This topic will attempt to accumulate the (sometimes hitherto discussed) evidences for the Ica Stones’ authenticity, and for claims of dinosaurs and humans coexisting.
And that’s pretty much what we find for humans and dinosaurs too, @Jonathan_Burke…Come and see!
(That is, if you are not afraid of this topic as it may hold contradictions to your worldview).
Wow, I can’t to see all the footprints and other human artifacts which have been dated as co-existing with the dinosaurs, and all the evidence of dinosaur and human conflict in the fossil record, and all the dinosaur fossils dating to the same time as humans! Please bury with me with evidence!
@Jonathan_Burke
Are you still convinced of the Ica Stones having been faked (because of the anecdotal evidence of the confessions of the supposed forgers)?
Well, then you must discount the the historical mentions of the stones (which are from a lot earlier than the 1960’s)
2.1562 AD
Some of the mysterious stones returned to Spain
3.1500’s AD
Juan de Santa Cruz Pachacuti Llamqui records many carved stones having been found in the Ica region during the time of Inac Pachacutec.
What are your thoughts so far?
They aren’t anecdotal. My reasons are as follows.
There is no independent evidence verifying the authenticity of the stones.
There are multiple independent sources providing evidence they are fake, including eyewitness testimony from the forgers.
There is no physical evidence on the continent on which they were found, corroborating the claim that dinosaurs and humans coexisted. I already described what some of that evidence could have been.
There is physical evidence on the continent in which they were found, that dinosaurs and humans did not coexist.
That tells me some people saw some stones. It does not tell me anything else at all. It tells me nothing about the Ica stones.
Decorated stones are not the problem. Ancient decorated stones showing dinosaurs are the problem.
What makes evidence independant?
What are some other than the testimony of the alleged forgers?
What is this?[quote=“Jonathan_Burke, post:4, topic:36403”]
There is no physical evidence on the continent on which they were found, corroborating the claim that dinosaurs and humans coexisted. I already described what some of that evidence could have been.
[/quote]
Since this topic means to be an accumulation, would you mind explaining again?
Why don’t you simply link to it?
I think that what beaglelady is saying is that documented burial stones are not uncommon, but no documented stones have dinosaurs on them, only the undocumented fakes. C
An you show differently?
@jpm
It is just amazing to me that these (probably highly uneducated) hoaxers would have such great knowledge of different kinds of dinosaurs. For instance, on one of the stones (probably the most famous one), you see a therapod dinosaur, a pteranodon, a sauropod, and (at the bottom) even saltosaurus! I would be amazed if that all was faked.
Not at all amazing. There are any number of little kids (mostly boys) who have great knowledge of dinosaurs. Just last month, a 10-year-old boy discovered that the Natural History Museum in London had made a mistake in identifying a dinosaur silhouette.
Like I said, forgery is the second oldest profession. Scientists generally stay on-site and supervise closely when they are conducting digs, because some poor people are only too happy to make forgeries to stay employed…
@beaglelady
You must remember that (forgery aside for the moment) the tomb robbers who originally found the stones were willing to bring experts to the exact tombs from which they were recovered.
Are you not amazed that these people supposedly knew what these looked like with no trace of the dinosaurs themselves remaining?
Who were these experts? Did they write articles about the discovery of dinosaur stones in scholarly peer-reviewed journals?
I think the idea is that the dinosaurs were neighbors.
Checking now…
You are correct. The dinosaurs may not have lived in the area of the Ocucaje desert, but they may have lived in the Amazon jungle…fairly far away.
@beaglelady
Interesting – why don’t you consider it to be a good explanation?
Not really. It won’t be pointless if you can give a coherent explanation why you disagree with me. Specifically, what criteria do you use to determine what constitutes good evidence and what does not?
@beaglelady
It is quite interesting!
ON the bottom area of one stone (the one featured in the Wikipedia article) there is a representation that bears startling resemblances to the dinosaur Saltasaurus. Interestingly, Saltasaurus was not discovered until around 1980, at least 10 years after the stone was reportedly forged…
The giraffe explanation seems as good as any…
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.