Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8803 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-24-2017 8:52 PM
348 online now:
dwise1, halibut, Modulous (AdminModulous) (3 members, 345 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 822,959 Year: 27,565/21,208 Month: 1,478/1,714 Week: 321/365 Day: 48/42 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2Next
Author Topic:   Let's Discuss the Ica Stones
mf
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 23 (114005)
06-09-2004 9:09 PM



There are over 11,000 of these stones in the Cabrera's collection.

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/patton-dinosaurs-south-america.ram
http://www.rae.org/ica.html

Although many would claim these stones to be a hoax, what else can they do when their evolutionary beliefs are questioned?

If you claim these stones to be a hoax, please justify your claims here.

Let me just start this off by pointing out the dermal spines that appear on the sauropods depicted on the stones. Dermal spines were not discovered until 1992. (Stephen A. Czerkas, 1992. "Discovery of dermal spines reveals a new look
for sauropods" Geology v.20 p.1068-1070)

^^^Looks like they don't like indirect linking ^^^

Also, one cannot argue the accuracy of brain surgeries depicted on the stones, as skulls have been found that have obviously been the subject (many successful) of the depicted surgeries.

More later. Please respond if you think these are a hoax (especially if you would call them "a known hoax." I do not care where you begin.

This message has been edited by mf, 06-11-2004 05:02 PM


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Chiroptera, posted 06-09-2004 10:07 PM mf has not yet responded
 Message 16 by RAZD, posted 06-13-2004 5:58 PM mf has not yet responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 23 (114015)
06-09-2004 9:46 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6397
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 3 of 23 (114018)
06-09-2004 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mf
06-09-2004 9:09 PM


There was a recent article int The Skeptical Inquirer:

...Basilio and Irma admit that all of the stones they sold to Cabrera they had carved themselves.

Oops! I forgot to finish!

quote:
Although many would claim these stones to be a hoax, what else can they do when their evolutionary beliefs are questioned?

So it sounds as if your mind is already made up? You are so desperate for evidence for...whatever it is you want evidence for, that you will grab hold of anything and clutch it tightly, no matter what anyone else says?

This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 06-09-2004 09:10 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mf, posted 06-09-2004 9:09 PM mf has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 23 (114049)
06-10-2004 12:44 AM


What's this horseshit that always comes up about us evolutionists doing anything to prop up the theory?

There's a Nobel Prize for the first guy to disprove it and come up with something better. With that kind of incentive, we're clamoring for evidence that would disprove evolution, and we're clamoring too for the theory that will surplant evolution.

So, hit us with it. But fake rocks aren't going to be it, you know?


  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 327 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 5 of 23 (114050)
06-10-2004 12:46 AM


i think the fact that there are SO MANY of them is suspect. it's more evidential to them being hoaxes than genuine artifacts.

see, they hired the natives for digging and whatnot, and paid them for every such artifact found. they admitted to copying the anatomy from books and magazines and whatnot, and sold many to tourists as a gimmick.

also, the t-rex or whatever in the stone you posted is anatomically inaccurate. they were not tripodal animals, they walked on two legs using their tail in a level fashion to balance. all two-legged dinos did this. it's most certainly not actually a tyrannosaur, because it's too small and it's arms are too long.

the other stone is depicting a triceratops, which was a north american dinosaur.

in other words, they people who made these stone had never seen the animals.


Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by roxrkool, posted 06-10-2004 1:28 AM arachnophilia has responded
 Message 10 by mf, posted 06-11-2004 12:54 AM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 491 days)
Posts: 1493
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 6 of 23 (114063)
06-10-2004 1:28 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by arachnophilia
06-10-2004 12:46 AM


Good points, Arach. I'd be really interested to hear what an expert in pre-historic art has to say about the artistry exhibited in these stones.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by arachnophilia, posted 06-10-2004 12:46 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by arachnophilia, posted 06-10-2004 4:14 AM roxrkool has responded

    
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 327 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 7 of 23 (114097)
06-10-2004 4:14 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by roxrkool
06-10-2004 1:28 AM


unfortunately, i am no expert in ancient art.

but they just don't look legit to me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by roxrkool, posted 06-10-2004 1:28 AM roxrkool has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by roxrkool, posted 06-11-2004 12:27 AM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 491 days)
Posts: 1493
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 8 of 23 (114315)
06-11-2004 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by arachnophilia
06-10-2004 4:14 AM


