Pharyngula

Posted by: riverrunner | August 19, 2010 12:55 PM

Posted by: Ewan R | August 19, 2010 1:02 PM

Even if the dinosaurs were proven to be a hoax propagated by the Mason's this would make absolutely no bloody difference as to the feasibility of the Ark - the Dinosaurs weren't invited, their contribution to Ark filling was zero (although rumor has it that a T-Rex is responsible for the non-inclusion of the Unicorns - so they maybe played a minor role)

I mean shit, if you're going to use science to poorly attempt to reconcile your lunatic interpretation of history at least use science that is actually relevant to the story at hand.

Posted by: Sajanas | August 19, 2010 1:12 PM

You know what, even if there were one less dinosaur, the mass of beetles alone would crush Noah and anything else in there.
I mean, really people... I realized this stuff when I was 7 or 8, when I still thought Santa could be real if he used close to lightspeed travel.

Posted by: Matthew G | August 19, 2010 1:16 PM

Internal consistency fail by the creation-nuts

Last I heard, the 'deluge' was responible for the DEMISE of the Dinos (hence the fossilisation under the deluge of mud). Now we're supposed to believe that the Dino's were on the ark only to be later exterminated at the hand of Noahs inbred family.

Posted by: jeffery.g.davis | August 19, 2010 1:17 PM

I love when they rail about scientists being wrong. You know how we know when a scientist makes a mistake? Other scientists using the scientific method tell us.

And is anyone else thinking that the idea of getting just 2 dinosaurs onto a wooden boat instead of 4 is like taking 2 bullets to the head instead of 4, we've just changed the degree of dead that the idea is, but it's still dead.

Posted by: Justin Rosario | August 19, 2010 1:19 PM

Well, let's see. If the Ark only had the EGGS of every type of beetle and various insects, birds, dinosaurs and salt water fish (because that much rain would have killed all the sea going creatures, I think, before magically evaporating into nonexistence) THEN you could fit two of every animal, right? RIGHT?! DAMMIT, I'M NOT CRAZY!! IT ALL MAKES SENSE!

Posted by: Ring Tailed Lemurian | August 19, 2010 1:26 PM

you also used my mother's favorite insult, "philistine."

Sheesh. Another whollybabble-brainwashed supporter of ethnic stereotyping. I blame PZ.

;)

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 19, 2010 1:28 PM

What the creationists don't seem to realise is that it is going to take a heck of lot more than a little tinkering with the taxa to make their poorly written fantasy novel of a 'holy' text anything like credible.

How, exactly, do they account for the idea that thousands of species of animal, many of whom would seek to predate the other species on board, especially after being at sea for a while, would even fit at all on a single ship constructed with the materials and technologies of prehistory? Especially without killing one another?

How would such a vessel weather a global cataclysm sufficient to drown almost all of the world's landmass? The seas would likely not be calm, yet allegedly the ship did not founder for an entire year in an era before the creation of the requiste technologies for long-term ocean going craft?

How would the 'two-by-two' bit not result in an non-viable gene pool? If 'goddidit' by tardis-tech spacial manipulation and injections of super-genes, then why go about it in such a ludicrously intricate manner at all? Why didn't the sky fairy just pick the ones it wanted to live and zap all the others out of existence? What with being omnipotent and all?

Surely a flood of this magnitude would require the complete melting of both polar ice caps (at least), so why is their no geological evidence of either the flood or of a polar melt? If not a polar melt, then where did all the extra water come from? And why is there no evidence of the flood ever taking place?

The Ark story is every bit as ridiculous as the Garden of Eden stuff, and yet the fundies still demand that this gibberish be treated with the utmost respect. Somehow, they honestly don't realsie how crazy it makes them sound.

Posted by: Abdul Alhazred | August 19, 2010 1:31 PM

@ te24hours

Good point, and in fact many Orthodox Jews take it almost like that. At any rate they don't claim miracles can be proven with science.

But then those guys aren't trying to get their religion taught in public schools.

Posted by: Zeta_Metroid | August 19, 2010 1:34 PM

@ Montanto

Didn't you see post 16?

Posted by: Techskeptic | August 19, 2010 1:36 PM

first those damn scientists take my planet away

now they take my dinosaur away

Whats next? My wavelengths?

Posted by: Hank Fox | August 19, 2010 1:37 PM

The author of that piece: Dr. David Catchpoole.

"David was once an ardent atheistic evolutionist, before being challenged to look critically at the problems of evolution, and the scientific evidence for creation and the Bible. He now works full-time for Creation Ministries International (CMI) in Brisbane, Australia ..."

Posted by: daveau | August 19, 2010 1:39 PM

Mock all you want, people. But clearly it happened; it's in the bible.

You and your science.
What about it?
Nothing. It's cute, that's all.

Posted by: Quantumburrito | August 19, 2010 1:40 PM

I loved this:

"Creationist artist depictions of Noah watching his dinosaur passengers boarding the Ark should no longer be drawn to show T. rex, but something more like its juvenile form, Nanotyrannus"

Creationists are sticklers for accuracy, aren't they...except when it comes to the truth.

Posted by: Zeta_Metroid | August 19, 2010 1:45 PM

@ Hypatia's Daughter

The stones are certainly authentic. They have a layer of patina on them that takes at least three hundred years to form, and the Spanish preist and missionary Father Simon reported them in 1535. Samples were sent to Spain in 1562, so he wasn't just making these things up.
Furthermore, the stones' depictions of the dinosaurs are very accurate. If you look in the second picture above and also at this: http://tinyurl.com/yko3uny, you'll notice circular patterns on the dinosaur's skin...just like recent research has shown. (See Cerkas' paper here: http://tinyurl.com/dinoskin).

Posted by: Draken | August 19, 2010 1:47 PM

Every time creationists gloat over another perceived failure of science, I'd like to give my heartfelt congratulations to the creation scientist that exposeded the hoax or error.

Except that they never seem to do. It's always those mean old-fashioned real scientists who discover and rectify their own or their peers' errors.

Posted by: Glen Davidson | August 19, 2010 1:50 PM

Yay, that leaves only around 300 million species (99% went extinct) that need to go onto the ark.

And still, not a speck of evidence for the flood.

Glen Davidson

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | August 19, 2010 1:52 PM

If you accept the argument that two of every kind* repopulated the earth 4,000 years ago, you have a big problem, other than fitting all those shits on a boat for a year. The amount of genetic variation within species is too great to be explained by 4,000 years of evolution. When confronted with the ark, I just tell people that they believe in a whole helluva lot more evolution than I do.

*Like seven of some, I think.

Posted by: necronomikron | August 19, 2010 1:55 PM

@Zeta: Some of the stones are possibly from pre-columbian civilizations. Most of them are forgeries.

The idea that they depict actual dinosaurs and not the fanciful imaginations of the people creating them (At least for those that are genuine), is a little silly.

Posted by: necronomikron | August 19, 2010 1:59 PM

In the past, a small number of engraved stones were uncovered in the context of archaeological excavations,[3] and some engraved stones may have been brought from Peru to Spain in the 16th century,[1] but the authentically old stones contained none of the controversial pictures of dinosaurs or human figures.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ica_stones

Posted by: sqlrob | August 19, 2010 2:02 PM

@Zeta_Metroid:

You mean the confirmed hoaxes that had the guy demonstrate how they were done? Those stones? The one with chicken guano patinas?

Posted by: Zeta_Metroid | August 19, 2010 2:05 PM

@ co #36:

I’m aware that exist. That’s the case with any sort of ancient artifacts. All it means is that you have to be careful and scientific when dealing with them.

But, the forgeries themselves have patina? Where’d you hear that?

@ necronomikron #37

If these aren't dinosaurs, I don't know what are: http://tinyurl.com/yko3uny, http://tinyurl.com/6njzej , http://tinyurl.com/5en8xh, http://tinyurl.com/ylqbvft

Posted by: necronomikron | August 19, 2010 2:07 PM

@43: What part of 'they're all forgeries, except for a very small handful' is so hard to understand?

Posted by: sacredchao2305 | August 19, 2010 2:08 PM

@Zeta
If you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you.
http://www.skepdic.com/icastones.html

Posted by: raven | August 19, 2010 2:10 PM

Ica Stones wikipedia:

Exposure as a hoax
Cabrera stated Basilio Uschuya, a local farmer, brought the stones to his attention after finding them in a cave (Uschuya was later arrested for selling tourists the stones, and told the police he made them himself).[1] In 1973 Uschuya confirmed that he had forged the stones during an interview with Erich von Däniken, copying the images from comic books, text books and magazines,[4] but later recanted that claim during an interview with a German journalist, saying that he had claimed they were a hoax to avoid imprisonment for selling archaeological artifacts. In 1977, during the BBC documentary Pathway to the Gods, Uschuya produced a "genuine" Ica stone with a dentist's drill and claimed to have produced the patina by baking the stone in cow dung. The Ica stones achieved popular interest when Cabrera abandoned his medical career and opened a museum to feature several thousand of the stones in 1996.[1] That same year, another BBC documentary was released with a skeptical analysis of the stones, and the newfound attention to the phenomenon prompted Peruvian authorities to arrest Uschuya, as Peruvian law prohibits the sales of archaeological discoveries. Uschuya recanted his claim that he had found them and instead admitted 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.[2] The stones continued to be made and carved by other artists as forgeries of the original forgeries.[1]

In 1998, Spanish investigator Vicente Paris declared after four years of investigation using microphotographs that the stones were a hoax, citing traces of modern paints and abrasives in the engravings. Also, as most of the stones were found in rivers or other outdoor places, and not in ancient tombs, the crispness of the shallow engravings should be substantially eroded if the stones were of great age. Paris concluded that though it is impossible to say all the stones are frauds, all investigations have failed to demonstrate they are anything but modern.[3]

Posted by: sacredchao2305 | August 19, 2010 2:11 PM

@ Zeta
On that note though, I have a fascination with forgeries and bootleg stuff (I bought an Armani shirt in Thailand just because I think stuff like that is really neat) and those are really cool, even if they are fake.

Posted by: Montanto | August 19, 2010 2:11 PM

Whenever these latest attempts at spin come up it never cease to annoy me. As an amateur folklorist and professional illustrator I'm actually very fond of the Flood Story (all the animals in the world in a huge boat, what's not to like?) And I frequently think a picture book about all of the wacky hijinks that could happen in those forty days would be a very fun project.

However, since we're dealing with people who automatically cite fantasy to prove their points, I wouldn't want to give the idiots an inch.

It's not just that they're they're trying to push this stuff as fact, its that in the process they're ruining a perfectly good fairy tale.

Posted by: raven | August 19, 2010 2:17 PM

zeta metroid lying creationist:

Many that depict dinosaurs are not fake.

That is another in a series of lies from you. You are wasting your time here and making xians, once again look like lying idiots. Lies don't work on normal people.

Why does the xian god need lying idiots for followers anyway? The only answer is because it is an imaginary being made up by the same liars in the first place. Gods die when people stop believing in them.

Posted by: steve | August 19, 2010 2:17 PM

Gloating over an occasional error would be much more impressive if they also ever acknowledged the many times scientists have been right, and the creationists wrong.

What would be even more impressive would be if creationists made testable, falsifiable predictions in reputable peer-reviewed journals.

Posted by: steve | August 19, 2010 2:23 PM

And, if humans never interacted with living dinosaurs, how would you explain things like the Ica stones?

You're the one making the claim, you explain it.

Posted by: raven | August 19, 2010 2:28 PM

It seems a bit harsh too call Zeta a liar, but he/she is certainly trying to circulate a long-known fraud.

Well you are wrong.

I'm sure next Zeta will cite the recent discovery (again) of Noah's ark in Turkey, the Turin shroud, pieces of the True Cross, and the Holy Grail.

Making fraudulent proofs and artifacts has been a xian industry for 2,000 years. It started at the very beginning. There is no real proof that jesus even existed.

When people give up science, they give up any hope of understanding the real world. The difference between truth and lie becomes unimportant.

Posted by: Abdul Alhazred | August 19, 2010 2:29 PM

Wait a minute.

Where is their evidence for dinosaurs after the flood.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 19, 2010 2:30 PM

Also, even if its true that most are fakes (which is certainly possible), how is that relevant?

Lying and faking even one brings the totality of the alleged evidence into question. It changes the burden of proof so that you must now demonstrate they are correct beyond a shadow of a doubt, rather than being given the benefit of a doubt. Show us your conclusive evidence, or shut the fuck up. Welcome to real science, where untrustworthy evidence is ignored, as it should be.

Posted by: feralboy12 | August 19, 2010 2:32 PM

Simple explanation, really.
If God can grant Jesus the power to walk on water, why not impart that ability to the largest animals? The ark didn't need to hold them all--the animals that didn't fit merely walked alongside the ark.
What's the HTML tag for "I'm making this up?"

Posted by: percyprune | August 19, 2010 2:36 PM

@ Raven. You're right about the Christian fraud industry. There must be enough pieces of the true cross around to build a sizeable ark.

However, it doesn't follow that Zeta is automatically a liar when he or she may be simply a channel for a lie. I think it's an important distinction if we are to save Christians from their blind faith and irrationality. Not all are originators of lies, though they certainly hold the lies of others in their hearts and accept them as truths.

I prefer to think of folks like Zeta simply, and more accurately, as 'truthless'.

Posted by: Don1 | August 19, 2010 2:41 PM

Just finished reading chapter 7 of 'The Greatest Show On Earth', which gave me a much clearer understanding of how taxonomy works. Obviously, I knew that the label is not the thing, but Dawkins is just so clear and concise that perspective slips into place.

Posted by: Iris | August 19, 2010 2:46 PM

I think it's an important distinction if we are to save Christians from their blind faith and irrationality.

Hahahahaha.

Oh, you're serious? Then who is "we," Kimosabe?

Posted by: Iris | August 19, 2010 2:51 PM

What's the HTML tag for "I'm making this up?"

Put your text in Comic Sans.

Posted by: Zeta_Metroid | August 19, 2010 2:55 PM

(Also guys, I’ll try and get everyone in the order they post…if I miss you, let me know…assuming you think the discussion is worth it, of course).

@ raven # 40

“Known fraud.”

You…you’re right. The fact you can post a quote from the net that baldly asserts that I’m wrong…I just can’t deny it anymore. Your wisdom has shown me the true light!

@ squlrob #41

“You mean the confirmed hoaxes that had the guy demonstrate how they were done?”

Like I said, I’m sure plenty of people make fakes. But there are also plenty of fake ancient manuscripts, for example. That doesn’t mean all ancient works are fakes, it just means you need to look closely.

“The one with chicken guano patinas?”

Actually, the patina takes several hundred years to form. And don’t forget about the Spanish references to the stones I mentioned.

@ sacredchao2305

What kind of bridge are we talking about here? I’m not going over $250 for anything with wood.

Also, don’t just post links and have them do the talking for you. Its annoying. You can aruge points yourself, use links and such to cite your information.

Posted by: Ring Tailed Lemurian | August 19, 2010 2:59 PM

okay, Ring Tailed Lemurian @13, I'll bite. What's the stereotype which led to the insult and why is it inaccurate? I'll amend my speech if you can show me the evidence. :)

It's pretty simple. The Philistines were (much of the time) the enemies of the Israelites (Goliath etc). The use of their name as a synonym for anti-intellectual, culture-hating yobs comes from Biblical propaganda.

