Stones of the Ica have been debunked as forgeries on other threads here. The first picture shows nothing that relates to a dinosaur so much as an ill drawn animal, which (given the location) could just as easily be a sea lion or the like.
Any images of dinosaurs that are carved or drawn can also be reconstructions from bones that are in plentiful supply in many areas, especially ones that would not show any unpredictable features. For such a pictograph to be compelling for me it would have to show a feature that was then found to exist but which doesn't show on the skeleton.
There are others that could as easily be a giant sloth as a dinosaur, and much more likely.
Another interesting perspective can be found in a book by Adrienne Mayor called
The First Fossil Hunters and which concerns fossils as the source of several greek myths (griffins, cyclops, etc), and I have seen a portion of the cover from her book as "evidence" on one of these '
creatortionista' websites.
http://www.amazon.com/...il/-/0691058636/103-8500812-6605468
There were some discussions on these things a while ago. Perhaps they could be consolidated into a column debunking each one (
te dium) -- do a search on Redwolf's posts (Ted Holden).
When it comes to validating artifacts, context is everything. Bare objects are worthless, unless there is a substantial part of the artifact that can be dated (and not a part that could have been added for that purpose).
The biggest problem is {scientific skepticism} versus {wanting to believe myths}
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.