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 4519 Bruce R. Fenton 01-Jun-17 11:19
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 1023 Susan Doris 02-Jun-17 05:45
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 803 Bruce R. Fenton 02-Jun-17 06:56
Related threads on GHMB 870 drrayeye 02-Jun-17 17:06
Re: Related threads on GHMB 703 Bruce R. Fenton 03-Jun-17 10:19
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 742 laughin 05-Jun-17 21:06
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 729 Bruce R. Fenton 06-Jun-17 04:03
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 730 SallyA 07-Jun-17 02:28
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 618 Bruce R. Fenton 07-Jun-17 04:40
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 932 Thanos5150 06-Jun-17 14:29
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 748 SallyA 07-Jun-17 02:55
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 698 Bruce R. Fenton 07-Jun-17 05:47
... 731 SallyA 08-Jun-17 04:00
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution ..-_-.. question one 645 Bruce R. Fenton 08-Jun-17 04:37
... 738 SallyA 08-Jun-17 06:51
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 625 Thanos5150 07-Jun-17 16:15
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 758 Thanos5150 07-Jun-17 19:38
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 725 Bruce R. Fenton 08-Jun-17 03:20
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 608 Bruce R. Fenton 07-Jun-17 05:33
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 921 Thanos5150 07-Jun-17 16:08
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 662 SallyA 08-Jun-17 05:17
... 738 SallyA 08-Jun-17 06:06
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 709 Bruce R. Fenton 09-Jun-17 02:19
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution -- thank you 666 SallyA 09-Jun-17 03:47
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 816 Thanos5150 11-Jun-17 16:13
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 598 Bruce R. Fenton 12-Jun-17 09:26
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 633 Bruce R. Fenton 09-Jun-17 02:03
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 717 Thanos5150 09-Jun-17 23:54
OOA strikes back - the sequel 765 laughin 08-Jun-17 13:09
Re: OOA strikes back - the sequel 663 Bruce R. Fenton 08-Jun-17 15:37
Re: OOA strikes back - the sequel 663 Thanos5150 08-Jun-17 17:23
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 645 Robert Jameson 11-Jun-17 06:13
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 644 Bruce R. Fenton 11-Jun-17 11:46
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 797 Robert Jameson 12-Jun-17 05:34
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 655 dong 12-Jun-17 06:51
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 719 Robert Jameson 12-Jun-17 13:32
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 724 Bruce R. Fenton 12-Jun-17 09:19
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 622 Robert Jameson 12-Jun-17 12:40
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 691 Susan Doris 14-Jun-17 05:02
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 693 Robert Jameson 14-Jun-17 05:45
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 719 michael seabrook 13-Jun-17 22:09
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 725 Robert Jameson 13-Jun-17 00:51
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 625 SallyA 13-Jun-17 01:03
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 605 Robert Jameson 13-Jun-17 02:44
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution. -- off topic .. senmutt tomb. .. Giza hosts an inland sea 792 SallyA 13-Jun-17 02:59
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution. -- off topic .. senmutt tomb 589 Robert Jameson 13-Jun-17 03:39
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution. -- off topic .. senmutt tomb 651 SallyA 13-Jun-17 04:04
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 709 Thanos5150 14-Jun-17 15:55
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 785 Robert Jameson 14-Jun-17 17:54
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 610 michael seabrook 16-Jun-17 21:03
