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