately, we cannot say the same about heaven

'216 Nicolson, lan. Dark Side of the Universe: Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and the Fate of the Cosmos.

2007, John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD, p

121-128

'217 Riess, A G; Filippenko, A V; Challis, P; Clocchiatti, A; Diercks, A; Garnavich, P M; Gilliland, R L; Hogan, C J; Jha, S; Kirshner, R P; Leibundgut, B; Phillips, M M; Reiss, D; Schmidt, B P; Schommer, R A; Smith, R C; Spyromilio, J; Stubbs, C; Suntzeff, N B; Tonry, J. Observational Evidence from Supernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constant. 1998, The Astronomical Journal 116, p 1009-1038

'718 Stefancic, Hrvoje. Dark-Energy Equation of State: How Far Can We Go from Alpha? Compiled in Munez, Carlos; Yepes, Gustavo. The Dark Side of the Universe: 2" International Conference on The Dark Side of the Universe. DSU 2006, American Institute of Physics, AIP Conference Proceedings 878, Madrid, Spain, p 247

"718 Nicolson, lan. Dark Side of the Universe: Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and the Fate of the Cosmos.

2007, John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD, p 60-

72

'219 Gianz, James. Breakthrough of the Year: Astronomy: Cosmic Motion Revealed.

1998, Science 282, 5397, p 2156-2157

220 Matthew 8:12, 22:13, 25:30 362

yet. Our telescopes are still not powerful enough to see heaven. not a joke. This is quite serious.

This is

The Big Bang occurred at the center of the universe. As the universe expands, its stars will burn all of the fuel in the universe until all the stars die. All light energy will eventually be converted into heat energy — making the dark starless sky hellishly hot. In the end, there will be nothing but burning coals of dead stars and eternal darkness. The universe will never rebound. It will never collapse on itself to repeat its life. It will simply expand forever and ever into smoldering darkness. This sounds like hell. As Nicolson concluded,

We live in a universe that is dominated by its dark side.'7”! Moreover, our ability to escape is now limited. The best time to get out of the Milky Way Galaxy was before 5 billion years ago, that is, before the Big Rip started accelerating the speed at which the galaxies are moving away from each other. Now might be too late. The speed at which galaxies are moving away from each other may prohibit us from ever traveling to other galaxies. The die has been cast. We have already been cast into outer darkness. As the Prophet tells us, "The axe is already laid against the root of the tree."!?” The fuel of the universe is low-mass elements, most notably hydrogen and helium. These elements undergo nuclear fusion inside of stars, producing heat and light. However, a point is reached where the gravity afforded by the mass of a star is no longer strong enough to compress the heavier elements into increasingly heavier elements. When this happens, the star collapses within itself. The larger supernovae form black holes. The smaller supernovae form neutron stars. The regular

stars generally form white dwarfs. Eventually, all the available low-mass elements will be consumed in this way. In the end, the universe will be filled with black holes, neutron stars, white dwarfs, together with a lot of

heavy metal in the depths of outer darkness. Black holes are like Satan the Devil. largest of stars.

Black holes were once the

Shimmering like Lucifer, every black hole was once the

light giving Eye of Horus — the divine sun-god. But when they burned all their fuel, they collapsed into darkness. Their gravity is so strong that they suck everything into their darkness. They utterly destroy everything 1221 Nicolson, lan. Dark Side of the Universe: Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and the Fate of the Cosmos. 2007, John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD, p 176

1222 | uke 3:9, Matthew 3:10 363

that nears them. Even the light that illumines the universe is sucked into their eternal darkness. As Jesus said, "If the light of your eye is darkness, how great is that darkness!"!7”° Two thousand years before the discovery of dark energy and dark matter, Jude the brother of Jesus wrote a chillingly accurate description of hell, defining its inhabitants as "Wandering stars for whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever."'””* From a scientific understanding, this is quite literally a factual description of eternal damnation. For in the end, when dark energy triumphs over gravity in the Big Rip, there will be nothing but the hot ash of dead stars floating throw darkness. Hence, science has proven that these wandering stars are damned to outer darkness forever, just as Jude prophesied. Thus, when the universe has run its course, the words of Jesus Christ

will literally be fulfilled, "He will cast them into outer darkness."'*” If we stay in this Galaxy, the Big Rip will send us careening toward the outer darkness of hell.

Hell's Prophecy When Jesus Christ called hell "outer darkness," he was cutting against the grain of the cultural beliefs of his time. If he were a mere mortal, who was shaped by his culture, Jesus would have called hell "inner darkness," not "outer darkness," because the cultural assumption

in his day, both in the Greek culture and in the Hebrew culture, was that hell existed below the earth, in the ground. The Greeks called hell Hades. The Hebrews called it Sheol. Both names referred to the underworld — that is, a region under the earth. But Jesus called hell "outer darkness," implying that hell existed outside the earth, not underneath it — as if hell were on the outer rim of creation. Jesus Christ's choice of words is a chilling testimony to his secret knowledge of how the cosmos works! Jesus Christ was no mortal. He knew the dark mysteries of the cosmos as no human possibly could have.

Heaven If the Big Rip is hell, then is it possible that the Big Bang is heaven? The Big Bang came from the center of the universe. Perhaps somewhere a trillion zillion light years behind us, outside the range of our telescopes, at the center of the universe, there exists the Primordial Goddess, holding

1223 Matthew 6:23, Luke 11:34-36 1224 Wude 13 1225 Matthew 22:13, 8:12 364

protons in her womb, and the Primordial God, impregnating her with excited electrons. Together, they conjugate to make hydrogen — the simplest element, consisting of a single proton and a single electron. Then the Goddess farts out little baby hydrogen atoms. Clouds of hydrogen gas condense around her, compacting into massive supernovae. Finally the God passes gas clouds of hydrogen into the broader universe with his massive exploding supernovae. These supernovae stars illuminate the heavenly cloud, blasting all around them in a never ending array of fireworks. From this splendid heavenly throne room, they refuel the eternal universe from the center outward with fresh hydrogen — the primary element of nuclear fusion. If this is the case, then the words of the Prophet Isaiah are fulfilled — "Of the increase of his kingdom there shall be no end,"’””° because the universe will grow larger forever. The massive supernovae resulting from such dense concentrations of hydrogen must be a sight to see. Large enough to fuse heavy metals in their thermonuclear cauldrons, these exploding super-giants must be much like what John and Ezekiel described concerning the heavenly

throne room, filled with its colorful metals,'**’ which in liquid and gaseous form would be dazzling indeed. Such grandiose astrochemical fireworks must be a testimony to the true "chemistry" between Goddess and God, between Sophia-Ruach and Elyon.

We must try to find some way to fly back toward the center of the universe, where this new hydrogen is being created. Otherwise, we will cross the edge of the Big Rip into outer darkness and eternal damnation. By flying to the center of the universe, we can "draw near to God," as the scripture says, in a very real and most literal sense. Heaven is not a spiritual realm, but rather it is a physical location subject to the constraints of time, space, and the laws of physics.

Heaven is the center

of the universe. We must journey toward this central heaven, for it is the only way to find new worlds rich enough in hydrogen to perpetuate eternal life. On the other hand, there is no scientific evidence to confirm that the creation of hydrogen is an ongoing process emanating from the center of

the universe. It could be that the Big Bang was a one-time explosion, and that there is no new source of hydrogen. In that case, we're all going to hell.

1226 |caiah 9:7 1227 Ezekiel 1, Revelation 4

365

¢

29

°¢

Christ Versus Cosmos

Jesus Believes in Evolution, And He Hates It The driving force of evolution is survival of the fittest. The strong survive, but the weak die. For this reason, Jesus Christ hates evolution.

The entire thrust of his moral teaching was wholly against survival of the fittest. Jesus healed the sick. Evolution kills them off. Jesus made the blind see. Evolution eats them alive. Most of Jesus Christ's time was spent serving the weak, the poor, the handicapped, and the social outcasts. According to Jesus, "The meek shall inherit the earth." But according to survival of the fittest, the meek shall inherit maggots and vultures. According to Jesus, "The first shall be last and the last shall be first." But according to survival of the fittest, the first shall survive and the last shall be eaten. Some believe that the Christian God "created" different species by causing evolution to happen, or by guiding it somehow. This is not only improvable — it is blasphemous, for it sets God up to be the promulgator of the very kind of selfish dog-eat-dog wickedness that Jesus was against. To say that God created species by means of evolution is to deny the most central essence of Jesus Christ’s social teaching. To a large degree, creationists oppose evolution for this very reason, because they cannot fathom a loving and caring Creator God who would create by means of survival of the fittest. But choosing not to believe in something doesn’t make it go away, nor does it make it any less true. Evolution has stood the test of time and has been confirmed again and again by sound science. It is here to stay. Whether one likes it or not, survival of the fittest is the harsh reality of this dark and wicked cosmos.

Reciprocity Some reply, "But if we evolved from wicked blood-eating animals, how do you explain human love?" So goes a typical creationist argument. The evolutionist rebuttal is reciprocity. When cave-people were hunting wooly mammoths, one person could not bring down the beast alone. A whole tribe had to bring it down. To help the tribe, you had to care about the people in your tribe. So evolution weeded out the 366

people who didn't care about the people in their tribe.

That's why you

feel love toward your spouse, children, parents, siblings, extended family, and to your friends, because these people are your tribe, and human love is part of the tribal instinct to help others. |When all of the members of the tribe work together for the greater good, and reciprocate with each other, then the tribe survives. Then, your tribe can go find another tribe, bash their brains in, and

hang their skulls from your wig-wams. In doing this, you give good gifts to your children; for when you expand your territory at the expense of another tribe, you increase the size of your hunting grounds, which you pass along to future generations. Aren't family values wonderful? This kind of tribalism is the dark side of human wickedness is made manifest by the words of Jesus,

You, being evil, still know children.’

love, and its

how to give good gifts to your

Tribalism still lives on today, in the form of national pride, patriotism, and racism of all types; for nations and ethnic groups are merely larger tribal structures whose social behaviors stem from selfish primal instincts. Thus, human love is not a gift of God. It's just selfish selfpreservation and survival of the fittest in disguise. It's quid pro quo. It's reciprocity. It's not true love.

True Love More difficult to explain is the type of love that cares for complete strangers and for enemies. This kind of love is the kind that Jesus it flies in the face of survival of the because wanted people to have, fittest, and thus defies the devilish demiurge who created this cosmos. As Jesus said,

If you love those who love you, what reward should you get? Don't swindlers do the same? And if you welcome only your relatives, how are you better than others? Don't sinners do that too? And if you practice reciprocity with those you expect to get something from, why commend it? Sinners give to sinners, and they reciprocate. So love your enemies, do good, give, and don't

1228 Matthew 7:11 367

expect anything in return. Then, your reward will be great, and you shall be children of Elyon.'””

Can you imagine the dinosaurs practicing this kind of love? T-Rex would say to Iguanodon, "I'm really hungry, but I know I would hurt you if I ate you, so I won't.". Then Iguanodon would reply, "Oh, but T-Rex, if you don't eat me, you will starve. Here, bite off a chunk of my rump roast." Needless to say, the dinosaurs did not eat dinner with such civility. But when Jesus ate dinner, it went like this: When you host a dinner party, don't invite your friends and family and wealthy neighbors, because they might reciprocate. When you throw a party, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, and the blind; and you will be blessed, because they cannot reciprocate. '”*”

Jesus Christ's Family Values With regard to his own family, with whom a normal human being would have practiced reciprocity, Jesus had this to say, Who is my mother? Who are my brothers? (Gesturing to his audience) Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of God is my brother, my sister, and my mother.'??!

Jesus was extraordinarily interested in showing genuine love to total strangers outside his family, many of whom had no way to pay him back. He lived in austerity. He was often homeless, and ate raw grain in the fields.'*** Meanwhile, he gave to people who were even more poverty stricken than himself.'*? The early Christians continued this. As James the brother of Jesus stated,

True and undefiled religion is this: to care for the widows and orphans in their time of need.'?**

229 Quelle, Luke 6:32-35, Matthew 5:44-47 1230 31 2°? 233

|uke 14:12-14 Mark 3:33-35, Luke 8:21, Matthew 12:48-50 Quelle, Luke 9:58, Matthew 8:20; Mark 2:23, Luke 6:1, Matthew 12:1 John 13:29 1234 James 1:27 368

Back when cave-people roamed the earth, the mother who gathered food for her young did so at the expense of the orphan who had no mother. The mother's children survived while the orphan starved. A

husband and wife team collected food more efficiently than a widow, so

the husband and wife ate while the widow starved. The family that provided for its members did so at the expense of those who did not have families.

