Civilizations Retreat as Well as Advance
Darwinism maintains that Man—and thus the culture he possesses—advanced from rudimentary, primitive, tribal stages toward civilization. However, archaeological findings show that since the very first day of human history, there have been periods with societies that maintained very advanced cultures along with others whose cultures have been more backward. Indeed, most of the time, very wealthy civilizations have existed at the same time as backward ones. Throughout the course of history, most societies of the same period had very different levels of technology and civilization, with very great sociological and cultural differences—just as is the case today. For example, though the North American continent is very advanced today in terms of medicine, science, architecture and technology, some communities in South America are rather backward technologically, with no links to the outside world.
Diseases in many parts of the world are identified using the most advanced imaging techniques and analysis, and are treated in very modern hospitals. Yet in other parts of the world, diseases are thought to develop under the influence of so-called evil spirits, and attempts to heal the sick involve ceremonies to banish such spirits. Such societies as the people of the Indus, the Ancient Egyptians and the Sumerians, who all lived around 3,000 BCE, possessed cultures incomparably richer in all respects than that of these present-day tribes, and even than that of societies more advanced. This means that in all periods of history, societies with highly advanced civilizations have been able to survive together with more backward ones. A society that existed thousands of years ago may actually have advanced much further than one in the 20th century. This demonstrates that there has been no development within an evolutionary process—in other words, from the primitive to the civilized.
21st Century - Colombi & - Miami, USA
|
 |
21st Century - Colombi
Above (picture in picture) A native Papuan, Australia
Even in the 21st century, many societies have superstitious beliefs. They worship false deities that can do them neither harm nor good. Here we see the chief of the Arhuaco Indians performing a ritual after an attack was made on them. The chief states that they call on the help of the ancient spirits of nature to appease the mountain. (Stephen Ferry, "Keepers of the World," National Geographic, October 2004)
|
21st Century - Miami, USA
In one part of the world, people live in primitive environments, while on another continent, people live in comfortable skyscrapers and travel by airplane and luxurious cruise ships. Contrary to the claims of evolutionists, both advanced and "primitive" societies have always existed at the same periods, just as they do today.
|
Over the course of history, of course, major advances have been made in all fields, with great strides and development in science and technology, thanks to the accumulation of culture and experience. However, it is neither rational nor scientific to describe these changes as an "evolutionary" process in the way that evolutionists and materialists do. Just as there are no differences in physical characteristics between a present-day human and someone who lived thousands of years ago, so there are no differences in regard to intelligence and capabilities. The idea that our civilization is more advanced because 21st-century man's brain capacity and intelligence are more highly developed is a faulty perspective, resulting from evolutionist indoctrination. The fact is people in very different regions today may have different conceptions and cultures. But if a native Australian may not possess the same knowledge as a scientist from the USA, that doesn't mean his intelligence or brain haven't developed enough. Many people born into such societies may even be ignorant of the existence of electricity, but who are still highly intelligent.
 |
|
The environment where a people lives does not indicate whether their minds are primitive or advanced. In every period, people lived under different conditions and developed different requirements. For example, the ancient Egyptians' understanding of architecture is different from ours, but that does not mean that our culture is necessarily more advanced. One emblem of 20th century civilization is the skyscraper; in ancient Egypt, it was the pyramids and the sphinxes.
|
Moreover, different needs have arisen during different centuries. Our standards of fashion are not the same as the Ancient Egyptians', but that doesn't mean that our culture is more advanced than theirs. While skyscrapers are symbols of civilization in the 21st century, the evidence of civilization in the Egyptian period was pyramids and sphinxes.
What matters is the perspective from which facts are interpreted. Someone starting with the preconceived idea that the facts support a so-called evolutionary development will evaluate all the information he obtains in light of that prejudice. Thus he will try to support his assertions with imaginary tales. Based on fragments of fossil bone, he will conjecture a great many details, such as how people living in that region spent their daily lives, their family structures and their social relations, in a way adapted to that preconception. He'll conclude, based on those fragments of bone, that the living people they belonged to were only semi-upright and grunting, covered in hair and using crude stone tools—not because that is what scientific evidence suggests, but because his ideology requires it. Actually, the facts obtained do not imply such a scenario at all. This illusory picture comes about through interpretations by a Darwinist mentality.
Currently, the archaeologists who make detailed interpretations about the period in question based on fossil remains, carved stone or paintings on cave walls, are scarcely different from the above example. Yet evolutionists still write about pretty nearly all aspects in the life of so-called primitive man on the basis of a prejudiced analysis of the evidence. Their fanciful descriptions and illustrations still adorn the pages of many magazines and newspapers.
Here is one of the scenarios created by Louis Leakey, one of the best-known contemporary evolutionists, on the daily life of so-called primitive man:
Let us for a moment imagine that we can stand back and observe the sequence of events at a rock-shelter some twenty or thirty thousand years ago.
A Stone Age hunter is wandering down the valley in search of game when he espies a rock-shelter in the side of the rocky cliff above him. Carefully, and with the utmost caution, he climbs up to it, fearful lest he may find that it is occupied by the members of some other Stone Age family who will resent his intrusion, or possibly even that it is the lair of a lion or a cave bear. At last he is close enough, and he sees that it is quite unoccupied, and so he enters and makes a thorough examination. He decides that it is a much more suitable habitation than the little shelter where he and his family are living at present, and he goes off to fetch them.
Next we see the family arriving and settling into their new home. A fire is lit either from some embers carefully nursed and brought from the old home, or else by means of a simple, wooden fire drill. (We cannot say for certain what methods Stone Age man used for obtaining fire, but we do know that from a very early period he did make use of fire, for hearths are a common feature in almost any occupation level in caves and rock-shelters.)
 |
|
A scientist evaluating evidence with evolutionist prejudices may make many interpretations about the relevant period. But for these interpretations to be accepted, they must be supported by clear findings and data. So far, evolutionists have found no evidence to support their myths of half-human and half-ape creatures that communicated by grunting, lived in caves, sat around fires wearing furs and hunted with primitive weapons. These are only figments of the evolutionist imagination. Science shows that human beings have always been fully human.
|
Probably some of the family then go off to collect grass or bracken to make rough beds upon which they will sleep, while others break branches from bushes and trees in the near-by thicket and construct a rude wall across the front of the shelter. The skins of various wild animals are then unrolled and deposited in the new home, together with such household goods as they possess.
And now the family is fully settled in, and the day-to-day routine is resumed once more. The men hunt and trap animals for food, the women probably help in this and also collect edible fruits and nuts and roots. 2
This description, right down to the tiniest detail, is based on no scientific findings whatsoever, but solely on its author's imagination. Evolutionists, who dress up similar tales with various scientific terms, base all their details on the basis of a few pieces of bone. (Actually, these fossils demonstrate that no evolutionary process ever took place—the exact opposite of what evolutionists claim!) Obviously, bone fragments cannot provide any definite information as to whatever emotions inspired people in very ancient times, what their daily lives were like, or how they divided work amongst themselves.
However, the tale of human evolution is enriched with countless such imaginary scenarios and illustrations, and widely used by evolutionists. Unable to rid themselves of this dogma of evolution since the theory was first put forward, they have produced differing versions of the scenario above. Yet their intention is not to elucidate, but to wield indoctrination and propaganda to convince people that primitive man once really existed.
Many evolutionists seek to prove their claims by producing such scenarios, even in the absence of any supporting evidence. Yet every new finding, when interpreted in an biased manner, very clearly reveals to them certain facts, one of which is this: Man has been Man since the day he came into existence. Such attributes as intelligence and artistic ability have been the same in all periods of history. Peoples who lived in the past were not primitive, half-human half-animal creatures, as evolutionists would have us believe. They were thinking, speaking human beings, just like us, who produced works of art and developed cultural and ethical structures. As we'll shortly see, archaeological and paleontological findings prove this clearly and incontrovertibly.
What Will Remain from Our Own Civilization?
Imagine what will be left of today's great civilizations in hundreds of thousands of years. All our cultural accumulation—paintings, statues and palaces—will all disappear, and barely a trace of our present technology will remain. Many materials designed to resist wear and tear will gradually, under natural conditions, begin to succumb. Steel rusts. Concrete decays. Underground facilities collapse, and all materials require maintenance. Now imagine that tens of thousands of years have passed, and they have been subjected to thousands of gallons of rain, centuries of fierce winds, repeated floods and earthquakes. Perhaps all that will remain will be giant pieces of carved stone, the quarried blocks that make up buildings and the remains of various statues, just like what has come down to us from the past. Or maybe not a definite trace of our advanced civilizations will be left to fully understand our daily lives, only from tribes living in Africa, Australia or some other place in the world. In other words, of the technology we possess (televisions, computers, microwave ovens, etc.), not a trace will remain though the main outline of a building or a few fragments of statues will perhaps survive. If future scientists look at these scattered remains and describe all societies of the period we are living in as "culturally backward," will they not have departed from the truth?
| |
 |
Year 2000
Archaeologists with an evolutionist prejudice assert that the bison sculptures in the Tuc d'Audoubert cave in the foot-hills of the Pyrenees in southern France—which statues have no less artistic value than today's works of art such as, for example, the statues of Rodin—were made by so-called primitive people. But the technique and aesthetic appearance of the works show that whoever produced them was no different physically or mentally from present-day human beings, and was actually more artistically sophisticated than most.
|
Year 8000
If Rodin's "The Thinker" is discovered 6,000 years from now, and people interpret it with the same prejudice that some scientists interpret past today, they will think that 20th-century peoples worshipped a man who pondered, and were not yet socialized, etc. Wouldn't this show how far they were from the truth?
|
Or, if someone discovers a work written in Mandarin and concludes, solely on the basis of this text, that the Chinese were a backward race communicating by means of strange signs, will this be any reflection of the true facts? Consider the example of Auguste Rodin's statue "The Thinker," which is familiar to the whole world. Imagine that this statue is re-discovered by archaeologists tens of thousands from now. If those researchers hold their own preconceptions about the beliefs and lifestyle of our society, and lack sufficient historical documentation, they may well interpret this statue in different ways. They may imagine that the members of our civilization worshipped a thinking man, or may claim that the statue represents some mythological false deity.
Today, of course, we know that "The Thinker" was a work produced for aesthetic, artistic reasons alone. In other words, if a researcher in tens of thousands of years lacks enough information and holds his own preconceived ideas about the past, it's impossible for him to arrive at the truth, because he will interpret "The Thinker" in the light of his preconceptions and form an appropriate scenario. Therefore, evaluating the information at hand without prejudice or bias, avoiding all forms of preconception, and thinking in broader terms is of the greatest importance. Never forget, we have no evidence that societies evolve or that societies in the past were primitive. These suggestions consist solely of conjecture and are based solely on analysis by historians and archaeologists who support evolution. For example, drawings of animals on a cave wall were immediately described as primitive drawings by cavemen. Yet these pictures may well say volumes about the aesthetic understanding of the humans at that time. An artist wearing the most modern clothing for the time may have produced them solely for artistic reasons alone. Indeed, many scientists now emphasize the impossibility of these same cave drawings being the work of a primitive mind.
True History Covered Up
|
|
Most of what we know about history we learned from books. Readers seldom doubt the contents of such books and accept their contents at face value. But especially when it comes to human history, very often the book presents a theory shaped by a concept that is no longer valid in the fields of biology, molecular biology, paleontology, genetics, biogenetics and anthropology. Along with the scientific collapse of the theory of evolution, our understanding of history based on it has also been invalidated.
 |
|
If a historian analyzing World War II holds National Socialist views, he may well portray Hitler as a magnificent leader, based on the picture to the side alone. Yet the photograph below, taken at the Buchenwald concentration camp, shows only one of the examples of the terrible slaughter that Hitler unleashed.
|
The historian, Edward A. Freeman, discusses how our historical knowledge reflects the "facts":
For in all historical inquiries we are dealing with facts which themselves come within the control of human will and human caprice, and the evidence for which depends on the trustworthiness of human informants, who may either purposely deceive or unwittingly mislead. A man may lie; he may err. 6
So, how can we be certain that the history handed down to us is true?
First of all, we must make sure of the objective certainty of the facts presented to us by historians and archaeologists. As with most abstract concepts, the interpretation of history may mean different things to different people. The account of an event may vary according to the point of view of who relates it. And the interpretation of events is often quite different when recounted by individuals who did not witness them.
"History" is defined as the chronological record of past events. What gives meaning and significance to these events is how the historian presents them. For example, the history of a war may be influenced by the writer's opinion of whether the winning side was right or wrong. If he feels sympathy for either side, he will consider them to be the "champion of freedom," even if it invaded the other's territory and committed numerous atrocities. 7 For example, if you examine the history books of two nations hostile to each other, you'll see that each interprets the same events in a totally different way.
This is exactly what evolutionist historians and scientists have done today. With no concrete proofs to rely on, they present the so-called evolutionary history of human beings as a certain truth. They ignore the strong evidence that refutes their theory, interpret the evidence they have in terms of their prejudice, and present this theory, that some scientists adopted as an ideology, as a law.
|
Another example is the interpretation of sharp-edged stones as the first tools made by "ape-men." People at that time may have shaped these stones and used for decorative purposes. There is no proof, only an assumption, that the pieces found were definitely used by these people as tools. Evolutionist scientists have examined the evidence found during excavations from a biased perspective. They have played about with some fossils that, in their own view, prove their theories, and have ignored or even discarded others. Similar games have been played to demonstrate that history evolved as well. 3 The American anthropologist Melville Herskovits describes how the "evolution of history" thesis emerged and the way that evolutionists interpret the evidence:
Every exponent of cultural evolution provided an hypothetical blueprint of the progression he conceived as having marked the development of mankind, so that many examples of nonlinear sequences have been recorded. Some of these progressions were restricted to a single aspect of culture ... 4
What will Remain In Tens of Thousands of Years' Time?/h6>
|
|
Compared with the history of mankind, the lifespan of the materials often used in construction, industry, technological products, and many areas of daily life is relatively short.
 |
|
In tens of thousands of years' time, the modern stone houses shown here will look no different than the ruins unearthed in the excavations at Catal Huyuk. Under natural conditions, first timber will decay, then metals will corrode. In all likelihood, all that remains will be stone walls, and ceramic pots and bowls. If so, any claims by the future archaeologists that all people of the 2000s lived primitive lives will clearly not reflect the truth. Present-day evolutionists find themselves in the same position.
|
If people lived in extremely sophisticated timber buildings tens of thousands of years ago, it is perfectly understandable that little evidence should remain today. Imagine that our civilization were destroyed in some terrible disaster. How much of it would be left in a hundred thousand years? If a future people were to regard us as primitive on the basis of a few bones and pieces of foundation, how accurate would their interpretation be?
In tens of thousands of years' time, all that will remain of any of today's buildings will be a few blocks of stone. Wooden materials, and objects made of iron will rot away.
For example, nothing will remain of the Çirağan Palace's fine wall paintings, its beautiful furniture, its splendid curtains and carpets, the chandeliers or other lighting equipment. These materials will decay and vanish. Someone coming across the remains of the Çirağan Palace in the distant future may see only a few large chunks of stone and perhaps a few of the palace's foundations. If it's suggested, on the basis of this, that the people of our time had not yet established settled patterns of living and lived in primitive shelters made by piling stones atop one another, this analysis would be completely mistaken.
 |
|
The Çırağan Palace in Istanbul after it was burned and its interior design and decorations destroyed. Someone looking at the palace in this condition could never fully imagine how magnificent it had once been.
|
The Çırağan Palace in its restored state, with all its décor completed.
|
The remains that have survived down to the present may have once been exceedingly beautiful buildings, just like the Çirağan Palace. If one were to place furniture atop of these ruins and decorate them with curtains, carpets and lamps, the result would be quite impressive once again.
The Qur'an refers to bygone societies as being highly advanced in terms of art, architecture, culture and knowledge. In one verse, we are told that societies of the past were very superior:
Haven't they traveled in the Earth and seen the final fate of those before them? They were greater than them in strength and left far deeper traces on the Earth. . . . (Qur'an, 40:21)
|
One of the most important examples to confirm Herskovits' view is one study carried out by the evolutionist ethnographer Lewis Henry Morgan, who examined the phases a society undergoes to achieve the patriarchal and monogamous structure that, he claimed, had "evolved" from the primitive to the more developed. But in carrying out this research, he used for his examples different societies from all over the globe, entirely unconnected from one another. He then set them out in accord with the result he wanted to achieve. It's clear that from the hundreds of thousands of cultures in the world, he selected only those compatible with his preconceived thesis.
Herskovits illustrates how Morgan re-arranged history to validate his ideas. Starting with the very primitive matrilineal Australians, he drew a line leading to the patrilineal American Indians. He then moved his sequence to Grecian tribes of the proto-historic period, when descent was firmly established in the male line, but with no strict monogamy. The last entry in his ascending scale was represented by today's civilization—with descent in the male line and strict monogamy.
Herskovits comments on this imaginary sequence:
But this series, from the point of view of a historical approach, is quite fictitious … 5
People Living 1.5 Million Years Ago Looked After Their Elderly
|
 |
|
In a special issue evaluating the year's major scientific discoveries, Discover magazine devoted considerable space to this discovery, which revealed that people looked after the sick millions of years ago and took an interest in their well-being. This finding, which was reported in an article under the title "Did Homo erectus* Coddle His Grandparents?", revealed that human beings have never lived like animals at any time in history, but always like human beings.
|
A fossil discovered in Dmanisi, Georgia in 2005 once again revealed that the "evolution of human history" scenario in no way squares with the facts. According to evolutionists' unscientific claims, the first human beings lived like animals, with no family life or social order. However, a fossil skull belonging to an elderly human being, discovered by the paleoanthropologist David Lordkipanidze, showed that these claims are untrue.
The fossil discovered belonged to an older human who had only one tooth left. Scientists believe that the owner of the skull had other diseases as well as being nearly toothless. That this person survived well into old age, despite having so many infirmities, represents significant evidence that this individual was cared for and that others took an interest in others' welfare. Lordkipanidze says:
It is clear that this was a sick individual… We think this is a good argument that this individual had support from other members of the group. 8
Evolutionists maintain that human beings developed social cultural behavior at least 1.5 million years after the owner of this skull died. The fossil in question thus refutes evolutionist claims, showing that millions of years ago people felt compassion toward the sick, looked after and protected them. This discovery once again shows that humans have never lived like animals, but always like human beings.
(*) Evolutionists claim that Homo erectus was an intermediate species between apes and human beings in Man's supposed evolution. The fact is, however, that there is no difference between the present-day human skeleton and that of Homo erectus, whose skeleton is fully upright, and fully human.
|
The Advanced Art in Caves
 |
|
One of the wall paintings discovered in the caves at Lascaux. Clearly, that could not be the work of a primitive human who had only just parted ways with apes.
|
Evolutionists maintain that some 30-40,000 years ago in Europe, and in an earlier period in Africa, so-called ape-like humans experienced a sudden process of transition, and suddenly acquired the ability to think and produce things, just like present-day human beings. This is because archaeological findings from that period offer significant evidence that the theory of evolution cannot explain. According to Darwinist claims, the technology of stone implements, which had remained unchanged for almost 200,000 years, was suddenly replaced by a more advanced and rapidly developing hand-crafted technology. So-called primitive man, who had supposedly descended from the trees and begun to modernize only shortly before, suddenly developed artistic talents and began carving or painting pictures of extraordinary beauty and sophistication on cave walls and produced exceedingly beautiful decorative objects such as necklaces and bracelets.
What happened to cause such development? How and why did "half-ape primitive beings" acquire such artistic ability? Evolutionist scientists have no explanation as to how this might have come about, though they do propose various hypotheses. The evolutionist Roger Lewin describes the difficulties Darwinists face on this subject in his book The Origin of Modern Humans: "Perhaps because the still incomplete archeological record is equivocal at best, scholars respond to these questions in very different ways." 9
However, archaeological findings reveal that man has had a cultural understanding for as long as he has existed. From time to time, that understanding may have advanced, retreated, or undergone abrupt changes. But that does not mean that any evolutionary process took place, rather that cultural developments and changes occurred. The appearance of works of art that evolutionists describe as "sudden," doesn't demonstrate any biological human progress (especially not in terms of intellectual ability). People at the time may have experienced various societal changes, and their artistic and productive understanding may have altered, but this does not constitute evidence of any transition from the primitive to the modern.
The contradiction between archaeological remains left by people in the past and the anatomical and biological remains that should exist—according to evolutionists—once again invalidates Darwinist claims on this subject. (For detailed evidence that scientifically demolishes the supposed human family tree, which is Darwinism's fundamental claim, see Darwinism Refuted by Harun Yahya.) Evolutionists claim that humans' cultural development must be directly proportional to biological development. For example, men must first express their emotions through simple drawings, then develop these further until their gradual development eventually reaches a peak of artistic achievement. However, early artistic remains from human history totally undermine that assumption. The cave paintings, carvings and reliefs widely regarded as the first examples of art, prove that human beings of that era possessed a very superior aesthetic understanding.
 |
|
Middle: Man with a Pipe, Pablo Picasso Guitar, Pablo Picasso
Left: The Flaming Horse, Salvador Dali
Right: Exploding Clock, Salvador Dali
|
|
If later generations were to evaluate the present-day artworks in light of evolutionist preconceptions, very different opinions about our society might result. Evolutionists of the future might view the works of Pablo Picasso or Salvador Dali, or other surrealists, and suggest that people of our day were rather primitive. However, that would totally fail to reflect the true facts.
|
Scientists carrying out research in caves evaluate these pictures as some of the most important and valuable works in the history of art. The shading in these pictures, the use of perspective and the fine lines employed, the depth of feeling expertly reflected in the reliefs, and the aesthetic patterns that emerge as the sunlight strikes the carvings—are all features that evolutionists are unable to explain because, according to the Darwinist view, such a development should have emerged very much later.
Many cave paintings found in France, Spain, Italy, China, India, in parts of Africa and various other regions of the world provide important information about mankind's past cultural structure. The style and coloring techniques employed in these drawings are of such quality as to astonish researchers. Even so, Darwinist scientists evaluate them through their own prejudices, interpreting these works in a biased manner so as to fit in with their evolutionary fairy tales. They claim that beings who had just become humans drew pictures of animals they either feared or hunted, and did so in the exceedingly primitive conditions of the caves in which they lived. Yet the techniques these works employ show that their artists possessed a very deep understanding, and were able to depict it in a most impressive manner.
The painting techniques employed also show that they did not live under primitive conditions at all. In addition, these drawings on cave walls are no evidence that people of the time lived in those caves. The artists may have lived in elaborate shelters nearby, but chose to create their images on the cave walls. What emotions and thoughts led them to select what to represent are something known only to the artist. Much speculation has been produced regarding these drawings, of which the most unrealistic interpretation is that they were made by beings who were still in a primitive state. Indeed, a report published on the BBC's Science web page on 22 February, 2000, contained the following lines regarding cave paintings:
... [we] thought that they were made by primitive people ... But according to two scientists working in South Africa, this view of the ancient painters is totally wrong. They believe the paintings are evidence of a complex and modern society. 10
If many of our present-day artworks were to be analyzed with the same logic in thousands of years' time, a number of debates might arise over whether 21st-century society was a primitive tribal one or an advanced civilization. If undamaged pictures by modern artists were discovered 5,000 years on, and if no written documentation regarding the present day had survived, what would people of the future think about our own age?
If people of the future discovered works by Van Gogh or Picasso and judged them from an evolutionist perspective, how would they regard our modern society? Would the landscapes of Claude Monet inspire comments like "Industry had not yet developed, and people led an agricultural way of life," or the abstract pictures of Wassily Kandinsky inspire comments along the lines of "People still unable to read or write communicated by way of various scribbles"? Would such interpretations lead them to any insights about our present-day society?
 |
|
Wall paintings discovered in Algeria and dating back some 9,000 years
|
Bison reliefs in the Tuc d'Audoubert Cave
|
|
Pictures reflect the artist's visual and conceptual understanding. Yet drawing conclusions from these pictures about what the people of the time ate, what conditions they lived in and what their social relationships were like—and then maintaining that these comments are absolutely accurate—is an unscientific approach. As a result of their prejudiced attitudes, evolutionists stubbornly continue to describe bygone peoples as primitive. The figures in this picture can be seen to be wearing herringbone cloth. This shows that people at the time were not savages, wandering around half-naked, as evolutionists claim.
|
The Superior Painting Technique in Cave Art
|
|
In the French Pyrenees, the Niaux Cave is filled with most impressive pictures drawn by people who lived in prehistoric times. Carbon dating performed on these paintings show that they were completed around 14,000 years ago. The Niaux Cave paintings were discovered in 1906 and have been examined in great detail ever since. The most decorated portion of the cave is a side chamber formed by a high cavity, in a dark section known as the Salon Noir. In his book The Origin of Modern Humans, Roger Lewin makes the following comment about this section, with its images of bison, horses, deer and ibexes: " ... arranged in panels and giving the impression of foresight and deliberation in their execution." 11
 |
|
Pigments used in the cave paintings were made from mixtures that even a student of chemistry would find it hard to reproduce. These compounds have very complex formulae and can be obtained today only by chemical engineers in laboratories. It is clear that paints obtained from such materials as talc, baryte, potassium feldspar and biotite require a detailed chemical knowledge. It is impossible to describe their makers as supposedly "newly developed."
