Bruce Fenton: 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.
Sorry if you thought I was pushing a religious concept – that is certainly not the case.
From my book; 'Bali to Bairnsdale Alignment and Earth’s Reproductive Chakra', Author Intro, p5
Not all who read this treatise will regard it as credible or share my belief in a creator-being. And I realise many are justifiably suspicious of people who express unconventional views on what might be our meaning and purpose in life. So before presenting it, I would like to clarify some important issues…
First is that this work does not attempt to promote a religious faith nor seek to recruit people to any community of believers. I do not claim to have had a revelation from God, to be his messenger, to be called to do his work, to lead his people or to be motivated by any such aspirations.
Also; I do not take ownership of the God Gametes concept and, where possible, when writing my books I have not used any of the first person personal pronouns; (i.e. I, me, my, mine etc.). I have tried countless times to develop my thesis on university campus. Unfortunately however, as soon as I mention that my concept does not follow the gradualist evolutionary paradigm, I get pointed to the door.
Yes, I use God in the title of my book (and for the name of the concept). I suppose I could have called my book ‘Fred’s Gametes Theory’. That way I would not have had to wear the label ‘Jesus freak’ – but the title may have been a little confusing.
Bruce Fenton: 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.
Thank you for your comments re the London Hammer. Yes I guess there are a lot of these ancient artefacts that have doubt as to their authenticity. The last thing I want is to quote sources that are not reliable. As mentioned earlier I would have liked to have written up my thesis on university campus. Unfortunately my research and writing has not been under the tutelage of professional academics – and work and family commitments has always demanded priority on my time and financial resources.
Bruce Fenton: 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.
I am not disputing that there were earlier advanced civilisations. The point re machining on the Giza plateau and Aswan is that the technology is so advanced that even today we cannot match it. There is a lot that could be said in support of this claim but I am sure readers of this post are familiar with the work of Christopher Dunn and many others who deal with ancient advanced technology. If not, please contemplate how, pre iron age and pre the invention of the wheel, these ancient people planned to transport a 1,200 tonne obelisk.
Bruce Fenton: 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 are probably correct here. Sorry if I do not debate at length the considerable data you present in support of your case – I just do not believe it. I lived and worked on the Aboriginal Pitjantjatjara Home Lands in the north west of South Australia for 3 years. While I have great affection, and great admiration, for the Australian Aboriginal people I do not see them as having the technical knowhow, or the desire, to navigate the world’s oceans. As mentioned in my earlier post the claim that the Australian Aboriginal people sailed the oceans seem to be based on rock art that is of unknown origin and disputed authenticity.
Bruce Fenton: 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.
The above is just one of a litany of personal attacks on me in your post. I am reluctant to respond in kind – suffice is to say that it would be far better if you, when having your views challenged, would address the topic rather than attack the person.