Earliest cave paintings produced by humans Discovered , 40,000 years old

a reply to: SecretKnowledge

How do you know they're not fake? You're telling me that they had spray paint technology 40,000 years ago? Someone posted on the original article elsewhere that they dated the rocks, not the paint themselves, and concluded this to be the age, which to me, is more disingenuity(hopefully, the public is not so easily fooled and argue every point). At this point, we cannot rule out anything devious from the scientific establishment, to me, there seems to be a systemic effort to try hard to prop up evolution now.

But even if this was real, which I highly doubt it is, one should not rule out that pre-historic humans, that is the first mankind that God created, did have this kind of technology.

a reply to: peter vlar

No, it's not rock solid. They didn't even date the paint at all. Seriously, every time an article posts the age of something, they need to explain how they got that age. Do not just post the age and expect people to believe it, just because they're scientists.

The age is very important in the evolution vs Bible debate, you don't just post it and give the impression that evolution is right, without proving that the age is actually correct.

a reply to: np6888

If you had bothered to read the first page of this thread you'd see that it was explained by several people how the people sprayed the paint on the walls. It's all logical and reasonable.

They didn't date the rocks either.

World's oldest art found in Indonesian cave

Even after a technology that could test that assumption, uranium-thorium dating, became available, no one thought to apply it to the Indonesian cave — until now. Though the paint itself cannot be dated, uranium-thorium dating can estimate the age of the bumpy layers of calcium carbonate (known as ‘cave popcorn’) that formed on the surface of the paintings. As mineral layers are deposited, they draw in uranium. Because uranium decays into thorium at a known rate, the ratio of uranium to thorium isotopes in a sample indicates how old it is.

This thread has ZERO to do with evolution. These paintings were done by Homo Sapien Sapiens, in other words us. So there is no evolution involved here. So you can drop that word from your lexicon for this thread. It isn't necessary unless you are purposely trying to obfuscate a perfectly good conversation on these paintings.

a reply to: SLAYER69

Yeah I base that on the 400,000 year old wooden javelins that were found - if they could shape wood in that manager they could do other types of art - whether they did or not is not presently known.

a reply to: np6888

NP6888

Do not attempt to turn this thread into a discussion of evolution.

originally posted by: np6888
a reply to: peter vlar

No, it's not rock solid. They didn't even date the paint at all. Seriously, every time an article posts the age of something, they need to explain how they got that age. Do not just post the age and expect people to believe it, just because they're scientists.

The age is very important in the evolution vs Bible debate, you don't just post it and give the impression that evolution is right, without proving that the age is actually correct.

If you had read the article it told you how this was done.

Again do not attempt to derail this thread by trying to turn it into a discussion of evolution

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Okay, so they used principle of superposition, however, here one has to ask, did they actually date the uranium "over" the paint, or the stuff "beside" the paint, i.e. the rocks around the paint. There is a big difference because if the paint was sprayed recently, and they only date the rocks surrounding the paint, then the principle of superposition was being used in reverse.

My question is, if the uranium was depositing over the paint, then how does the hand remain so perfect?

a reply to: Hanslune

Every ancient findings has to do with evolution/the Bible, believe it or not. Besides, you have someone asking why these paintings exist 40,000 years ago, when we only existed 6000 years ago, i.e another attempt to argue evolution, and I'm responding.

Their use is probably in warding off trespassers:
"See this many hands? They will rain down on you if we catch you stealing our pelts and shiny rocks"

originally posted by: np6888
a reply to: Hanslune

Every ancient findings has to do with evolution/the Bible, believe it or not. Besides, you have someone asking why these paintings exist 40,000 years ago, when we only existed 6000 years ago, i.e another attempt to argue evolution, and I'm responding.

No you are wrong. In science, the debate over the subject you are trying to bring up ended generations ago for them and for the most part they simply ignore creationists and their non-scientific complaints.

If you are so concerned about the issue of how they did the dating here is a link to the principle scientists involved

Scientists involved in study

With this info you can easily find their emails and ask them.

Do not try and make this a discussion about evolution there is a whole forum for that.

a reply to: np6888

It doesn't... As you can tell the paint has faded over the years and has flaked away in places. Also, to your other point. Let me repost the paragraph I just posted to you again, slightly edited.

Even after a technology that could test that assumption, uranium-thorium dating, became available, no one thought to apply it to the Indonesian cave — until now. Though the paint itself cannot be dated, uranium-thorium dating can estimate the age of the bumpy layers of calcium carbonate (known as ‘cave popcorn’) that formed on the surface of the paintings. As mineral layers are deposited, they draw in uranium. Because uranium decays into thorium at a known rate, the ratio of uranium to thorium isotopes in a sample indicates how old it is.

That clearly indicates that they took the calcium carbonate deposits off of the paintings and not the surrounding walls. Maybe try actually reading the information I provide for you instead of just dismissing out of hand? All your concerns have been covered already.

a reply to: np6888

I can understand how this can be construed as an argument in the evolution debate, and I thank you for pointing out.

