Post by Ryan Thames on Mar 23, 2006 15:19:30 GMT -5
TTMELS. Arrowheads, Things That Make Evolutionists Look Stupid
Author: John Hinton
I was in a national park a few days ago and I heard a visitor ask a ranger a question concerning the age of mankind at this particular park. I think that this particular ranger has never really thought it out, and once he does, he will be smart enough to figure it out, but the response that he gave to this gentleman was obviously from a script that these rangers were given for just such a question. Unfortunately, an idiot wrote the script. The response was about 10,000 B.C. How does one know that it was 10,000 B.C. one might ask? Well, it is very simple they will say. We can tell by the arrowheads. They have found Clovis arrowheads at this park and the established belief is that Clovis arrowheads were from around 14,000 to 10,000 B.C. Now, this is where it really gets stupid.
Anthropologists have made the comical mistake of confusing different styles and levels of quality of arrowheads and stone tools as being indications of different ages in the evolution of mankind. If they find some with a certain type of shape, they give it a name and allege it to be from a specific period in time. Since most, if not all of these alleged styles are found all over the world, they come up with the idiotic assumption that they represent different ages in the physical and intellectual evolution of mankind. In other words, men in "prehistoric" Europe, China, North America, and South America, were designing arrowheads in the exact same ways at more or less the same time in such and such a date B.C., and they all evolved a different, better style around another time period, and so forth. Other "styles" that have been given names and periods include Olduwan, Folsom, and Archaic. Olduwan, is alleged to be between 2 and 1.5 million years ago. Folsom points are supposed to be between 8,800 B.C. and 8,600 B.C.
The so-called "Archaic Period" artifacts are supposed to be from 10,500 to a couple of thousand years ago. Of course, these boneheads have no way of dating rocks to start with. They will feed us the usual mindless dribble about how they can supposedly date them with so-called Carbon 14 dating.
Setting aside the discussion of the theoretical absurdity of this invalid method of dating, it would have no relevance even if it were valid. If it were valid, it would measure the date that the rock from which it were made was created. How on earth would it measure from the date on which an ancient man smacked it with a piece of elk bone? What happened? Did that elk bone inject carbon 14 into the rock so that the measuring period could begin at that moment?
I am not a good flintknapper. I have read a couple of books on the subject, and watched a good video on it, but I have not practiced enough to be good at it. Furthermore, I have not gotten around to fashioning ideal tools for the craft. I can produce an arrowhead that will do the job, but it will look uneven and crude, and I will botch at least a few before I have something marginally serviceable. I have watched accomplished flintknappers and they can reproduce any style of arrowhead or tool that one can imagine, including Olduwan, Clovis, Folsom, or Archaic styles.
Someday, maybe quite soon, I hope to develop some level of expertise at the skill. I picked up a discarded toilet for just that purpose. Toilet porcelain works very much the same as flint or obsidian and is just as good for hunting purposes.
Perhaps after several hours of practice, if I don't cut myself up too bad, I will be able to make good looking arrowheads. If I were to make some arrowheads with the proper type of rock material for a given area today, and some more after a period of practice, and were to stash them in different depths of the ground near an Indian burial area, and some "expert" were to find them, he would undoubtedly declare my early efforts to have been thousands, or tens of thousands, of years older than my later efforts.
Any modern flintknapper knows that the quality of work is going to vary from person to person according to their skills, experience, moods at the time of construction, patience, time spent, and chance. Sometimes rocks break wrong, or are hit wrong. It also is obvious that in an actual survival situation, a hunter may not always have the time to spend on perfecting an arrowhead. If he is rushed, he is going to produce a much cruder one. It is a very dangerous activity and without proper care and protection serious cuts may occur that might put an abrupt end to the making of an individual arrowhead. It should also be added that making arrowheads is a skill that would have been taught to boys at an early age and that many crudely designed arrowheads may be the products of young children.
If someone were to look at a picture that I drew when I was in kindergarten and compare it to the finely detailed portrait that I drew of Pablo Casals when I was in my twenties, would it make sense for them to say that a different and more highly evolved creature did the latter? Do anthropologists think that all musicians, artists, and craftsmen are equal? Do they think that everyone is born with these skills already developed, and that they are going to produce the same quality of work throughout their lives? Why would they think that all flintknappers would be equal in ability? Why do they ignore the fact that there are still primitive people today using their allegedly older methods of flintknapping? Are these people still waiting to evolve? What is really amazing is that a lot of anthropologists even learn flintknapping in order to understand it better. They are still too stupid to ask themselves any of these questions!
Not only does it boggle the mind how such nonsense could be accepted by people who call themselves rational thinkers, but it ignores mountains of evidence that indicate that man has been becoming less intellectually sophisticated over the ages. These anthropologists are some of the best evidence of that drop in intellectual sophistication that we have.
