Author of the Month :  The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
Join us at this forum every month for a discussion with famous popular authors from around the world. 
Welcome! Log InRegister
Hi Robert,

Thank you for your response, I must admit to being disappointed to see that you have largely evaded my responses to your initial post and moved away into what seems to be personal religious convictions - divorced from any reasonable science based debate. I will answer the parts of this that do still mesh with the initial conversation.

Quote

I take the view that the existence of an earlier technologically advanced civilisation is indisputable. If this is the case then it turns the gradualist evolutionary process on its head. We cannot assume for example that the evolutionary process that turned ape into modern humans progressed independently of this advanced civilisation. And your suggestion that it is ‘not a hominin or Homo sapiens story’ is questionable.

The London Hammer that is estimated to be 400 million years old looks very much like a human artifact.

Earlier technological civilisations have existed, yes indeed, the Romans are one earlier technologically advanced civilisation. What was at issue was the existence of advanced civilisations in distant prehistory, you suggested they were present millions of years ago. I think it is VERY EASY to dispute the existence of any such civilisation millions of years ago.

The London Hammer is a great example of my earlier scepticism, it absolutely matches my given reason for why so many out of place artefacts are easily dismissed or ignored. As I said, "I think that generally they do not see any reason to look at these finds, partly because they usually have not been found in a controlled setting, like an archaeological dig, which leaves room for claims or fraud."

The London Hammer was found by hikers, initially picked up because it was an interesting loose stone with wood poking out of it. Ten years later a member of the family broke it open and discovered the hammer head. Clearly there is nothing controlled or scientific about this discovery. Worse still an extraordinary date is given without any clear basis, there has never been any reason given to associate the loose stone with any of the bedrock at the claimed discovery site - there has also been a number of claims about the bedrock and what age it really is (the accurate age date for the nearby bedrock is closer to 110 million years). The hammer matches a known US style of tool from within the last two centuries and the appearance is consistent with having been encased by a limestone concretion, something that can happen within a few decades. The wood of the handle could not have survived millions of years without decaying or becoming mineralised, yet those that have examined the hammer (mostly young earth creationists as it is in their hands) admit that it is not mineralised. There has been refusal by the creationist owners to have the hammer properly analysed, it would have been simply to run carbon dating on the handle and also for the rock to be examined for evidence of recent inclusions (perhaps an organic fragment trapped when the concretion formed around the hammer). Not surprisingly the creationist owners do not want to see this happen as they are only set to lose out if the truth was that the object is only a couple of hundred years old. It is worth noting that a friend of the owner, David Lines, claimed on his website that C14 testing was indeed carried out in the 1990's and resulted in a date range limited to the last 700 years - no evidence of the dating was offered but as it undermined their claims and beliefs it is not unreasonable to suppose this really had been done (why else state this?). You can read more about the London Hammer here.

I feel you are deliberately shifting the goal posts by pointing me towards evidence of technology in ancient Egypt or briefly mentioning Gobekli Tepe as evidence of ancient civilisation. The megaliths of the Giza plateau and Aswan, along with those of Gobekli Tepe, are all well dated to the known historical period - that is the last 12,000 years. Nobody has any problem with their being civilisations in that period, or there being widespread evidence of civilisations and advanced technology in that period. You were initially claiming that such civilisations existed millions of years ago!

I think this is deliberately obfuscation or at the least major back-tracking away from the initial claim.

Quote

...surely it is difficult to believe that the Australian Aborigines were the first homo sapiens. There were no primate species on the Australian continent and no native pre-humans to evolve from. Thus we find it necessary to take issue with the claims made by Steven and Evan Strong...

I think you skirted around answering my point about 50,000 years being plenty of time for Australian Aboriginal people to build boats and migrate. You posted material from your book that in no way answers my point. As for the quote above, I already answered this, I do not claim that early primates were on the Australasian landmass, but rather that early hominins entered these lands within the last one million years, after which time they evolved on to become Homo sapiens. That is a very different claim.

Let me just remind you that I am not Steven or Evan Strong, I am not here to defend anything they have said. In some areas I agree with their work and I am happy to defend the areas of my work that do agree with them - but I don't think me being positioned to defend claims attributed to them is really appropriate.