It's just like calling misers "scots", or tightwads "jews", except that, of course, (unless you think, and some do, that they equate to the Palestinians) the Philistines are not a currently existing ethnic group and therefore no one is harmed by such "hate speech".

I wasn't being serious, and I'm not really demanding people stop using the term (which is why I included the winking emoticon), but people should be aware that when they use "philistine" as an insult they are just parrotting Jewish and Xtian religious propaganda.

We all have our lttle idiosyncratic hobby horses, and this is one of mine. :)
Interesting people, the Philistines. Google them, or maybe one of those damn know-it-alls here (yes DM, I'm looking at you) will expand on what I've said here (or, more likely, correct me). :)

Posted by: sqlrob | August 19, 2010 3:03 PM

@Zeta_Metroid:

What part of #39 did you not understand?

but the authentically old stones contained none of the controversial pictures of dinosaurs or human figures.

Posted by: Big Ugly Jim | August 19, 2010 3:12 PM

I bet all Adam did was bring along a single celled organism and some sunlight. That we, he could just get God to re-evolution everything back the way it was! There, all the "the boat wouldn't be big enough" arguments suddenly are as dead in the water as every living thing on earth at the time, except Noah, his family, and one perfect single-celled organism.

It was nice of God to put everything back the way it was, though.

Posted by: Don1 | August 19, 2010 3:16 PM

@Ring Tailed Lemurian#79

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-nh7xOjkSs

Posted by: Thomas R. Holtz, Jr. | August 19, 2010 3:29 PM

Z.M.: Take a look at this (the "Brontosaurus" of the Yale Zallinger mural (completed 1947, widely distributed via Life magazine in 1952). Not terribly different from the cartoons of Ica.

Posted by: Iris | August 19, 2010 3:37 PM

@percyprune:

Me and my monkey.

Perhaps you could demonstrate your (and your monkey's) ability to save Zeta_Metroid from "blind faith and irrationality." Even if you succeeded, I would find it hard to believe your time and effort wouldn't have been better spent elsewhere.

I'm with raven: it's the rest of humanity that needs to be saved from Christians' blind faith and irrationality. If there were actually any "divine" justice in the universe, every last one of them would end up nominated for a Darwin Award.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | August 19, 2010 3:45 PM

Then who is "we," Kimosabe?

Me and my monkey.

and his toad

Posted by: Big Ugly Jim | August 19, 2010 3:52 PM

Dinosaurs and humans DID interact!

http://i-love-cartoons.com/snags/clipart/Hanna-Barbera/Flintstones/Fred-Dino-Sports.jpg

Seriously, I seen it on TV!

Posted by: Andrew Hall | August 19, 2010 4:07 PM

I was in the Holocaust Museum in DC about a year ago. I was walking through the gift shop when I looked up and there was a ceramic replica (meant for kids I imagine) of Noah's Ark.

Yikes.

I decided I wasn't going to start a fight over the appropriateness of a symbol of genocide being there.

http://laughinginpurgatory.blogspot.com/

Posted by: Birger Johansson | August 19, 2010 4:31 PM

Guys, I have said this several times before but...(sigh).
The hebrew in the part of the old testament adressing the flood myth is a younger version of hebrew, approx. date the era of the Babylonian exile. What region in the world had a flood myth that goes back to early cuneiform tablets? Mesopotamia.
Do religions borrow good stories and ideas from another? The Egyptian Osiris myth contained resurrection, and a bloke who as a child lying in a reed basket was carried away by a river.
The Catholics borrowed the rosary, and the concept of monasteries from Buddhists (we know Ashoka sent missionaries to Alexandria).
The vikings borrowed the concept of resurrection for the later version of their belief, featuring Balder as messiah.
The flood is just another of endless stories borrowed across religious boundaries.

The physical impossibility of a flood big enough to engulf the world, with water coming from nowhere (if the atmosphere was water only, it would still only provide water for a column less than 10 m thick) and disappearing to nowhere is so bloody obvious that flood belief is as dysfunctional as the Heavens Gate cult belief.

Posted by: waynerobinson4 | August 19, 2010 5:05 PM

CMI are also film and book critics:

http://creation.com/carl-sagan-and-contact

For all the faults of the film "Contact" (and I think film versions of books always fail in some way owing to the difficulty of condensing a book into a 1 or 2 hour film), the reviewer argues that the book and film are bad because they contradict Genesis and Revelation.

If Noah was able to lighten the load on the Ark by only taking just one representative of each "kind", why did he take both a dove and a raven. Surely that's two of the "bird kind". With the baby Tyranosaurus rex, that makes 3 of the bird kind.

The extinction of the dinosaurs isn't really a problem for the creationists. All they need to do is to rewrite Genesis 8-20 and say that Noah sacrificed as a burnt-offering only the baby dinosaurs. That makes as much sense as their other arguments.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawk8nuEGr2AboPw3B5JlVHLruh87cSf2gi4 | August 19, 2010 5:26 PM

Ring Tailed Lemurian @79:

The closest I can find is tracing it to Germany:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Philistine

Beginning in the 17th century philistine was used as a common noun, usually in the plural, to refer to various groups considered the enemy, such as literary critics. In Germany in the same century it is said that in a memorial at Jena for a student killed in a town-gown quarrel, the minister preached a sermon from the text "Philister über dir Simson! [The Philistines be upon thee, Samson!]," the words of Delilah to Samson after she attempted to render him powerless before his Philistine enemies. From this usage it is said that German students came to use Philister, the German equivalent of Philistine, to denote nonstudents and hence uncultured or materialistic people. Both usages were picked up in English in the early 19th century.

(emphasis mine) However, the free dictionary doesn't provide its own source.

I will be seriously bummed to lose this insult. What do I replace it with? "Luddite" is specific to technology. "Cultural illiterate" is something which could be fixed with enough reading. "Uncultured"? "Primitive"? "Unlettered"? Is there some fabulous Latin phrase like "non compos mentis"?

--Lauren Ipsum

Posted by: James F | August 19, 2010 5:34 PM

Ah, creationist innumeracy. They cant grasp how many species (heck, even genera and families) there are on the planet, just as they can't grasp the age of the Earth and the universe, so of course collapsing TWO WHOLE DINOSAURS into one species seems significant to them.

I'm still amazed that such basic ignorance is so hard to counter - I'll give Ham and his cronies one thing, they're really talented at PR.

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | August 19, 2010 5:59 PM

I'd use Moabite.

*Stupid, entitled Moabites*

Posted by: steve | August 19, 2010 6:01 PM

The ancient Greeks for example have records of finding large and unusual bones in rocks, excavating them, and displaying them in various temples and tourist attractions - their cultural equivalent of museums.

And Ken Hams Creation "Museum" shows humans and dinosaurs co-existing, our cultural equivalent of a freak show.

Posted by: mothra | August 19, 2010 6:13 PM

"The ancient Greeks for example have records of finding large and unusual bones in rocks, excavating them, and displaying them in various temples and tourist attractions - their cultural equivalent of museums."

Yup, and they ascribed them to the cyclopes (cyclops) such as Polyphemus from the Odyssey. Nowadays (science) we know that the skulls were those of elephants. You know ELEPHANTS, members of the Order Proboscidea, part of the Afrotheria- which also includes Golden moles, elephant shrews, manitees and Hyraxes.

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 19, 2010 6:24 PM

...btw, I'm glad to have seen Holz appearing here after a long absence.

sorry to see nobody asked him any questions.

:(

I have a general one, if he's still about:

What are the rules paleontologists are currently favoring for deciding if something is an example of ontology instead of speciation?

Posted by: Amphiox, OM | August 19, 2010 6:31 PM

all it took was 30 seconds to google up the evidences of these as hoaxes.

even the person who "found" them admitted to many sources that he made them, and even explained how.

fuck me, but he's quoted right in the wiki.

how hard was that?

Just look at the alien crop circle crowd and you'll see the same phenomenon.

Childen just so hate to give up their favorite stories.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmqD_mcUIrSfOTlK3iGVsnEDcZmI43srbI | August 19, 2010 6:41 PM

With all due respect to those who declare that the Ica stones could only be either fraud or paleontology, I offer a third suggestion.

Fiction.

I have a fairly large collection of photographs of dragons, gryphons, and monsters of every stripe and description, dating from the pre-Columbian to the Renaissance. I travel extensively and these are something I avidly seek out.

Not one of them is real. Not one of them is based on an accurate depiction of something the creator SAW.

It's imagination. Pure and simple.

Just look at the horrors on the front of Notre Dame de Paris (meant to represent the demons of hell). Marvelous. Incredibly ugly. "Lifelike".

Fictional.

Posted by: Amphiox, OM | August 19, 2010 6:57 PM

With all due respect to those who declare that the Ica stones could only be either fraud or paleontology, I offer a third suggestion.

Fiction.

I suppose it's the similarity to some recognizable form that warrants the hypotheses of fraud or paleontology. Occam's razor suggests that an artist who had never seen a dinosaur or heard or one, or heard of a description of one, would not be likely to imagine up an image that similar to a dinosaur entirely on his own.

Not entirely implausible either, though, since those images actually do differ from real dinosaurs in many key features.

And hear I would like to point out that the majority of the Ica stone dinosaurs are not native to South America! Instead they all seem to be reminiscent of the more well known North American and Asian dino fauna.

Posted by: pdferguson | August 19, 2010 7:09 PM

mothra#104:

You make good points. If I was young again and looking for a topic for a doctoral dissertation, I think studying the phenomenon of people who embrace Ark belief and attempt to fit it into evolutionary theory would be a fascinating subject for sociology/psychology research.

As hard as I try, I am absolutely unable to grasp how someone like this Catchpoole nitwit thinks (I use the word "think" loosely). I find it fascinating because I simply cannot understand how someone with any sort of science education could convince themselves that the utter absurdity of Noah's Ark was real. The cognitive dissonance is deafening. It strikes me as maybe some sort of cognition pathology or perhaps group insanity at work. In any case, it would be a great research project.

Posted by: Samantha Vimes | August 19, 2010 9:11 PM

Those Ica stones... anyone know how we could contact a Peruvian artisan to make us some "PZ Myers riding a dinosaur" Ica stones?

Posted by: raven | August 19, 2010 9:39 PM

How Engraved Stones Are Crafted The process of etching words and designs onto such dense and strong objects is ... stone artisan's toolbox, sandblasting has become a more common technique for carving ... Personalized engraved stones and rocks can be carved to include ... www.rlrouse.com/engraved-stones.html - Cached - Similar

Engraving designs on stones seem to be a common artistic technique. Sandblasting is a common way to do it. Google has lots more on this.

Posted by: raven | August 19, 2010 9:57 PM

archaeology.org:

There have always been Moche, Chimu, and Nasca reproductions that were difficult to distinguish from the real thing, but in recent years I have seen many, many more. The traditional workshops in the Peruvian towns of Piura and Ica have been around for decades and the quality of their high-end products continues to rise.

Apparently making fake artifacts has long been a main industry in Ica.

Posted by: MadScientist | August 19, 2010 10:45 PM

Scientists wrong: many times; not reasonable to try to estimate.

Scientists right: numerous times; not reasonable to try to estimate but easily >95% of claims in reputable textbooks.

Creationists right: sometimes, on trivial matters not related to the origins of life or the universe; sometimes coincidentally right on moral claims.

Creationists wrong: 100% on anything to do with the origins of life or the universe.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 19, 2010 11:27 PM

Has no one ever been on a Carnival Lines cruise? Living proof of an ark full of dinosaurs.

zing

Posted by: lenoxuss | August 19, 2010 11:37 PM

Wait, I've just resolved the mystery: Each stage of Vita omnia's life is sexually reproductive with others at the same stage, and the organism is born at the same stage as its parent. So all that's going on is that lifespans of all creatures are much shorter, just like humans (the one other baramin God created) don't live for hundreds of years any more. If you were to artificially keep all the different animals alive, you would get something like The Island of Dr. Moreau.

Oh, and please forgive my "millions of years" nonsense. I meant "millions of days". Or something.

Posted by: Zeta_Metroid | August 20, 2010 1:10 AM

@ raven No. 49

“Ica Stones wikipedia:”

Ah yes, Wikipedia. The most reliable, least prone to mob rule and urban legends source on the internet…

Anyway, looking at the bold text:

“Uschuya recanted his claim that he had found them and instead admitted they were hoaxes, saying ‘Making these stones is easier than farming the land.’”

Not that I’d have a problem if he faked many stones, but honestly that’s what you’d expect him to say, even if the stones were authentic. Its illegal to sell real ones.

“…citing traces of modern paints and abrasives in the engravings.”

Some of the fakes do have that, I’m sure. But the authentic ones don’t, see a lab report here: http://tinyurl.com/czo3g3 (its on page 13).

Be careful about what you hear on sources like Wikipedia about these. There are a lot of rumors floating around that barely have any basis in fact, it wouldn’t be unfair to call them urban legends (except they’re not very widely spread).

@ necronomikron No. 50

“Have them dated properly, then.”

Artifacts like these are difficult to date conclusively. They’re at least 200 years old because of the patina, and at least 500 by the Spanish references, though.

“…what about the theories that some of them depict extraterrestrials and pre-Columbian societies performing brain surgery, space ships, etc.?”

Unlike the dinosaur depictions which, no matter your opinion on the stones’ antiquity, you can’t reasonably dispute those are dinosaurs, the ones that supposedly depict things like brain sugery are unclear…at best. Personally, I think its probably more likely those are showing some sort of sacrifice involving organ removal, which other cultures in the area would later practice.
I haven’t seen the stones some say show spaceships, though. Sounds interesting, do you have any images? (My guess is they just show some round thing in the sky, which is probably a comet or the sun or some other known body).

@ sacredchao2305 No. 51

Yeah, even if you guys point out something I wasn’t aware of and it turns out they are fakes…hey, at least they’re pretty.

Posted by: Zeta_Metroid | August 20, 2010 1:31 AM

@ percyprune #58

“I shall be generous and assume this is an unwitting error on his/her part, and that Zeta has simply been duped.”

I’m honestly not trying to be deceptive or troll, from where I am, the case for the Ica stones seems rock solid.

“But now Zeta is informed he/she should drop this line immediately or risk being called a fabulist.”

I’ll need the informing to go a bit deeper than the surface scratches we’ve made into the issue so far.

@ steve #59

“You're the one making the claim, you explain it.”

Easy: they interacted with dinosaurs.

@ raven #61

“I'm sure next Zeta will cite the recent discovery (again) of Noah's ark in Turkey, the Turin shroud, pieces of the True Cross, and the Holy Grail.”

Obviously. Those things are essential to my plans. I know you won’t buy them, but those abnormal people will.
And there is NOTHING you can do to stop it!

@ Abdul Alhazred #63

See post #16

Posted by: percyprune | August 20, 2010 2:28 AM

“Zeta_metroid, why is your faith so shaky that you are easily gulled by frauds like the Ica Stones?”

My apologies, it was manufactured by Jews so they went cheap on the shock absorbers.

Hardy har har. Unfunny AND an off-colour anti-semitic stereotype. You really do know how to impress people. NOT.

But seriously, why is your faith so weak that you need it to be bolstered by scams like the Ica Stones?

I’m honestly not trying to be deceptive or troll, from where I am, the case for the Ica stones seems rock solid.

