----------
> From: Glenn Morton <grmorton@waymark.net>
> To: jdguzman@ix.netcom.com; Evolution List (E-mail)
<evolution@calvin.edu>
> Subject: RE: The wonders of science.
> Date: Wednesday, April 08, 1998 7:43 PM
>
> At 12:39 AM 4/9/98 -0500, jdguzman@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> >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
>