Posted on 01/19/2006 3:27:17 PM PST by mlc9852
Have you ever wondered about those stone tools that evolutionists discover? Sure, some of them are obviously of human origineven 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).
(Excerpt) Read more at answersingenesis.org ...
Ancient Tool Ping.
With a source named "answersingenesis" I'm pretty sure it isn't mainstream paleontology!
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.
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)
Retracing the footprints of timeDirect 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."
by Steve Sandford
September 9, 1996
web archive version
Interesting
Neat. I am sure they will eventually have more information.
"Ancient Tool Ping."
Guffaw.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.