Controversy over ‘early Paleolithic’ stone ‘tools’ in Canada continues (old article but interesting)

AnswersinGenesis ^ | August 1, 2001 | Michael J. Oard

[mlc9852]

Have you ever wondered about those stone ‘tools’ that evolutionists discover? Sure, some of them are obviously of human origin—even works of art. Others look more questionable. Last year I reported in TJ on a controversy over the discovery of what are claimed to be early Paleolithic stone tools in North America (Oard, 2000). These primitive stone ‘tools’ were unearthed near Calgary and Peace River, Alberta, Canada (Chlachula, 1996; Chlachula and Leslie, 1998). The ‘artefacts’ consist mainly of various chipped quartzite cobbles interpreted as choppers. These ‘tools’ are similar to ‘early Paleolithic tools’ commonly found in Europe and Africa, including the lower portion of the Olduvai Gorge, East Africa. The Alberta ‘tools’ have presented several nasty difficulties for evolutionists, which was reemphasized in a recent exchange of opinion on the subject in the Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences (Driver, 2000; Chlachula and Leslie, 2000).

[mlc9852]

Most of this is way over my head so I'm hoping some experts can tell me what they think.

[martin_fierro]

Ancient Tool Ping.

[Grut]

Most of this is way over my head so I'm hoping some experts can tell me what they think.

With a source named "answersingenesis" I'm pretty sure it isn't mainstream paleontology!

[mlc9852]

But it makes sense. At least the parts I understood and I thought it was very interesting. I was hoping someone could tell me their opinion of the article. I think it's all very fascinating. But obviously a field with quite a bit of disagreement, like a lot of science.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks martin. Great choice of graphic BTW. :')

I'm going to ping this, although it is more of a Crevo thread, in hopes that it doesn't become too much of a bloodbath, because it touches on a broader topic; the Eoliths were for a long while derided as natural objects rather than artifacts, and are still rejected here and there by some. OTOH, PreClovis artifacts discovered in a former bed of a vanished glacial lake in Canada were rejected by one future laureate who claimed that "any dude could have put that there." Or perhaps, the wind carried it from elsewhere. :'D

To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. Thanks.

Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on or off the
"Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list or GGG weekly digest
-- Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)

[SunkenCiv]

ah, here it is...

Retracing the footprints of time
by Steve Sandford
September 9, 1996
web archive version

Direct radiocarbon dating of the Calgary site is not possible because the ancient artifacts were not found in conjunction with organic matter, such as bones or decayed plant matter, which is necessary for such testing. Absent such verification, Prof. Young dismisses the find. For one thing, he says, the artifacts are so simple they could merely be naturally-occurring rocks; he says that most informed scientists are doubtful they are tools. And even if they are tools, he adds that there is no way to be sure that they were originally situated where they were found under the gravel, since the site has served as an exposed gravel pit for the last 100 years. Comments Prof. Young: "Any dude could have put that rock there."

[Dustbunny]

Interesting

[Dustbunny]

Neat. I am sure they will eventually have more information.

[dsc]

"Ancient Tool Ping."

Guffaw.