Then you are a dupe. Try these sources:

Carroll, Robert (2004). "Pranks, Frauds, and Hoaxes from Around the World." Skeptical Inquirer. volume 28, No. 4. July/August, pp. 41-46.

Fagan, Garrett G. 2006. Archaeological Fantasies: How Pseudoarchaeology Misrepresents the Past and Misleads the Public. Routledge.

Feder, Kenneth L. Frauds, Mysteries and Myths, 4th ed. (Mountain View, California: Mayfield Publishing Co., 2001).

Polidoro, Massimo. "Ica Stones: Yabba-Dabba Do!," Skeptical Inquirer, vol. 26, no. 5, Sept/Oct 2002.

Stein, Gordon. Encyclopedia of Hoaxes (Prometheus, 1993).

I’ll need the informing to go a bit deeper than the surface scratches we’ve made into the issue so far.

You mean a confession from a forger is insufficient to put some doubt in your mind?

I’ve shown evidence, what’re your thoughts on it?

Well, so far we have managed to amass:

* A confession from the forger.
* A convincing explanation for the creation of the patinas on the rock.
* Laboratory evidence of recent manufacture.
* A complete lack of evidence for a location where these stones can be found.

That kind of adds up to 'F for FAKE'. But still you seem to cling to the ridiculous notion that they are true.

Posted by: Harry Varty | August 20, 2010 2:37 AM

@Zeta

If humans lived alongside dinosaurs shouldn't their fossilised remains have been found in the same sedimentary layers?

Posted by: devnull73.myopenid.com | August 20, 2010 3:03 AM

te24hours@14:

I guess the reason they do it is because the intellect can only be fooled for so long - Id be interested in what a psychologist might have to say on the subject.

Posted by: clausentum | August 20, 2010 3:21 AM

First thoughts on seeing PZ's post and the creation.com article:

it's not the scientists who should be grumbling, it's the satirists.

2nd thoughts perusing the thread:

Zeta is all the evidence needed to justify the refusal of PZ, Dawkins etc. to debate with creationists.

Posted by: davem | August 20, 2010 3:54 AM

Except to creationists, who are overjoyed that combining two species into one means that "the Ark cargo was even lighter than previously thought".

PZ, you need to pay more attention to your Holey Babble. Dinosaurs are not 'unclean' animals. Thus Noah gets to load seven of each of them on the Ark, not two.

re Ica brain surgery, it's well known that in that trepanning was practised in that part of the world, - that's the 'brain surgery' that you might be seeing on the stones. Oh, and some of those stones depict stylised armadillos, not dinosaurs. Next you'll be telling us that Goldilocks really had long conversation with the three bears; after all, it's written down in an old book...

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 20, 2010 5:12 AM

Anything beyond that is a waste of time and resources.

In this case, yes, it is.

In fact, I don't even need to research YOU to have figured out you're either lying, or nuts.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 20, 2010 7:14 AM

Do lab analyses count?

If they weren't published in the peer reviewed scientific literature to verify the correct methodology was used, no. You have nothing but blather, and you know it.

Actually, I disappeared when my employer demanded.

Doesn't matter, still no proper evidence since then. Still implying but not proving you are right. That makes you and your ideas losers.

If you are deliberately pulling our legs and having a little fun, a cardinal rule of comedy is to stop after three jokes on the same topic. The problem with Poe's is that they forget that rule.

Posted by: Zeta_Metroid | August 20, 2010 11:06 AM

@ percyprune #137

“Try these sources:”

What do they argue that hasn’t been said yet?

“You mean a confession from a forger is insufficient to put some doubt in your mind?”

No more than someone confessing to forging supposedly ancient samurai swords, or making fake ancient manuscripts with some tea and an oven. Obviously you need to be skeptical about untested ones, but the fact fakes exist isn’t enough to conclude the ones that have been tested must also be forgeries.

“* A confession from the forger.”

So now he’s “the” forger? Why the special role? He’s just another con artist making fake artifacts.

“* A convincing explanation for the creation of the patinas on the rock.”

Which was? Are you talking about the dung/guano? That wouldn’t do it. You need at least 200 years for that particular type of patina to form.
Not to mention, that wouldn’t explain the Spanish references.

“* A complete lack of evidence for a location where these stones can be found.”

Graves, usually. Though sometimes they can be found in random places. See the second paragraph here: http://tinyurl.com/2dpnsqh , and the first page here: http://www.dinosaursandman.com/research/Fortean_Times_Rebuttal.pdf

@ Harry Varty # 139

“If humans lived alongside dinosaurs shouldn't their fossilised remains have been found in the same sedimentary layers?”

Nope. According to the model I subscribe to, nearly all sedimentary layers and fossils were arranged by hydrologic sorting during the global flood. So, given the differences between human and dinosaur remains, you wouldn’t expect to see it.

@ clausentum # 143

“Zeta is all the evidence needed to justify the refusal of PZ, Dawkins etc. to debate with creationists.”

Correct, its entirely reasonable not to debate someone who’s strong enough to pound you like a wrecking ball.

@ davem # 145

” Oh, and some of those stones depict stylised armadillos, not dinosaurs.”

By “those stones”, do you mean ones we’ve discussed, or just some out of the whole collection of stones?
Either way, its not really surprising some have armadillos. Certainly less so than some have triceratops!

@ Ichthyic # 146

“he showed how he made them.

on film.

in a national BBC documentary.”

The lab.

It showed differences.

When you looked closely.

@ Nerd of Redhead, OM # 149
“If they weren't published in the peer reviewed scientific literature…”

So, if you can’t find the information where you like it, it must not be reliable?

“…to verify the correct methodology was used…”

Can you find any errors in the methods used? These were professional labs.

“Doesn't matter…”

Sure it does, you shouldn’t be so quick so jump to conclusions. You assumed that I left because I had no evidence, just like you assume the stones are frauds.
In both cases, your initial assumptions were incorrect.

“The problem with Poe's is that they forget that rule.”

Don’t be a bigot, you leave my people out of this, you fiend!

@ John Morales # 150

See post 140

Posted by: Alice Bluegown | August 20, 2010 11:25 AM

@ Zeta: so, apart from wasting bandwidth and besmirching the name of one of Britain's most beloved porn stars, was there actually a point to all that nonsense?

Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy | August 20, 2010 11:44 AM

These were professional labs. Staffed by top men.

Posted by: percyprune | August 20, 2010 12:12 PM

What do they argue that hasn’t been said yet?

They are responses to your cavils about the Google. They are sources that examine the evidence and confirm the fakery.

Obviously you need to be skeptical about untested ones, but the fact fakes exist isn’t enough to conclude the ones that have been tested must also be forgeries.

Well, firstly we know that stones have been faked because the confessions say so. Even you now admit there has been fakery.

Second, the test supposedly confirming the stones' authenticity relies on Cabrera's testimony. However, tests by Vicente Paris examined stones and found the carvings on them were modern. Paris also discovered how easy it was to fake the stones. Now, Vicente Paris hasn't examined all the stones, but the ones investigated are certainly fake.

Interestingly, when Paris asked Cabrera for samples from his special collection to be tested he refused to give them. Cabrera also refused to allow Paris to see the report from the University of Bonn on which his claims of authenticity are based. Cabrera's behaviour here is suspect, because it is not the response of a man who wishes to encourage free inquiry. When one of Cabrera's stones was eventually 'borrowed' by geologists from the University of Tucuman, they also came back with a finding that the stones were false.

These details you can find here:

http://www.antiguosastronautas.com/articulos/Paris01.html

Which was? Are you talking about the dung/guano? That wouldn’t do it.

Really? Why not? Make your case.

Graves, usually. Though sometimes they can be found in random places.

So basically, you got nothing. Cabrera says graves, and has also said caves, but hasn't singled out locations for independent enquiry. Cabrera looks increasingly like a secretive hoaxer-in-chief, who is making money off this scam, and his testimony (including that of the tests) does not look strong. If he had nothing to hide he would release his test report for scrutiny. As yet, so far as I understand, he hasn't.

I reckon you've been flim-flammed, sucker!

Posted by: Dania | August 20, 2010 12:33 PM

Humans and dinosaurs lived together

Humans and non-avian dinosaurs was what I meant, obviously.

Posted by: Dania | August 20, 2010 1:40 PM

there has yet to be a "hydrologic sorting" model which explains why there is not a single flatfish even close to the bottom of the geologic column.

Because when the Fountains Of The Great Deep^TM were opened, the water coming from below at an enormous speed hit all the flatfish and sent them straight to the top!

See? I can make stuff up to!

Posted by: mothra | August 20, 2010 2:22 PM

Zeta- You addressed none of my points and you do not understand the simplest tenants of logic. Go fish...

BTW- it should tell you something when everyone here has at first kindly, but latter with greater vehemence and later still with disgust shown you that you have a great deal to learn (or unlearn) about the world you inhabit. You might wish to read real books about the subjects you aspire to know something about. You are a fool by your words, an idiot by your actions, a moron by your arguments and unchristian by your demeanor.

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 20, 2010 5:07 PM

So, if you can’t find the information where you like it, it must not be reliable?

it's not a matter of like.

do you understand what peer review is?

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 20, 2010 5:39 PM

But you can’t fake the more subtle patina.

it was shown in the documentary, again by the very guy you keep citing as an authority, exactly HOW he faked the patina.

this also was pointed out to you before. that you consciously or unconsciously ignored such evidence is evidence you are either deliberately lying, or seriously mentally disturbed.

I'm leaning towards the latter. You might want to visit a professional for an evaluation.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 20, 2010 6:04 PM

Yawn, still no citations to the peer reviewed literature by the idjit troll/poe zeta. True loser. If real, can't put up the right information from legitimate sources outside of himself, or shut the fuck up, as would be expected of a man of integrity. If a Poe, ceased to be funny five or posts ago, using the comics rule of three...

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 20, 2010 6:09 PM

And honestly, given the stigma surrounding the Ica stones with dinosaurs on them, which journals do you think would be willing to publish such a thing?

scientists LOVE controversy.

you've never actually read a scientific journal, obviously.

Posted by: KG | August 20, 2010 6:34 PM

Judging by the other posts, I don’t think anything I do could possibly give most of the people here a lower view of creationist Christians.

- Zeta-Metroid

It would seem difficult, but you've managed it. Congratulations!

Posted by: mothra | August 20, 2010 7:20 PM

Zeta: My major point is that you are 1) inconsistent in your arguments, 2) the arguments themselves have more holes than Swiss cheese, 3) You do not understand the implications of your arguments and 4) you are completely oblivious to all of this yet believe that you actually know something. Your answer to an information packed post was a 'one-liner' displaying only ignorance.

As regards to the Ica sculptures. One poster explained to you why they are fakes based on evidence, i.e. what dinosaurs were represented and why this represents sampling bias. Another person pointed out to you that the 'finder' in fact later admitted to the fakery. When I first heard of these figurines, six years ago, I learned all of this- why are you unable to?

Here is a NEW POINT dealing with the Ica sculptures: There is an Iguanodon sculpture, labeled and accepted as such. The pose of the sculpture is that which was accepted in reconstructions of Iguanodon fossils from about 1890 until the late 1970's-i.e. 'big tail dragging lizards.' Modern reconstructions based on more evidence show that this animal did NOT drag its tail. In fact all the dinosaur Ica sculptures drag their tails and modern reconstructions show that this simply is not so. The fakes are products of their time, not a record of live beasts. Anyone who would have seen this creature in life would know they were not tail draggers- the sculptures are fake!! So simple, even an xian can (should be able to) understand.

Posted by: Zeta_Metroid | August 20, 2010 7:23 PM

@ raven # 168

“What Zeta sees.
.........O............”

Acutally, I’m eating Spaghetti-O’s right now so that’s not far off

@ Nerd of Redhead, OM # 169

“…still no citations to the peer reviewed literature…”

Are multiple, agreeing reports by experts not enough?

“…can't put up the right information from legitimate sources outside of himself…”

What’s wrong with the sources I’ve used?

@ Ichthyic # 171

“scientists LOVE controversy.”

But most do not love Creation.
Anyway, what’s your answer to the question?

@ KG # 172

“You've confirmed here that you are a complete idiot.”

Then my points about the Ica stones should be easy to refute. Care to try your hand at it?

@ Nerd of Redhead, OM # 174

“Only to a…loser like you.”

If you wanna think things a few people say are more reliable than your own eyes, that’s your choice. That would certainly explain why you’re an evolutionist…

Posted by: John Morales | August 20, 2010 7:37 PM

ZM, you don't perchance own an authentic bone from the finger of Our Lord?

:)

Posted by: Zeta_Metroid | August 20, 2010 8:46 PM

@ mothra # 175
“My major point is that you are 1) inconsistent in your arguments…”

How so?

“2) the arguments themselves have more holes than Swiss cheese…”

Like?

“3) You do not understand the implications of your arguments…”

What would those be?

“Your answer to an information packed post was a 'one-liner' displaying only ignorance.”

Which posts are you referring to?

“i.e. what dinosaurs were represented and why this represents sampling bias.”

See post 142

“Another person pointed out to you that the 'finder' in fact later admitted to the fakery.”

As I’ve been saying this whole time: I’m aware there are people who make fake Ica stones.

“There is an Iguanodon sculpture, labeled and accepted as such.”

Could we have an image of it? Just to make discussing it easier.

“In fact all the dinosaur Ica sculptures drag their tails and modern reconstructions show that this simply is not so.”

Actually, that’s not the case: http://tinyurl.com/extenz000ornot
See also page 1, paragraph 3 here: http://tinyurl.com/extenz255ornot

Though, I do admire it when people think up their own arguments, rather than just repeat whatever they found on the first wiki they clicked.

@ 178

They differ in that nobody can deny that the Ica stones show dinosaurs. Their authenticity can be questioned, but not their subject matter. His supposed creatures, on the other hand, just look like piles of rocks to most, it seems. He’d need to somehow show they actually were once bones.
Also, his claims, if true, would go against Creation, whereas my claims, if true, would go against evolution.

@ John Morales # 179

“ZM, you don't perchance own an authentic bone from the finger of Our Lord?”

What do you take me for, an idiot? Enough of this mockery!
Everyone knows there aren’t any fingerbones of Jesus’. That’s impossible, his body was resurrected
Duh!

Posted by: Zeta_Metroid | August 20, 2010 8:49 PM

@ Nerd of Redhead, OM # 182

What's unscientific about what I said?

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 20, 2010 9:07 PM

What's not?

that question wastes far less time, and does not falsely shift the burden of proof from zeta to us, like zeta has been attempting to do, badly, all this time.

zeta is a single-squeek chewtoy.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | August 20, 2010 9:26 PM

zeta is a single-squeek chewtoy.

Mais où sont les trolls d'antan!

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 20, 2010 9:33 PM

I haven't found any (in the sense you mean it) that's relevant. But what's wrong with what I have given?

Everything. It can be nothing but bullshit (and is) since there is no quality control. Which is what publishing and peer review provides , and why you totally and utterly fail.

How?

How not? Try publications, or shut the fuck up. That is what scientists, men and women of integrity, would do if they can't prove something. Just shut up about it. But then, you are a idjit creobot lying about your imaginary deity. If you lie about that, what else will you lie about? That is your problem. You must overcome you tendency to lie for your imaginary deity.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 20, 2010 9:49 PM

And, I'll ask the same question I asked Ichthyic: do you know of any journals that would be willing to publish evidence in favor of the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs? Or ones that, if they became aware of this data, would be willing to have a review of it?

