My brother is both an ordained minister (for whatever that is worth) and a Dr in archaeology. There is such an overwhelming trail of finds that indicate that there was an alien presence that colonized earth and peopled it that the current state of known science can be divided into two camps. Those who believe in god and try to make the evidence fir the bible, and those who don't that are forming an entirely different narrative. The interesting thing is that the two are far more compatible than would seem possible.

Ken has a deep level of knowledge about finds and the dating and science behind them and what they mean. He sits somewhere between the old school who have solid bible first theories that can turn a blind eye to that which doesn't 100% support the bible, and the new generation that goes with the evidence that don't have a bible at the forefront causing them to fit the evidence to it. It's quite amazing the difference in conclusions between the two. Going against the believers with established reputations who wrote the books on early finds is a career wrecker for the new blood, but it does have an interesting way the game is played. They are constantly having to preface contradictions to the old school of thought.

My brother is both an ordained minister (for whatever that is worth) and a Dr in archaeology. There is such an overwhelming trail of finds that indicate that there was an alien presence that colonized earth and peopled it that the current state of known science can be divided into two camps. Those who believe in god and try to make the evidence fir the bible, and those who don't that are forming an entirely different narrative. The interesting thing is that the two are far more compatible than would seem possible.

Ken has a deep level of knowledge about finds and the dating and science behind them and what they mean. He sits somewhere between the old school who have solid bible first theories that can turn a blind eye to that which doesn't 100% support the bible, and the new generation that goes with the evidence that don't have a bible at the forefront causing them to fit the evidence to it. It's quite amazing the difference in conclusions between the two. Going against the believers with established reputations who wrote the books on early finds is a career wrecker for the new blood, but it does have an interesting way the game is played. They are constantly having to preface contradictions to the old school of thought.

Meshing the idea that aliens colonized the earth with human variations actually fits with creationism, it fits with the first dating of human remains and civilizations. The Sodom and Gomorra sites (and one other destroyed biblical sites) have been found, they do in fact show evidence of a nuclear detonation that destroyed them in situ, everything in place as it was when the event took place. Sand melted and fused into glass, traces of radiation. The bible makes reference to a flash of light brighter than a thousand suns.

Evolution doesn't go back far enough to explain that well. The concept that people were colonized here actually does, but it makes some jumps to an alternate science that is best covered by science denial.

Ken actually showed me published findings that go against the mainstream archaeology based on matching biblical references, and was showing me the gymnastics that the new direction goes so as not to offend the published works of the last few decades.