Thus, if one is "focused on the family," it is not love, nor is it

Christian; rather, the family is just a social tool by which one tribe can compete with other tribes for limited resources. It is from the apes. It is of the animal instinct, and in no way is born again of the Spirit. "Family values" are just a selfish and evil byproduct of survival of the fittest. It is a selfish evolution-induced desire to see your genetic soup survive and succeed in your children, at the expense of unrelated misfortunate souls who compete for the same resources. Concerning other aspects of family values, Jesus said much. Concerning his mother, Jesus said, "Woman, what have I to do with you?"'**> Concerning his father, Jesus said nothing. Joseph is never mentioned in the oracles of Jesus. Concerning relatives who get in the way of the gospel, Jesus said,

Let the dead bury their own dead... no one who sets their hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the Kingdom of Godae Your enemies will be those in your own family, and whoever loves their family more than me is not worthy of me.'7°7

From the data in the gospels, we must honestly deduce that Jesus Christ did not list strong family values among the defining characteristics of a good Christian. To him, family values were just an extension of a selfish biological inclination to assist one's own tribe, and as such, were

hardly worthy of congratulations. How does this pertain to evolution? It pertains because it is the antithesis of the evolutionary principle of survival of the fittest. "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten"’”** flies in the face of the selfish system of survival of the fittest. It is a protest against the entire way we evolved. Within the framework of evolution and

1235 John 2:4

1236 Quelle, Luke 9:60-62, Matthew 8:20-22

1237 Quelle, Matthew 10:34-39, Luke 12:51-53

1238 John 3:16 369

survival of the fittest, orphans get killed, widows get raped, and the handicapped get eaten for dinner. Jesus and his followers dreamed of a better world. They prophesied of "a new heavens and a new earth," where the old rules of natural selection and survival of the fittest will no longer apply. They dared to blaspheme the demiurge who created this cosmos. Jesus believed in evolution — and he hated it!

The Challenge This, I believe, is the challenge that the Lord Christ gave to us: to work with him for the betterment of the cosmos, to fight against the wickedness of the perverted and violent gods, and to defy the governing principles of the universe. To do this, he builds an army of loyal followers, each of whom must be willing to lay down their life for the cause, each of whom must crucify the flesh because it is filled with animal instincts, and each of whom must be born again of the Spirit — no longer being the spawn of Samael, but a child of Elyon — no longer being the murdered offspring of Lilith's Sophia, but the living offspring of God's Sophia — no longer dying by natural selection, but living by God's election — no longer dwelling in the black empty space of this dark and wicked cosmos, but dwelling in the light of that Bright Morning Star whose words shall never pass away, "Surely I am coming quickly." Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

370

Exhibit A

Acknowledgments for Translations Used The following works contain translations of ancient texts that were adapted adjusted, and/or paraphrased, for use as a basis for quotation of those ancient texts within this work: Translation of the Bible of 66 Books:

The King James Bible, 1611 Translations of the deutero-canonical books of the Bible: Coogan, Michael D; Brettler, Marc Z; Newsom, Carol A; Perkins, Pheme. The New Oxford Annotated Apocrypha, 3” Edition: New Revised Standard Version. 2001, Oxford University Press, New York, NY Translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Vermes, Geza. The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English, Revised Edition. 2004, Penguin Books, London, UK

Translations of Christian writings from before the Council of Nicaea: The Ante-Nicene Fathers (ANF) Translations of other apocrypha: Charlesworth, James H. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments, Volume I. 1983, Doubleday and Company, Garden

City, NY Included therein:

1“ (Ethiopic) Enoch: E Isaac, p 5 2™4 (Slavonic) Enoch: F I Andersen, p 91 Greek Apocalypse of Ezra: M E Stone, p 561 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: H C Kee, p 775 Testament of Solomon: D C Duling, p 935 Translations of the Nag Hammadi texts: Robinson, James M; Smith, Richard; Brill, E J. The Nag Hammadi Library in English. 1990, Harper Collins Publishers, New York, NY Included therein: Apocryphon of John: F Wisse, p 104 On the Origin of the World: H G Bethge, B Layton, Societas Coptica