If the evidence existed, probably quite a few as it would be revolutionary and would go against every single thing we know about paleontology, geology, anthropology and biology.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 20, 2010 9:57 PM

Not evidence, but others have been through this and your faith is blinding you.

That's ok, but it doesn't make it evidence.

Posted by: Zeta_Metroid | August 20, 2010 10:00 PM

@ Rev. BigDumbChimp # 193

"...others have been through this and your faith is blinding you."

What arguments of theirs' do you think support that conclusion?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 20, 2010 10:02 PM

Do you have any actual data that supports that?

Fuckwit, the burden of proof is upon you. Present your scientific (and science, not you will be the judge of that) evidence for your claim, or shut the fuck up. Welcome to science, where bullshit is shown the door with the old heave ho. *on one, two...*

Posted by: raven | August 20, 2010 10:09 PM

Noah's Ark Found Hoax: Ark in Mount Ararat Turkey doesn't exist ... Apr 29, 2010 ... Noah's Ark in Mount Ararat in Turkey is not true after all. ... are said to have planted large wood beams taken from an old structure in the Black ... www.worldcorrespondents.com/noahs-ark...ark...turkey.../884606 - Cached

If xianity was true, they wouldn't have to lie and create endless fake evidence for 2,000 years.

The religion also wouldn't need brainwashed, mentally crippled followers, some of whom are homicidal maniacs.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 20, 2010 10:12 PM

What arguments of theirs' do you think support that conclusion?

Let's see...

Every single argument against the ICA stones I've ever read coupled with the almost cultish supporters like yourself that occasionally pop up.

Are you planning on searching for leprechuan pots of gold next?

Posted by: makyui | August 20, 2010 10:16 PM

Zeta:

Assuming the “lots of journals would” bit is sarcastic, Raven’s got a point, guys: most people view Creation as being on the same level as geocentrism and a flat-earth cosmology.

You missed the "solid scientific evidence" part.

Do you know the sort of Nobel prizes would come from ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE of a flat earth, or a heliocentric universe?

Same with dinosaur/human coexistence.

So, to put it bluntly, your Hush Hush Scientists conspiracy theory kind of doesn't make sense.

Posted by: JeffreyD | August 20, 2010 10:17 PM

Zeta - I want to thank you for your posts. This is the best satire I have read in months. I also like the way you have taken in all the regulars here who thought you were serious. Your meandering posts had the perfect blend of stupidity, unwillingness to learn, credulity, nonsense, and mental disassociation from reality. Had I not realized you were kidding I would have fallen for your portrayal of yourself as a total idiot.

Well Done!

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 20, 2010 10:20 PM

Why not?

Because they are fake.

That and the people responsible for them are willfully keeping important information about the stones from anyone who would like to full scientifically investigate them.

Posted by: Zeta_Metroid | August 20, 2010 10:27 PM

@ Rev. BigDumbChimp # 201

“Every single argument against the ICA stones I've ever read…”

Have you been reading my responses to them?

“Are you planning on searching for leprechuan pots of gold next?”

I love a good leprechaun pot:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obnA2cKxhn0

@ makyui # 203

“Same with dinosaur/human coexistence.”

What do you find the evidence I’ve given lacks?

“…your Hush Hush Scientists conspiracy theory kind of doesn't make sense.”

Not so much Hush Hush as “we already know Creation is unscientific, so something supporting it has no place in a scientific journal”. Of course, it does happen on very rare occasions, but even then the creationistic conclusions have to be toned down a lot of the time.
But, to put something of my own blunty, this bores me. I can honestly say I don’t care who’s willing to publish what or why, the facts and artifacts themselves interest me way more.

Posted by: John Morales | August 20, 2010 10:32 PM

Well, the fingerbones¹ are apparently out (not credible enough!), but what about slivers of the True Cross?

--

¹ (They come in boxes of ten!) :)

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 20, 2010 10:33 PM

Have you been reading my responses to them?

Yes.

They fall right in line with the typical creationist canards we've all seen and seen demolished countless times.

This for example...

According to the model I subscribe to, nearly all sedimentary layers and fossils were arranged by hydrologic sorting during the global flood.

...goes against every single thing that we know about geology and world history among a host of other stores of well supported and confirmed scientific knowledge.

Every. Single. Thing

Meaning, it is completely delusional or full or shit or both.'

You sir are a Delugionist.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 20, 2010 10:42 PM

Have you been reading my responses to them?

From a known liar and bullshitter, who can't put up or shut the fuck up like a person of integrity? We don't care what you have to say, and you have no authority. You need a third party, preferably a well known scientist, for any authority, and he must publish first.

What do you find the evidence I’ve given lacks?

Scientific rigor and integrity. Proven fakes with a known liar and bullshitter (you) pushing them. Why can't you see that?

But, to put something of my own blunty, this bores me.

This bored us, from your first inane claims. We know they were false. Why don't you?

the facts and artifacts themselves interest me way more.

The facts are they are admitted and known fakes and forgeries. They may be aesthetically pleasing, but they are nothing other than pieces of bad art with recent provenance.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | August 20, 2010 10:55 PM

ZM, others have got your content covered, so let me take you style -

Learn to use blockquote tags. Jeezis your wall o'text is annoying. If you're going to spew idiocy, at least dress it up proper.

Posted by: Becca the Over Socialized | August 20, 2010 10:58 PM

If the Ica stones that show dinosaurs could be tested at an independent laboratory, and those laboratory results published (not a summary of the results, but a pdf of the original document), then I might be willing to grant them some credibility. but my understanding is that the owner of the stones is not willing to submit the stones to such a laboratory, nor is he willing to publish anything other than his own report of what he says the lab said. This, to me, spells fraud.

and even if one or more stones that showed dinosaurs were proven to be real, I'd look for another solution other than saying "ah-ha! This proves creation!" because there's so very much evidence against creationism. and even if there was proof of *a* creation, that doesn't necessarily mean it's proof of a Christian version of creation.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 20, 2010 11:06 PM

Which makes it very unlike the Ark hoax.

Can’t exactly say the same thing about that Ark. It’s the ultimate proof for the Bible, honestly, just like every major creationist organization said the second the news came out.

The Ark is a hoax since there is no evidence for a catastrophic one time world wide flood. There are evidence for periodic floods all over the world, just like every few years the Mississippi overflows its banks come spring. But nothing world-wide, and all at once. The bible lied, based on an old Babylonian myth. Learn how your babble was put together.

To give another example of the fact that every idea has people making stuff up and drawing incorrect conclusions to support it.

Which science disproved with more evidence. And it changed. Where is the changes happening in you babble due to new evidence? If it was wrong 2,500 years ago, it is still wrong today. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.

How so?

Yes, how do you know so, other than just wishful thinking. Show us the solid evidence.

Let’s stick to the Ica stones for now. What’re your thoughts on my counter-arguments involving those?

Total and utter bullshit. Nothing cogent said to make them anything other than known fakes and frauds. Total lack of scientific evidence for anything else. The Ica stones are dead. Care to play some more fuckwit?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 20, 2010 11:12 PM

My third party is the hard data.

Then cite the scientific peer reviewed literature fuckwit. Otherwise, simply because it is a rock doesn't mean it is hard data. Just a fraud, fake, and forgery. And you never proved it otherwise scientifically.

When did I lie?

When you said the Ica stones weren't fakes, frauds, and forgeries. That is the problem with wishful thinking. You can't separate facts from delusion.

I dunno, the Spanish seemed quite interested in them several centuries ago. Guess they didn’t find them that bad.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the scientific validity. You can't stick to the point. Your evasions are transparent. And you cannot show anything other than your opinion, and opinion of a known liar and bullshitter..

Posted by: raven | August 20, 2010 11:20 PM

zeta the mentally ill kook:

It’s the ultimate proof for the Bible, honestly, just like every major creationist organization said the second the news came out.

The Baptist Standard :: The Newsmagazine of Texas Baptists ... Apr 30, 2010 ... Baptist scholars view Noah's Ark discovery claims with skepticism ... remains of an ancient vessel are ever found high in the mountains of Turkey. ... called the Chinese team's discovery a "fraud … of the highest caliber" ... supporting the Bible's account of the Genesis flood, reacted with caution. ... www.baptiststandard.com/index.php?option=com...task... - Cached

Now I know Zeta is mentally ill as well as a pathological liar. He really is just making stuff up as he goes along.

Most xian organizations were skeptical about the recent ark discovery including AIG and the Southern Baptists. None really accepted it and it was soon proved to be a fraud. Noah's ark has been found something like 6 times in the last few centuries. They've seen it once too often.

And BTW, the majority of xians worldwide don't have a problem with evolution or the 4.5 billion year old earth. The mythology is real fundies are a minority of xians mostly limited to the USA.

Y'all can feed the troll but it is a waste of time. This guy is just crazy.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | August 20, 2010 11:25 PM

Are multiple, agreeing reports by experts not enough?

not unless they're in the peer-reviewed literature, for skeptics to review and then fail to refute. that's how science becomes science; before that, it's pretty much personal opinion, expert or not.

What’s wrong with the sources I’ve used?

they're not scientific, they're an argument from authority at best.

“scientists LOVE controversy.”

But most do not love Creation.

because it's not a scientific controversy, but a religious one. as a scientific controversy, it's been disproven some 200 years ago and since then the counter-evidence has just been piling on and on, without ever being shown to be incorrect.

scientists LOVE controversy; the do not love rehashing of old and discarded hypotheses.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 20, 2010 11:41 PM

Let’s stick to the Ica stones for now. What’re your thoughts on my counter-arguments involving those?

Nothing new.

One of your problems and their problems lies in the fact that they haven't been fully examined by independent groups along with their location etc...

There is a huge amount of trust involved with the people making their claims of legitimacy.

SO there's that.

But if we just scratch the surface, this is another creationist tactic. One thing we know for sure is that not one single bit of creationist "evidence" has ever been supported for a young earth, creation, or the flood.

Not

one.

This is no different.

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | August 20, 2010 11:44 PM

you should do some reading on the Java, Piltdown, and Nebraska Men. Every major idea has people who make things up to support it.

So what about the huge body of fossils and tools that have been found and are reliably dated in support of early hominids. Yes there have been some scandals, but the positive evidence outweighs the negative.

Your problem is that you are only dealing with evidence from a scandal. The evidence that you want to be there isn't from anyone else, there aren't other archeologists pulling these stones up on a regular basis and increasing the knowledge that we have regarding Ica stones and dinosaurs. Science works because one person's discovery is used as a launching point for other research. Why isn't this happening? Because the evidence so far is that these stones have been faked.

___

Rev. BDC for the win

You sir are a Delugionist.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | August 20, 2010 11:49 PM

How would you explain, for example, the Spanish references to them, if they’re truly fakes?

dude... your reasoning skills are subpar, so let me get you thru this step-by-step

1)there's fucktons of those rocks; some of them were shown to be genuine, some of them were shown to be fakes

2)all the ones that were shown to be genuine did not have dinosaurs on them

3)all the ones that had dinosaurs on them and were looked at, were shown to be fakes, were admitted to be fakes by their creator, and people were able to re-create these stones 100%, fake aged patina including (and don't start with lichens and mummies; you get those in by... including them in the dung; basic)

4)if the reports of the Spanish are genuine, what is the evidence that the stones they talked about were not the set that was proven genuine, i.e. the non-dino rocks?

5)without multiple, scientifically rigorous lines of evidence of a) the spaniards reporting on those rocks, and b)specifically the dino-rocks being shown to the spaniards, you've got nothing.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 21, 2010 12:00 AM

You sir are a Delugionist.

I can't take credit for that.

If I remember correctly that would be our long lost brother in arms, Josh the Geologist / Special Forces soldier and his smackdowns of Alan Clark from the epic Titanboa thread and its off shoots that became Teh Thread.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 21, 2010 12:14 AM

I’ve shown quite a bit of it…

No,you haven't. You have shown unsubstantiated unscientific claims. The fact that you don't understand it says a lot about you misunderstanding of what science is and how it is done. That makes everything you say suspect.

I’ve been unable to locate any that would be relevant. If you’re aware of some, please inform me.

There is nothing. But you, making the claim, should know that. Failure to know that makes you a liar and bullshitter. Research of the literature is the first thing a scientist does with a new idea. Your failure to do so says you aren't to be trusted, or your word to mean anything.

Bear in mind that I was referring specifically to the fraudulent Ark remains that were in the news recently.

I'm talking biblical Ark. It never existed as such. Good fairy tale. And absolutely no evidence for the Flud.

And that’s the way I llllike it!

But science has to separate delusion from reality. Which is why you are failing here, since you can't. And will continue to fail here.

The stones are frauds because no journals (that you’d find acceptable) say they support the coexistence of man and dinosaurs. No journals do this because the stones are frauds. The stones are frauds because…they are admitted and acknowledge frauds and their manufacture has been filmed..

Fixed that for you delusional fuckwit. Same as a video tape of a felon confessing to a crime. What part of them being frauds don't you understand?

Just let me know when I start to stray, and I’ll put the ship right back on course…

There is no course. You have nothing cogent to say about the Isa stones, but keep saying anyway, like a broken record or delusional fool. Science doesn't share your delusions. Makes you a boring and ignorant fool. You can't put up, you can't shut up. Both done by men/women of integrity like scientists. Those who can't are liars and bullshitters. Why do you want to put yourself in that camp?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 21, 2010 12:34 AM

Zeta, if dinosaurs and humans existed together in the mountains, there should young fossils of dinosaurs there awaiting your excavation. That would be far superior evidence compared to known fraudulent stones. Why are they not finding any evidence for those dinosaurs in the area where the stones are manufactured? Two main options. The first is they are looking in the wrong place. The second is that the bones don't exist, because the stones are frauds. My money is on the second option. Why don't you fund an expedition and look for the first? That is truly showing the proper scientific spirit.

Posted by: srdr | August 21, 2010 2:27 AM

We’ve been over this, your reasoning is circular: The stones are frauds because no journals (that you’d find acceptable) say they support the coexistence of man and dinosaurs. No journals do this because the stones are frauds. The stones are frauds because…

I sort of see how you might feel that way. (Sorry.)

Fact is, though, that the claims you present are completely absent from any respectable scientific publication makes it reasonable for the people here to take them as they see them.

Actually, my first reaction to you proposing to get this stuff published was "sure, bring it on." I say that, because it seems to me that this would be a good place to start building real evidence for the claim that man coexisted with dinosaurs. (I will regret having said that, no?)

Think about it. Instead of some books written by ignorant desert people two thousand years ago, what you have is a basis for your claims that can be physically scrutinized. That's rare for a creationist argument.

So, let's ignore the fact that the Ica stones have remained safely (and conveniently) outside of competent formal scrutiny for about forty years. Where do we start?

I would think Cabrera's a dead end, since he's admitted to forgery. To put it clearly: he recanted his first confession in an interview supposedly because he'd get arrested otherwise, then some years later demonstrated his forging process. No matter what, he's clearly willing to lie to somebody about it, I would avoid him.

So let's go to the other source you evidently favor: Dennis Swift.

Looks to me like he's still at it; I for one would like to see more of the measures taken to date the stones as he's described. From what I've read, while the patina reveals the age of the stone, the amount of repatinization tells you how old the carving is. Also, while some of the techniques used to date these pieces can evidently be fooled by the thing with the guano, there's others that aren't so easily tricked. I'd want to know how the testing was done.