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 629 Robert Jameson 16-Jun-17 22:47
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution Excellent and ... 700 SallyA 16-Jun-17 23:39
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution Excellent and ... 699 Robert Jameson 17-Jun-17 09:44
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 605 Susan Doris 17-Jun-17 14:17
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 668 Robert Jameson 18-Jun-17 02:43
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 622 Susan Doris 18-Jun-17 09:24
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 677 Bruce R. Fenton 18-Jun-17 11:04
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 678 Robert Jameson 18-Jun-17 11:14
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 587 Robert Jameson 18-Jun-17 11:04
Unfair diversion 518 drrayeye 18-Jun-17 21:35
Re: Proto-sumerian ... Ukraine ... a bit late for into Africa I fear, probably mis-posted 782 SallyA 19-Jun-17 03:00
Re: Unfair diversion 717 Susan Doris 19-Jun-17 05:20
Unfair diversion for sure 605 drrayeye 19-Jun-17 05:47
Re: Unfair diversion for sure 665 Susan Doris 20-Jun-17 04:56
Robert's challenge 707 drrayeye 20-Jun-17 07:24
Re: Robert's challenge 600 Robert Jameson 26-Jun-17 11:17
Tangential 593 drrayeye 27-Jun-17 05:03
Re: Tangential 604 Robert Jameson 27-Jun-17 06:12
Wrong board 622 drrayeye 27-Jun-17 06:38
Re: Wrong board 578 Robert Jameson 27-Jun-17 08:03
Re: Tangential 614 Eddie Larry 27-Jun-17 15:59
Re:Susan, do you know of a time line? 624 SallyA 19-Jun-17 17:48
Re: Unfair diversion 683 Thanos5150 19-Jun-17 13:44
Re: Unfair diversion 596 drrayeye 19-Jun-17 15:40
Re: Unfair diversion 712 Robert Jameson 19-Jun-17 23:14
Re: Unfair diversion 609 drrayeye 20-Jun-17 00:31
Re: Unfair diversion 679 Robert Jameson 20-Jun-17 10:19
kicking a dead horse 621 drrayeye 20-Jun-17 14:36
Re: kicking a dead horse 526 Robert Jameson 20-Jun-17 23:49
Staying on topic 607 drrayeye 21-Jun-17 01:15
Re: Unfair diversion 619 Thanos5150 20-Jun-17 15:24
Hominids vs Homo. most obvious difference -- thumbs on feet 545 SallyA 20-Jun-17 15:59
Re: Hominids vs Homo. most obvious difference -- thumbs on feet 515 Bruce R. Fenton 26-Jun-17 10:21
Interesting 593 drrayeye 27-Jun-17 06:50
Re: Interesting 479 Bruce R. Fenton 27-Jun-17 22:32
Re: Hominids vs Homo. most obvious difference -- thumbs on feet 485 Eddie Larry 28-Jun-17 04:37
Re: Hominids vs Homo. most obvious difference -- thumbs on feet 829 Bruce R. Fenton 28-Jun-17 04:41
Re: Unfair diversion 562 drrayeye 20-Jun-17 15:59
Off Topic: re: factors which alter .. Earth's shields don't block cygnets ... nor neutrinos, ... 538 SallyA 20-Jun-17 21:13
Re: Unfair diversion 514 SallyA 21-Jun-17 01:37
Focus 613 drrayeye 21-Jun-17 07:30
Re: Focus 682 Bruce R. Fenton 26-Jun-17 10:26
Re: Focus 587 Susan Doris 26-Jun-17 16:51
Re: Focus... ah, my bad ... 492 SallyA 11-Feb-18 19:40
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 683 Bruce R. Fenton 17-Jun-17 12:12
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 615 Robert Jameson 26-Jun-17 06:32
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 594 Bruce R. Fenton 26-Jun-17 11:57
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 742 Robert Jameson 26-Jun-17 13:59
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 429 lalbee 16-Feb-18 13:39
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 411 lalbee 17-Feb-18 02:25
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 428 Bruce R. Fenton 17-Feb-18 04:13
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 408 lalbee 17-Feb-18 05:56
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 433 Bruce R. Fenton 17-Feb-18 06:27
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 566 lalbee 18-Feb-18 15:17
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 440 drrayeye 21-Feb-18 13:48
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 421 lalbee 22-Feb-18 16:45
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 419 Robert Jameson 22-Feb-18 19:39
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 801 Bruce R. Fenton 22-Feb-18 23:07
Re: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution 431 Bruce R. Fenton 22-Feb-18 23:00


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.