Hierosolymitana, p 170 Hypostasis of the Archons, R A Bullard, B Layton, p 161 Gospel of Thomas: H Koester & T O Lambdin, p 124 Discourse on the Eighth and Ninth: J Brashler, P A Dirkse, D M Parrott, p S21

im

Asclepius:

J Brashler, P A Dirkse, D M Parrott, p 330

Teachings of Silvanus: M L Peel, J Zandee, p 379 Thomas the Contender: J D Turner, p 199 Gospel of Philip: W W Isenberg, p 139 A Valentinian Exposition: E H Pagels, J D Turner, p 481 Tripartite Tractate: H W Attridge, E H Pagels, D Mueller, p 58 Gospel of Mary: K L King,

G W MacRae, R M Wilson, D M Parrott, p 523

Zostrianos: J H Sieber, p 402 Marsanes: B A Pearson, p 460 Dialogue of the Savior: S Emmel, H Koester, E H Pagels, p 244 Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles: D M Parrott, R M Wilson, p 287 Allogenes: A C Wire, J D Turner, O S Wintermute, p 490 The Paraphrase of Shem: M Roberge, F Wisse, p 339 Second Treatise of the Great Seth: J A Gibbons, R A Bullard, p 362 Authoritative Teaching: G W MacRae, D M Parrott, p 304 Melchizedek:

B A Pearson, S Giverson, p 438 Letter of Peter to Philip: M W Meyer, F Wisse, p 431 Trimorphic Protennoia: J D Turner, p 511 Eugnostos the Blessed: D M Parrott, p 220 Gospel of Truth: H W Attridge, G W MacRae, p 38 Interpretation of Knowledge: E H Pagels, J D Turner, p 472 Apocryphon of James: F E Williams, p 29 Apocalypse of Adam: G W MacRae, D M Parrot, p 277 Exegesis of the Soul: W C Robinson Jr, M Scopello, p 190 Testimony of Truth: B A Pearson, S Giverson, p 448 Apocalypse of Peter: J Brashler, R A Bullard, p 372 Treatise on the Resurrection: M L Peel, p 52 Sophia of Jesus Christ: D M Parrott, p 220

Translation of Jubilees:

Charles,

R H. Book of Jubilees.

1917, Society for Promoting Christian

Knowledge, London, UK Translation of the Gathas of Zarathustra: Duchesne-Guillemin, Jacques; Henning, M. Rutland, VT

1992, Charles E Tuttle Company,

Translation of the Vendidad: Darmesteter, J. 1880, Sacred Books of the East Vol 4

Translation of the Denkard: West, EW. The Pahlavi Texts. 1910, Sacred Books of the East

Translation of the Rig Veda: Griffith, R TH. 1896 Translation of the Bhagavad Gita: Mascaro, Juan.

The Bhagavad Gita.

1962, Penguin Books, London, UK

Translation of the Qur'an: Ali, Abdullah Yusuf. The Meaning of the Holy Qur'an. 2001, Amana Publications, Beltsville, MD Translation of Eusebius: Williamson, G A; Louth, Andrew. Christ to Constantine.

Eusebius:

The History of the Church from

1965 & 1989, Penguin Books, New York, NY

Translation of Josephus: Whiston, William. Josephus:

Complete Works.

1981, Kregel Publications,

Grand Rapids, MI Translation of Gilgamesh: Heidel, Alexander. The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels: A Translations and Interpretation of the Gilgamesh Epic and Related Babylonian and Assyrian Documents. 1949, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL Translation of Enuma Elish:

King,

L W. Enuma Elish: The Epic of Creation.

Creation.

