Believe it or not Dinosaurs co-existed with Man

[OooSnap]

"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?