INTRODUCTION

The evolutionist historical perspective studies the history of mankind by dividing it up into several periods, just as it does with the supposed course of human evolution itself. Such fictitious concepts as the Stone Age, Bronze Age and Iron Age are an important part of the evolutionist chronology. Since this imaginary picture is presented in schools and in television and newspaper stories, most people accept this imaginary picture without question and imagine that human beings once lived in an era when only primitive stone tools were used and technology was unknown.

Yet when archaeological findings and scientific facts are examined, a very different picture emerges. The traces and remains that have come down to the present—the tools, needles, flute fragments, personal adornments and decorations—show that in cultural and social terms, humans have always lived civilized lives in all periods of history.

There Never Was A Stone Age

In the supposed period described by evolutionists as the stone age, people worshipped, listened to the message preached by the envoys sent to them, constructed buildings, cooked food in their kitchens, chatted with their families, visited their neighbors, had tailors sew clothes for them, were treated by doctors, took an interest in music, painted, made statues and, in short, lived perfectly normal lives. As the archaeological findings show, there have been changes in technology and accumulated knowledge over the course of history, but human beings have always lived as human beings.


This Late Neolithic necklace of stones and shells reveals not only the artistry and tastes of the people of the time, but also that they possessed the necessary technology to produce such decorative objects.

Pots, a model table, and a spoon dating to between 7,000 and 11,000 BCE provide important information about the living standards of people of the time. According to evolutionists, people of that age had only recently adopted a settled lifestyle and were only just becoming civilized. Yet these materials show that there was nothing lacking from these people's culture, and that they lived a fully civilized existence. Just as we do today, they sat at tables, ate using plates, knives, spoons and forks, played host to their guests, offered them refreshments-and in short, lived regular lives. When the findings are examined as a whole, we see that with their artistic understanding, medical knowledge, technical means and daily lives, Neolithic people lived fully human lives just like those before and after them.


12,000-Year-Old Beads

In the light of archaeological discoveries these stones, dating back to around 10,000 BC, were used as beads. The perfect holes in the stones are particularly noteworthy. Such holes cannot be made by hitting the object with a stone. Tools made out of steel or iron must have been used to make such perfectly regular holes in such hard stones.

A 12,000-Year-Old Button

Left: These bone buttons, used around 10,000 BCE, show that the people of the time had clothing with fasteners. A society that uses buttons must also be familiar with sewing, cloth making, and weaving.

The flutes in the picture are an average of 95,000 years old. People who lived tens of thousands of years ago possessed a taste for musical culture.

A 12,000-Year-Old Copper Awl

This copper awl, dating back to around 10,000 BCE, is evidence that metals were known about and mined, and shaped during the period in question. Copper ore, typically found in crystal or powder form, appears in the form of seams in old, hard rocks. Any society that made a copper awl must have recognized copper ore, managed to extract it from inside the rock and have had the technological means with which to work it. This shows that they had not just recently been primitive, as evolutionists maintain.

9 to 10,000-Year-Old Needles And Awl

These needles and awl, which date back to around 7,000 to 8,000 BCE, offer important evidence of the cultural lives of the people of the time. People who use awls and needles clearly led fully human lives, and not an animalistic existence, as evolutionists maintain.

Hundreds of thousands of years ago, people lived in houses, engaged in agriculture, exchanged goods, produced textiles, ate, visited relatives, took an interest in music, made paintings, treated the sick, performed their acts of worship and, in short, lived normal lives just as they do today. People who heeded the prophets sent by God came to have faith in Him, the One and Only, while others worshipped idols. Believers with faith in God abided by the moral values commanded by Him, while others engaged in superstitious practices and deviant rites. At all times in history, just as today, there have been people who believed in the existence of God, as well as pagans and atheists.

Of course, throughout history, there have always been those living under simpler, more primitive conditions as well as societies living civilized lives. But this by no means constitutes evidence for the so-called evolution of history, because while one part of the world is launching shuttles into space, people in other lands are still unacquainted with electricity. Yet this does not mean that those who build spacecraft are mentally or physically more advanced—and have progressed further down the supposed evolutionary road and become more culturally evolved—nor that the others are closer to the fictional ape-men. These merely indicate differences in cultures and civilizations.

 

Evolutionists Cannot Account for Archaeological Discoveries


This tool, made out of obsidian-a dark, glass-like rock-dates back to 10,000 BCE. It is impossible to shape obsidian just by hitting it with a stone.

When you examine an evolutionist's history of mankind, you'll notice the detailed depictions of how man's allegedly primitive ancestors went about their daily lives. Anyone impressed by the confident, authoritative style, but without much knowledge of the subject, may well assume that all these "artistic reconstructions" are based on scientific evidence. Evolutionist scientists arrive at detailed descriptions as if they had been around thousands of years ago and had the opportunity to carry out observations. They say that when our supposed ancestors-who had now learned to stand on two legs and had nothing else to do with their hands-began making stone tools, and for a very long period used no other implements other than ones made of stone and wood. Only at a much later date did they start to use iron, copper and brass. Yet these accounts are based on misinterpretation of findings in the light of evolutionist preconceptions, rather than on scientific proof.


One of the proofs that primitive-minded ape-men never existed is this 40,000-year-old flute. Scientific research shows that flutes like this one, based on the present-day seven-note Western scale, were used tens of thousands of years ago.

In his book Archaeology: A Very Short Introduction, archaeologist Paul Bahn says that the scenario of mankind's evolution is nothing but a fairy tale, adding that so much of science is based on such tales. He stresses that he uses the word "tale" in a positive sense, but that still, this is exactly what they are. He then invites his readers to consider the traditional attributes of the so-called human evolution: cooking and campfires, dark caves, rites, tool-making, aging, struggle and death. How much of these conjectures, he wonders, are based on bones and actual remains, and how much on literary criteria?

Bahn is reluctant to openly answer the question he poses: namely, that man's alleged evolution is based on "literary” criteria rather than scientific ones.

In fact, there are a great many unanswered questions and logical inconsistencies in these accounts, which someone thinking along the lines of evolutionist dogma will fail to detect. Evolutionists refer to a Stone Age, for example, but are at a loss to explain how implements or remains from the time could have been carved and shaped. In the same way, they can never explain how winged insects first came to fly, though they maintain that dinosaurs grew wings and thus started to fly by trying to catch them. They prefer to forget the whole question, and to have others do the same.


Spoons show that the people of the time had table manners. This is further evidence that they did not lead primitive lives, as evolutionists claim.

Yet shaping and carving stone is no easy task. It is impossible to produce perfectly regular and razor-sharp tools, as in the remains that have come down to us, by scraping one stone against another. It is possible to shape hard stones such as granite, basalt or dolerite without them crumbling apart only by using steel files, lathes and planes. It is equally obvious that bracelets, earrings and necklaces dating back tens of thousands of years could not have been crafted using stone tools. The tiny holes in such objects cannot be made with stones. The decoration on them cannot be produced by scraping. The perfection in the objects in question shows that other tools made of hard metals must have been employed.

Many archaeologists and scientists have performed tests to see whether such ancient artifacts could have been manufactured under the conditions that evolutionists conjecture. For example, Professor Klaus Schmidt carried out one such experiment on the carvings on the stone blocks at Göbekli Tepe in Turkey, estimated to date back some 11,000 years. He gave workmen stone tools, of the kind evolutionists claim were employed at the time, and asked them to produce similar carvings on similar rocks. After two hours of non-stop work, all that the workmen managed to complete was a vague line.

The "Polished Stone" Deception

The most striking stonework has survived down to the present day in archaeological remains. In order to be able to give stone such a detailed and regular shape, powerful steel tools generally need to be employed. One cannot make fine shapes and designs by abrading or rubbing one stone together with another. Technical infrastructure is essential to accurately cut stones as hard as granite and make patterns on their surface.

Many stone implements remain sharp and bright, reflecting from accurate cutting and shaping. The way evolutionist scientists describe the era they came from as the "Polished Stone Age" is completely unscientific. It is impossible for polish to be preserved over thousands of years. The stones in question shine because they were accurately cut, not because, as is claimed, they were polished. This brightness stems from inside the stone itself.

The illustrations show hand-made tools of obsidian and bone, hooks and various objects made out of stone. Obviously, one cannot obtain such regular shapes by striking raw material with a stone. Crude blows will merely break the bone and prevent the desired shape from taking form. In the same way, it is clear that sharp lines and pointed tips cannot be possible, even with tools of the very hardest stone, such as granite and basalt. These stones are cut regularly, just like slicing fruit. Their brightness stems not from their being polished, as evolutionists maintain, but from the shaping itself. Those who made these items must have had devices of iron or steel to let them shape these materials in the manner they wished. Slabs of hard stone can be cut so accurately only by using a material even harder, such as steel.

