By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Believe it or not Dinosaurs co-existed with Man

Puppyroach said:
OooSnap said:
Apparently you haven't done your homework.

The stones have been tested multiple times.

The National University of Engineering of Peru. The tests’ conclusions lead unmistakably to the conclusion that the stones were indeed of Pre-Hispanic origin.

Joseph F. Blumrich, a NASA scientists,ran lab tests on it and said they were authentic.

Tests have also been done by Ryan Drum, an Biologist who said the stones weren't done in our time. Tests were reportedly done other times as well.

What do you mean there is no context?
There are Moche vases in Peruvian museums dating from 70 A.D. to 900 A.D. with dinosaurs on them. There are also azcan textile depicting figures that are dated hundreds of years old.


In the Larco Herrera Museum in Peru there are vases that clearly depict dinosaurs. Some of these same types of dinosaurs are shown on the Ica stones.

Around Acambaro, Mexico, over 33,000 ceramic figurines were found in the area and identified with the Pre-classical Chupicuaro Culture and some of them were dinosaurs. And they were discovered in the 1940s long before the west's fascination with and mass exposure to dinosaurs.

There have been artifacts from Tiwanaku in Bolivia that look like dinosaurs.

The native American Coclé culture of Panama, which existed hundreds of years ago ,there was discovered a pottery of a pterodactyle according to A. Hyatt Verrill.
And there are many more "anomalous" artifacts in central and south america like these that you won't find in your history or science textbooks. These findings contradict the evolution story they have been indoctrinating the masses with so I doubt things will change.

If you want to base your beliefs on a bunch of "scientists" worldview without critically analysing and challenging it then that's on you. But please do some actual homework instead of making ill informed posts. And that goes for everybody else.

Wait a second, what did he use as a reference material for dating the vases? Did he use historical data or som other kind of measurement? He couldn´t possibly use carbon dating since you will never get accurate readings from a material that is very young (younger than 5000 years or so I think), furthermore, it is (as far as I know) almost impossible to measure the ages of stones with carbon dating since they do not consist of carbon and the stones themselves are a lot older than the carvings on them. So how did he do it? Guess? :)

I've been taking a class where archeology plays a major part, so I should be able to answer your question with some accuracy:

You can't actually date the stones for the reasons you said (except it's called radiometric dating), but in archeology if you know what site they came from, you can use materials at the site to date the stones. Specifically, you can use CARBON dating of organic material at the site to date the stones. You can also date certain inorganic materials such as ceramics using thermoluminescence dating.

This is what I meant when I said archeology needed context, and most of these stones, because they were supposedly found by tomb raiders, don't have any. If they came from a site, we don't know what site, so we can't get a date.

According to Wikipedia only a FEW stones have provenance (we know where they came from, hence context) but that doesn't mean that we know how old the ones with dinosaurs and advanced technology are. Just the ones with more mundane carvings on them.

I'll go ahead and copy and paste this to make sure it's not ignored:

 

drkohler said:
OooSnap said:

There are Moche vases in Peruvian museums dating from 70 A.D. to 900 A.D. with dinosaurs on them. There are also azcan textile depicting figures that are dated hundreds of years old.

In the Larco Herrera Museum in Peru there are vases that clearly depict dinosaurs.

Complete and utter bullshit.

Don't you even realise that people can actually check your nonsense by going to the museum and SEE the pottery (which in the Moche's case is mostly erotic in nature). You can actually ask archeologists what your "dinosaurs" really are if you cared. But you just don't want to learn...

Yeah, it's hilarious he accuses me of not doing my homework when he does all of his homework from places that BS him, lol

I don't need to do my homework anymore. I did my homework on dinosaurs for over 20 years, ever since I was a kid. The fact that dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago is simple scientific fact. If you cared about science, and not your own little world view, you'd know that, and you'd know why you know that.

As for the Ica stones, Wikipedia did my homework for me. According to Wikipedia, MOST (not all) of the stones can't be dated. Yes, a few were, but that doesn't mean the ones with dinosaurs on them are real. The ones we can date are the ones where the "provenance" was known. As in, we know where the stones came from. As in, we know the CONTEXT. Give me a legitimate, scientific source that directly links these stones with advanced technology and dinosaurs on them to an actual pre-Hispanic date.



Around the Network
Zappykins said:
JEMC said:
areason said:
Then how did they become extinct?

Cats killed them, obviously.

Ah! So is this why the accient Egyptians worshiped cats?

Because they freed us from our dino overlords?

No, unfortunately cats turned the egyptians into their slaves, worshipping and taking care of all their needs.

Thankfully, the resistance was smart and after centuries of hard research, they created the only weapon against them: dogs.

That's why a dog is a man's best friend.



Please excuse my bad English.

Currently gaming on a PC with an i5-4670k@stock (for now), 16Gb RAM 1600 MHz and a GTX 1070

Steam / Live / NNID : jonxiquet    Add me if you want, but I'm a single player gamer.

JEMC said:
Zappykins said:
JEMC said:

Cats killed them, obviously.

Ah! So is this why the accient Egyptians worshiped cats?

Because they freed us from our dino overlords?

