Jim, you hold to contrary opinions about most of what science says. I guess
a few scientists could be following your example.
As to the title, that note mentioned that Marshack confirmed that it is a
man made object. He has examined it personally. Let me point out that even
the guys you cite seem to accept the object as manufactured by humans. No
where do they say this was not manufactured by a member of the genus Homo.
You post said:
>>As Mr John Clegg of Sydney University has pointed out, there is "an
enormous difference" between the artistic efforts of such early
creatures and those of modern people.
Dr Tacon agreed and said that pre-human creations, like the Berekhat Ram
object, may represent a "small stepping stone in the evolution of art".
But he claimed "full-blown art" emerged only with anatomically modern
humans who produced works "with symbolic and aesthetic intent".<<<<
Their difference with Marshack does not appear to be about who made the
thing or even that it was manufactured. It appears to be about a definition
of art! Why would Tacon claim that this is a small step in the evolutoin of
art if it weren't made by human hands? A stone in my garden does not do
anything for the advancement of art.
Clegg said that there was a major difference between the "artistic efforts'
of these people and moderns. DUHHHH. There is a big difference between my
artistic ability and Michelangelo. So what? My artistic efforts are still
artistic, symbolic efforts, crude though they be. And so are the efforts of
the creators of the Berekhat Ram figurine.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm