@Socratic.Fanatic
The stegosaurus carving is another good example of art proving that dinosaurs and humans lived together. The history behind that one is even more compelling than that behind the Ica stones! (and Pre-Columbian South American history is among the most fascinating things I have ever studied that most people don’t study for some reason. A lot of historical knowledge was lost thanks to our good friends the Conquistadors).
The problem is that you initially made the accusation that scientists would ignore any evidence that pointed to a recent global flood or a young Earth. In following posts, you did nothing but ignore evidence that ran contrary to a recent global flood and a young Earth, including ignoring ample evidence that the Ica stones are modern and had been made by Peruvians in the 20th century. I was pointing out the irony of you accusing others of things that you do in almost every post.
When the source of the stones said that he faked them, it’s kind of hard to get past it.
Cabrera never found one Ica stone in situ where he could provide evidence of their provenance and age. The only source for these stones are people who admit to faking them. Until evidence for their authenticity comes forward, I don’t see how these stones can be considered authentic.
Strange how creationist organizations and fundamentalist groups have tons of money, but never invest in searching for these types of fossils.
1 Like
This is an example of JES accusing scientists of ignoring contradictory evidence, if it were found.
In the interest of Science, do we have any example of a species going extinct for reasons of “genetic change” instead of due to ecological change?
1 Like
@T_aquaticus
It seems to me that you all have been ignoring the Ica Stones? You simply write them off as fake.
You also seem to be ignoring other good evidences of dinosaurs and humans coexisting…if you’ve even heard of them that is…
We addressed them. They are known hoaxes, as we have shown. You choose to ignore the evidence that they are hoaxes and “explain them away”.
@T_aquaticus
All right, what do you think are the 4 best evidences that the Ica Stones are fake? Each evidence explained in about 4 lines?
-
The people who sold the stones to Cabrera said they were fakes.
-
No archaeologist has found Ica stones with dinosaurs on them in situ at an archaeological site.
-
There is evidence of modern tooling and materials on the Ica stones (e.g. sand paper, drills, and sharp edges along the lines).
-
The Ica stones also contain post-Columbian art, such as horses drawing carriages. Horses were not on the continent when these supposed stones were made, per creationists.
4 Likes
I addressed this already. But I will address it again if asked to.
Where did you learn this?
Where did you read this? I had read that this was detected on stones known to be forgeries, but not on those thought to be genuine.
Indeed, there are many interesting things besides dinosaurs drawn on the Ica stones. They are very mysterious artifacts! 
Note, however that not all of them may be genuine!
You “explained it away”. You just chose to ignore their testimony.
Who was the archaeologist who found this stone? Were there dinosaurs on the stone?[quote=“J.E.S, post:132, topic:36364”]
Where did you read this? I had read that this was detected on stones known to be forgeries, but not on those thought to be genuine.
[/quote]
"Then again in 1998, after four years of investigation, Spanish investigator Vicente Paris declared the stones a hoax (Ica N.d.). He stated that the stones showed traces of modern paints and abrasives. The strongest evidence he presented was the crispness of the shallow engravings; stones of great age should have substantial erosion of the surfaces (Ica N.d.).
Finally, a recent examination of the stones, done in Barcelona by José Antonio Lamich, founder of the Spanish “Hipergea” research group, revealed signs of sandpaper and recent carvings, backing up Paris’ investigations (Polidoro 2002, Feder 2010)."
The 10 Most Not-So-Puzzling Ancient Artifacts: The Ica Stones – Archaeological Fantasies[quote=“J.E.S, post:132, topic:36364”]
Note, however that not all of them may be genuine!
[/quote]
Let’s say that all of the known hominid transitional fossils (e.g. Lucy) were found by two farmer guys from Africa. Those farmers never showed a single scientist where they found them. Years later, they admit that they faked every single one of them. On top of that, others found evidence of modern tool marks and chemicals on and in the hominid fossils. Would you be saying the same thing about those hominid fossils as you are saying about the Ica stones?
@T_aquaticus
Do you expect me to take that article’s word for it? It had far less evidence than the Genesis Park article, and didn’t even address the strongest evidences FOR the existence of the stones! Thank you for sharing, though. The captions on the pictures were fun.
How did I explain it away?
I believe it was recovered by Dr. Swift (you should really read his book). I also have a close-up of that specific stone in the book, but I can’t find it on the internet…yet. There appears to be a baby sauropod on the stone.
Nota Bene: The stones were found buried in the desert that gets less rain than any other desert on earth. Why would there be erosion?
This is what I mean by “explained away”. You just ignore it.[quote=“J.E.S, post:134, topic:36364”]
I believe it was recovered by Dr. Swift (you should really read his book). I also have a close-up of that specific stone in the book, but I can’t find it on the internet…yet. There appears to be a baby sauropod on the stone.
[/quote]
So what is the evidence for the age of the stone? Where can we read the peer reviewed articles on the stone with the dating of material from the site?[quote=“J.E.S, post:134, topic:36364”]
The stones were found buried in the desert that gets less rain than any other desert on earth. Why would there be erosion?
[/quote]
And again with the “explaining away” tactics.
1 Like
@T_aquaticus
You do realize that by accusing me of “explaining away” the evidence against the Ica Stones, you “explain away” the evidence for them? (this IS a rhetorical question. You are.)
Are you sure it proves that?
And how do you explain the fact that it looks nothing like the anatomy of any stegosaurus species found in the fossil record? Moreover, considering that the alleged “bony plates” imagined in the alleged stegosaurus engraving in Cambodia appear in other engravings in that same temple but are obviously a background of large leaves, saying that it “proves” what you claim is setting the bar awfully low.
Your idea of “even more compelling” differs markedly from mine. Such examples strike me as a National Enquirer type of “proof”. Yes, they are fun to think about but do not pass the standards of what we expect in peer-reviewed scholarship.
1 Like
J.E.S:
The stegosaurus carving is another good example of art proving that dinosaurs and humans lived together.
His notions about proof are as strange as his notions about quotes.
1 Like
[quote=“J.E.S, post:134, topic:36364”]
Nota Bene: The stones were found buried in the desert that gets less rain than any other desert on earth.[/quote]
No, there’s no good evidence supporting that claim. It’s only hearsay that they were found buried, and some have testified to faking them.