Tuesday, April 19, 2011

A Historical Lie: The Stone Age

"Primitive man never existed, and there never was a Stone Age. They are nothing more than deceptive inventions produced by evolutionists with the help of one section of the media. Human beings have been human since the day they came into existence, and have possessed a fully elevated culture from that day to this." -- Adnan Oktar

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.

In describing the supposed "evolutionary march" of the history of mankind, Darwinist scientists are quite helpless on another subject: Man's mind, by which mankind has built universities, hospitals, factories and states, composed music, held the Olympic Games and traveled into space—in short, one of the most important characteristics that makes Man what he is.

Evolutionists maintain that human mind assumed its present capacities by evolving after Man diverged from chimpanzees, our so-called closest living relative. They ascribe the alleged leaps that took place in the mind's evolution to random changes occurring in the brain, and to the improving effect of tool-making skills. You'll frequently encounter such claims in television documentaries and in articles in magazines and newspapers, telling tall tales concerning ape-men who first learned how to make knives out of stone, and then spears. But this propaganda is not valid. Although they attempt to portray the scenarios they set out as scientific, they are actually based solely upon Darwinist preconceptions, and completely unscientific. The most important point of all is that human mind cannot be reduced to matter. By documenting the invalidity of materialism, this fact alone totally undermines any claims regarding the evolution of mind.

Evolutionists maintain that mind emerged through evolution, but they have no means of experiencing what a primitive level of intelligence is like, nor of replicating the conditions in the supposed evolutionary process. Despite his being an evolutionist, Henry Gee, editor of Nature magazine, well known for its evolutionist content, openly admits the unscientific nature of such claims:

For example, the evolution of Man is said to have been driven by improvements in posture, brain size, and the coordination between hand and eye, which led to technological achievements such as fire, the manufacture of tools, and the use of language. But such scenarios are subjective. They can never be tested by experiment, and so they are unscientific. They rely for their currency not on scientific test, but on assertion and the authority of their presentation. 61

Besides being unscientific, such scenarios are also logically invalid. Evolutionists maintain that thanks to the intellect that supposedly emerged through evolution, the ability to use tools emerged and developed, thanks to which, in turn, intelligence developed. Yet such a development is possible only when human intelligence is already present. According to this account, the question of whether technology or mind first emerged through evolution goes unanswered.

Phillip Johnson, one of the most effective critics of Darwinism, writes this on the subject:

'A theory that is the product of a mind can never adequately explain the mind that produced the theory. The story of the great scientific mind that discovers absolute truth is satisfying only so long as we accept the mind itself as a given. Once we try to explain the mind as a product of its own discoveries, we are in a hall of mirrors with no exit.'

The fact that Darwinists are quite unable to account for their own human minds reveals that the claims they make about Man's cultural and social history are also invalid. Indeed, all the facts and findings we have reviewed so far makes Darwinists' claims regarding the "evolution of history" totally meaningless.

Contrary to what evolutionists claim, the history of mankind is full of proofs that ancient peoples possessed far superior technologies and civilizations than had been believed. One of these civilizations is that of the Sumerians. The artifacts they left behind are some of the proofs of the accumulated knowledge possessed by mankind thousands of years ago.


Jeffery Keown said...

Harun Yahya? Really?

This guy doesn't know a bug from a fishing lure.

Great company you keep there, Oils.

Finish the Henry Gee quote. Print the next two or three paragraphs on this blog and see if Gee really means what he supposedly says in Harun's "quote."

OilIsMastery said...


Do you still think Hubble invented the telescope?

Jeffery Keown said...

Of course not. Neither did Galileo.

I do not see the rest of Gee's quote.

OilIsMastery said...

Perhaps you could provide it?

Jeffery Keown said...

"Given the ubiquitous chatter of journalists and headline writers about the search for ancestors, and the discovery of missing links, it may come as a surprise to learn that most professional palaeontogists do not think of history in terms of scenarios or narratives, and that they rejected the storytelling mode of evolutionary history as unscientific more than thirty years ago. Behind the scenes, in museums and universities, a quiet revolution has taken place.
The architects of this revolution sought ways to discover the pattern of the history of life this is free from subjective, untestable stories. If it is fair to assume that all life on Earth shares a common evolutionary origin, it follows that every organism that ever existed must be related to every other." Henry Gee, In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life 1999 Emphasis in original.

He's a liar. If you want to embrace a coke-headed Islamic Creationist, be my guest.

OilIsMastery said...

"Discovery of missing links" haha.

The only thing scientists can't seem to figure out about the missing link is that it's still missing.

I don't care if someone is an Islamic drug user -- if they say 2+2=4 that doesn't mean that 2=2=5.

Jeffery Keown said...

The quote does not refer to scientists looking for missing links. It refers to the media.

You know; writers, journalists, editors and bloggers who distort science to sell copy or push an agenda.

Muhammad Warrohmah said...

Archeologist will find all evidence soon.

stratocaster539 said...

This has all the tired and repeatedly worn out hallmarks of creationist claptrap. 'Evolutionist' - what the hell is that supposed to mean?Look, even the pope accepts the theory of evolution because Christians are going to look pretty silly trying to deny it - and really idiotic attempting to prove all the scientific evidence wrong.Articles like this just serve to put irrational fools outside the realm of rationality.