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…
Why haven’t art museum or natural history museum curators been contacted?
btw, TalkOrigins has debunked the claims about these dinosaur stones.
Even Christians have done a lot of forgeries, especially back in the heyday of the Relic Cult. Martin Luther used to wonder why 18 of the 12 apostles were buried in Spain alone!
3 Likes
They have no more “debunked” the claims than Wikipedia has. One of the more obscure Nazca lines (this one is really a glyph) seems to depict a dinosaur as well.
Totally. It was also speculated why “The true cross could be carried by 1 man, but it would take 20 men to carry all of the pieces we have left of it.”
1 Like
@beaglelady
Dr. Cabrera’s Ica stone museum is still open (by appointment), and the Ica regional museum is reportedly in possession of some stones which are not on public display.
What do you think of Cabrera’s book and his analysis in which according to Wikipedia "Cabrera published a book, The Message of the Engraved Stones of Ica on the subject, discussing his theories of the origins and meaning of the stones. In this he argued that the stones show “that man is at least 405 million years old” and for what he calls gliptolithic man, humans from another planet, and that “Through the transplantation of cognitive codes to highly intelligent primates, the men from outer space created new men on earth.” ?
1 Like
@jpm
Dr. Cabrera also knew the implications of the Ica stones. However, his thoughts on the meanings of those implications were far different from yours (apparently: they are fake) or mine (1.Ancient humans were highly intelligent and 2. They coexisted with dinosaurs).
Interestingly, (on the ancient surgeries front) we find skulls in the area that were obviously operated upon in brain surgery showing signs of healing over time. This indicates that the Pre-Columbian people’s success rate for brain surgery was quite high…fascinating.
I’ve heard of trepanation. It involves cutting a hole in the skull, not brain surgery. Still very yucky.
2 Likes
@J.E.S
This old blog post has some interesting notes on the whole dragons/dinos topic, in case you are interested.
http://benstanhope.blogspot.mx/2013/06/a-seminary-student-visits-creation.html
1 Like
It gets better with each retelling! On eBay someone is selling a video called Dinosaurs Lived With Man.
An ancient tribe in Peru … left their bones and artifacts in tombs buried in the desert where they were well-preserved for others to later discover. What was found is remarkable. Mummified bones certainly, but also fabric, pottery, and what has been called, “burial stones.”
On these burial stones, the tribe etched scenes from their daily life including such things as medical techniques … brain surgery, C sections, and blood transfusions, the use of telescopes, and other advanced technology.
Wowzer!
I believe you are correct…I’ve always wondered this about trepanation (and perhaps you know?): Why cut a hole in the skull if not to get to the brain (this has little or nothing to do with the Ica Stones and everything to do with my own curiosity)…
So wait a second, is this thread trying to evaluate the pretty shoddy evidence for the Ica stones themselves in isolation?
Or are we allowed to bring in other evidences that can help us evaluate the stones in a larger context?
1 Like