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
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.