| OooSnap said: "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." |
Alright, first off and for the record, "livingdinos.com" is not a legitimate, scientific source. It's a crackpot cryptozoology website, one that seems to be advocating tht dinosaurs are STILL alive, outside of modern day birds. Find me something like this from a legitimate source and I'll give it the time of day.
Second, I'm not saying that ALL the stones were forged. Neither does the Wikipedia article, nor it's source. It says that MOST (not all) of the stones can't be reliably dated.
SOME of the sights are known, but not all, because a lot of these stones were either taken by tomb raiders or sold as part of the tourist trade, which has been known to fake artifacts pretty commonly. No one (except for that one guy here) is saying that all 20,000 stones were forged by one farmer.
The farmer himself admits that he used methods such as baking the stones in cow dung to fake the petina, and he said that he was not the only person making the stones:
"In 1996, another BBC documentary was released with a skeptical analysis of the stones and the newfound attention to the phenomenon prompted the authorities of Peru to arrest Basilio Uschuya, as under Peruvian law it is illegal to sell archaeological discoveries. Uschuya recanted his claim that he had found them and instead admitted that they were hoaxes, saying "Making these stones is easier than farming the land." He also said that he had not made all the stones. He was not punished, and continued to sell similar stones to tourists as trinkets."
http://www.crystalinks.com/icastones.html (the website itself is not a good source, but the documentary it cites most definitely is)
I DID do my homework. I would KILL to make dinosaurs being around 6,000 years ago a fact. I would kill SEVERAL people if it would make them be alive today, as your source advocates. But they aren't and weren't. I've yet to find a SINGLE legitimate source that tells me that these stones bearing the dinosaur etchings have been confirmed to be 100% real. All I am seeing is that not all 20,000 stones aren't forgeries.
When I tried to find a scholarly source that mentioned these stones, all I found was one that pointed out that the farmer who found a lot of these stones admits that he forged them, and that only one respected scientist actually takes this stuff seriously, alongslide cryptozoologists, ancient astronaut theorists, and young earth creationists, all of whom have obvious agendas, but each appear to ignore certain aspecs of these stone that don't line up with their own individual theories, such as some of these stones also display advanced technology, planets, and other things that ancient peoples would not have known about:
http://pseudoarchaeology.org/b03-ross.html
So tell me, how did these ancient people know about planets, other continents, and advanced forms of technology? Are you going to start advocating for ancient astronauts next? Because otherwise, there is simply no way these people could have known these things existed back then.
Apparently, you need to stop reading from crackpot websites.
Yes, I believe this in the same way that I believe that gravity is what keeps me on the earth, that this Earth is round and that it orbits the sun. From my perspective the earth is flat, the sun moves across the sky, and things just move down because they are supposed. But I believe what science has to say about these things in spite of what I am personally able to observe, because scientists have been able to observe all of these things through careful observation and study.
Dinosaurs as we like to think of them died out 65 million years ago. We know this because that is the radiometric date on the bones, and that is where those bones stop in the fossil record and in sediments around the world. We know that an asteroid likely had something to do with it because of the KT boundary, which is evidence that one hit the earth roughly 65 million years ago. Said radiometric dating used is a rock solid aspect of modern science. There is no faith or belief here. Only evidence and fact. Unless you have a peer reviewed article for me that shows otherwise, of course. But then again, given that i'm a big dino buff I would have heard of it.
