The various artwork in the Chauvet Cave has been quite amazing to say the least, so amazing in fact, the evolutionists are shaking their heads in disbelief and for others the answer is; research fraud. The cave was discovered about 10 years ago. The paintings were dated by evolutionists to be around 30,000 years old. This is what caused evolutionists to shake their heads in disbelief, because the paintings were so good, that they claimed it was impossible for man that early in history to have the talent to produce such specular artwork.
New Scientist in 2003 questioned the date and said two labs were at odds with the age, one lab said it was 30,000 old and Geochron Laboratories said it was 15,000 years old. On August 15, 2008 in Science, it was reported that there are more radiocarbon dates taken in that cave than most other caves…So rock experts like Jean Clottes who stated “Chauvet is the best dated rock art site in the world,” agreed with the 30,000 years as being the age of the cave.
What was even more interesting was this statement; “Chauvet should be removed from assessments of early modern humans in Europe,” said UK archaeologist Robin Dennell. “Including it leads to a gross distortion of their cognitive abilities.” Robin Dennell is suggesting research fraud here because he wants to throw out the evidence as being “a gross distortion” of human abilities. It also has raised a huge controversy among evolutionists themselves between the scientists who stand by their research results partaining to the old age, and the ones who refuse to accept the dating results and want to start promoting the non-validated evidence as the answers to their problem which is speculation.
Creationists for years have staunchly questioned the validity of such methods such as radiocarbon using observational data. There is no viable way, anything is 30,000 years old to begin with, but what is most interesting about the Chauvet Cave debate, we see many evolutionists who have believed in the accuracy of this method but when the dating method is not matching their hypothesis, they not only refuse their own evidence but want to throw it out saying it’s misleading.