Plus he says it himself: The anatomical accuracy argument is problematic - considering that the carvings are largely stylized, perfect anatomical accuracy can only be cause for suspicion.

Finally, Nerd of Redhead's suggestion: surely the fossil record would reflect the testimony given by the, uh, ancient stone-carvers. They say a lot of these stones were found in tombs. How come no dinosaur bones are found out of place?

Get to it, I suppose.

P.S. I'm new here. Lambaste at will.

Posted by: Iain Walker | August 21, 2010 9:39 AM

Zeta_Metroid (#166):

Perhaps, but let’s focus on the stones for now. What’re your thoughts on them?

I'm in a fairly expansive mood at the moment, so I'll overlook the transparent evasion.

The Ica stones? Well, going on the internal evidence of the artwork itself, an inference to the best explanation would conclude that they are fraudulent. As others have already noted (and I haven't seen you make any serious attempt address these points):

Firstly, they are anatomically inaccurate (5-toed theropods? Please). However, one could argue that the original artists were employing artistic license, or maybe just weren't very good artists. Or maybe their artistic culture lacked a tradition of realistic representation. Yet against this, other ancient or pre-industrial cultures had no problem depicting the animals they were familiar with in a realistic and accurate manner, even when their artistic traditions tended towards the ritualised and stylised. For example, European cave paintings of mammoths, bison etc are highly stylised, yet the anatomical proportions and postures of the animals are consistent with the best modern reconstructions. The Ica stones simply aren't. This is prima facie (although not conclusive) evidence that they were not drawn from life.

Secondly (and more damningly), the inaccuracies in the Ica stone depictions show a noticeable bias, in that they are consistent with popular depictions of dinosaurs from the 1950s and early 60s. Theropods are shown standing upright (most of them look like men in Godzilla suits), sauropods are shown with highly flexible necks, and tails are generally shown dragging rather than held in the air. Those are kind of depictions you'd expect if Uschuya copied them from the sources he claimed to have copied them from - comics, magazines and contemporary text books.

Additionally, the types of dinosaur depicted (large theropods, sauropods, ceratopsians, stegosaurs etc) are all "popular" types, in the sense that they are the ones most likely to crop up in comics and text books, especially of the 50s-60s. There are no recognisable dinosaur species popularised after the 1960s, such as dromaeosaurs or spinosaurs. Furthermore, in the 1950s and 60s, popular depictions of dinosaurs focused almost entirely on species that were found in the Northern hemisphere. The same is true of the Ica stones - although their depictions are fairly generic, those species that can be identified with any confidence (e.g., Triceratops) are known only from the Northern hemisphere. Dinosaurs more typical of the southern hemisphere (e.g., Abelisaurids or Dicraeosaurids) are conspicuous by their absence. Again, these features are best explained if the stones are a fraud based on illustrations from popular sources from the 1950s-60s.

And to return briefly to the subject you don't want to talk about ...

If the sequence of the fossil record is due primarily to hydrological sorting, then this would imply that small-bodied juveniles should typically be found at different levels from large-bodied adults of the same species. But they aren't. Juveniles and adults of the same species are always found in the same range of strata. I'll resist the temptation to multiply other counter examples, since it would take me all day to list them, but the fact is that as a hypothesis for explaining the sequence of the fossil record, hydrological sorting is as thoroughly falsified as any empirical hypothesis can be.

Posted by: Zeta_Metroid | August 22, 2010 3:22 AM

@ Jadehawk, OM # 227

not unless they're in the peer-reviewed literature…

What journals do you think would be willing to publish them, if they were made aware of their existence?

…for skeptics to review and then fail to refute.

I don’t see how them not being published in a certain place would prevent people from refuting it. It might make them aware of it so they could, but I think its worth pointing out that every expert I’ve sent some information to just ignored me. (Though, if you know any professional that’d actually be willing to discuss them, I would appreciate that information).
The problem is, almost nobody cares about the stones. They just see the people and dinosaurs together, and dismiss it right out of hand, it seems to me.

…before that, it's pretty much personal opinion…

That’s not true. You don’t need something to be published in a certain place to look at the data for yourself and reach a conclusion. Saying “these people don’t care, so I won’t until they do” is a pretty lame excuse…

they're not scientific…Why not?

“…they're an argument from authority at best.”

How?

scientists LOVE controversy; the do not love rehashing of old and discarded hypotheses.

And that, sadly, is how most view these stones, so they seem so see no reason to publish anything about them.

Also, sorry if this is a n00bish question, but what’s the OM signify?

@ Becca, the Main Gauche of Mild Reason # 228

or were newly made.

Perhaps, but that wouldn’t really gel with the patina the report mentions.

…the stones have *not* been tested at an independent laboratory and found to not be fraudulent.

Sure they have. Why doesn’t the test I referenced above qualify?

did you know that the makers of the stones supposedly came from the Pleiades, according to Dr. Cabrera, which is why no other trace of their civilization has been found.

I wouldn’t give too much thought to Cabrera. He was certainly a good guy and his work in gathering and publicizing the Ica stones was invaluable, but some of his theories have little basis in the data.

@ Rev. BigDumbChimp

One of your problems and their problems lies in the fact that they haven't been fully examined by independent groups…

What would you consider a full examination?

There is a huge amount of trust involved with the people making their claims of legitimacy.

How so?

This is no different.

Yeah, yeah, spare me the sermon.

@ Dhorvath # 231

Your problem is that you are only dealing with evidence from a scandal.

Keep the context of my statements in mind: he was saying that, because there are lies that’re used to support Christianity, it can’t be true. I was simply reminding him that there are hoaxes that were once used to support evolution as well.

People have been looking for these things for centuries, and there are already over 10,000 known stones. I’m not aware of any recent major finds, but I’ll do some digging and let you know if I can find any news on it.

increasing the knowledge that we have regarding…dinosaurs.

If the stones has been trusted, a lot of things could have been learned about them before they were discovered by other means (like the skin patterns, the way the dinosaurs hold their tails, etc.).

Because the evidence so far is that these stones have been faked.

What evidence would that be?

@ Jadehawk, OM # 233

2)all the ones that were shown to be genuine did not have dinosaurs on them

That’s not true. Remember the tests Cabrera had done on the stones showing “long extinct animals”? Or this stone, which has patina you can see with your own eyes: http://tinyurl.com/274rf0x

…were shown to be fakes…

By?

…were admitted to be fakes by their creator…

We’ve been over this. While that guy certainly did fake some stones, and they certainly did look real to the untrained eye, he didn’t have anything that would make him able to put the lichen, layer of oxidation, mummy blood, etc. on them, nor would he have any real reason to put that much effort into it.

…you get those in by... including them in the dung; basic

OK, so you think he went into the tomb, got blood and hair from the mummy, put it in the dung, and then put it in the tomb?
Also, even if he did that, and added the lichen, salt peter, etc., and worked his own tricks to give it the appearance of massive weatherization, there’s no way that would be enough to fool someone with a PhD in Archaeology (which it would have had to have done: see paragraph 3 on page 3 here: http://tinyurl.com/23lxk3l).
Perhaps if the suspected forger were some sort of professional with a titanic budget and very good reason to go to such great lengths your scenario would be possible. But he isn’t. He has little education, and barely has enough money to feed his family.
Also, remember how he confessed that making the stones was easier than farming? Personally, I think your theory involves way, way more effort on his part than putting some seeds in the ground and taking care of them would.

what is the evidence that the stones they talked about were not...the non-dino rocks?

Well, the report by Father Simon did mention that the stones had “strange animals” on them.

@ Rev. BigDumpChimp # 234

Z_M a basic problem with the Creationist method of trying to ‘prove’ anything is that they have a pre-determined conclusion that they work back from and try to support.

How do you know I had that in mind when I was learning about the stones?

…you need to supply us with well supported and independently verified evidence.

Why isn’t the evidence I’ve given either of those things?

@ Nerd of Redhead, OM # 237

No,you haven't.

Have tooooo!!!!! :P P: :P P: :P

You have shown unsubstantiated…

Why don’t you think they’ve been substantiated?

There is nothing. But you, making the claim, should know that. Failure to know that…

How did I fail to know that when I said that there wasn’t any I was aware of…?

But science has to separate delusion from reality.

Nu-uh! The more delusion and less reality, the better!

Same as a video tape of a felon confessing to a crime.

How do you think the felon in question faked all the patina I’ve been talking about?

What part of them being frauds don't you understand?

The “fraud” part, of course

You have nothing cogent to say about the Isa stones…

Hey, hey! We’re talking about the Ica stones, not the Isa stones!
See? I will keep us on topic!

You can't put up, you can't shut up.

My girlfriend said the exact same thing one time.

Why do you want to put yourself in that camp?

Their fishing pond is cleaner. The counselors are cooler, too.

@ # 239

Zeta, if dinosaurs and humans existed together in the mountains, there should young fossils of dinosaurs there awaiting your excavation.

No, not necessarily. After the flood, conditions would have been much worse for the dinosaurs. Their bodies weren’t built for these sorts of climates, they’d have trouble getting enough oxygen. Their populations were probably low, and fossilization is a rare event.

Why don't you fund an expedition and look for the first?

Because to fund others, you need funds yourself :P

@ srdr # 241

I sort of see how you might feel that way. (Sorry.)

Thank you

Fact is, though, that the claims you present are completely absent from any respectable scientific publication makes it reasonable for the people here to take them as they see them.

How are you defining “respectable”?

Think about it. Instead of some books written by ignorant desert people two thousand years ago, what you have is a basis for your claims that can be physically scrutinized.

I’m surprised, I didn’t expect anybody would actually think it’d be a good idea to push for that! Is there anyone you think it’d be good for me to contact about it?

I would think Cabrera's a dead end…

Quite literally: he passed away a few years ago.

…since he's admitted to forgery. To put it clearly: he recanted his first confession in an interview supposedly because he'd get arrested otherwise, then some years later demonstrated his forging process.

Actually, I think you’re thinking of a fellow called Uschuya. Here’s a way to remember: Cabrera’s the collector, Uschuya’s the unscrupulous.

From what I've read, while the patina reveals the age of the stone, the amount of repatinization tells you how old the carving is.

In the authentic stones, there’s old patina in the carvings as well.

I'd want to know how the testing was done.

More details would be nice, I’ve asked some people if they could tell me more about it.

Plus he says it himself: The anatomical accuracy argument is problematic - considering that the carvings are largely stylized, perfect anatomical accuracy can only be cause for suspicion.

That’s not exactly what he’s saying. The real quote is: “The fact that the Ica stones have stylized dinosaurs only enhances their credibility because, if they were all anatomically accurate, we would suspect a massive fraud.”
So, he’s actually saying that, because some of the dinosaurs are stylized like a lot of another ancient rock art, they’re less likely to be forgeries, as it’d be odd if they lacked that aspect of art entirely.

P.S. I'm new here.

As am I!

@ Dania # 242

Showing that humans and dinosaurs lived together at some point in the past is not evidence for creation and is also not evidence against evolution.

But you must admit that would be a fairly large blow. Think about it: current uniformitarian methods show that a huge number of species seem to have suddenly died tens of millions of years ago…but then we find them apparently in pretty decently sized numbers right alongside us. That’s a pretty big hint that something is wrong with those methods!

Posted by: llewelly | August 22, 2010 3:47 AM

Shrinking taxes means more room on the ark? So that's why Republicans always want to cut taxes ...

... what? taxa? Oh. Oops. Never mind.

Posted by: John Morales | August 22, 2010 5:38 AM

True bits of gopher-wood from the Ark.

(Not the fake ones, of course!)

Posted by: Dania | August 22, 2010 6:40 AM

But you must admit that would be a fairly large blow.

No, it would not. The theory of evolution is supported by way more than a single line of evidence and makes no predictions regarding what organisms survived the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 22, 2010 9:26 AM

You don’t need something to be published in a certain place to look at the data for yourself and reach a conclusion.

No, I only need to see the manufacturer make a fake one on U-tube to bring such stones into fakery.

And that, sadly, is how most view these stones, so they seem so see no reason to publish anything about them.

Don't like the truth, do you? That puts you as a liar and bullshitter, promoting untruths.

Perhaps, but that wouldn’t really gel with the patina the report mentions.

Patinas can and have been faked. They aren't conclusive evidence, only suggestive. But with the acknowledge fakery, and guano coating, meaningless. That is the science. Which you must ignore because it doesn't go with your presuppositions.

While that guy certainly did fake some stones, and they certainly did look real to the untrained eye, he didn’t have anything that would make him able to put the lichen, layer of oxidation, mummy blood, etc. on them, nor would he have any real reason to put that much effort into it.

You have no idea how far these guys go to fake these things. You a naive. We aren't. They burden of proof, not suggestion, is upon you, and you keep failing big time.

there’s no way that would be enough to fool someone with a PhD in Archaeology

That's been done many times. And you know it if you researched faked archeological objects. Still no case except for your gullibility.

Have tooooo!!!!!

No, you still haven't. Loser.

The “fraud” part, of course

Well, then you can produce scientific evidence showing they aren't. Oh right, you can't...Still lying and bullshitting.

More details would be nice, I’ve asked some people if they could tell me more about it.

That is your job, not ours. Still fakes.

The fact that the Ica stones have stylized dinosaurs only enhances their credibility because, if they were all anatomically accurate, we would suspect a massive fraud.

*Actually, if we were too real, we know we couldn't sell them.* Boy, are you gullible.

But you must admit that would be a fairly large blow. Think about it: current uniformitarian methods show that a huge number of species seem to have suddenly died tens of millions of years ago…but then we find them apparently in pretty decently sized numbers right alongside us. That’s a pretty big hint that something is wrong with those methods!

For that to happen, you would need the real dinosaur bones from the area. Not just very fakeable artifacts of dubious provenance. Solid scientific evidence. Complete with proper dating and all, that gets published in the peer reviewed scientific literature. After all, that would be big. But don't hold your breath, or bet the farm on the shitty and forged evidence at the moment. It isn't even worth a further look. Try your own expedition to find the bones, and quit bothering us with your inanity.

Posted by: KG | August 22, 2010 10:45 AM

The extinctions all had to happen after the flood, because (1) the Bible says every kind was in the ark, and (2) the Bible doesn't say that no mass extinctions occurred afterwardsothere!

- lenoxuss

It's amusing to note that in the late 18th-early 19th century, when vertebrate fossils in large quantities began coming to light, there was a dispute about whether extinction ever happened. Zeta-Metroid's intellectual ancestors were absolutely certain that it didn't, because God created a "plenum" - all the types of organism there could be - and would never let any of them die out. But then, maybe Z-M thinks the dinosaurs are still hiding out on Mount Roraima!

Posted by: Iain Walker | August 22, 2010 12:14 PM

Nerd (#253):

*Actually, if we were too real, we know we couldn't sell them.* Boy, are you gullible.

And also inconsistent. ZM wants to argue that if the stones are accurate, then this is evidence for their authenticity, and if the stones are not accurate, then this is also evidence for their authenticity.

It's the typical creationist "heads I win, tails you lose" double-think.

(Although I'm currently pegging ZM as more of a Fortean crank than an orthodox YEC - the mindsets do have a significant overlap).

Posted by: srdr | August 22, 2010 4:37 PM

How are you defining “respectable”?