Author: John Hinton
I was in a national park a few days ago and I heard a visitor ask a ranger a question concerning the age of mankind at this particular park. I think that this particular ranger has never really thought it out, and once he does, he will be smart enough to figure it out, but the response that he gave to this gentleman was obviously from a script that these rangers were given for just such a question. Unfortunately, an idiot wrote the script. The response was about 10,000 B.C. How does one know that it was 10,000 B.C. one might ask? Well, it is very simple they will say. We can tell by the arrowheads. They have found Clovis arrowheads at this park and the established belief is that Clovis arrowheads were from around 14,000 to 10,000 B.C. Now, this is where it really gets stupid.
Anthropologists have made the comical mistake of confusing different styles and levels of quality of arrowheads and stone tools as being indications of different ages in the evolution of mankind. If they find some with a certain type of shape, they give it a name and allege it to be from a specific period in time. Since most, if not all of these alleged styles are found all over the world, they come up with the idiotic assumption that they represent different ages in the physical and intellectual evolution of mankind. In other words, men in "prehistoric" Europe, China, North America, and South America, were designing arrowheads in the exact same ways at more or less the same time in such and such a date B.C., and they all evolved a different, better style around another time period, and so forth. Other "styles" that have been given names and periods include Olduwan, Folsom, and Archaic. Olduwan, is alleged to be between 2 and 1.5 million years ago. Folsom points are supposed to be between 8,800 B.C. and 8,600 B.C.
The so-called "Archaic Period" artifacts are supposed to be from 10,500 to a couple of thousand years ago. Of course, these boneheads have no way of dating rocks to start with. They will feed us the usual mindless dribble about how they can supposedly date them with so-called Carbon 14 dating.
Setting aside the discussion of the theoretical absurdity of this invalid method of dating, it would have no relevance even if it were valid. If it were valid, it would measure the date that the rock from which it were made was created. How on earth would it measure from the date on which an ancient man smacked it with a piece of elk bone? What happened? Did that elk bone inject carbon 14 into the rock so that the measuring period could begin at that moment?
I am not a good flintknapper. I have read a couple of books on the subject, and watched a good video on it, but I have not practiced enough to be good at it. Furthermore, I have not gotten around to fashioning ideal tools for the craft. I can produce an arrowhead that will do the job, but it will look uneven and crude, and I will botch at least a few before I have something marginally serviceable. I have watched accomplished flintknappers and they can reproduce any style of arrowhead or tool that one can imagine, including Olduwan, Clovis, Folsom, or Archaic styles.
Someday, maybe quite soon, I hope to develop some level of expertise at the skill. I picked up a discarded toilet for just that purpose. Toilet porcelain works very much the same as flint or obsidian and is just as good for hunting purposes.
Perhaps after several hours of practice, if I don't cut myself up too bad, I will be able to make good looking arrowheads. If I were to make some arrowheads with the proper type of rock material for a given area today, and some more after a period of practice, and were to stash them in different depths of the ground near an Indian burial area, and some "expert" were to find them, he would undoubtedly declare my early efforts to have been thousands, or tens of thousands, of years older than my later efforts.
Any modern flintknapper knows that the quality of work is going to vary from person to person according to their skills, experience, moods at the time of construction, patience, time spent, and chance. Sometimes rocks break wrong, or are hit wrong. It also is obvious that in an actual survival situation, a hunter may not always have the time to spend on perfecting an arrowhead. If he is rushed, he is going to produce a much cruder one. It is a very dangerous activity and without proper care and protection serious cuts may occur that might put an abrupt end to the making of an individual arrowhead. It should also be added that making arrowheads is a skill that would have been taught to boys at an early age and that many crudely designed arrowheads may be the products of young children.
If someone were to look at a picture that I drew when I was in kindergarten and compare it to the finely detailed portrait that I drew of Pablo Casals when I was in my twenties, would it make sense for them to say that a different and more highly evolved creature did the latter? Do anthropologists think that all musicians, artists, and craftsmen are equal? Do they think that everyone is born with these skills already developed, and that they are going to produce the same quality of work throughout their lives? Why would they think that all flintknappers would be equal in ability? Why do they ignore the fact that there are still primitive people today using their allegedly older methods of flintknapping? Are these people still waiting to evolve? What is really amazing is that a lot of anthropologists even learn flintknapping in order to understand it better. They are still too stupid to ask themselves any of these questions!
Not only does it boggle the mind how such nonsense could be accepted by people who call themselves rational thinkers, but it ignores mountains of evidence that indicate that man has been becoming less intellectually sophisticated over the ages. These anthropologists are some of the best evidence of that drop in intellectual sophistication that we have.
