Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
78 online now:
AnswersInGenitals, DrJones*, marc9000, Percy (Admin) (4 members, 74 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 894,014 Year: 5,126/6,534 Month: 546/794 Week: 37/135 Day: 14/23 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Ancient Human Art
David Carroll
Junior Member (Idle past 3503 days)
Posts: 12
From: Fairmont, West Virginia, USA
Joined: 08-22-2012


(1)
Message 1 of 2 (671414)
08-24-2012 9:48 PM


One thing that bugs me when I read Creationist literature is that the problem of putatively "ancient" human art is not discussed. I say to myself, "Okay, I see why genetic modification with common descent is a problem, I see why isotope dating methods is a problem, I see why the starlight issue might be a non-problem, but what about when we read in books that, say, the artifact Venus of Willdendorf is 30,000 years old, or that cave paintings in France are 20,000 years old?" Why do I never see Creationist scientists discuss the more recent past (or if they have, all apologies, but I've never seen it)?

HOW do scientists determine that cave paintings in France are x-amount of thousands of years old? How do they determine that some city buried in the Indus valley is x-amount of years old? And what are the problems or inconsistencies with the dating methods they use?

Do they say, "Well, considering the rate at which human art has developed, Venus of Willendorf is so primitive-looking that we place it at about 30,000 BC"? I guess this would involve sociological assumptions.

Do they use sociological assumptions? Assumptions about theories of art?

I'm completely in the dark here (*Al Pacino voice*). Any help would be appreciated.


Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022