Is there anyone you think it’d be good for me to contact about it?

I'm hardly an authority. I'll go with what many people have already said: "Respectable" mainly implies "peer-reviewed." Or, for a start, an outlet that doesn't hold express creationist, or otherwise pseudoscientific, views.

Actually, I think you’re thinking of a fellow called Uschuya.

Hey, you're right. It was late, I was tired. Apologies :)

Still, the name's all I got wrong.

So, he’s actually saying that, because some of the dinosaurs are stylized like a lot of another ancient rock art, they’re less likely to be forgeries, as it’d be odd if they lacked that aspect of art entirely.

No, I think that goes both ways. Pointing out that certain features depicted on the stones reflect the latest findings, as you have earlier, doesn't really make a case either way.

Posted by: KG | August 23, 2010 8:29 AM

Willis O'Brien's dinosaurs in the 1925 version of The Lost World were depicted as tail-draggers who wave their tails about from time to time, but one wouldn't on that basis want to claim that O'Brien's puppets corresponded to the best modern reconstructions and hence must have been modelled from life. - Iain Walker

Well one wouldn't. But Z-M might!

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 23, 2010 9:00 AM

Why is this thread starting to remind me of Titanoboa

Posted by: Zeta_Metroid | August 27, 2010 2:12 PM

@ Iain Walker # 243

I'm in a fairly expansive mood at the moment, so I'll overlook the transparent evasion.

Sometimes conversations are just better if you focus on one topic.

(5-toed theropods? Please).

Actually, that’s spot on. From http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/saurischia/theropoda.html:

“…three main (weight-bearing) toes on the pes (foot); the first and fifth digits are reduced.”

So, they did have five toes, its just that two of them were “reduced”.

…the inaccuracies in the Ica stone depictions show a noticeable bias, in that they are consistent with popular depictions of dinosaurs from the 1950s and early 60s.

Not so, as I said above, in that time they would have been said to show the “brontosaurus” with the wrong head.

Theropods are shown standing upright…

Doesn’t seem that way to me. If this one’s head weren’t turned: http://tinyurl.com/2cht2jl , it’d be even more hunched.

…sauropods are shown with highly flexible necks…

Which do you think show them with unrealistic flexibility?

…tails are generally shown dragging rather than held in the air.

Not here: http://tinyurl.com/2bnjkp2

On which stones have you found the tail position to be troubling?

Those are kind of depictions you'd expect if Uschuya…

What’s with the obsession over this guy? Somebody says he’s made some fakes and you guys act like all the stones have got a “Made in Taiwan” sticker.
I’d hate to have a dicussion about baseball card collecting here…

…such as dromaeosaurs…

It might be possible the center stone shows a stylized raptor: http://members.cox.net/ancient-sites/inca/03Ica_stones_we_examined.JPG But, even if I’m unable to find any that definitely show a raptor, and none are found, the exclusion of a certain type of dinosaur doesn’t show the stones are fake. What’s important are the dinosaurs that are on the stones that the lab has confirmed are authentic.

…or spinosaurs.

Those lived in Africa, didn’t they?
Regardless, there actually are quite a few carnivorous dinosaurs shown with sails, such as the center one here: http://www.omniology.com/IcaPeruBurialStones3.jpg and the ones on the left-center stone.

…those species that can be identified with any confidence (e.g., Triceratops)…

A lot of dinosaurs look like triceratops, but aren’t necessarily that species.
And, even though they’re rare, cerotopsids from the Soutern Hemisphere are known, such as notoceratops.

Dinosaurs more typical of the southern hemisphere (e.g., Abelisaurids…

Plenty of dinosaurs on the stones could easily be seen as those. See the two-legged one in the middle here, for example: http://tinyurl.com/273q66k

…or Dicraeosaurids) are conspicuous by their absence.

Wait, I’m confused: first you complain that the stones show sauropods with necks that are too flexible, now you’re saying they don’t show any sauropods…?

And to return briefly to the subject you don't want to talk about ....

Not because I believe my position on it is indefensible, bear in mind, but because I’d really like to focus on the stones, bear in mind.

Posted by: Zeta_Metroid | August 27, 2010 4:23 PM

Sorry, didn't mean to send that. What I meant to send was, lest we have another person that thinks I've disappeared, my post is apparently being approved before it can be posted.
Sorry I'm such a noob here, but why does this occur? Can I change the post to let it go automatically?

Posted by: Zeta_Metroid | August 27, 2010 10:15 PM

@ Iain Walker # 243

I'm in a fairly expansive mood at the moment, so I'll overlook the transparent evasion.

Sometimes conversations are just better if you focus on one topic.

(5-toed theropods? Please).

Actually, that’s spot on. From ht tp://ww w.ucmp.berkeley .ed u/diapsids/saurischia/theropoda.ht ml:

“…three main (weight-bearing) toes on the pes (foot); the first and fifth digits are reduced.”

So, they did have five toes, its just that two of them were “reduced”.

…the inaccuracies in the Ica stone depictions show a noticeable bias, in that they are consistent with popular depictions of dinosaurs from the 1950s and early 60s.

Not so, as I said above, in that time they would have been said to show the “brontosaurus” with the wrong head.

Theropods are shown standing upright…

Doesn’t seem that way to me. If this one’s head weren’t turned: htt p://tinyurl.c om/2cht2jl , it’d be even more hunched.

…sauropods are shown with highly flexible necks…

Which do you think show them with unrealistic flexibility?

…tails are generally shown dragging rather than held in the air.

Not here: htt p://tinyurl.c om/2bnjkp2

On which stones have you found the tail position to be troubling?

Those are kind of depictions you'd expect if Uschuya…

What’s with the obsession over this guy? Somebody says he’s made some fakes and you guys act like all the stones have got a “Made in Taiwan” sticker.
I’d hate to have a dicussion about baseball card collecting here…

…such as dromaeosaurs…

It might be possible the center stone shows a stylized raptor: http://members.cox.n et/ancient-sites/inca/03Ica_stones_we_examined.J PG But, even if I’m unable to find any that definitely show a raptor, and none are found, the exclusion of a certain type of dinosaur doesn’t show the stones are fake. What’s important are the dinosaurs that are on the stones that the lab has confirmed are authentic.

…or spinosaurs.

Those lived in Africa, didn’t they?
Regardless, there actually are quite a few carnivorous dinosaurs shown with sails, such as the center one here: ht tp://w ww.omniology.co m/IcaPeruBurialStones3.jpg and the ones on the left-center stone.

…those species that can be identified with any confidence (e.g., Triceratops)…

A lot of dinosaurs look like triceratops, but aren’t necessarily that species.
And, even though they’re rare, cerotopsids from the Soutern Hemisphere are known, such as notoceratops.

Dinosaurs more typical of the southern hemisphere (e.g., Abelisaurids…

Plenty of dinosaurs on the stones could easily be seen as those. See the two-legged one in the middle here, for example: htt p://tinyurl.c om/273q66k

…or Dicraeosaurids) are conspicuous by their absence.

Wait, I’m confused: first you complain that the stones show sauropods with necks that are too flexible, now you’re saying they don’t show any sauropods…?

And to return briefly to the subject you don't want to talk about ....

Not because I believe my position on it is indefensible, bear in mind, but because I’d really like to focus on the stones, bear in mind.

(Also, I had to put some spaces in the links so that I’d be able to post this. Sorry about that, they shouldn’t be hard to spot. Let me know if you have problems with any).

Posted by: Iain Walker | August 28, 2010 11:05 AM

Zeta_Metroid (#267):

Actually, that’s spot on. [snip] So, they did have five toes, its just that two of them were “reduced”.

That's remarkably disingenuous of you. Digit V is so reduced that it is not externally visible, while Digit I is a dew claw on the inside or back of the foot, and is not involved in weight-support. What is distinctive abour theropod feet is the three main forward-facing, weight-bearing toes. The theropods of the Ica stones typically show five forward-facing, weight-bearing toes, not three plus two vestigial. They also tend to show the shape of the foot as flat-footed and human-like, with the heel resting on the ground, which is also incorrect. Theropods, like birds, walked on their toes.

So unless you're blind, innumerate, very, very stupid, or have never seen a dinosaur skeleton or reconstruction in your life, I think you knew that this was the point I was making, and that your counter-point was misleading and irrelevant.

Not so, as I said above, in that time they would have been said to show the “brontosaurus” with the wrong head.

Firstly, the stones play fast and loose with skull shapes: for instance, hardly any of the theropods have skulls shaped like known species (look at those bulging crania), while many of the herbivores are shown with exaggerated, bird-like beaks. Secondly, the degree of stylisation means (as I pointed out before) that few individual species can be identified with much confidence. So a sauropod with a relatively pointed snout rather than a blunt one does not equal an unambiguous "brontosaurus" with a correct skull. It could just be any generic stylised Ica sauropod.

Doesn’t seem that way to me [upright theropod postures]. If this one’s head weren’t turned: [snip], it’d be even more hunched.

Firstly, it's being attacked by a human which is bigger than it is, so no wonder it's shown adopting a crouched, defensive posture. Secondly, "hunched" is entirely the wrong adjective for the elegant, bird-like posture of modern theropod reconstructions, with the spine and tail held horizontally. Thirdly, the theropod pictured in the image neatly illustrates the typical Ica inaccuracy of the feet - it's flat-footed with five weight-bearing toes.

Which do you think show them [sauropod necks] with unrealistic flexibility?

For example, the one at the bottom of the image containing your putative "Abelisaurid". The one on the left is better, but still more typical of an early to mid-20th century reconstruction than a modern one.

[Re tails shown dragging] Not here: htt p://tinyurl.c om/2bnjkp2

Sigh. I've already dealt with this one in comment #260. Pay attention.

On which stones have you found the tail position to be troubling?

All of them which show the tail clearly and in a resting posture. Including most of the ones you linked to in this thread.

What’s with the obsession over this guy? Somebody says he’s made some fakes and you guys act like all the stones have got a “Made in Taiwan” sticker.

He said he made some fakes, and demonstrated how it was done. But of course there were others involved in the fraud. Vicente Paris interviewed others involved in producing them. Apparently it's something of a local cottage industry.

It might be possible the center stone shows a stylized raptor:

Only if you're willing to overlook the fact that it looks absolutely nothing like a dromaeosaur in any way, shape or form. It looks more like a child's drawing of a cat than anything else.

What’s important are the dinosaurs that are on the stones that the lab has confirmed are authentic.

No, all the lab tests have confirmed is that some stones with dinosaurs on them have an appearance of age, something that we know can be faked. And it's far from clear that any of the positive lab tests were conducted with adequate controls that would allow them to distinguish between a genuinely aged carving and one in which the appearance of age was deliberately faked.

Those [spinosaurs] lived in Africa, didn’t they?

And Europe. And South America (e.g., Angaturama limai).

Regardless, there actually are quite a few carnivorous dinosaurs shown with sails, such as the center one here

Which is not shown with a sail. It is shown with the cross-hatching pattern on its back which is one of the stones' more common design motifs. (If the pattern on its back was a sail, think how thin and distorted - not to mention how unlike the other Ica stone theropods - its body would be.) It is also shown with an upright posture, dragging tail, five digits on its hands, flat feet, and five weight-bearing toes. I.e., highly innaccurate, but closer to mid-20th century reconstructions than modern ones.

And, even though they’re rare, cerotopsids from the Soutern Hemisphere are known, such as notoceratops.

Notoceratops has not been unambiguously identified as a ceratopsian, since it is known only from a partial jawbone. It has also been identified as a possible hadrosaur. Other putative Southern hemisphere ceratopsians such as Serendipaceratops are in the same boat - partial remains of ambiguous classification. So it's not actually true to say that ceratopsians from the Southern hemisphere are "known". They are at best very, very tentatively inferred from fragmentary and uncertain remains.

Plenty of dinosaurs on the stones could easily be seen as those [Abelisaurids]. See the two-legged one in the middle here

Head's the wrong shape, arms and fingers are too long, arms are also wrongly articulated. The only aspect in which it resembles an Abelisaurid is the fact that it has four digits on the hands, but then the artists have already demonstrated that their inconsistency with accurate digit counts, so that's hardly a reliable indicator. Oh, and again - upright posture, dragging tail. Just another inaccurate, out-of-date depiction of a generic theropod.

Is there any particular reason why you keep on linking to pictures that illustrate my points while consistently undermining your own?

Wait, I’m confused: first you complain that the stones show sauropods with necks that are too flexible, now you’re saying they don’t show any sauropods…?

Yes, you are confused. Dicraeosaurids are not synomymous with sauropods. They are a specific and highly recognisable sub-group of sauropods native to the Southern hemisphere, with long bony spines along the neck and shoulders. Idiot.

Not because I believe my position on it [a global flood] is indefensible, bear in mind, but because I’d really like to focus on the stones, bear in mind.

Given the amount of scientific ignorance, gullibility and wishful thinking you've demonstrated thus far, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that you think a global flood is defensible. Perhaps it is better if you just stick to the stones. No need to make a greater fool of yourself than you have already.

God, that was long. I must be bored.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 28, 2010 4:55 PM

*Checks to make sure Iain Walker is on one of his lists, and wishes he would post more often.*

He should learn from his mistake.

In order to learn from a mistake, one must acknowledge, at least to themselves, making one. Zeta appears to lack this capacity. Oh, and Zeta, all true scientists have the capacity to admit mistakes. Which puts them light-years ahead of you on integrity and honesty.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 28, 2010 5:56 PM

He's not a poe, he's just completely unable to see past his sureness that he's right.

I didn't think he was a Poe, just an ignorant deluded unscientific fool, in need of education in real science.

He will argue with people who have formal education and degrees in subjects he's only read about of creationist websites.

And we, those of us with advanced scientific degrees, will tell him he is an unscientific fool and will not even engage his stoopidity, because he is too stoopid even to be wrong. He is just willfully stoopid. He must raise his game to the level of science, which he is totally incapable of doing, before he becomes worthy anything other than being called stoopid.

Posted by: Dania | August 28, 2010 6:54 PM

Wow, Zeta is still at it? Could it be that we have found our new Alan Clarke?

Posted by: Owlmirror | August 28, 2010 7:11 PM

The theory of evolution is supported by way more than a single line of evidence and makes no predictions regarding what organisms survived the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction. - Dania

This is an excellent point. There have been occasional reports of large dinosaur-like animals from remote areas (New Guinea highlands, Central African rainforests), and while these are quite implausible, that's only because we would have expected to find clear evidence of a viable population of such large animals by now.

I remember pointing this out a few years ago, when someone first brought the Ica stones to my attention -- even if the stones were somehow evidence that non-avian dinosaurs had somehow survived in or around Peru until historically recent times, this would not disprove evolution, but would rather falsify a particular palaeontological theory. It would certainly not provide evidence either that the ark ever existed, nor that there had been a global flud, nor that the Earth was only 6K years old.

Freakin' delugionists, how do their brains work?

Oh, and:

You sir are a Delugionist.

I can't take credit for that.

If I remember correctly that would be our long lost brother in arms, Josh the Geologist / Special Forces soldier and his smackdowns of Alan Clark from the epic Titanboa thread and its off shoots that became Teh Thread.

You misremember. The word "delugionist" was fist used on Teh Thread by Wowbagger (the Infinitely Prolonged), March 30, 2009, Science of Watchmen thread.

