Re: The wonders of science.

Ron Chitwood (
Thu, 9 Apr 1998 05:46:32 -0500

What does THAT have to do with it? When you go hunting in the woods or on
a field trip you can believe an arrowhead is natural or designed if you
want. After all, you have managed to deny the Paluxy tracks as manmade.
Why not arrowheads, too?
Trust in the LORD with all your heart,
and do not rely on your own insight.. Pr. 3:5
Ron Chitwood

> From: Glenn Morton <>
> To:; Evolution List (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: The wonders of science.
> Date: Wednesday, April 08, 1998 7:43 PM
> At 12:39 AM 4/9/98 -0500, wrote:
> >Exactly my point. None of us would doubt that an arrowhead was man made
> >we found it becuase we can see that there is evidence of design
> >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
> an argument in the literature. Oldowan tools, which really are tools
> 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
> as clear cut as you think it is.
> Look up the term "eolith" in Kenneth P. Oakley's Man the Tool-Maker and
> will find what I am talking about. Oakley says, "The chipping in some
> 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
> 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
> 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