Rather than provide any evidence to counter my points, you instead state that "the God Gametes theory contends...", well, so what if it does? That is just a stream of thought from inside your head, that is not verifiable evidence of anything at all. To just out of hand dismiss the connection between ancient people and the megaliths of their lands, because 'you don't believe it' really means nothing at all outside of your own head. If we look at the evidence we see very clear links, and we also see very good evidence that ancient Aboriginals could sail to wherever they pleased. Your argument sounds to me like a religious one, in which case I am trying to have a reasonable scientific conversation with a religious zealot, which is absolute futile because religious thinking never requires a scientific basis and manipulates data as it suits. I think I am now understanding that you are promoting not so much a 'God Gametes Theory' as a 'God Gametes Religion' - I suppose I should have known the moment 'God' was brought into this conversation, it would likely not end well.

There is no good reason to think that the Bradshaws are representative of anything other than Aboriginal Australian rock art - exactly as the local population state it to be. The fact it has overlaps with rock art elsewhere can be explained by the fact that ancient Aboriginals had boats and exported their knowledge and art to other lands. It does not mean it was imported.

Having read the remainder of your post and not found anything relevant to the initial conversation, or to the subjects covered by my book (the basis for my AOM spot) I think it wise for me to end it here.

Thank you for your posts, I rather suspect that we are talking to each-other from two separate realities with separate standards for scientific evidence. If you feel it is in any way useful to continue this I will try, but my intuition is that is probably not going to progress anywhere useful if religion is at the root of your theory rather than scientific evidence.

Best regards

Bruce



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 14-Jun-17 09:13 by Bruce R. Fenton.