|
One important element about these pictures that has attracted the most interest of scientists is the painting technique employed. Research has shown that the artists obtained special compounds by mixing natural and local ingredients. No doubt that this indicates an ability to think, plan and produce far beyond the reach of any beings still in a primitive state. Lewin describes this painting technique thus:
The painting materials—pigments and mineral extenders—were carefully selected by Upper Paleolithic people and ground to within 5 to 10 micrometers to produce a specific mix. The black pigment, as had been suspected, was charcoal and manganese dioxide. But the real interest was in the extenders, of which there seemed to be four distinct recipes, which the researchers number one through four. Extenders help to bring out the color of the pigment and, as their name implies, add bulk to the paint without diluting the color. The four recipes for extenders used at Niaux were talc; a mixture of baryte and potassium feldspar; potassium feldspar alone; and potassium feldspar mixed with an excess of biotite. Clottes and his colleagues experimented with some of these extenders and found them to be extremely effective. 12
This highly advanced technique is evidence that no being that can be described as primitive ever existed in the past. Ever since Man first came into existence, he has been a superior being, with the ability to think, speak, reason, understand, analyze, plan and produce. It is completely irrational and illogical to claim that people who used extender to color their paintings and who successfully mixed such substances as talc, baryte, potassium feldspar and biotite to obtain such extenders had only recently parted ways with apes and become civilized.
 |
|
Here the artist has produced a three-dimensional image. This is an effect that only people well-trained in art can use, and it is beyond the capabilities of many.
|
The people who produced the cave paintings dating back as far as 35,000 BCE used paints containing such chemicals and substances as manganese oxide, iron oxide, iron hydroxide, and dentine (the inner part of the teeth in vertebrates, consisting of collagen and calcium). If you were to ask someone who had received no training in chemistry to reproduce any of the paints used in these pictures, they would not know which chemical to use, how to get hold of it, and which other substances needed to be mixed together with it. In addition, the people of the time were also well-informed about animal anatomy, as indicated by their making use of collagen and calcium powder from the teeth of vertebrates.
The horse at the bottom right is from one of the paintings in the Niaux Cave. Research has shown the painting to be some 11,000 years old. The close resemblance between this horse and those living in the region today is noteworthy in revealing the ability of the artist, who clearly had a highly developed artistic sense. That the paintings in question were made on cave walls is definitely no evidence that the artists lived primitive lives. There is a high probability that they used these walls as their canvas solely out of personal preference.
|
The Works Found In The Blombos Cave Again Demolish The Human-Evolution Scenario!
|
 |
|
The beads and various decorative objects shown above were found in the Blombos Caves. They reveal that the people of the time had an understanding of art and took delight in beauty and attractive things. These cannot have been the products of supposedly primitive beings.
|
Discoveries during excavations in the Blombos Caves on the coast of South Africa once again overturned the scenario of human evolution. The Daily Telegraph covered the story under the headline "Stone Age Man Wasn't So Dumb." Various newspapers and magazines also carried the story, stating that theories about prehistoric man need to be completely changed. For example, BBC News reported that, "Scientists say the discovery shows that modern ways of thinking developed far earlier than we think." 13
Found in the Blombos caves were pieces of ochre dating back 80-100,000 years. It was conjectured that they were used for painting the body and in other works of art. Prior to this discovery, scientists had suggested that evidence of the human capacity for thought, understanding and production had emerged 35,000 years ago at the earliest. These new findings totally demolished that supposition. People of that time, whom evolutionists had described as primitive and even as semi-apes, possessed the ability to understand and produce, just like present-day humans.
|
Stunning Pictures in The Chauvet Cave
|
 |
|
The "Horse Panel" in the Chauvet Cave is some 6 meters (20 feet) in length. The astonishingly beautiful paintings in the cave represent rhinoceroses, thick-maned horses, bison, lions and ibexes among many others. Such highly-developed art, created at a time when evolutionists expect to see only primitive scrawls, is something that cannot be explained in terms of Darwinist theory.
|
 |
|
In the light of the highly developed artistic sensibilities evident in cave paintings, National Geographic magazine described the artists who made them as "People Like Us."
|
Paintings discovered in the Chauvet Cave in 1994 caused an enormous reaction in the scientific world. Before that, works of art in Ardèche, the 20,000-year-old images at Lascaux and the 17,000-year-old works in Altamira in Spain had all attracted considerable attention. But the images in Chauvet were a great deal older than these. Carbon dating revealed that these paintings were around 35,000 years old. The following comment appeared in National Geographic magazine:
 |
|
Left: A picture of a leopard in the Chauvet Cave, made using red ochre.
|
Right: The Horse Panel, close-up.
|
The first photographs captivated specialists and the public alike. For decades scholars had theorized that art had advanced in slow stages from primitive scratchings to lively, naturalistic renderings... Approximately twice as old as those in the more famous caves, Chauvet's images represented not the culmination of prehistoric art but its earliest known beginnings. 14
|
16,500-Year-Old Astronomical Plans In Lascaux
|
|
As a result of his studies, Dr. Michael Rappenglueck, a researcher from the University of Munich, revealed that the paintings on the walls of the famous Lascaux caves in central France had an astronomical significance. He reconstructed the figures on the cave walls on computer, using the photogrammetry technique, which showed that the geometrical circles, angles and straight lines that emerged might all have a special significance. All values relating to the ecliptic inclination, the precession of the equinoxes, the regular movements of the stars, the diameter and radius of the Sun and Moon, and the refractions in the universe were added to the computer's calculations. As a result, these outlines were seen to refer to various constellations of stars and specific lunar motions. BBC News reported the following information in its Science section:
 |
 |
|
According to scientific investigators, the dots in the lower part of the horse picture probably depict the 29-day cycle of the Moon.
|
The row of 13 dots below a painting of a deer represents half of the Moon's monthly cycle.
|
|
A report on the BBC website, titled "Oldest lunar calendar identified," contained information that refuted once again the Darwinist claim of the "evolution of societies."
|
A prehistoric map of the night sky has been discovered on the walls of the famous painted caves at Lascaux in central France. The map, which is thought to date back 16,500 years, shows three bright stars known today as the Summer Triangle. A map of the Pleiades star cluster has also been found among the Lascaux frescoes… Discovered in 1940, the walls show the artistic talents of our distant ancestors. But the drawings may also demonstrate their scientific knowledge as well. 15
According to Darwinists' claims, the people who painted these pictures had supposedly only just descended from the trees. Their intellectual development had not yet completed. However, both these paintings' artistic value and results of the latest research totally invalidate these claims. Whoever left these paintings possessed a very superior aesthetic understanding, a developed artistic technique—and scientific knowledge.
|
Figures of Cows in The Lascaux Cave
|
 |
Figures of Bison in The Lascaux Cave
|
 |
|
Movement and vitality are perfectly depicted in these paintings, which are highly attractive and of a quality equal to that of those who have received academic training. It is impossible to claim that anyone who produced such images was mentally undeveloped.