But I really do not think it is that important how long ago these were made.

Just that they were pre-historical, lending credence to the idea that civilisations and artwork existed that we have no knowledge of. It raises questions, namely, what civilisations existed, how were they lost, and will ours suffer the same fate? Will our technology become something akin "hand patterns blown onto cave walls, reminiscient of a lost people"?

originally posted by: np6888
a reply to: peter vlar

No, it's not rock solid. They didn't even date the paint at all. Seriously, every time an article posts the age of something, they need to explain how they got that age. Do not just post the age and expect people to believe it, just because they're scientists.

The age is very important in the evolution vs Bible debate, you don't just post it and give the impression that evolution is right, without proving that the age is actually correct.

So basically the game we are playing today is the one where you simply disagree with the ascertained age of the find because it differs from your anachronistic bronze age view of the world but you didn't actually read the article or the journal that did the write up on said find and as usual make accusations based on the false idea that people blindly believe those heinous scientists who obviously are in league with satan and thus are trying to give a false history of the world. Did I get that right?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I don't see any evidence of "popcorn layer" over the painting. Even if you can, how do you know that the paint didn't seep through and settled underneath, and messed up everything? Another thing is what kind of paint could last 40,000 years? House paint degrades within a couple of decades. Everything is subjected to oxidation. No paint in 40,000 years could be as clear as this. Seems like people are just so quick to accept the reports, as long as they support evolution, without asking questions.

To me, this looks like a clear hoax, or just local residents spraying them on the wall recently.

originally posted by: np6888
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I don't see any evidence of "popcorn layer" over the painting. Even if you can, how do you know that the paint didn't seep through and settled underneath, and messed up everything? Another thing is what kind of paint could last 40,000 years? House paint degrades within a couple of decades. Everything is subjected to oxidation. No paint in 40,000 years could be as clear as this. Seems like people are just so quick to accept the reports, as long as they support evolution, without asking questions.

You are just grasping at straws here because you REALLY don't want to believe this is true.

Also, stop bringing up evolution, this has NOTHING to do with evolution. Not one bit of the theory of evolution covers what is in the OP. These paintings were put there by humans, the same as us. Evolution covers change in species over time. COMPLETELY different topics.

To me, this looks like a clear hoax, or just local residents spraying them on the wall recently.

That's because you have a very obvious confirmation bias.

a reply to: Harte

Actually, as an artist myself, I'd say they are both quite child-like. An over attention to detail, and an inability to get the overall form quite right. IMO, they don't look like artwork done by practiced artists. More like someone who one day just felt like scrawling on a wall.
Btw, I find it silly to do the whole penis size thing about these drawings.

originally posted by: Irako
a reply to: Harte

Actually, as an artist myself, I'd say they are both quite child-like. An over attention to detail, and an inability to get the overall form quite right. IMO, they don't look like artwork done by practiced artists. More like someone who one day just felt like scrawling on a wall.
Btw, I find it silly to do the whole penis size thing about these drawings.

Are you sure?
Chauvet Bears:


To my eye, the Chauvet paintings are far more sophisticated.

EDIT: Here's a link to an interesting online way to explore Chauvet.

Harte

a reply to: Irako

As an artist, when was the last time you worked in the conditions these people did? You know, in an unlit cave with scant torch light and primitive materials that you made yourself and didn't just buy at the local supply store where you had your choice of brushes and paints depending on what type of work you were doing and in the medium of your choice. Huge difference between any work you've ever done and the work and conditions these people worked under I would wager to guess.

a reply to: Harte

From a lot of the images I've looked at, yes, I'd say that they don't look like practiced artists. I find that people new to drawing will often start with outlining the entire form. They tend to ignore the 'hard parts' like the limbs - usually hinted at or roughly drawn in. Nothing really seems intentional.
I'm sorry, I just don't see anything here that strikes me as sophisticated. They seem random - almost like someone's sketchbook.
I have kept many of my old sketchbooks, and most of the drawings were pretty amateurish. But some of them were surprisingly good - but they were quite accidentally so. That's what I think we have here. Lots of drawings, some of which happened to look sophisticated to our eyes and our sensibilities.
This is why I don't think we should be comparing the artworks in these two caves. From the video posted in the OP, 99% of the art works in the SE Asian cave are gone. Even the image that was linked of the pig was reproduced (or at least this was implied by the video). We can't compare an entire cave filled with well-preserved art to a cave that has eaten up almost every piece of art that was made.
Btw, the way in which these works seem to be analyzed today is almost like an art school critique.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Irako

As an artist, when was the last time you worked in the conditions these people did? You know, in an unlit cave with scant torch light and primitive materials that you made yourself and didn't just buy at the local supply store where you had your choice of brushes and paints depending on what type of work you were doing and in the medium of your choice. Huge difference between any work you've ever done and the work and conditions these people worked under I would wager to guess.

Don't forget to throw all the art tradition and techniques developed over thousands of years out the window. These people obviously weren't trained artists either. And even if art training existed back then, it would be nowhere near as complete as it was even 2000 years ago let alone today.