Of the bracelets in the above picture, the one on the left is made of marble, and the right one from basalt. They date back to between 8,500 and 9,000 BCE. Evolutionists claim that in that period, only tools made out of stone were used. But basalt and marble are exceptionally hard substances. In order for them to be turned and rounded links, steel blades and equipment must be used. It is impossible for them to have been cut and shaped without the use of steel tools. If you give anyone a piece of stone and ask him to use it to turn a piece of basalt into a bracelet like that in the picture, what degree of success will they have? Rubbing one stone against another or striking them against one another cannot, of course, produce a bracelet. Moreover, these artifacts show that the people who made them were civilized individuals with aesthetic tastes and an understanding of beauty.


This stone carving is 11,000 years old-when, according to evolutionists, only crude, stone tools were in use. However, such a work cannot be produced by rubbing one stone against another. Evolutionists can offer no rational, logical explanation of such reliefs formed so accurately. Intelligent humans using tools of iron or steel must have produced this and other similar works.

You can carry out a similar experiment at home. Take a piece of hard stone such as granite and try to turn it into a spearhead of the kind used by people living 100,000 years ago. But you are not allowed to use anything else than that piece of granite and a stone. How successful do you think you might be? Can you produce a piece with the same narrow point, symmetry, smoothness and polish as those found in the historical strata? Let us go even further; take a piece of granite one meter square and on it, try and carve a picture of an animal, imparting a sense of depth. What kind of result could you produce by grinding that rock with another piece of hard stone? Clearly, in the absence of tools made of steel and iron you can make neither a simple spearhead, much less an impressive stone carving.


For this 550,000-year-old stone hand-axe to have been cut and shaped so accurately other tools made out of even harder metals such as iron or steel must have been employed.

Stone-cutting and stone carving are fields of expertise all their own. The requisite technology is essential in order to make files, lathes and other tools. This demonstrates that at the time these objects were made, the "primitive” technology was well advanced. In other words, evolutionists' claims that only simple stone implements were known, that there was no technology in existence, are myths. Such "Stone-Only” Age has never existed.

However, it is perfectly plausible that any steel and iron tools used in cutting and shaping stones should not have survived down to the present day. In a naturally moist and acidic environment, all kinds of metal tools will oxidize and eventually disappear. All that will be left is chips and fragments of the stone they worked, which take much longer to vanish. But to examine these fragments and suggest that people at the time used only stone is not scientific reasoning.

Indeed, a great many evolutionists now admit that archaeological findings do not support Darwinism at all. Richard Leakey, an evolutionist archaeologist, confessed that it's impossible to account for the archaeological findings, especially stone tools, in terms of the theory of evolution:

In fact, concrete evidence of the inadequacy of the Darwinian hypothesis is to be found in the archeological record. If the Darwinian package were correct, then we would expect to see the simultaneous appearance in the archeological and fossil records of evidence for bipedality, technology, and increased brain size. We don't. Just one aspect of the prehistoric record is sufficient to show that the hypothesis is wrong: the record of stone tools. 1

YOU CAN''T CARVE STONE WITH STONE

1) Stone inlays dating back to around 10,000 BCE
2) Pestles dating back to 11,000 BCE
3) An obsidian tool dating back to 10,000 BCE
4) Stone objects dating back to 11,000 BCE
5) Stonework dating back to between 9,000 and 10,000 BCE, with traces of malachite inlay
6) A socketed stone inlay resembling a nail, dating back to around 10,000 BCE
7) A hammer dating back to 10,000 BCE

These stone tools date back on average to between 10,000 and 11,000 BCE. Imagine that you wanted to make any one of the objects here by hitting or rubbing one stone with another, in the way evolutionists maintain was done at the time. Try to make regular holes such as those in figure 4. No matter how many times you strike the piece of rock in your hand, you will never be able to make such a perfect hole. To do so, you will need to use a drill made of some harder substance like steel.


1. Richard Leakey, The Origin of Humankind (Science Masters Series), New York: BasicBooks, 1994, p. 12.