|
 |
|
Left: North wall of the so-called "Rotunda" from the Lascaux Cave
|
Top: 17,000-year-old animal figures from Lascaux
Below: Figure of a horse
|
Reliefs and Pictures in North Africa Amaze Evolutionists
|
|
These giraffe reliefs, some 7,000 years old, were formed so perfectly as to give the impression that the herd is in motion. Clearly, this image is the work of thinking people, capable of making judgments and expressing themselves, and with an understanding of art.
 |
This painting, which is also 7,000 years old, shows a man playing a musical instrument. The recent photograph below it shows a member of the Dzu, a native community in Botswana, playing a similar instrument. The fact is, a musical instrument similar to that used 7,000 years ago is still in use today! This is another striking example that demolishes Darwinist claims. Civilization does not always advance, as Darwinists maintain; sometimes it may remain the same for thousands of years. While this man keeps playing a venerable instrument that has existed for the past 7,000 years, on the other side of the world, digital symphonies are being composed using the most advanced computer technology. And both cultures co-exist at the same time.
|
 |
|
Bottom left: The figure of a human being playing a flute in the 7,000-year-old drawing shows that the people of the time possessed a culture and a knowledge of music, and therefore, that they were mentally developed and cultured.
|
Bottom right: The picture shows a native of present-day Botswana playing a similar instrument.
|
Catal Huyuk, Regarded as The First City In History, Refutes Evolution
|
|
Generally agreed to date back to 9,000 BCE, Catal Huyuk is described as one of the first cities known to history. Its first discoveries initiated great debates in the world of archaeology, proving the invalidity of evolutionist claims once again. The archaeologist James Mellart describes how the advanced state of the region quite amazed him:
The amount of technological specialization at Catal Huyuk is one of the striking features in this highly developed society which was obviously in the vanguard of Neolithic progress . . . How for example, did they polish a mirror of obsidian, a hard volcanic glass, without scratching it and how did they drill holes through stone beads (including obsidian), holes so small that no find modern steel needle can penetrate? When and where did they learn to smelt copper and lead...?16
These findings showed that the inhabitants of Catal Huyuk possessed an understanding of urban life, were capable of planning, design and calculation, and that their artistic understanding was far more advanced than had been thought. Professor Ian Hodder, current leader of the excavation team, states that these findings obtained totally invalidate evolutionist claims. He says that they have unearthed an astonishing art whose origins were unclear and notes that it was very difficult to account for the geographical position of Catal Huyuk—which, according to Hodder, has no direct geographical link to areas known to be settled at the time. The frescoes discovered are very advanced for the period. He says that after enquiring why and how these people attained such an elevated artistic level, the real question is how the group of people achieved such a stunning cultural success. So far as we know, he says, there was no evolution in the cultural development achieved at Catal Huyuk, where such major works of art emerged spontaneously and from nothing. 17
|
 |
400,000-Year-Old Spears That Astonished Evolutionists
|
|
In 1995, the German archaeologist Hartmut Thieme discovered a number of wooden remains in Schöningen, Germany. These had been carefully crafted spears—in other words, the world's oldest known hunting tools. This discovery came as a great surprise to evolutionists, in whose view systematic hunting occurred about 40,000 years ago, when modern humans supposedly first appeared. To make the Clacton and Lehringen spears, which had been found earlier, fit with the evolutionary lie, they had been downgraded to digging-sticks or snow-probes. 18
Actually, however, the Schöningen spears went back a great deal further—to around 400,000 years ago. In addition, their age was so certain that Robin Dennell, one of the Sheffield University archaeologists whose paper was published in Nature magazine, stated that it was impossible to alter their date or to engage in false interpretation of them:
But the Schöningen discoveries are unambiguously spears: to regard them as snow-probes or digging-sticks is like claiming that power drills are paperweights. 19
One reason why these spears so surprised evolutionist scientists is the misconception that the supposedly primitive humans of that time lacked the ability to manufacture such objects. Yet these spears are the product of a mind able to calculate and plan in stages. The trunk of a spruce tree around 30 years old was used for each spear, and its tip was made from the base, where the wood is hardest. Each spear was designed in the same proportions and—just as with modern criteria—its center of gravity was one-third of the way back from the sharp end.
In the face of all this information, Robin Dennell comments:
These represent considerable investment of time and skill—in selecting an appropriate tree, in roughing out the design and in the final stages of shaping. In other words, these [so-called] hominids were not living within a spontaneous 'five-minute culture', acting opportunistically in response to immediate situations. Rather, we see considerable depth of planning, sophistication of design, and patience in carving the wood, all of which have been attributed only to modern humans. 20
Thieme, who discovered the spears, says:
The use of sophisticated spears as early as the Middle Pleistocene may mean that many current theories on early human behaviour and culture must be revised. 21
As Hartmut Thieme and Robin Dennell state, Darwinist claims concerning the history of mankind do not reflect the facts. The truth is, mankind never underwent evolution. Backward civilizations and highly developed and advanced ones both existed in the past.
|
Traces Of Civilization On Gobekli Tepe
|
 |
|
Some of these T-shaped stones found at Göbekli Tepe have images of lions on them.
|
Scientists described as "extraordinary and peerless" the findings obtained during excavations on Göbekli Tepe near Urfa, Turkey. These were giant, T-shaped pillars, taller than a man and 20 meters (65 feet) in diameter, with carved animal reliefs on them.
They had been arranged in a circle. The feature that truly impressed the scientific world was the age of the site, which had been constructed 11,000 years ago. According to the evolutionists' claim, the people of the time must have constructed this imposing site using only primitive stone tools. According to this misconception, the engineering marvel in question was the work of hunter-gatherers using the most primitive implements 11,000 years ago. This, of course, is quite unbelievable.
Professor Klaus Schmidt, leader of the excavation team on Göbekli Tepe sets out this fact stating that people alive at that time appear to have had the capacity for thought. Contrary to what is imagined, Schmidt states, these people were not primitive and must not be regarded as ape-like creatures, recently descended from the trees and attempting to construct a civilization. In terms of intelligence, they appear to have been just like us. 22
 |
|
Evolutionists refer to the period that these objects date from as the "Stone Age," during which they claim that only stone tools were used. However, the objects discovered show that this is untrue. The accurate animal figure on the rock cannot be obtained by merely using stones, and neither can the statue's eyes, nose and mouth.
|
|
Lion motifs carved into some pillars in the area
A human statue found at Göbekli Tepe
A wild boar sculpture unearthed at Göbekli Tepe
|
Schmidt, an archaeologist, carried out a small experiment to determine how those giant pillars could have been transported under the conditions of the time, and how they were shaped. He and his team sought to carve a giant block of rock without the assistance of machinery, using only the primitive tools that prehistoric humans must have used, according to evolutionists.
Then they attempted to carry it a short distance. Part of the team began working on the stone with logs, ropes and muscle power, making simple and natural winches. Meanwhile, others attempted to create a cavity in the base using stone hand-tools, just like the master masons of 9,000 years ago. (The evolutionist view of history believes that since there were no iron implements in those days, Stone-Age men used hard flints.)
The workers trying to carve the stone labored non-stop for two hours, and all they obtained was a vague line. The team of 12 men trying to move the stone block worked hard for four hours, but only managed to move it seven meters, or roughly 20 feet.
This simple experiment revealed that hundreds of workers would have to labor for months to form a single circular area of stones. Clearly, people of that time must have used highly advanced expertise, rather than the primitive methods suggested by evolutionist scientists.
 |
|
Ceramics are one of the most frequently encountered traces left behind by bygone cultures. Many people today still make a living by making such pots. If only a few shards were to survive from our own day, and if scientists of the future found them and suggested that our civilization must have been still ignorant of metallurgy, how accurate would their claim be?
|
Another inconsistency in the evolutionist timeline is that they name the period when these works were produced the "pre-pottery Neolithic Age."
According to this unrealistic interpretation, people of that time hadn't yet achieved the technology to make pottery. Knowing that they made statues, transported giant stones, turned them into attractive pillars, carved reliefs of animals on them, decorated their walls with paintings and employed engineering and architectural knowledge, can we claim they didn't know how to make earthenware pots?
That deceptive claim is persistently reiterated only to defend evolutionist preconceptions. No doubt the artifacts in question show that their makers possessed far more advanced knowledge, technology and civilization than was previously imagined. This in turn reveals that they were not at all primitive. Indeed, an article in the Turkish magazine Bilim ve Teknik says that the Göbekli Tepe discoveries expose a widespread misconception regarding the history of mankind: "These new data reveal a major misconception with regard to humanity's history." 23 That error lies in interpreting history in the light of the evolution deception.
|
Dental Treatment Using Professional Techniques 8,000 Years Ago
|
|
Excavation carried out in Pakistan revealed that more than 8,000 years ago, dentists drilled teeth to remove decay. During the digs, Professor Andrea Cucina of the University of Missouri-Columbia noticed tiny holes, around 2.5 mm in diameter, on molars between 8,000 and 9000 years old. Impressed by the perfection of these holes, Cucina expanded his research by having his team examine the holes under an electron microscope.
 |
|
In order to shape stone, implements made of iron or steel must be used. Societies in the past used such devices to carve and sculpt stone, just as present-day artisans do.
|
They found that these tiny holes' sides were too perfectly rounded to be caused by bacteria. In other words, these were not natural cavities, but the result of artificial intervention, for the purposes of treatment. None of the teeth showed any sign of decay. That, as New Scientist magazine put it, "could simply be testimony to the skill of the prehistoric dentists." 24
At this time, according to the evolutionist doctrine, human beings had only recently diverged from apes. They were living under exceedingly primitive conditions and had only just learned to make earthenware pots, and then only in certain regions. How did people in such primitive circumstances manage to drill such perfect cavities in teeth that required dental treatment, even though they possessed no technology? Evidently these people were not primitive, and neither were the conditions in which they lived. On the contrary, they possessed the knowledge to diagnose disease and produce methods of treatment, and the technical means to use these methods successfully. Once again, this invalidates the Darwinist claim that societies evolve from the primitive to the modern.
|
That is some of the news of the cities which We r elate to you. Some of them are still standing, while others are now just stubble.
(Qur'an, 11:100)
Ancient People's Passion For Music
|
|
The interest that people living some 100,000 years ago displayed in music is another indication that they shared almost the exact same tastes as we do today. The oldest known musical instrument, recovered at Haua Fteah, Libya, is a fossil flute made out of a bird's bone and estimated at between 70,000 and 80,000 years old. 25 Prolom II is a site from the Eastern Crimea where 41 phalange whistles were found. 26 This site dates back to between 90,000 and 100,000 years ago. 27
However, the musical knowledge of the people from that time goes still further. Musicologist Bob Fink analyzed a different flute, made from a bear's thighbone, found in July 1995 by the archaeologist Ivan Turk in a cave in northern Yugoslavia. Fink proved that this flute, determined by radiocarbon tests to be between 43,000 and 67,000 years old, produced four notes, and had half and full tones. This discovery shows that Neanderthals used the seven-note scale—the basic formula of today's Western music. Examining the flute, Fink saw that the distance between its second and third holes was double that between the third and fourth. This means that the first distance represents a whole tone, and the distance next to it a half-tone. Fink wrote, "These three notes . . . are inescapably diatonic and will sound like a near-perfect fit within any kind of standard diatonic scale, modern or antique." This reveals that Neanderthals were people with an ear for and knowledge of music. 28
These artifacts and archaeological discoveries raise a number of questions that Darwinism, which maintains that human beings and apes are descended from a common ancestor, cannot answer. For example, as for the ape-like creatures, which they claim lived tens of thousands of years ago, merely grunting and living an animal lifestyle—why and how did they begin to become social beings? This is a major dilemma for evolutionists. The theory of evolution has no scientific and rational answers as to why these ape-like creatures descended from the trees to the ground, how they managed to stand on two legs, and how their intelligence and abilities developed. The "explanations" are nothing more than preconceptions and fairy tales based solely on fantasy.
 |
|
This flute, made by the Neanderthal, shows these people used the 7-note scale that forms the basis of Western music. Making a flute calls for one set of information, culture and abilities; and playing it, yet another set.
|
How did monkeys leaping from branch to branch decide to descend to the ground? If you ask evolutionists, they will say that this was because of climatic factors. The theory of evolution won't be able to provide a rational and logical answer to the first questions that come to mind. Why did other monkeys choose to remain in the branches when they could have imitated these ones who descended to the ground? Or, why did these climatic factors influence only some monkeys? What prevented others from descending from the trees under the same climatic influences? If you ask how it was that monkeys descended to the ground and began to walk on two legs, evolutionists will provide different accounts. Some will say, for instance, that these ape-like creatures decided to walk upright on two legs, the better to defend against powerful enemies. Yet none of these answers are scientific.
First and foremost, there is no such thing as the evolution of bipedalism. Human beings walk upright on two feet—a very special form of locomotion not seen in any other species. One most important point that needs to be clarified is that bipedalism is not an evolutionary advantage. The way monkeys move is much easier, faster, and more efficient than human's bipedal stride.
