Hello again Peg,
i see where you are going with this...i was referring to language in terms of, the written word.
And what I showed you was a wall covered with words, words documenting the natural history of the environment around them. On the other hand you can have a wall covered with alphabet marks, but that conveys no information. Thus using alphabet does not mean conveying information.
What you are really talking about is symbolism - the ability to represent something with a symbol, and then use that symbol to discuss to object. These paintings do that.
im not sure i would equate the use of tools as something that determines modern man for the reason that we can watch animals today use things as tools. the zoo in melbourne has a particular low land gorilla that pulls sticks off bush's to hit other gorillas with and to dig holes in the ground.
Two problems with this:
(1) Apes have, and understand, language too. We can communicate with them -- see
Koko for starters.
(2) I'm not talking about
making tools, but about
communicating the
technology to make tools, so that not only the single low-land gorilla knows how to do it. That this was done by
Homo habilis is shown by having several work sites at each location where tools were made.
Yes, paintings are a form of communication too, but these paintings are quite young really...if the carbon 14 dating method that they used to date them is accurate
which is debatable.
Yes the paintings, as I said, are 10,000 to 15,000 years old. This is well within the area where carbon 14 dating can provide very reliable results, particularly where the carbon is from burned organic material -- as is used in the paintings.
You want to debate the accuracy of carbon-14 then please feel free to join
Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) and point out where the mistakes are in the correlations.
You will note, that as you have initiated this line of debate you have three options:
(1) participate in the thread linked above and show how unreliable carbon dating is with evidence and facts, something no other creationist has been able to do at this time.
(2) honestly admit that you know absolutely nothing about carbon dating, and you are saying this because you read some creationists sites that make this claim, and you trust them even though you know squat about the subject, and are therefore completely unable to tell when they are lying.
(3) pretend that you don't have to do either and continue to make false claims about valid science. This is the usual creationist response.
Enjoy.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •