Alternative 3: Aliens responsible for life on Earth

By | November 21, 2005

” Today, according to the knowledge we have,” concluded Dr. Yazeb, “we don’t have any other explanation of the founding of the solar system, other than by the intervention of a superior civilization”. EMeanwhile, in a quiet Tel Aviv coffee shop, Israeli Kobi Drori, a guide for the Raelian movement within Israel, sips hot chocolate while calmly describing much the same thing. “We’re talking,” he says, “of the third hypothesis on how life was created on Earth. The first is by an Almighty God; the second is the theory of evolution.” The third, according to the 60,000-strong Raelian movement, is that life on Earth was created by scientists belonging to a superior, alien civilization, who created man “in their own likeness”. …

According to the Raelian movement, information in each major religion’s key text offers clues as to this “true” creation of man. This, says Drori, is especially present in the Jewish Torah, or Old Testament. Here, he says, distortion over the centuries has hidden the true meanings of many descriptions. For example, he says, the Hebrew word for god – Elohim – actually means ‘Messengers’, or ‘those who came from the sky’ and does not refer to a notion of one supreme God, with which the word has become associated.

The Biblical image of angelic creatures arriving on wings from the sky is, he says, just a centuries-old misinterpretation of the beings who arrived in a spacecraft. Similarly, another Hebrew word for God, he says, is Adonai, a plural rather than a singular, which can be translated as “Lords”. This, believe the Raelians, points clearly to the existence of humankind’s true creators, to whom they still refer as the Elohim.” – rnb

5 thoughts on “Alternative 3: Aliens responsible for life on Earth

  1. keb1306

    This still doesn’t answer the question where did life come from? That life came to planet earth from aliens is beside the point. The question still stands, where did life originate? Saying it got here from outside the atmosphere of earth just pushes the question back not solve it!

    1. Xeno

      Life could have originated on Earth, on another planet, or inside comets with nothing but raw materials, physical processes and chemistry as the source.

      In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, or origin of life, is the study of how life on Earth emerged from inanimate organic and inorganic molecules. ere are three great videos that will explain to you what abiogensis is, how it happened, and why creationist arguments against it are fallible. – link

      1. keb1306

        Okay, perhaps a dumb question: If we can take both sides to the extreme without any gray area in-between: Creationists with the agnostic and gnostic on one side (which is the point of this post, to ask who these alien scientists or elohim were) and the atheist on the other side.
        Isn’t this the real conflict between the two?
        Whether there was an intelligence that produced life or were natural compounds introduced by whatever means, in a by the chance way, which made life possible on a world where life could be supported?
        It seems to me the only question is, how it was done…by either side. (An over simplification perhaps.)

        If abiogensis is the study of how the amino acids were produced and combined on the earth and the creaitionists say life was created on the earth by a god or gods; then the only difference between the two is how it was done. So isn’t the real question: Did chemistry produce the acids and proteins or did an intelligence cause the chemical process? According to science life is a self replicating cycle as long as the environment will sustain it. So it stands to reason that chemical reactions are the cause of life but the same question remains…was it an intelligence that set up the process and made conditions right for the process or were conditions correct just by a flip of the dice? A meteorite or asteroid may contain the compounds but life cannot be sustained in either environment. Since it was caused by a chemical process then perhaps the atheist as well as the creationist can both agree: ‘Yes, it was chemical but we do not agree on the origins.”
        Therefore my same comment persists, where did life originate? To say it may be in a dozen or so galaxies on a myriad of planets still does not answer when it started and how. To say it was recombined when the galaxies waned and re-exploded, just one example of the many theories out there, still gives no origin. I am saying, yes, I believe a chemical reaction occurred, that I have no argument with. What I don’t understand are these absolute faiths in theories stated by either side saying that any opposing view has no ‘fallible’ argument. It’s the same as making an absolute statement about there not being any absolutes. I believe there are arguments on both sides that neither can casually discard.

        Does that make sense?

  2. Edison Shapiro

    Now is not a good time to doubt the existence of substitute medicine; now is the time to embrace it and even indulge if you must.

Leave a Reply