It's "most can't be dated". I misread the Wikipedia article I was paraphrasing but I'm also not currently taking this conversation very seriously because you keep sourcing creationist and crypto nonsense. By the way, according to Wikipedia, these were the stones that scientists were ableto date. They dated them thanks to the CONTEXT of the sites:
"One of these collectors was Santiago Agurto Calvo, an architect by profession, who was Rector of the National University of Engineeringin Lima. He organised searches in ancient cemeteries and in August 1966 found such a stone in the Toma Luz sector, Callango district, in Ica Valley. The context corresponded to the Tiwanaku culture. He reported his discovery to the Regional Museum in Ica city, and was accompanied on further expeditions by its curator, the archaeologist Alejandro Pezzia Assereto.[1] In September 1966 in Uhle Hill cemetery, De la Banda sector, Ocucaje District, they found for the first time an engraved stone with certain provenance in a tomb of theParacas culture. This stone was a fairly flat and irregular in shape, approximately 7 x 6 x 2 cm in size. On it was carved a design which might be abstract, or could be taken as a flower with eight petals.[1] Agurto published the discovery in a Lima newspaper.[5]
Pezzia continued to search. In the San Evaristo cemetery in Toma Luz he found a carved stone of similar size to the previous one with a realistic image of a fish. The context dated the tomb to the Middle Horizon (600-1000 A.D.). In a grave not far away in the same cemetery he found a stone with the fairly realistic design of a llama, in a context typical of the Ica culture. In 1968 Pezzia published his findings, including drawings and descriptions.[1]"
As you can see, the scientific community acknowledges some of these stones are real. Just not the ones with dinosaurs on them, which were created by a farmer out of a school textbook:
"As compensation for these shortcomings, however, one could read a very revealing interview with a Basilio Uchuya and his wife, Irma Gutierrez de Aparcana, two peasants from Callango, published some years ago by Mundial magazine (Anonymous 1975). In it, Basilio and Irma admit that all of the stones they sold to Cabrera they had carved themselves. As for the subjects to be depicted on the stones it was easy: they chose illustrations from comic books, school books, and magazines."
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/ica_stones_yabba-dabba-do/
My "intelligent basis" is that the dinosaur ica stones are not taken seriously by the archeological or paleontological communities, and your "sources" are not helping your case. Give me a respected source from within the scientific community, because all I've seen so far are some crackpot websites that don't even get peer reviewed, let alone taken seriously.
In order for you to be right, some pretty major scientific theories backed up by decades of study and evidence have to be wrong, something these stones alone simply can't prove even if they were real. If they ARE real, which I've asked you to prove a couple times now using legitimate sources, that will at least be interesting. At best, this would be good news for the cryptozoological community. But these stones don't disprove radiometric dating.
But thankfully, you aren't right. The more I do my "homework", the more I see how wrong you are, and the more what you are advocating doesn't make sense. As I pointed out earlier, there were more then just dinosaurs on these stones: there was advanced knowledge and technology that these people simply couldn't have had. So where is the advanced technology? What happened to the advanced surgical techniques, which went FAR beyond the simple brain surgery techniques practiced by the Inca (one stone, for instance, showed surgens reconnecting HEART VALVES. A far cry from just cutting out a piece of skull, the most advanced form of surgery they had at the time). Where is the evidence of telescopes and other pieces of advanced technology depicted on these stones? If they had such advanced technology, why did they only record this stuff on stones? You can't just pick and choose here, if these dinosaur stones are real, then the stones depicting these other things are real too, especially since they come from the same source. Where are the recent dinosaur remains that can be carbon dated, if they lived so recently? Where is the evidence for ANY of this in South American culture, outside of these stones?
There are countless holes in these stones. Holes that you need to fill if you want to be taken seriously. The sad thing is, though, even if you DID fill them in, it still doesnt discount the fact that dinosaurs existed 65 million years ago, completely crapping all over your young earth, anti-evolution nonsense. It still does not disprove radiometric dating.
Really, I'm not humoring your nonsense anymore. If your next post doesn't answer the questions I posed above with proof from respectable sources, I am just going to post it again until you do. The burden of proof is on you, and you haven't met it yet. Because what you propose flies in the face of so much of what we know, the bar is going to be mich higher then "livingdinos.com".
| Michael-5 said: 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..... |
I am not sure if you are being serious or not, but I think I need to point out that sharks and alligators are absolutely NOT dinosaurs. They are not even close. Sharks are big fish, and alligators have absolutely no relation to dinosaurs beyond a common ancestor.
And that bone tissue wasn't "in tact", it was mineralized, same as the bone. It's not as if they found actual mushy soft tissue. I remember how excited I was as a kid when I heard they found dinosaur skin. I was wondering why they weren't telling us what the color was. Then I discovered that wat they found wasn't ACTUAL skin...
| MDMAlliance said: 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. |
I figured the information was either out of context or incomplete. I think we are also doing him a disservice because few of us are actual scientists and can explain to him in depth how we know what we know. What I know doesn't even scratch the surface of how we actually know these things. Entire books have been written explaining this stuff and I don't have the time or patience to read through all of it because my interest lies elsewhere :(