Options: ReplyQuote


Subject Views Written By Posted
The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 4440 Bruce R. Fenton 01-Jun-17 11:19
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 967 Susan Doris 02-Jun-17 05:45
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 785 Bruce R. Fenton 02-Jun-17 06:56
Related threads on GHMB 850 drrayeye 02-Jun-17 17:06
Re: Related threads on GHMB 683 Bruce R. Fenton 03-Jun-17 10:19
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 728 laughin 05-Jun-17 21:06
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 698 Bruce R. Fenton 06-Jun-17 04:03
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 714 SallyA 07-Jun-17 02:28
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 603 Bruce R. Fenton 07-Jun-17 04:40
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 880 Thanos5150 06-Jun-17 14:29
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 731 SallyA 07-Jun-17 02:55
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 670 Bruce R. Fenton 07-Jun-17 05:47
... 709 SallyA 08-Jun-17 04:00
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution ..-_-.. question one 629 Bruce R. Fenton 08-Jun-17 04:37
... 708 SallyA 08-Jun-17 06:51
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 609 Thanos5150 07-Jun-17 16:15
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 741 Thanos5150 07-Jun-17 19:38
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 711 Bruce R. Fenton 08-Jun-17 03:20
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 591 Bruce R. Fenton 07-Jun-17 05:33
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 855 Thanos5150 07-Jun-17 16:08
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 646 SallyA 08-Jun-17 05:17
... 717 SallyA 08-Jun-17 06:06
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 690 Bruce R. Fenton 09-Jun-17 02:19
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution -- thank you 649 SallyA 09-Jun-17 03:47
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 774 Thanos5150 11-Jun-17 16:13
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 583 Bruce R. Fenton 12-Jun-17 09:26
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 612 Bruce R. Fenton 09-Jun-17 02:03
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 701 Thanos5150 09-Jun-17 23:54
OOA strikes back - the sequel 745 laughin 08-Jun-17 13:09
Re: OOA strikes back - the sequel 643 Bruce R. Fenton 08-Jun-17 15:37
Re: OOA strikes back - the sequel 648 Thanos5150 08-Jun-17 17:23
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 625 Robert Jameson 11-Jun-17 06:13
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 626 Bruce R. Fenton 11-Jun-17 11:46
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 780 Robert Jameson 12-Jun-17 05:34
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 638 dong 12-Jun-17 06:51
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 689 Robert Jameson 12-Jun-17 13:32
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 704 Bruce R. Fenton 12-Jun-17 09:19
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 607 Robert Jameson 12-Jun-17 12:40
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 675 Susan Doris 14-Jun-17 05:02
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 678 Robert Jameson 14-Jun-17 05:45
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 701 michael seabrook 13-Jun-17 22:09
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 702 Robert Jameson 13-Jun-17 00:51
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 606 SallyA 13-Jun-17 01:03
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 589 Robert Jameson 13-Jun-17 02:44
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution. -- off topic .. senmutt tomb. .. Giza hosts an inland sea 767 SallyA 13-Jun-17 02:59
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution. -- off topic .. senmutt tomb 572 Robert Jameson 13-Jun-17 03:39
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution. -- off topic .. senmutt tomb 629 SallyA 13-Jun-17 04:04
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 688 Thanos5150 14-Jun-17 15:55
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 769 Robert Jameson 14-Jun-17 17:54
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 597 michael seabrook 16-Jun-17 21:03
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 611 Robert Jameson 16-Jun-17 22:47
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution Excellent and ... 680 SallyA 16-Jun-17 23:39
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution Excellent and ... 684 Robert Jameson 17-Jun-17 09:44
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 590 Susan Doris 17-Jun-17 14:17
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 654 Robert Jameson 18-Jun-17 02:43
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 605 Susan Doris 18-Jun-17 09:24
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 662 Bruce R. Fenton 18-Jun-17 11:04
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 657 Robert Jameson 18-Jun-17 11:14
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 572 Robert Jameson 18-Jun-17 11:04
Unfair diversion 500 drrayeye 18-Jun-17 21:35
Re: Proto-sumerian ... Ukraine ... a bit late for into Africa I fear, probably mis-posted 760 SallyA 19-Jun-17 03:00
Re: Unfair diversion 701 Susan Doris 19-Jun-17 05:20
Unfair diversion for sure 589 drrayeye 19-Jun-17 05:47
Re: Unfair diversion for sure 647 Susan Doris 20-Jun-17 04:56
Robert's challenge 675 drrayeye 20-Jun-17 07:24
Re: Robert's challenge 585 Robert Jameson 26-Jun-17 11:17
Tangential 576 drrayeye 27-Jun-17 05:03
Re: Tangential 587 Robert Jameson 27-Jun-17 06:12
Wrong board 605 drrayeye 27-Jun-17 06:38
Re: Wrong board 560 Robert Jameson 27-Jun-17 08:03
Re: Tangential 594 Eddie Larry 27-Jun-17 15:59
Re:Susan, do you know of a time line? 607 SallyA 19-Jun-17 17:48
Re: Unfair diversion 667 Thanos5150 19-Jun-17 13:44
Re: Unfair diversion 582 drrayeye 19-Jun-17 15:40
Re: Unfair diversion 693 Robert Jameson 19-Jun-17 23:14
Re: Unfair diversion 591 drrayeye 20-Jun-17 00:31
Re: Unfair diversion 661 Robert Jameson 20-Jun-17 10:19
kicking a dead horse 606 drrayeye 20-Jun-17 14:36
Re: kicking a dead horse 511 Robert Jameson 20-Jun-17 23:49
Staying on topic 589 drrayeye 21-Jun-17 01:15
Re: Unfair diversion 597 Thanos5150 20-Jun-17 15:24
Hominids vs Homo. most obvious difference -- thumbs on feet 524 SallyA 20-Jun-17 15:59
Re: Hominids vs Homo. most obvious difference -- thumbs on feet 500 Bruce R. Fenton 26-Jun-17 10:21
Interesting 576 drrayeye 27-Jun-17 06:50
Re: Interesting 464 Bruce R. Fenton 27-Jun-17 22:32
Re: Hominids vs Homo. most obvious difference -- thumbs on feet 472 Eddie Larry 28-Jun-17 04:37
Re: Hominids vs Homo. most obvious difference -- thumbs on feet 799 Bruce R. Fenton 28-Jun-17 04:41
Re: Unfair diversion 544 drrayeye 20-Jun-17 15:59
Off Topic: re: factors which alter .. Earth's shields don't block cygnets ... nor neutrinos, ... 517 SallyA 20-Jun-17 21:13
Re: Unfair diversion 494 SallyA 21-Jun-17 01:37
Focus 595 drrayeye 21-Jun-17 07:30
Re: Focus 658 Bruce R. Fenton 26-Jun-17 10:26
Re: Focus 572 Susan Doris 26-Jun-17 16:51
Re: Focus... ah, my bad ... 475 SallyA 11-Feb-18 19:40
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 661 Bruce R. Fenton 17-Jun-17 12:12
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 600 Robert Jameson 26-Jun-17 06:32
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 579 Bruce R. Fenton 26-Jun-17 11:57
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 724 Robert Jameson 26-Jun-17 13:59
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 411 lalbee 16-Feb-18 13:39
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 391 lalbee 17-Feb-18 02:25
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 413 Bruce R. Fenton 17-Feb-18 04:13
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 390 lalbee 17-Feb-18 05:56
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 413 Bruce R. Fenton 17-Feb-18 06:27
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 536 lalbee 18-Feb-18 15:17
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 417 drrayeye 21-Feb-18 13:48
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 401 lalbee 22-Feb-18 16:45
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 398 Robert Jameson 22-Feb-18 19:39
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 755 Bruce R. Fenton 22-Feb-18 23:07
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 409 Bruce R. Fenton 22-Feb-18 23:00


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.