I don't necessarily have a problem with the human figures )from what I can see), but the dinos do look a bit suspicious. Almost too... I don't know... real??? They don't seem to match the same style as the humans.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by arachnophilia, posted 06-10-2004 4:14 AM arachnophilia has not yet responded

    
mf
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 23 (114321)
06-11-2004 12:43 AM


HAH!
You think that Bassilo and Irma carved all 11,000 stones themselves!? BASSILO WAS PAYED TO TALK ON CAMERA! Besides, I'm sure he very well knows that if he admitted to grave robbing... HE COULD GO TO JAIL. And another thing. The stones were definitely discovered before 1992, so how DO you explain the dermal spines??? Tell me... I'm curious to know what you think. It's very interesting that the Skepdic Dictionary doesn't have much on the subject except rambling to take up space. No comments on the dermal spines. It takes Bassilo a day to carve one stone. One of my links has a video... watch it.
Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by arachnophilia, posted 06-11-2004 2:39 AM mf has not yet responded

  
mf
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 23 (114326)
06-11-2004 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by arachnophilia
06-10-2004 12:46 AM


quote:
the other stone is depicting a triceratops, which was a north american dinosaur.

Thankyou! Only good point I see.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by arachnophilia, posted 06-10-2004 12:46 AM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 327 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 11 of 23 (114345)
06-11-2004 2:39 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by mf
06-11-2004 12:43 AM


Re: HAH!
You think that Bassilo and Irma carved all 11,000 stones themselves!?

never said they did.

apparently, lots of townsfolk were in on it. it was quite the booming industry for some time.

The stones were definitely discovered before 1992, so how DO you explain the dermal spines???

you mean on the sauropod? are you seriously contending that it looks like these guys?

image removed to fix the page width porblems

that's amargasaurus. they're from la amarga, ARGENTINA. that's a bit aways from peru, but granted not much. however, as clearly demonstrated, it looks nothing like one. aside from that, the dermal spines the study was on may have been "as high as 18cm!"

in other words, TINY compared to even the smallish 12m amargasausus.

what those look like are stegosaurus plates. no saurapod has ever been found with anything similar. amargusaurus is the closest we've got.

Thankyou! Only good point I see.

how about the fact that two-legged dinosaurs walked on two legs, not hopped on their tails like kangaroos?

This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 06-12-2004 03:23 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by mf, posted 06-11-2004 12:43 AM mf has not yet responded

  
mf
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 23 (114529)
06-11-2004 5:57 PM


That is... If you think that not all of the dinosaurs in all of the countries have been found.

This message has been edited by mf, 06-11-2004 04:57 PM

This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 06-11-2004 09:29 PM


Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by arachnophilia, posted 06-12-2004 4:26 AM mf has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 327 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 13 of 23 (114638)
06-12-2004 4:26 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by mf
06-11-2004 5:57 PM


[qs]that is... If you think that not all of the dinosaurs in all of the countries have been found.[qs]

those still don't look like plates to me.

(also, admins, i don't know what happened to the page width, but it's not me, it's mf now)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by mf, posted 06-11-2004 5:57 PM mf has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 23 (114643)
06-12-2004 6:10 AM


In regards to the "no spines before 1993" claim, I found a few pre-1993 dinosaur illustrations that depict dorsal spines in dinosaurs that weren't/aren't believed to have them. For instance, like the picture, here's a triceratops with spines, on a stamp from the Republic of Guinea:

As you can see it has similar dorsal protrusions to the Ica stone picture.

Here's an iguanodon (I guess) with spines, from the same source:

So it's not inconcievable that the Ica stone hoaxers would have seen dino illustrations that had spines that paleontologists at the time didn't believe actually existed.


Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by arachnophilia, posted 06-12-2004 6:36 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 327 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 15 of 23 (114644)
06-12-2004 6:36 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by crashfrog
06-12-2004 6:10 AM


please also note that these are not PLATES. we have not found any sauropods with PLATES.

and seeing iguanodon depicted that was brings back fond memories of childhood. although i think they're much nicer looking on four legs, in a way that doesn't break their tails.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by crashfrog, posted 06-12-2004 6:10 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
1
2Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017