Hm. The Great God Google suggest that he was not the one who coined the term, either.

This is the earliest citation I can find, from 1997 (the original posting must have gotten lost, so all that remains is the citation by the delugionist himself, ironically.).

Posted by: Dania | August 28, 2010 7:22 PM

It would certainly not provide evidence either that the ark ever existed, nor that there had been a global flud, nor that the Earth was only 6K years old.

And it sure wouldn't provide evidence that Jesus died for our sins, either.

Posted by: Zeta_Metroid | August 30, 2010 12:17 AM

@ Dhorvath # 248

The point I was trying to make is that one line of evidence isn't proof, not even close.

But theories should be made to fit every line of evidence. If even one clearly and definitely contradicts it, you need to modify it…

It is an indication that we need to do more research.

Yeah, that’s definitely true. It would be very nice if the kind of interest you expect existed in the stones. Sadly such interest seems to only exist among people who disagree with the standard Uniformitarian story.

If there are actual stones depicting dinosaurs and humans, why is it such a narrow band of people who have found them?

It isn’t. They’ve been found in archaeological excavations and by farmers, doctors and grave robbers.

Why are these people either secretive…

Who’s secretive about them?

…or admitted perpetrators of a hoax?

Again, for any sort of artifact you can think of, there are people making fakes of it.

Real scientific finds generate new lines of research.

And these have, among people who accept them as “real scientific finds”.

Supposing that the tests performed so far were reasonably acceptable there would be an army of archeologists all over Peru searching for more of this evidence.

Actually, in Peru, the stones are considered national treasures, so archaeologists do search for them. New ones are found every now and again, the most recent I heard about was in 2001, see page 12, paragraph 2 here: http://www.tinyurl.com/4asg6w

…look at how cold fusion generated a huge number of attempts to replicate the original findings.

There’s a lot of money to be found in finding cold fusion. There’s a lot to be lost in claiming dinosaurs and humans coexisted.

Halfway credible discoveries always generate additional research by other scientists.

Among those who accept these as “halfway credible”, they have. There just isn’t as much because not many view them that way.

Even the Turin shroud has had repeated tests regarding it's veracity and it's claims are a fair sight less fantastic than dinosaurs coexisting with humans.

That’s because it involves Jesus, so its got the biggest star-power there is behind it.

@ Alice Bluegown # 250

It would take a special brand of determination/insanity to push a joke this far.

Fortunately, I’ve got both

@ Dania # 251

…makes no predictions regarding what organisms survived the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction.

Think about it: the methods and assumptions that are used to determine which organisms lived at which times show that dinosaurs did not live with humans. If the stones are genuine, that’s not the case. How then could you use those methods to say any creatures lived at different times?

@ Nerd of Redhead, OM # 253

…I only need to see the manufacturer make a fake one on U-tube to bring such stones into fakery.

His stones and the real ones have obvious differences. See here: http://tinyurl.com/4asg6w, page 12, sections A, B, and C (as is his, B and C are a stone from Cabrera’s collection and a recently unearthed one, respectively).

Don't like the truth, do you?

Heck no! It makes me sad ;.;

Patinas can and have been faked.

How do you propose the patina on the stones was faked?

…guano coating…

Wouldn’t cut it. For one thing, wouldn’t it be obvious that was all over the stone?

You have no idea how far these guys go to fake these things.

What process even could be used that to fake all those things?
Also, I can hardly see somebody living on about $20 a month with a family to support going to go that far, even if he could. I’d imagine he’s got bigger worries.
And if he did go that far, why then would he admit it?

No, you still haven't.

Have too!

Loser.

ur moms a loser

*Actually, if we were too real, we know we couldn't sell them.*

Here’s what you need to do:
- Go back to that post
- Look at the context
- Ask yourself: Why was he posting this? What was it in response to?

For that to happen, you would need the real dinosaur bones from the area.

Define “the area”.

Complete with proper dating…

What would you consider “proper dating”?

…gets published in the peer reviewed scientific literature.

Again I ask: who, if I were to tell them about all this, would be willing to publish something about it?

Posted by: Dania | August 30, 2010 6:03 AM

Think about it:

No: you think about it. Here's what the theory evolution actually consists of. Read that and then come back to me and explain how the statement "dinosaurs and humans lived together" contradicts any of those points.

the methods and assumptions that are used to determine which organisms lived at which times show that dinosaurs did not live with humans.

Nothing to do with evolution.

But anyway, paleontological evidence does indicate that humans and non-avian dinosaurs lived at very different times in history. But all it really shows without much of a doubt is that, after the K-T boundary*, there was never again a time in history when non-avian dinosaurs were all over the place. It's still possible that a bunch of small populations survived until modern times in a place where fossilization was difficult and/or the rocks where those few fossils lie haven't been explored yet. It's not impossible.

As Owlmirror says, the only thing you would falsify would be a particular palaeontological theory. Why don't you or any of the owners of the stones go ahead and do it? You keep saying no journal would be willing to publish it... have you tried? Was it rejected? Because until that happens you should just STFU about no one wanting to publish it.

*Oh, speaking of which, I don't think I've ever heard any delugionist "explanation" for the physical existence of that boundary. Has anyone?

How then could you use those methods to say any creatures lived at different times?

Those methods are not supposed to be absolutely and totally infallible, they're not supposed to provide us with the Absolute Truth^TM. They're just supposed to give us an idea of what organisms lived at what time. In significant numbers, I would add. Prone to fossilization. They're very good, but not perfect.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 30, 2010 7:39 AM

Zeta, time to shut up about your faked stones. They aren't evidence for anything, and never will be. Any scientist knows that. The fact that you don't, makes you a terrible observer, to be ignored and deride for being a stoopid fool.

Because until that happens you should just STFU about no one wanting to publish it.

Zeta is too stoopid to publish himself. He appears to want to find a champion to do so. Zeta, either submit that paper, or shut the fuck up. Your words are considered lies until you do so. Submission information for Science and Nature. Cowardice is your only reason for not even attempting to publish.

Now shut the fuck up about those faked stones, and start an expedition to that area to find those dinosaurs or their bones. That how one finds real scientific evidence, by getting off your ass and actually going where the evidence is to find it. Neil Shubin did that with Tiktaalik, saying he should find a certain type of fossil in rocks of this age, and found them in Northern Canada. You need to do that. Go where the evidence is and find it. So go to South America and find the animal and/or bones. Or are you afraid you will find nothing because in your heart you know the science is right, and you are wrong?

Posted by: Owlmirror | August 30, 2010 11:47 PM

I think I found what you're referring to.

Yup. That was the second very persistent creationist I argued with.

Further down, there's another link to Ica stones info:

  http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/ica-stones/

The comments following that one are also interesting.

Posted by: Dania | August 31, 2010 6:00 AM

Science uses many, many, many different clocks.

I recognize the URL (not surprising, is it) but for some reason the link doesn't seem work. So, Zeta, if you're having the same problem, go here.

Posted by: Zeta_Metroid | September 6, 2010 10:39 PM

@ Iain Walker # 254

Except the stones don't depict dinosaurs as we now understand them to be in terms of posture and anatomy.

See the specific posts for my thoughts on each example.

And if there are any individual depictions that correspond unambiguously to more modern interpretations, I wonder how far back the provenance of those particular stones would be traceable?

Take the one with the mummy blood, for an example. It accurately shows dinosaur skin patterns.
Because of that patina, its definitely from before the 1960’s!

Estimated oxygen levels in the Mesozoic were lower than today

You’re assuming that there was a Mesozoic period at all. If the Ica stones are genuine, the idea that dinosaurs lived and died millions of years ago has little basis in fact.

On the more likely timeline, the evidence is strong that there was both a greater amount of oxygen and a denser atmosphere in the pre-Flood world than there is today. For example, the giant dragonflies would need much more oxygen than is in our air today, otherwise it couldn’t get through their tracheae. There also must have been a greater atmospheric density; otherwise creatures like Quetzalcoatlus couldn’t fly. As, the biggest thing that can fly in our atmosphere is the South American condor – which is nearly a quarter of the size and six times lighter than Quetzalcoatlus!
Not to mention, air bubbles in amber have been found to have nearly 35% oxygen.

…it doesn't automatically follow that they'd be at a disadvantage…

They definitely would be, compared to their former selves. If they became as large as they used to be, they’d overheat due to the less dense atmosphere.

(b) Later in your post you say that the stones imply that "we find them [dinosaurs] apparently in pretty decently sized numbers right alongside us". So where the populations low, or decent sized? Make up your mind.

Allow me to clarify: compared to their former populations, they’d be low. But, not so low that inbreeding and extinction were right around the corner.

… as if no-one had taken the time to point out the problems with the hypothesis.

Let’s focus on the Ica stones for now.

@ KG # 255 (my favorite number!)

… maybe Z-M thinks the dinosaurs are still hiding out on Mount Roraima!

Well duh they are, you can see them in the background of that TV special

@ Ian Walker # 257

ZM wants to argue that if the stones are accurate, then this is evidence for their authenticity, and if the stones are not accurate, then this is also evidence for their authenticity.

Here’s a hint:
- Go back to where I said that
- Now weigh the pros and the CONs of that TEXT and get back to me.

Can you solve the riddle?

It's the typical creationist "heads I win, tails you lose" double-think.

Useful as an illustration of the futility of your resistance

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | September 6, 2010 11:06 PM

Zeta_Metroid, it is time for you to face the fact. You are a crank.

Have a nice life.

Posted by: Dania | September 7, 2010 7:01 AM

For example, the giant dragonflies would need much more oxygen than is in our air today, otherwise it couldn’t get through their tracheae.

They had more oxygen. About 35% concentration, IIRC. But then again, they didn't coexist with the dinosaurs since they're from the Carboniferous period (Paleozoic).

There also must have been a greater atmospheric density; otherwise creatures like Quetzalcoatlus couldn’t fly.

Hm. I'm not so sure about that but it's important to note that the Quetzalcoatlus is only found in rocks from the Late Cretaceous and oxygen levels where on the increase during the Mesozoic. I'm pretty sure that by the Cretaceous they were already higher than today.

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | September 7, 2010 7:52 AM

Zeta Metroid: Why don't you get this published in a peer-reviewed journal? Your ideas of course seem crazy to anyone who...you know...went to school, or....thinks. BUT, if it gets through the review system, maybe people would be happy to give it another look.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | September 7, 2010 8:13 AM

David: unhelpful reference.

Google Scholar sez:

Your search - quetzalcoatlus Habb - did not match any articles.

Nothing relevant turns up on regular Google either, for various combinations of Q., Habb, Cunningham..

Perhaps it's my bad 'fu, but I'd appreciate a link.

Posted by: Dania | September 7, 2010 9:40 AM

But this is interesting stuff!

Habib also spent time crunching the numbers using the old, bipedal launch model and simply couldn’t find a mathematical solution that would enable the largest of the pterosaurs — using hind legs alone — to launch at all.

“But using all four legs, it takes less than a second to get off of flat ground, no wind, no cliffs,” he said. “This was a good thing to be able to do if you lived in the late Cretaceous period and there were hungry tyrannosaurs wandering around.”

Now I want to time-travel to the Cretaceous just to see a pterosaur lifting off.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | September 7, 2010 9:55 AM

it's Habib

ah. That would explain it. GIGO. thanks.

Posted by: Iain Walker | September 8, 2010 3:52 PM

Ah, our weekly dose of heroically persistent idiocy courtesy of ZM. Truly a worthy successor to Alan Clarke.

Zeta_Metroid (#291):

See the specific posts for my thoughts on each example.

I've seen your "thoughts" and I've already pointed out (e.g., #260 and #269) why they bear no resemblance to reality. For fuck's sake, pay attention.

Take the one with the mummy blood, for an example. It accurately shows dinosaur skin patterns.

You mean this one? All it shows is crude cross-hatching placed on seeming arbitrarily chosen areas of the body, and which bear little close resemblance to actual dinosaur skin impressions. It's only "accurate" if you have such low standards of accuracy that any vaguely regular pattern can count as accurate. Or if you have no idea what dinosaur skin actually looked like.

Because of that patina, its definitely from before the 1960’s!

Only on the assumption that the patina has not been faked. In any case, I was talking about the stones' provenance (i.e., the documented record of where and when they were found, and their subsequently recorded history as an artefact), not their inferred age.

If the Ica stones are genuine, the idea that dinosaurs lived and died millions of years ago has little basis in fact.

A complete non sequitur, as Dania has pointed out.

If they became as large as they used to be, they’d overheat due to the less dense atmosphere.

Sigh. Firstly, global temperatures depend on many factors, not just atmospheric pressure. But everything else being equal, lower atmospheric pressure means lower average temperatures, not higher. Secondly, (as I've already pointed out) average temperatures are lower today anyway, but the range of temperatures that dinosaurs could inhabit was quite wide. Thirdly, your back-to-front reasoning doesn't apply to the smaller dinosaurs, so by your logic you'd expect them to be better represented in a residual dinosaur fauna than the larger species, who would have been disproportionately affected by the "less dense" atmosphere. Yet unambiguously identifiable smaller species (e.g., dromaeosaurs again) are absent from the depictions on the stones.

Let’s focus on the Ica stones for now.

No, let's not. You're the one who keeps on bringing up a global flood to try and deflect other people's objections. You don't get to hand-wave away criticism on the basis of some spurious hypothesis and then not have to defend it. So either justify your claims about your alleged flood, or stop basing your counter-objections on it.

You can start by addressing the problems with the flood hypothesis that I and others have already mentioned in this thread, and by answering the question I asked in #254: Which sections of the geological column were laid down over the course of the flood?

Here’s a hint: - Go back to where I said that - Now weigh the pros and the CONs of that TEXT and get back to me.

I already did, and I've already commented more than once on the combination of ignorance and dishonesty displayed in Swift's writings. He seizes on any real or imagined resemblance, no matter how vague (and no matter how atypical of the majority of the stones), as evidence of accuracy (and hence in favour of their being genuine), and at the same time cites the stylisation and lack of detailed accuracy as evidence of against fraud (and hence in favour of their being genuine). Three points undermine this:

Firstly, if they were carved in imitation of the style of existing, non-dinosaur-depicting stones from the region, then even a minimally plausible fraud would require that the faked stones share the same not-particularly-realistic style. The forgers would have to work within their own artistic limitations as well (not everyone can be John Sibbick). So contrary to Swift, the mere fact of the stylisation and crudeness of the dinosaur stones does little to enhance their credibility, because this is also to be expected if they are fraudulent. A high degree of detailed realism by modern palaeontological standards might invite suspicion of fraud, but the Ica stones don't even display the modicum of such realism that would help support the idea that they were genuine.

Secondly, the stylised nature of the stones tells against our ability to identify anatomical accuracy (if it is present). As I've noted previously, there are examples of "accuracy" that you've cited which on inspection turn out to be nothing of the sort, because the pictures are too crude and generic to allow the degree of positive identification of the subject that would allow the depiction to count as "accurate".

Thirdly, Swift draws an explicit contrast between accurate and stylised dinosaur depictions: "My consistent position has been that some of the Ica Stones are amazingly anatomically accurate and others are stylized but easily recognized as dinosaurs." Yet the stones he selects to illustrate this "amazing accuracy" are themselves highly stylised (and not very accurate even given the degree of stylisation). Hence the accusation of double-standards - Swift feels free to dismiss stones as "stylised" if he doesn't think they're up to supporting his thesis, but anything that he thinks can support his thesis is "amazingly accurate" no matter how crude and stylised it actually is.

