Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9049 total)
112 online now:
Newest Member: Wes johnson
Upcoming Birthdays: DrJones*
Post Volume: Total: 887,642 Year: 5,288/14,102 Month: 209/677 Week: 14/54 Day: 14/6 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Ancient Human Art
Member (Idle past 2451 days)
Posts: 213
From: Santa
Joined: 06-05-2009

Message 5 of 10 (671435)
08-25-2012 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Coyote
08-24-2012 10:33 PM

Re: Dating 101
Your stratigraphic example is great. I am surprised that you did not mention the pottery dating method. Pottery is so durable when it has been fired that it is essentially unchanged from when it was used except for breakage. Pottery has very few constraints on it. Methods of firing, types of glaze and shapes of the pottery changed so often that it becomes a great marker. An additional good point is that it is fragile enough that a single piece would not last long enough to end in the wrong layer.

The pottery dating generates a relative dating system. One can know that pottery t is older than pottery s, which is older than pottery r, but not the exact date. Before the advent of absolute dating systems of tree ring, and semi-absolute dating systems of c14, archaeologists developed an extensive relative dating system with the backbone of the system being pottery. (C14 is semi-absolute because the raw absolute dates have to be corrected by tree rings.)

Sometimes the two systems don't completely agree. The relative system disagrees with the absolute system for the date of the Santorini eruption. Still, even with the various questions about the accuracy of each system, nothing even approaches a 10% error. For the YECers to be right, the errors would have to be greater than 90%. For example, the art dated to 40,000 BC would have to be redated to less than 4,000 BC, about an 86% error. This would have to be errors in all the different dating methods, even the non-radiographic methods.

I prefer to to think that the YECer have mis-interpreted the Bible than that all the various scientists have misinterpreted the science.

{Concerning the 3rd paragraph (Santorini eruption) - See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minoan_eruption#Dissent. - Adminnemooseus}

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Note about 3rd paragraph.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Coyote, posted 08-24-2012 10:33 PM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by NoNukes, posted 08-25-2012 8:32 PM greentwiga has not yet responded
 Message 7 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-25-2012 9:46 PM greentwiga has not yet responded

Member (Idle past 2451 days)
Posts: 213
From: Santa
Joined: 06-05-2009

Message 9 of 10 (671658)
08-28-2012 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Dr Adequate
08-25-2012 11:17 PM

There is a big problem with using ancient human art. It typically can't be dated because it uses things like ancient red ocher to make the drawings. Carvings are similarly undatable. Scientists need to look at the provenance, the nearby clues. Is it buried above a layer of ash from a volcano? Below the ashes of a campfire? The range of possible dates can even be over a thousand years. Drawings on walls don't even have anything buried above them.
Thus, ancient human art makes a shaky, at best, argument. The primary sources, the volcanic ash and the campfire make better cases for an ancient earth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-25-2012 11:17 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021