Dino drawing or mud stain: proof of creation?

[aquatus1]

I tend to think that as much as seems to make sense that artwork should not be something that needs to evolve like technology...the simple fact of the matter is that this is precisely how it did.

It is easier, perhaps, if you think of it in terms of techniques. A human has pretty much the same physical skills and abilities that we have always had, however martial art techniques took millennia to develop, and continue to be developed as we learn more and more about the human body and psychology. Just because we had the physical ability to do it from the beginning does not mean that we had the concept, let alone the technique, to do it in a more advanced manner.

Similarly, with art, it is a matter of learning the techniques, and we tend to forget that most of these techniques were taught to us in grade school ( in other words, they neither came naturally to us nor did we discover them ourselves). Most of us took an art class and learned about the different concepts of perspective, depth, shadow, and interplay. If you think about it, these are pretty vague and abstract concepts. It seems simple to us, because we have the advantage of hindsight, but ancient man did not have this advantage. He had to figure it out himself, and frankly, he probably had other concerns at the time.

[Wookietim]

I tend to think that as much as seems to make sense that artwork should not be something that needs to evolve like technology...the simple fact of the matter is that this is precisely how it did.

It is easier, perhaps, if you think of it in terms of techniques. A human has pretty much the same physical skills and abilities that we have always had, however martial art techniques took millennia to develop, and continue to be developed as we learn more and more about the human body and psychology. Just because we had the physical ability to do it from the beginning does not mean that we had the concept, let alone the technique, to do it in a more advanced manner.

Similarly, with art, it is a matter of learning the techniques, and we tend to forget that most of these techniques were taught to us in grade school ( in other words, they neither came naturally to us nor did we discover them ourselves). Most of us took an art class and learned about the different concepts of perspective, depth, shadow, and interplay. If you think about it, these are pretty vague and abstract concepts. It seems simple to us, because we have the advantage of hindsight, but ancient man did not have this advantage. He had to figure it out himself, and frankly, he probably had other concerns at the time.

You may be perfectly correct... I find it interesting that the more (I don't know how to phrase it so I am using the best word I can) "Fanatsy" type concepts seem to evolve alongside other things Humans do... Not only art, but also writing. Take a look at "the Iliad" - a wonderful piece of work that deserves to be read but far from what one would call a complex and involving character piece. Characters are moved around like pieces on a chessboard in it with almost no regard to their interior mindset. That seems to echo the artwork of primitive man - which leads one to wonder if primitive man were capable of that or if that might not be a more recent development in our evolution...

[danielost]

Hmm... the dinosaur is different from the image next to it. The man looks very faded and white- the 'dinosaur' looks relatively new, and almost completely unscratched or aged. I could easily see someone drawing it as a joke, trying to make a stylized dinosaur in the pre-history style of drawing. It's also in Utah, an extremely relgious state. Maybe someone drew it thinking it would disprove evolution or something?

you did read the part where the people who took the pics. couldnt get into the cave.

[jbondo]

Here's the thing: I see the argument of depiction being skewed because the people didn't use scale or they weren't being photo realistic. However, if you think it thru there is an argument for the other side. How many people draw and paint? Those who have artistic talent or just anyone? Most that don't have this talent don't bother trying but those that do have talent are likely to use it. That being said, it's likely that most cave drawings which are reasonably recognizable are done by the artists of the time. Therefore they would in fact be scaled within reason and depictions would be fairly accurate.

[Viral]

Heaven forbid they have dinosaurs but scientists are quick to jump on the alien theory when they see weird stuff. Lol. I think it was probably done by a 5 year old cave baby. And when we are all dead we will look back and laugh at it.

I can almost imagine it went down like the Mayan calender, someone does a half-assed job and thousands of years later people go ape **EDIT** over it.

**Family forum, Viral.**

Edited April 3, 2011 by aquatus1

[booNyzarC]

You may be perfectly correct... I find it interesting that the more (I don't know how to phrase it so I am using the best word I can) "Fanatsy" type concepts seem to evolve alongside other things Humans do... Not only art, but also writing. Take a look at "the Iliad" - a wonderful piece of work that deserves to be read but far from what one would call a complex and involving character piece. Characters are moved around like pieces on a chessboard in it with almost no regard to their interior mindset. That seems to echo the artwork of primitive man - which leads one to wonder if primitive man were capable of that or if that might not be a more recent development in our evolution...

I think that the final point in the post your are responding to from aquatus is probably the primary reason; and frankly, he probably had other concerns at the time.

I'd like to envision life in those times as somewhat idyllic, but the reality is that it wasn't at all. Survival was the name of the game and artistic pursuits were most likely very low on the list of priorities. Finding food and shelter would be at the top of the list. Maintaining such would be next in line. I suspect that there would have been little time for artistic endeavors and most of that would have probably been devoted to ceremonial purposes.

On top of that, recording such artwork on cave walls could have been reserved to those in power. I would assume that those in power at the time would have been the strongest and toughest of the lot. I don't want to pander to generalizations by any means, but how often are the strongest and toughest even in our present age also endowed with grand artistic talents?

[Dr.No]

You do know this can be interpreted as a snake being cooked on a fire.

Look a lot like a snake to me any way

[Surreptitious]

I didn't read all the comments, but I'm assuming this whole charade was created to find some supposed "truth" to the creationist story. Creation Museum make their money off of "believers". Using genesis as a basis is not the best way to fund research or to do research in general. Show me the money.

[DigitalDreamer]

I didn't read all the comments, but I'm assuming this whole charade was created to find some supposed "truth" to the creationist story. Creation Museum make their money off of "believers". Using genesis as a basis is not the best way to fund research or to do research in general. Show me the money.

Aint that the truth!

[SilverCougar]

You know what tells me this is not a dino?

The tail. Even though people back then were very ..what we call "stylized" in their pictographs (Some theories as to why is because to show humans in the same detail as other animals was a taboo) They were actually pretty accurate in their depiction of animals. And through studies of the dinosaur bones that we have, we know that the sauropods (which this .. to the untrained naked eye looks like) did not have that long of a tail, nor did they cary it down like that. It was held straight out. Kind of like a counter balance.

Edited April 23, 2011 by SilverCougar