1902, The Seven Tablets of

Exhibit B The Bad Parts of the Bible Often the bad parts are mixed with the good: (Y) — Mixed with Yahwist Narrative (E) — Mixed with Elohist Traditions (G) — Mixed with Earlier Genealogical Material (H) — Mixed with an Earlier Law Code (M) — Mixed with the Original Story of Moses Books of the Torah Genesis Creation 1:1-2:4a Genealogies 5:1-32(G)

Flood 6:9-22, 7:6-10, 7:14-8:19(Y)

Spying out Canaan 13:1-16a, 13:26, 13:32-14:10 Forty Years 14:26-38 Offerings 15:1-41(H) Korah & Aaron 16:1-20:13

Noah's Covenant 9:1-17 Curse of Canaan 9:24-29 Genealogies 10:1-11:32(G) Circumcision 17:1b-27 Hebron 23:1-20 Genealogies 25:7-20(G)

Mount Hor 20:22-29 Census & Joshua 25:6-27:23

Journey to Laban 28:1-9(E) Bethel 35:9-15(E) Isaac's Death 35:21-29 Genealogies 36: 1-14(G) To Egypt 46:6-27

Other Questionable Books

Back to Canaan 48:3-7 Jabob's Death 49:29-33

Exodus Plight in Egypt 2:23-25 Aaron's Roll 4:10-11:10(M) Passover /2:1-51(M) Red Sea 14:1-4,8-18,21-23,26-31 Manna 15:27-17:1 Mount Sinai 24:16-18

Temple 25:1-31:18 Temple 34:29ac-36:3, 36:8-40:38 Leviticus Law Codes /:1-27:34(H)

Numbers Census & Temple 1:1-4:49 Sacrifice & Temple 6:22-10:28

Holy Days 28:1-29:40(H) Eleazar & Moses 31:1-33:1 Death of Aaron 33:38-39

Priestly Books

1 & 2™ Chronicles Ezra Nehemiah Ezekiel 40-48 Sirach

Books with Significant Textual, Historical, or Archaeological Impossibilities Joshua Esther Judith

Books Attributed to Solomon Proverbs Ecclesiastes Songs, aka — Song of Solomon Wisdom of Solomon Forgeries in Paul's Name

1“ Timothy 2™ Timothy Titus

Exhibit C Earth History Period

_Million Years Ago __Climate

Precambrian Bombardment First Life Ediacaran Life

Continents

4600-542 4600-4100 3850 610-542

Paleozoic 542-251 Cambrian 542-488 >Cambrian Explosion 525-520 Ordovician 493-440

Above Boiling Almost Boiling Cold to Warm

Thin Crust Volcanic Islands Breaking Apart

Warm

Spreading Apart

Warm, but Ice Age at End

Silurian

440-416

Warm, but uncertain at End

Devonian >4 Legged Animals

416-359 370-365

Warm

ORS & Gondwana

Carboniferous

359-299

Warm to Cold, Wet

Collision, Pangaea

Permian >Largest Extinction

299-251 Zo

Cold to Hot, Dry

Pangaea

Mesozoic Triassic >Carnian Diversity Jurassic >First Birds Cretaceous

251-65 251-200 235-216 200-146 160-155 146-65

Hot, Very Dry

Pangaea

Hot, Getting Wetter

Breaking Apart

Hot, Wet Spreading Apart >South America, Africa, Madagascar, and India all become isolated. >Dinosaur Extinction 65

Cenozoic

65-Present

Paleocene

65-55

55-33 Eocene >Mammals Diversify 55-50 33-24 Oligocene 27-23 >First Pinnipeds 24-5 Miocene 7 >First Upright Ape 5-2 Pliocene 2-endoficeage Pleistocene

Holocene

since lasticeage

Warm, Wet

India nears Asia

Warm, Wet

N Am & Eur split

Mild, Wet

Aus & Ant split

Cooler, Getting Dry Africa nears Eurasia S Am

Cool, Dry Cold, Dry

N Am meets

Mild

Alaska & Asia split

To Purchase A Copy of This Book Go To

www .jesusbelievesinevolution.org, or www.jesusbelievesinevolution.com

— Ww Modern Science ~ Ancient Scriptures Dead Sea Scrolls ~ Burgess Shale Missing Links ~ Biblical Ape-Men Forbidden Histories ~ Lost Gospels

scientists ~ Scholars ~ Sorcerers And All the Holy Prophets All Tell the Same Story

bck: Bic! BELMEVES IN EVOLUTION I

See It to B L> he Read It 80 Unlock the