No, unfortunately cats turned the egyptians into their slaves, worshipping and taking care of all their needs.

Thankfully, the resistance was smart and after centuries of hard research, they created the only weapon against them: dogs.

That's why a dog is a man's best friend.

Ahh, but now they have invaded the internet. What will the resistance do now?!



"You can't actually date the stones for the reasons you said (except it's called radiometric dating), but in archeology if you know what site they came from, you can use materials at the site to date the stones. Specifically, you can use CARBON dating of organic material at the site to date the stones. You can also date certain inorganic materials such as ceramics using thermoluminescence dating."

The stones, or more specifically, the carving of the stones have been dated according to scientists.

According to Dr. Dennis Swift: " We want to date the lines or incisions on the stones. The line we scratch on it today is only as old as—well, today. So the only way to date the scratch is to look for patina, weathering oxidation, microorganisms, lichens or other features indicative of age."

"archaeologists regularly dig up pottery or other artifacts that show no patina or very little patina. F.G. Hawley, a chemist with years of experience in archaeology wrote, “Many (artifacts) in dry western country show little or no patina after seven or eight hundred years.”

"Anyone who has studied Andean archaeology and been involved in excavations in the southern desert of Peru knows that the textiles, pottery, and other artifacts from the tombs are in an astonishing state of preservation. The fact that the Cabrera rock had any patina on it may mean that it is much older than seven or eight hundred years."

After getting stones analyzed from the Mason Optical, Inc.:

"The microscopic analysis of the Cabrera rock or Ica Stone revealed that it had a fine patina covering the grooves and incisions of the stone. There was dirt and sand embedded in the crevices of the stone including some of the incisions. The natural oxidation had slightly colored the incisions so that they did not have a bright-white look. No evidence of modern tool usage or minute metal particles were found. The laboratory conclusion was that the engravings on the stone were not recent but of some age. That age could not be determined because patina and natural oxidation cannot be accurately measured. The patina is not an absolute proof of age, but it would be impossible to find patina on a recently engraved stone."

"C) The third stone from the tomb at Rio Grande, Nazca, was examined under the stereo zoom microscope. This stone had a heavy coat of patination and oxidation. Microorganisms could be seen in the grooves and the incisions. There is a uniformity of coloration and weathering. The incisions and cuts are as dark and weathered as the rest of the stone. There are several thick concentrations of salt peter that are so full of salt buildup that it covers parts of the carving with a white layer obscuring the image below. There are seriations and slight fizzures in the grooves. This could only happen over a considerable period of time with the change of heat and cold through the seasons in the desert. There is a notable irregular wear on the edges of the incisions that leads one to the inescapable conclusion that this stone had undergone considerable wear. Lichen growth was also found on one section of the stone. Dirt and sand were embedded in the grooves, cracks, crevices, and orifices of the stone. There is a dark blackish stain covering the body of one of the dinosaur zoomorph images. The salient conclusion of the laboratory is that the stone is of some age, in fact, of antiquity of hundreds or thousands of years old."
http://livingdinos.com/2011/07/are-the-ica-stones-fake-skeptics-under-fire/

So let's do a quick recap:

1. The stones were discovered by a missionary priest about 500 years ago. (Cientifico Descubre Dinosaurios en Ica. Ojo-Lima, Domingo 03 de Octobre de 1993, p. 7.). Also around that time an Indian chronicler, Juan de Santa Cruz Pachacuti Llamqui, wrote about many carved stones were found in the kingdom of Chincha in Chimchayunga which was called Manco which where Ica is located today. (Juan de Santa Cruz Pachacuti Llamquie: Relacion de antiquedades deste reyno del Piru. 1571.)

2. The patina on the stone and other characteristics shows that it has great age.

3. The incisions weren't done with any modern instruments.

4. There are over 20,000 stones and some stones which weigh over 1,000 pounds, which doesn't make sense for one farmer to forge.

This to me show the stones weren't all forged.

"This is what I meant when I said archeology needed context, and most of these stones, because they were supposedly found by tomb raiders, don't have any. If they came from a site, we don't know what site, so we can't get a date."

Sure the sites are known. Twenty miles south-southwest of Ica near Ocuaje (in Peru) and the Rio Ica the stones were found from graves and caves. Also archaeologist Alejandro Pezzia Asserto conducted official excavations in the ancient Paracas and Ica cemeteries. Not to mention a site in a tomb at Rio Grande, Nazca. Please do some homework, seriously.

"Yeah, it's hilarious he accuses me of not doing my homework when he does all of his homework from places that BS him, lol"

Apparently you still need to do some homework.

"I don't need to do my homework anymore. I did my homework on dinosaurs for over 20 years, ever since I was a kid. The fact that dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago is simple scientific fact. If you cared about science, and not your own little world view, you'd know that, and you'd know why you know that."

No, you believe it is a scientific fact dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago.

"As for the Ica stones, Wikipedia did my homework for me. According to Wikipedia, MOST (not all) of the stones can't be dated. Yes, a few were, but that doesn't mean the ones with dinosaurs on them are real. The ones we can date are the ones where the "provenance" was known. As in, we know where the stones came from. As in, we know the CONTEXT. Give me a legitimate, scientific source that directly links these stones with advanced technology and dinosaurs on them to an actual pre-Hispanic date."

