It was suggested by one of the posters to this thread that Bruce Fenton is an Australian. I do not know if this is true but his website says he was born in Cheltenham UK and graduated from Anglia Ruskin University UK in 2002. I therefore suggest he be very careful when claiming knowledge of Aboriginal people. I have great-great grandparents buried in this country (Australia) went to school with Aboriginal children, worked for many years with Aboriginal people, lived and worked on the Pitjantjatjara Aboriginal Homelands for 3 years – and can confidently state that I am a million miles away from ever understanding Aboriginal people or their culture.
Bruce is quite emphatic that there is archaeological evidence that links early Aboriginals to intercontinental migration. However, in his report on the Ecuador Llanganates Jungle Megaliths he does not appear to attribute the construction of these structures to the native Ecuadorian people. From; The Megalithic Constructions in the Ecuadorian Jungle are Not Natural Features
Some decades ago at least one or more persons stumbled upon a partly exposed megalithic structure deep in the Ecuadorian jungle known as the Llanganates. This is the most inhospitable jungle in Latin America and as far as I can discover it has no indigenous peoples or even any known history of human habitation before modern times.
There can be no doubt now that what we have here is the remnants of human habitation from a very ancient era. The building techniques and artefacts do not match any known Ecuadorian culture.
If he applied the same standards to himself, as he applies to me, then he would surely be guilty of ‘gross Western arrogance’ for not attributing the original Ecuadorians with the ability to construct these monuments.
I must also say I am a little confused when reading his article; Did Consciousness Manifest the Physical Universe? Here he notes the impossible probability that the universe, and the elements necessary for life to exist, could have assembled by accident.
Are we willing to accept the materialist-reductionist view of cosmology in which minuscule particles all just happened to bump up against each other despite being in an infinitely large space? Can we really accept without question that random chemical process will inevitably spawn life from pools of damp mineral sludge? Surely there are better theories to these important areas of thought? …
It is my own opinion, shared by a growing number of highly credentialed scientists, that the current failure to find any explanation for the transition from inanimate matter to animate organisms, is due to dismissing the possibility that consciousness was already present in the universe before biological life arose. That perhaps consciousness directed the whole show.
If we take the highly logical leap that some form of consciousness was present within the singularity at the heart of the Big Bang, then passing into the early universe during the Big Bang, things start to make a lot more sense. Rather than biological life arising from inert matter via chance chemical interaction alone, we can instead hypothesise that biological life arose due to the interaction between primal consciousness, which existed beyond physical form, and physical matter. The fact that non-physical fields of consciousness can inhabit and animate physical matter should be self-evident to all of us!
The above is basically what I have claimed when proposing the God Gametes theory. But because I used the word ‘God’ Bruce has totally dismissed my claim and called me a religious zealot.
The nature of consciousness is such a vast, ongoing, discussion. We could easily spend a great deal of time examining the conversations between consciousness researchers. For now, let us just suffice with a very simple summary, that consciousness is as its most basic description an incredibly coherent, non-physical, field of energy, able to operate beyond the limits of the time-space continuum. Being non-physical, it is not bound to the laws governing physical matter, yet experiments have shown time after time that consciousness can interact with physical matter, normally by affecting the quantum components of matter. In brief, we can say that at the quantum level everything is fluidic, in waves of energy, until consciousness causes those waves to collapse and become fixed particles. Quantum wave-particle duality allows an ‘easy in road’ for consciousness to a physical realm.
Before we move onwards with the story of life let us just contrast for a moment the mainstream materialist consensus view with the alternative being offered here. Did particles of gas and dust, floating in a vast and ever expanding universe somehow, through pure chance, collide so often that billions of vast stars formed? Did a lucky bolt of lightning hit some minerals in a rock pool to bring us the first Frankenstein’s amoeba?
Or perhaps was consciousness always present, initially operating on the micro scale to affect the direction of those particles, then at just the right moment crossing through to inhabit the physical forms it had played a hand in forming?
Perhaps our human journey begins with a revised version of Genesis 1:1
“In the beginning, primal consciousness manifested the universe, and then the earth.” – Bruce Fenton
So it was not a ‘creator’ or a ‘God’ who twiddled the knobs – it was ‘primal consciousness’.
As I have stated earlier in this post, I do not believe it is possible to explain the origins of the universe or of life on earth. We lack an explanation for the existence of matter, energy and complex structures throughout the greater universe. And while we cannot explain the existence of ancient technology here on earth we need to acknowledge a disconnect with our ancient past.
My concern, and the reason for my writing again, is the difficulty I believe Bruce’s interpretation can cause. To explain let me point to two issues:
First, while the non-aboriginals who have made Australia their home have embraced Aboriginal people and their culture as part of their modern heritage, Aboriginal people do not appear to accept non-aboriginal occupation of the Australian continent. They will for example call our national day (Australia Day) ‘Invasion Day’ and claim we ‘stole their land’.
The second point is this. The Australian Aboriginal people, as with indigenous people from many other places around the world, have difficulty adjusting to a modern western way of living. There are countless resources I could point to here but the below Wikipedia article on Indigenous Australians mentions some of the issues – (see bottom of article for Aboriginal issues relating to life expectancy, education, employment, health, crime and imprisonment and substance abuse.)
Thus; I do not think Bruce Fenton's thesis, or the below claim by Steven and Evan Strong, helps:
Steven and Evan Strong:
Australian Original people set sail from Australia, not to, 50,000 years ago. We claim that Australian Original people sailed to and settled in America over 40,000 years ago, and visited many other places including Egypt, Japan, Africa, India etc. They were the first Homo sapiens who evolved before the Sapiens of Africa, and who gave the world art, axes, religion, marine technology, culture, co-operative living, language and surgery. refer: Forgotten Origin – Our Theory
I do not discount the remarkable ingenuity of the Aboriginal people. Their survival on the harsh Australian continent was remarkable – but any rational interpretation of our current situation would suggest that they should attempt to adjust to a modern 21st century life style – not the other way around.
Cathy Freeman carrying both the Australian and Aboriginal flags at her 400-metre win at Sydney 2000 Olympics
ABC footage and interviews of Australians celebrating Freeman’s Olympics win
click link in Wikipedia article - as seen bottom right of below screen shot
Please check the above Wikipedia article and watch the ABC footage taken of the crowd during, and after, Cathy’s win. Then tell me Aussies do not have affection or care for our indigenous people.
Living together with Aboriginal people accepting us – and we accepting them – is the only way forward.
Responding to my posts Bruce Fenton wrote:
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. …
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. …
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. …
I see now that we are talking to each-other from two separate realities with separate standards for scientific evidence and a reasonable debate.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 26-Jun-17 11:29 by Robert Jameson.