Difference between revisions of "Stone Age Humans"
m (1 revision) |
(username removed) |
(No difference)
| |
Revision as of 07:06, 25 May 2014
Stone Age Humans
Evolution Says....
pports evolution The Facts Are .....
(1) Cro-Magnon humans are believed by many evolutionists to be our primitive ancestors in the long trail of our development from apes. Because of this basic assumption, and from very meagre evidence, Cro-Magnons are portrayed in art and text as a club-swinging brute who lived in caves. This was to show that they had not progressed very far from the life-style of their allegedly subhuman ancestors.
The facts are that Cro-Magnon people possessed a high level of technology and culture. They did not just live in caves, but built huts, made stone paving floors, constructed kilns, and baked pottery. They made tools of bone, flint, ivory, antler and wood. They had instruments (eg. bone flutes), wore jewellery, sewed clothing, had rituals and ceremonies, and produced some high quality paintings.
Cro-Magnon bears all the resemblance to a primitive race of humans. Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 12, No. 3, 1990 p:12-14
(2) 'Stone Age' culture was believed to be very primitive, where people ate raw or barbecued meat.
Yet, stone ovens estimated to be 28,000 years old have been discovered in Noumea (Japan). The Sun-Herald, December 20, 1992 p:23
(3) Many primitive 'Stone Age' tribes which used Stone Age technology and lived as primitive hunters and gatherers, have had to be re-classified. Archaeological studies have shown that they are often descendants of previous civilizations, where a sophisticated culture, fine pottery and advanced agriculture were casualties of wars, plagues and catastrophes. Basic technology and a non-farming life-style can not be used to extrapolate a culture to a Stone Age past. This is true both of living tribes and 'fossil' cultures (those deduced from relics left by extinct groups of alleged Stone Age humans).
New Scientist, February 20, 1993 p:8
(4) One of the most popular myths of human evolution is that stone tools testify to the increasing mental and conceptual abilities of humans as they evolved. They were once considered an almost independent confirmation of evolutionary development. For example, Acheulean tools were associated with Homo erectus, and Oldowan tools with Homo habilis. However, now, almost every basic style of tool has been found with almost every category of human fossil material. Nature, Vol. 351, June 27, 1991 p:701
(5) The reason why anthropologists believe absolutely that early humans were hunters is because hunting puts a premium on foresight and dexterity. This is believed to have favoured the evolution of larger brains and nimbler hands, which in turn would increase the capacity for technology. It is hunting, they say, that separated early man from apes. Sydney Morning Herald, 19/9/92
(6) A newer philosophical theory suggests that early man was not a hunter but a scavenger. Complex signal pointing, sharing food, gathering and dividing food is supposed to have catalysed human social and intellectual evolution. These sets of theories show that the nature of early humans is still a matter of conjecture. Sydney Morning Herald, 19/9/92
(7) Cave paintings found in Spain in 1990, depicting the first extinct rhinoceroses seen in Europe, have been exposed as frauds. Specialists called in to examine the paintings declared them to have been painted within 5 years of their discovery. Diggings, September 1992 p:15