By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
nuckles87 on 23 October 2013
Edit Thread
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.