Human beings cannot move by jumping from tree to tree like a chimpanzee, nor run at a speed of 125 kilometers (80 miles) per hour like a cheetah. On the contrary, since we walk on two feet, we move much more slowly on the ground. For the same reason, we are one of the least protected of all species in nature. According to the logic of the theory of evolution, monkeys should not have been inclined to adopt a bipedal stride. Instead, humans should have become quadrupedal in order to survive and become the fittest.
Another impasse for evolutionary claims is that bipedalism does not serve Darwinism's "gradual development" model, which constitutes the basis of evolution and requires that there should be a "compound" stride between bipedalism and quadrupedalism. However, with the computerized research he conducted in 1996, the British anatomist Robin Crompton showed that such a compound stride was not possible. Crompton reached the conclusion that a living being can either walk upright, or on all fours. 29 Any type of "hybrid" stride between the two is impossible because it would involve excessive energy consumption. Thus a half-bipedal being cannot exist.
How did supposedly primitive beings develop intelligent social behavior? The answer, according to evolutionist nonsense, is that by living in groups, they thus developed intelligent and social behavior. Yet gorillas, chimpanzees, monkeys and many other animal species also live in groups or herds; and none of these has developed intelligent and social behavior in the way that humans have. None of them have constructed monuments, taken any interest in as tronomy or created works of art; because intelligent creative behavior is unique to human beings. All those artifacts that have survived from the past were made by humans with real artistic ability. The idea that these people lived under primitive conditions is refuted by archaeological facts.
|
Evolutionists have no Scientific Evidence toback up Their Theories
|
|
Evolutionists maintain, without any evidence, that human beings and apes are descended from a common ancestor. Asked how, then, this evolution might have come about, they respond, totally unscientifically, "We do not know, though we hope to one day."
For example, the evolutionist palaeoanthropologist Elaine Morgan makes this admission: Four of the most outstanding mysteries about [the evolution of] humans are:
1) why do they walk on two legs?
2) why have they lost their fur?
3) why have they developed such large brains?
4) why did they learn to speak?
The orthodox answers to these questions are:
1) 'We do not yet know';
2) 'We do not yet know';
3) 'We do not yet know';
4) 'We do not yet know'.
The list of questions could be c o n s i d e r a b l y lengthened without affecting the monotony of the answers. 30
|
Findings That Refute The Evolutionist Picture Of Mankind's History
|
|
Evidence provided in The Hidden History of the Human Race: Forbidden Archeology, by the archaeologists Michael A. Cremo and Richard L. Thompson, overturns the picture of the evolution of mankind as advocated by evolutionists. This book documents remains from totally unexpected—from the evolutionist viewpoint—periods in history. In the 1950s, for example, Thomas E. Lee, an anthropologist at the National Museum of Canada, carried out excavations at Sheguiandah, on Manitoulin Island in Lake Huron. There he found implements in a layer of glacial till, a deposit of sand and gravel left by receding glaciers. When it emerged that these were between 65,000 and 125,000 years old, the publication of the results of his research was postponed—because, according to the misconception dominating the scientific world, human beings had first arrived in North America from Siberia only 120,000 years ago, and it was impossible to claim that this happened any earlier.
Another example provided in the book is archaeologist Carlos Ameghino, who discovered stone tools in an undisturbed 3-million-year-old Pliocene formation at Miramar, Argentina. From the same layers, he extracted the femur of a toxodon, an extinct South American hoofed mammal. Embedded in the femur was a stone arrowhead or lance point. Later, another researcher found a piece of a human jawbone in the same formation. Yet according to Darwinists, human beings capable of making stone balls and arrowheads emerged only 100,000 to 150,000 years ago. Therefore, any bones and arrowheads dating back 3 million years are phenomena that evolutionists are unable to explain. This shows, yet again, that the theory of evolution is incompatible with the scientific facts. 31
In his book Ancient Traces, the British researcher and writer Michael Baigent describes how a gold chain between 260 and 320 million years old was discovered in 1891. It emerged that this chain was of eight-carat gold, which is eight parts gold mixed with sixteen parts of another metal. The middle of the chain—which emerged from inside a piece of coal—was loosened, although the two ends were firmly embedded. Excellent imprints of the loosened section remained in the coal. All this shows that the chain had to be as old as the coal itself. The age of the coal seams in which the chain was found was 260 to 320 million years. 32 The discovery of a gold chain, from a time when evolutionists maintain that human beings did not yet even exist, totally demolished the history of mankind they've drawn up.
The fact that a society uses jewelry and produces decorative items is proof that its citizens enjoyed a civilized life. Moreover, making a gold chain requires both technical expertise and equipment. No regular gold chain can be made from gold ore using stone tools alone. It's obvious that people living millions of years before our own day knew about jewelry-making and took pleasure from beautiful things.
Another finding that overturns the theory of historical evolution is a piece of a nail estimated to be 387 million years old. According to a report by Sir David Brewster of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, the nail was found in a piece of sandstone. The seam from which the stone was taken dates back to the Early Devonian Period—making it around 387 million years old. 33
These findings, of which a great many more could be given, show that man is not a half-animal organism, as evolutionists would have us believe, and has never led an animalistic life. After listing similar examples, Michael Baigent goes on to make the following comment:
. . . clearly there is no possibility that any of this data can be accommodated into the conventional scientific understanding of the earth's history. . . In fact, this evidence—if it can be substantiated even in just one of the cases we have reviewed—indicates that humans, in a modern form, have been walking upon this planet for a very long time indeed. 34
The history of archaeology is full of such discoveries, in the face of which the "conventional" evolutionist mindset that Baigent describes is in a hopeless situation. But the evolutionist mindset also carefully keeps these important specimens away from the public's gaze, and ignores them itself. No matter how much Darwinists strive to keep their ideology alive, the mounting evidence shows that evolution is a lie and that Creation is a fact that cannot be denied. God created Man out of nothing, breathed His spirit into him, and taught him what he did not know. Through God's inspiration, man has lived a human life ever since he first came into existence.
|
Discoveries At The "Ein Gev I" Excavations Refute The Thesis of The Evolution of History
|
|
Research reveals that humans living thousands of years ago used implements similar to those used in rural areas today. Millstones for grinding cereals, a stone mortar and sickles were found in the foundations of a hut that dates back to 15,000 BCE at the excavation site known as "Ein Gev I" in present-day Palestine. The oldest of these implements date back to before 50,000 BCE.35
All the objects found in these digs reveal that mankind's needs have remained much the same at all times. The solutions Man has developed have been very similar to one another, in direct proportion to the technology of the time. Tools for harvesting and grinding cereals—the same implements most needed in rural areas today—were also used in the period in question.
|
|