Before you said they can't be dated, now you say most can't be dated. Which one is it?

Do you have any intelligent basis why you think just the ones with the dinosaurs are not real are you just assume it?



drkohler said:
OooSnap said:

There are Moche vases in Peruvian museums dating from 70 A.D. to 900 A.D. with dinosaurs on them. There are also azcan textile depicting figures that are dated hundreds of years old.

In the Larco Herrera Museum in Peru there are vases that clearly depict dinosaurs.

Complete and utter bullshit.

Don't you even realise that people can actually check your nonsense by going to the museum and SEE the pottery (which in the Moche's case is mostly erotic in nature). You can actually ask archeologists what your "dinosaurs" really are if you cared. But you just don't want to learn...

Or you could actually see photos of it, two which are posted in the op. But for your convenience I'll post one here.

I don't need to ask an archeologist to know that it is a type of dragon or dinosaur.



Around the Network
OooSnap said:
drkohler said:
OooSnap said:

There are Moche vases in Peruvian museums dating from 70 A.D. to 900 A.D. with dinosaurs on them. There are also azcan textile depicting figures that are dated hundreds of years old.

In the Larco Herrera Museum in Peru there are vases that clearly depict dinosaurs.

Complete and utter bullshit.

Don't you even realise that people can actually check your nonsense by going to the museum and SEE the pottery (which in the Moche's case is mostly erotic in nature). You can actually ask archeologists what your "dinosaurs" really are if you cared. But you just don't want to learn...

Or you could actually see photos of it, two which are posted in the op. But for your convenience I'll post one here.

I don't need to ask an archeologist to know that it is a type of dragon or dinosaur.


Here's a harpie on a piece of artwork from the Middle Ages.

This does not prove harpies exist or have existed at all, of course assuming your stones aren't a total hoax, which considering the creationist agenda behind them, does not build any credibility. But let's be fair and get right to the point. Artwork is questionablr so instead go find some dinosaur fossils and human fossils and/or evidence that they are from the same fossil record. The rules of course is this evidence must be from an unbiased credible peer reviewed source which means no Dr.Dennis Swift or any creationist "scientists". No quote mining and you would have to explain your quotes instead of just a copy and paste. If you do not think these rules are fair, that's fine, but it sure doesn't help your case.



OP: Here in lies the problem.

There are 3 main areas of broad scientific evidence that enforces the age of the universe.

The speed of light (so that covers Nova, redshift etc)
radioactive decay (decay of various nucleotides)
The geological record (ie the layer of fossils etc)

So first, the recent creationists will tackle this on 2 broad fronts, all based on their assumed idea of what constitutes their parameters for the "authority" of the Bible. This is their frame work and will also use this as a counter argument against secular scientists by saying their "World view" drastically undermines all presumptions to how they "interpret" the data. It will always come out "old". But theirs will always come out young.

The 2nd front is the use of anecdotal evidence, for example the ICA Stones. These type of evidences are always surrounded by extreme controversy, are never clear cut, are never universally accepted, are eventually nearly always proven in the end as just plain wrong. There are so many example, eg, The shrinking sun, the decay of the moon's orbit, the amount of moon dust.

Yet the overwhelming evidence mainstream evidence in regards to the 3 areas above consistently shows a very old universe.

So, if the whole crux here is about age, maybe the assumed authority position the recent creationists is holding onto for no matter what, could be flawed. I'm not saying necessarily the "authority" of the Bible is undermined or wrong. I'm saying the recent creationists idea of what the scope or what that actual authority relates to, is all wrong.

Seriously, Genesis is not a scientific document. It's theological, part metaphorical, part historical, part poetry, but most of all, a message about God's purpose for mankind (if you believe in God). It's not about how old the universe is, it's not about proving if God exists (it assumes God exists). So please refrain from using a book outside of it's scope.



Sharks and Aligators are Dinosaurs, they just shrunk over 70 million years because their food sources shrunk.

As for bone and cell tissue being in tact after 70 million years, that's entirely plausible. They have 200+ million year old mosquitos trapped in Amber in prestine condition. Without oxigen, our bodies simply do not degrade, and it uncommong, but possible to have anarobic conditions upon death.

As for the sculptures, bones.....



What is with all the hate? Don't read GamrReview Articles. Contact me to ADD games to the Database
Vote for the March Most Wanted / February Results

I feel like Ooosnap simply doesn't understand many of the concepts here, and is why he can't accept that evolution is more than "just a theory" and that his beliefs really hold little to no ground.

The irony of the arguments made against evolution is hilarious, as they are deeply ingrained in hypocrisy. Also, a lot of the evidence Ooosnap supposedly uses is incomplete as well. There are many explanations for the issues he brings up.



OooSnap said:

Or you could actually see photos of it, two which are posted in the op. But for your convenience I'll post one here.

I don't need to ask an archeologist to know that it is a type of dragon or dinosaur.

Are you really trying to suggest that art is a factual representation of the universe?  



The rEVOLution is not being televised