Best Cave Art Is Still the Oldest
A new research study confirms that the exquisite cave art at Chauvet Cave is the oldest.
The study is documented in an open-access paper on PNAS (May 7, 2012, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1118593109 PNAS May 7, 2012). The abstract begins,
Since its discovery, the Chauvet cave elaborate artwork called into question our understanding of Palaeolithic art evolution and challenged traditional chronological benchmarks.
The artwork on the walls of Chauvet Cave is unequalled in Paleolithic art, superior even to the better-known works of Lascaux dated much later. Evolutionists had expected that cave art would progress from simple to complex as man’s cognitive abilities evolved, but Chauvet challenged that idea by showing that the oldest was by far the best. The authors of the paper were astonished at its quality:
Chauvet cave, in Vallon Pont d’Arc, Ardèche, France, is a site of exceptional scientific interest for a number of reasons: (i) the variety of its majestic parietal; (ii) very good conservation of the floor and wall ornamentations, exhibiting human and animal imprints; (iii) revelations of unknown techniques in Palaeolithic rock art (such as stump drawing); (iv) predominance of rare themes such as felines and rhinoceroses; and (v) unequalled aesthetic delivery.
The new research tried to corroborate or refute carbon dates using a different dating method, cosmic ray exposure. Unfortunately for evolutionists, the results continue to “call into question” their understanding of the artistic abilities of early man:
Remarkably agreeing with the radiocarbon dates of the human and animal occupancy, this study confirms that the Chauvet cave paintings are the oldest and the most elaborate ever discovered, challenging our current knowledge of human cognitive evolution.
Their last sentence re-emphasized the challenge to evolutionary understanding of human capabilities: “These results have significant implications for archaeological, human, and rock art sciences and seriously challenge rock art dating based on stylistic criteria.”
PhysOrg summarized the paper, stating that the scientists determined that a rock fall closed the cave for good 21,500 years ago, ensuring that the paintings had to have been made much earlier. Finding “the oldest and most elaborate [cave art] ever discovered” at such an early time implies that “the method of dating by style” (using evolutionary assumptions) “is no longer valid.” Nearly twice as old as the Lascaux paintings that are dated at 12,000 to 17,000 years, evolutionary scientists estimate the Chauvet paintings date from 28,000 to 40,000 years ago, “befuddling some who believed that early art took on more primitive forms.” PhysOrg included a photograph of modern-looking footprints that were also found in the chamber.
The point is not whether their calculated dates are correct or not; all dating methods depend on assumptions that cannot be independently verified. The point here is that evolutionary assumptions about the mind of man are 100% off. Cave art started out wonderful and degenerated. The first humans capable of expressing themselves artistically on cave walls did so with such expertise and “unexcelled aesthetic delivery” as to make Picasso blush. Why do we listen to evolutionists? Over and over their predictions are falsified. This story matches a Biblical account of the creation of man, not a Darwinian picture. Let the evidence speak for itself.
This story confirms what we have reported for over a decade (7/26/2001, 10/04/2001, 4/22/2003, 12/18/2003, 8/16/2008). Chauvet has been studied since 1994. That they can still believe in evolution after 18 years of falsifying evidence is a measure of intransigence, not progress in cognition.
PNAS May 7, 2012
twice as old as the Lascaux paintings that are dated at 12,000 to 17,000 years.
Comments
Interesting article. I was reminded of an article I read recently at ICR.
“Recently, researchers investigated seldom-studied symbols appearing non-randomly among the paintings that may indicate that Stone Age people could communicate with written symbols.”
– If you go to the online reference you can see a ‘list’ of these symbols.
– One reason the authors are astonished is that they ‘learned’ from their textbooks that history should show a progression from simple to complex. This is the great ‘myth’ at the heart of Darwinism; that all things (including man) ‘evolve’ upward.
As G. Stanley Hall said a century ago; “Nothing so reinforces optimism as evolution.”
The idea was that if people just stood out of the way of the evolutionary engine all things would get better and better… with no end in mind.
– The art in the Chauvet cave can lead people doubt the whole progressivist paradigm. Clearly something is wrong with the story.
“The point is not whether their calculated dates are correct or not; all dating methods depend on assumptions that cannot be independently verified. The point here is that evolutionary assumptions about the mind of man are 100% off. Cave art started out wonderful and degenerated.”
If we cannot trust the dating methods, how can we know “cave art STARTED OUT wonderful”? Maybe they are late paintings after all but the dating methods are all unreliable.
Sometimes you need to falsify another’s position before you can advocate an alternative.