You were arguing for a sudden appearance. You are wrong. How do I explain
gradualism? The same way I explain gradualism in mathematics. It took 1500
years from the time that a person was given five beads representing 5 bushels
of wheat in storage, until someone figured out that you could make a NUMBER 5
whcih represented those 5 beads! And mankind still didn't know how to do
algebra at that time. You choose to define humanity by art. If I choose to
define humanity by mathematics I get a different time and it can not be until
around 3500 B.C. that mankind arose based on mathematics. If I choose
metallurgy, the date for humanity becomes 4000 B.C. If I choose farming,the
humans were created around 12,000 years ago. The only reason you choose to
define humanity by art is that it gives you the number you want. If I choose
to define humanity be language and evidence for it, then I can go back at
least 2.0 million years ago to the advent of Broca's area in hominids.
>
>Second, you're doing what you accuse Hugh Ross of doing.You state it plainly,
>and ask me to trust you, that "art" began outside of Europe long ago.But this
>presupposes you know exactly what "art" is.
I gave you examples what is wrong with those examples? You simply ignore them
and ask me to present more evidence. this doesn't seem fair. What about the
Golan Venus (~300,000 years)which is widely accepted as representational art
among the anthropology community and the subspecialists on art (not by
Tattersall who is not a subspecialist on art, but then he also doesn't
represent the entire community.)
>Shaman-art is, though. Everyone knows it is art, complex, human. No
>controversies there.
>
Are flutes not part of the arts? First flutes at 80-100,000 years ago. There
is no question about them being a flute.
>Third, there is concern about dating. Thermoluminescence dates can be
>artificially increased by proximity to rocks that may be hundreds of
> millions of years old.
Yes and radiocarbon dates can be influenced by contamination also. Rockets
explode; so are we to assume that rocket experts don't know what they are
doing? You pay the geochronologist to know about these things and avoid them.
You also pay the guy to tell you when it has happened. Merely to bring up a
red herring that a dating process might be wrong is useless. Which date is
wrong and why? If you can't tell me what is wrong woth a particular date then
your objection is merely smoke.
>But even if one sees this as gradualism, there is still an unexplainable
> leap, a burst onto the scene, of shaman-art. Just as modern man, with his
> articulate language and complex society, appeared suddenly, so too did their
> shaman-art.
There is no burst on the scene. The burst was simply because of preservation.
mankind went deep into caves in the Upper Paleolithic culture where the art
could be preserved. There are only about 5 examples of upper paleolithic
outdoor art. Figures carved on rocks. But because of these few examples we
know they made art outdoors. Erosional forces have removed all but a few of
these. The fact that you can claim a burst on the scene is because of the
greater preserving potential of deep caves.
but Jim you overlook the oldest art of all.
oldest manmade art 1.6 myr.
"In concluding this review of the lithic material from Oldowan and
Developed Oldowan Sites the grooved and pecked phonolite cobble found in Upper
Bed I at FLK North must be mentioned. This stone has unquestionably been
artificially shaped. But it seems unlikely that it could have served as a
tool or for any practical purpose. It is conceivable that a parallel exists
in the quartzite cobble found at Makapansgat in which natural weathering has
simulated the carving of two sets of hominid-or mre strictly primate- features
on parts of the surface. The resemblance to primate faces is immediately
obvious in this specimen, although it is entirely natural, whereas in the case
of the Olduvai stone a great deal of imagination is required in order to see
any pattern or significance in the form. With oblique lighting, however,
there is a suggestion of an elongate, baboon-like muzzle with faint
indications of a mouth and nostrils. By what is probably no more than a
coincidence, the pecked groove on the Olduvai stone is reproduced on the
Makapansgat specimen by a similar but natural groove and in both specimens the
positions of the grooves correspond to what would be the base of the hair line
if an anthropomorphic interpretation is considered. This is open to question,
but nevertheless the occurrence of such stones at hominid sites in such remote
periods is of considerable interest."~M.D. Leakey, Olduvai Gorge
3 Excavations in Beds I and II, 1960-1693, (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1971), p. 269
This is image making 1.6 million years ago.
>BTW, if birds can make tools and exhibit decorative art, what does that
> make them?
What decorative art? Do you know of a bird painting an image of any kind?
Does a bird make geometric figures on rocks? The golan Venus is an image.
Feustral reports that a vertebrate animal is engraved on a bone from a homo
erectus cite. These are spcifics but you are not presenting them. Be
specific. Like the dating issue above, you have lots of charges but no
specifics. Maybe we should charge you with high crimes and misdemeanors
because someone is committing them.
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm