>Exactly my point. None of us would doubt that an arrowhead was man made if
>we found it becuase we can see that there is evidence of design (primitive
>as it may be.)
Hate to burst your bubble, but when anthropology was trying to decide
whether some of the Oldowan tools were really tools or not, there was quite
an argument in the literature. Oldowan tools, which really are tools look
quite a bit like naturally fractured rocks. So if you go look at the
history of anthropology, you will find that evidence of design is not always
as clear cut as you think it is.
Look up the term "eolith" in Kenneth P. Oakley's Man the Tool-Maker and you
will find what I am talking about. Oakley says, "The chipping in some cases
suggests intelligent design, but it is not possible to accept any of them
unreservedly as the work of man, for it is known that similar forms can be
produced by natural agencies, such as may conceivably have operated on
flints in these particlar beds (for example, friction between stones may
have been engendered by the grounding of blocks of coastal ice in severe
winters)." p. 13-14
Oh yeah, these eoliths are used by the authors of Forbidden Archaeology as
evidence of man back into the Oligocene. But the "tools" and anthro
articles they cite are part of the big argument last century.
glenn
Adam, Apes, and Anthropology: Finding the Soul of Fossil Man
and
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm