The Sumerian writings talk about the Anunnaki taking their dna and mixing it with the dna of the critters already on earth and creating workers for their gold mines.
The Bible mentions the angels seeing the daughters of man and mating with them. Sounds like a similar story.
Now dna studies are showing that modern humans have Neanderthal and Denisovans mixed in with our dna. No telling what other similar critters we're mixed with.
To be the same species we need to be able to produce viable offspring. To me, that means we're all the same critters as the Anunnaki, Neanderthal and Denisovans. Today we have what we call "races" but we're all able to produce viable offspring, so we're the same critter. Or the same species.
I was just pondering all that while taking my daily walk.
0
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
1 comment
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.I find Exogenesis an interesting idea that at the present is no more than a hypothesis, unfortunately a lot of quacks and followers of the con man von Däniken have dragged the whole concept in to disrepute by passing of fantasy and speculation as evidence.
There are circumstantial reason to keep exploring the idea and perhaps one day there will be some proof of the engineering of our ancestors genetics by persons unknown, but for now it is as unlikely as creationism.
LenHazell53
Level 9
Oct 27, 2018
0
I had read the books by Zecharia Sitchin who had talked about the Sumerian writings with their origin of man story. Didn't even think about von Daniken.
@david75090
Giving credence to Sitchin because he is not von Däniken is like saying cat poop does not smell because it is not Horse dung. 
@LenHazell53 Sorry. I disagree. Don't think you know what you're talking about.
@LenHazell53 I watched a show with von Daniken on it. He was talking about his critics. He said his critics were saying "von Daniken says this, von Daniken says that. No. I don't say anything as an absolute. I ask questions. I form everything as a question that I think needs to asked." I'm paraphrasing that, but that was the gist of what he was saying. He was talking about, from a young age, he was noticing all the strange and unexplained things around the world that he was interested in. So he started asking questions. And that's where he's coming from. He's curious and wants to know. He wants people thinking and talking about those things he is interested in. Things that often times are at odds with religious teachings.
Sitchin wrote several books on translations of Sumerian writings from clay tablets. Sitchin reported on his findings. The writings were not his.His books are very clinical and dry. I found them hard to read, so I read a little at a time. To disagree with his books was to disagree with the Sumerian writings. Hard not to see those writings are the basis and back story of the Bible.
@david75090 And you have the gal to say I don't know what I am talking about, next you'll be asserting the Velikovsky hypothesis was viable too.
Stichin has been debunked by every reputable scientist and historian who had read his pseudo intellectual, inaccurate, money grubbing, waffle.
His source material has been translated and commented on many times since with none of the "imaginative" reinterpretation found in the texts by him, yet he is held up as an authority by the ancient astronaut-er, as guys like William Curtis and Ted Driggers are held up as "Creationist scientist" by the Adam and Eve crowd, except of course they are not because their doctorates are in totally unrelated subjects (Theology and Business respectively)
Stichin's doctorate is not in archaeology, history, linguistics or any of the sciences it is in Economics.
Would you let a doctor of economics operate on your child, just because he the right to call himself Doctor?
Much of Von Däniken work has been shown to be deliberately dishonest and since the eighties he has been almost universally accepted as a clever writer of mockumentary fiction, with photos taken from odd angles to make a small knee cap of a chalk carving bird look ten times the size and appear like a helicopter pad, plaques flipped upside down to make house hold items look like (vaguely) space crafts and out right lies about where items were found to shove them in to his frankly ridiculous "theories" and I use the word ironically.
He is a quack, and inspired subsequent generations of quacks to follow him on to the gravy train of public gullibility and I am sorry mate but you are obviously one of them.
@LenHazell53 The opposite of what you're saying is true. The critics have a religious bias, which you're repeating. You can believe what you want. I heard what von Daniken said out of his own mouth. You don't believe it. Fine. You don't have to. Same with Sitchin. He's wrong because it goes against Biblical teachings. We can't contradict the Bible or have alternate thoughts.
@david75090 I am an atheist, I have no interest in the Bible only fact, of which these gentlemen have none, just speculation and avarice, I could care less if one load of bullshit contradicts another load of ancient bullshit.
They ask the gullible to replace one delusion with another, one drain on their time and resources with another.
The only difference being that these modern charlatans don't have the excuse of being ignorant primitives, they are just amoral.
@LenHazell53 Sitchin wrote 7 books with footnotes. I'm going to guess you haven't read them because he's a charlatan and you can't be bothered reading books by charlatans. You've found others who agree with you. They're right and Sitchin is wrong because they agree with you.
Von Daniken has his speculations in the form of questions that he would like the answer to. In your view, if I understand what you're saying, is von Daniken can't ask questions because him asking questions on a subject you've closed your mind to, also makes him wrong and a charlatan.
As near as I figure, they've put subjects out there for speculation. People can believe or not believe, whatever part they choose. Since you believe none of it, everyone who doesn't dismiss it out of hand is "gullible". The same thing as "wrong". That's the Biblical view. There's only one right and one wrong. Speculation that contradicts their truth is "wrong". It's coincidence that the religious share the same view that you do.
@david75090 Fair enough, you know what I have and have not read, you really want to believe things people tell you in fictional books, your faith cannot and will not be shaken.
Man, you would have made a great Mormon, want to buy some alien proof undies? Very reasonable price 
@LenHazell53 No one has to believe anything. You have your mind closed on the subject. That's fine.
Both guys are posing questions that you're pretending they're offering as definitive statements. That's called "mischaracterization".
You know what you've read. The way you're talking, indicates your feelings on the subject. You're welcome to feel and think any way you choose as is everyone else.
Seems like you're not content to believe what you believe but you want to ridicule others for not agreeing with everything you say.
Hope you're finished here.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.