So I say again, find a better source for your witterings than Swift, since it's clear that he is not a reliable observer but a self-deluding crank.

[BTW, anyone who wants a giggle, check out Swift's PDF on the "accuracy" of the stones and read the last paragraphs on the biblical Behemoth. His inability to grasp the point, even when his own biblical quotations ram it home (as it were), is really quite hilarious.]

Useful as an illustration of the futility of your resistance

Or rather, useful as an illustration of your total inability to grasp what constitutes a valid empirical argument.

Posted by: Zeta_Metroid | September 9, 2010 9:40 PM

@ Jeffrey D # 258

…star maps, land maps, flying machines, modern scientific equipment, etc.

I’m quite skeptical of all that. All the stones I’ve seen that are said to show such things (depending on what you’d consider “modern” equipment) could more easily be seen as less advanced objects or practices.

…read for yourself why.

Do you find any of his reasons (other than the ones you give in this post) to be particularly compelling?

Do you know that some of the stones show the crucifixion scene we all recognize, nails through palms as opposed to the real way, through the wrist? Do you know that another shows a copy of Da Vinci's last supper? How do you account for these…?

They’re fakes, obviously. They’ve shown no signs of having the patina the other stones posess.
Keep in mind that nobody denies that there are fakes, just like any other type of ancient artifact.

Have you done any research at all?

Of course not

Oh, btw, some stones are believed to be truly ancient. Oddly enough, none of those considered real show anything like dinos or microscopes or the like.

Sure they do! See some lab reports on stones that show “long-extinct animals” here, for example: http://members.cox.net/icastones/02e-book-laboratory_analysis.htm

Or, with your own eyes, look at the patina on this stone: http://tinyurl.com/2ezhpqx

…Jadehawk and others have pointed this out to you and you do not care.

See the appropriate posts for my responses to them. If there’s a response you feel wasn’t correct, point it out to me and tell me why.

You are apparently smart enough to use a computer.

Actually, he isn’t. He just dictates his posts to me, and I edit them (quite heavily, I might add, otherwise they’d be unreadable) and post them.

@ srdr # 259

Or, for a start, an outlet that doesn't hold express creationist, or otherwise pseudoscientific, views.

If an outlet views Creation as just that, pseudoscience, why would they publish something that they and probably most of their peers view as ridiculous?

And, again, if you think I should try to get someone to publish this stuff, tell me who exactly you think I should contact.

Pointing out that certain features depicted on the stones reflect the latest findings, as you have earlier, doesn't really make a case either way.

What I’m making a case for when I say that is that the stones couldn’t be based off of any fossils the ancient Peruvians found, keep in mind.

@ Rev. BigDumbChimp # 262

Handing the stones to any major University's anthropology, paleontology, biology and geology departments along a detailed description of the exact location where they were found…

The examination done on page three, paragraph three here meets all of those requirements: http://tinyurl.com/23lxk3l

…including a guide to the mysterious cave.

Cabrera almost certainly made that up. Which doesn’t really matter, as the stones are usually found in documented tombs.

Because they have not been forthright in providing all the information needed to fully vet their claims about the origin of the stones.

What other information is needed?

Posted by: Iain Walker | September 11, 2010 11:47 AM

Zeta_Metroid (#307):

See some lab reports on stones that show “long-extinct animals” here, for example: http://members.cox.net/icastones/02e-book-laboratory_analysis.htm

Cabrera isn't the most reliable of sources - you yourself admit it's likely that he made things up, and forgers interviewed by Vicente Paris claim that Cabrera used to commission forgeries from them (including providing them with pictures on which to base their work). So anything Cabrera says regarding any tests made on the stones needs to be taken with a large-ish dose of salt. We only have Cabrera's word as to which stones were subjected to testing, and his account doesn't go into detail as to the procedures used (although it doesn't look as if any control groups were included in the tests, a fact which doesn't inspire confidence). So I personally would want rather more than Cabrera's claims regarding tests of uncertain rigour before accepting that any of the dinosaur-depicting stones were definitely ancient.

Or, with your own eyes, look at the patina on this stone: http://tinyurl.com/2ezhpqx

Not much help, unless you're a trained geologist. And given the angle of the lighting, some lines appear to have a patina, while others don't. The saltpetre deposits (which would, incidentally, be easy to fake) also confuse matters. The image is also a partial one - we don't get to see the whole stone. The rest of Swift's little slide-show is even more unhelpful, since none of the close-up images have any comments to tell us what we're looking at.

What I’m making a case for when I say that is that the stones couldn’t be based off of any fossils the ancient Peruvians found, keep in mind.

I doubt anyone thinks that the idea that pre-Columbian Peruvians based the dinosaur images on random fossil finds is particularly likely. More likely than that the Ica dinosaur stones were drawn from life, perhaps, but less likely than fraud. And if the dinosaurs depicted on the stones did demonstrate a degree of anatomical accuracy reflecting recent palaeontological findings, then it would certainly tell against the pre-Columbian fossil reconstruction hypothesis, if only on the grounds that the early Peruvians would have been unlikely to have been able to deduce that kind of detail from their finds.

However, the dinosaurs on the stones don't demonstrate any signs of accuracy by modern palaeontological standards, so your case doesn't hold water.

The examination done on page three, paragraph three here meets all of those requirements: http://tinyurl.com/23lxk3l

Again, what we have is a vague summary of unspecified tests of indeterminate rigour from an unreliable source, this time David Swift. One oddity is the claim about "mummy blood". How was this identified? Mummified corpses, as a general rule, aren't known for their tendency to bleed. Depending on the mummification process used (whether natural or artificial) they might well leak body fluids during the early stages of their burial while they're still drying out, and sometimes mummified bodies exude a greasy bitumen-like residue as part of the decay process, but blood? And if there was enough organic material present to positively identify it as blood, then there was presumably enough present to have it C14 dated. This test does not seem to have been carried out.

So, ZM, do you actually have any detailed test results, including full methodology and specific details of the stones actually tested (pictures would help), and which is available from a reliable source? Because until then, the claims of positive test results are less than convincing.

Which doesn’t really matter, as the stones are usually found in documented tombs.

Which specific stones? Which specific tombs? Found by whom? Documented by whom? According to whom?

It seems to me that defenders of the dinosaur stones get a lot of mileage out of a deliberate equivocation between "all carved stones originating in the Ica region" and "carved stones apparently depicting dinosaurs originating in the Ica region". The fact that some Ica stones have been found prior to the 20th century (e.g., those reputedly collected by early Spanish settlers) or that some may have a properly documented archaeological provenance is irrelevant to the question of the authenticity of the dinosaur-depicting stones, unless it is shown that any of the early discoveries or the properly documented stones also depict dinosaurs.

Posted by: Iain Walker | September 12, 2010 11:08 AM

Correction to #309: "David Swift" should of course be Dennis Swift.

Owlmirror:

Why should they stop with being dishonest and disingenuous about only one thing when they can be dishonest and disingenuous about so much more?

Speaking of which, this postgrad dissertation has a few interesting points to make about Swift and his "dinosaurs" (see p236-7, p246-50 and especially p251-2). The more I learn about Swift, the more apparent it becomes that calling him a self-deluding crank was too kind. The man is a liar, pure and simple.

Posted by: Zeta_Metroid | October 8, 2010 9:14 PM

Hey guys, sorry about the long delay. My computer got broken, but its fixed now, so let's continue!

@ Nerd of Redhead, OM # 266

Why you haven't disappeared is beyond my reasoning ability.

My disappearing act is much more so

As to what happened to your post, two things tend to set off the moderation warning…

But, all joking and stuff aside, thanks for the info! I had too many links.

@ 268

The stones have be thoroughly debunked…

By what?

Zeta, your stones are frauds. What part of that don't you understand?

The “are frauds” bit.

Either find something new or go away. You have nothing scientific to offer us.

no u

@ Iain Walker # 271

Digit V is so reduced that it is not externally visible, while Digit I is a dew claw on the inside or back of the foot, and is not involved in weight-support.

You’re right, sorry, my mistake!

But, take a stone like this one: http://creationwiki.org/pool/images/0/04/Ica_stone.JPG
Obviously, the feet on it couldn’t be less accurate (as it has no toes, the feet looking like something from Bomberman), but it has the accurate skin patterns, and obviously was made with a triceratops-type dinosaur in mind.
There’s almost always some stylization with these sorts of things.

…the stones play fast and loose with skull shapes: for instance, hardly any of the theropods have skulls shaped like known species…

Could you be more specific?

…while many of the herbivores are shown with exaggerated, bird-like beaks.

Which do you find to be unrealistic?

Secondly, the degree of stylisation means (as I pointed out before) that few individual species can be identified with much confidence.

You can tell the general type of dinosaur they are (like a sauropod or a tricerotopsid on most).
Which, if dinosaurs didn’t ever coexist with them, they shouldn’t have been able to even get close to doing that!

So a sauropod with a relatively pointed snout rather than a blunt one does not equal an unambiguous ‘brontosaurus’ with a correct skull.

What you’re saying, though, that someone just copied the dinosaurs they saw from various, doesn’t fit with it. The brontosaurus was the most popular dinosaur for quite some time, anyone just copying what they saw would surely make many of their sauropods brontosauruses, with the accompanying head shape. But we don’t see that.

Secondly, ‘hunched’ is entirely the wrong adjective for the elegant, bird-like posture of modern theropod reconstructions, with the spine and tail held horizontally.

Yeah, I was wondering what the best word would be. “Bird-like” seems to do the trick.

But, semantics aside, I don’t see how what you said deals with the argument. Yes, it may be in a defensive posture (though it seems more like to me it’d just been surprised attacked…otherwise, wouldn’t it be facing the attacker?), but the fact remains that it isn’t standing upright.

Thirdly, the theropod pictured in the image neatly illustrates the typical Ica inaccuracy of the feet - it's flat-footed with five weight-bearing toes.

Yup, but at worst that’s stylization, and doesn’t cancel out the anatomical accuracies we do find or change the fact that dinosaurs being on the stones needs to be explained.

The one on the left is better, but still more typical of an early to mid-20th century reconstruction than a modern one.

What’s your evidence its inaccurate? As can be read on page 2, paragraph 1 here: http://www.dinosaursandman.com/research/AMAZING_ANATOMICAL_ACCURACY_OF_ICA_DINOSAUR_STONES.pdf , several experts said the stone’s depictions were accurate.

Sigh. I've already dealt with this one in comment #260. Pay attention.

I was, and I saw that that comment was addressed to someone else, so I didn’t read it. What’d ya say that dealt with this?

All of them which show the tail clearly and in a resting posture.

Like I said, not on that stone.

He said he made some fakes…

By “somebody” I meant anyone who says they’ve made fakes.

…and demonstrated how it was done.

Yet his methods wouldn’t produce what we see.

Apparently it's something of a local cottage industry.

That I do not dispute. But so is making “authentic” Indian arrowheads in some places. Does that mean there’s no evidence Indians used arrows?

No, all the lab tests have confirmed is that some stones with dinosaurs on them have an appearance of age, something that we know can be faked.

No so. For the mummy blood, for example, see page 14, paragraph 3 here: http://www.dinosaursandman.com/research/Fortean_Times_Rebuttal.pdf

And, if the stones aren’t ancient, how do you explain the Spanish references?

And it's far from clear that any of the positive lab tests were conducted with adequate controls…

How?

It is shown with the cross-hatching pattern on its back which is one of the stones' more common design motifs.

Ah, now that I look at it, that does fit better!

They are at best very, very tentatively inferred from fragmentary and uncertain remains.

And, if the Ica stones are authentic, wouldn’t that prove that they did live there?

Head's the wrong shape, arms and fingers are too long, arms are also wrongly articulated.

The fact some details aren’t entirely correct doesn’t change the fact its obviously a bipedal, carnivorous dinosaur.

…upright posture, dragging tail.

Actually, it isn’t upright. Look at where the back is just above the tail, and look where the head is.
And, since the tail is lower than its feet, its hard to say what its doing with it, really.

They are a specific and highly recognisable sub-group of sauropods…

So they’re sauropods. That’s like saying “marines aren’t soldiers, they’re a sub-group of soldiers…”

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | October 8, 2010 9:24 PM

And, if the Ica stones are authentic

This is the question. For everyone but Zeta_Metroid the answer is not only no but fuck no!

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | October 8, 2010 9:38 PM

My computer got broken, but its fixed now, so let's continue!

Why? You probably don't have any new evidence.

but it has the accurate skin patterns, and obviously was made with a triceratops-type dinosaur in mind.

And you have a triceratops in your back pocket from the digs you need for bone evidence??? I think not loser. Attempted interpretation will not prove anything other than you are a liar and bullshitter, multiple times.

Which do you find to be unrealistic?

And what part of the question do you have trouble with??? Still the loser.

What’s your evidence its inaccurate?

Assbackwards fool. You must prove yourself right, and are totally wrong until you do so. Still no evidence fuckwit. You are wasting your time, showing us how stoopid you are.

and doesn’t cancel out the anatomical accuracies we do find or change the fact that dinosaurs being on the stones needs to be explained.

Fuckwit, where is your bone evidence for these alleged dinosaurs? Until then, nothing but artistic forgies, and you a total loser. Get with the evidence, which you lack.

e places.

You are essentially acknowledging a forgery. Welcome to real science, that requires real evidence, not presupposition. Still the total loser.

And, if the stones aren’t ancient, how do you explain the Spanish references?

And where is your bone references. If there dinosaurs in the last couple of thousand of years, there is physical evidence. Show that, rather than forgeries, and vague references. Still the loser.

if the Ica stones are authentic, wouldn’t that prove that they did live there?

The key word is if, and that requires other physical evidence like bones, DNA, skat, and the like for you, not us, to show that you are right. Until then, still the evidenceless loser. On quite a loser roll be you...

The fact some details aren’t entirely

And doesn't change the fact that it could be an abstract animal, or a forgery. They burden of proof is upon you not to suggest, but prove with hard physical evidence you are right. And your stones aren't that evidence, as it needs to be much, much stonger, like bones. And the the evidenceless loser you still be...

So they’re sauropods.

Find the bone, and you might be believed. Until then, nothing but a liar and bullshitter without solid scientific evidence. As I said in my first line, still no evidence. Still the utter and total creobot loser, wasting his time, not ours...

Posted by: John Morales | October 8, 2010 10:03 PM

Heh.

You’re right, sorry, my mistake!

But, [blather]

One down, how many to go? :)

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine | October 8, 2010 10:11 PM

ZM
Sigh.

The Ica stone craze began in 1996 with Dr. Javier Cabrera Darquea, a Peruvian physician who allegedly abandoned a career in medicine in Lima to open up the Museo de Piedras Grabadas (Engraved Stones Museum) in Ica. There he displays his collection of several thousand stones. Dr. Cabrera claims that a farmer found the stones in a cave. The farmer was arrested for selling the stones to tourists. He told the police that he didn't really find them in a cave, but that he made them himself. Other modern Ica artists, however, continue to carve stones and sell forgeries of the farmer's forgeries. In 1975, Basilio Uchuya and Irma Gutierrez de Aparcana claimed that they sold Cabrera stones they'd graved themselves and that they'd chosen their subject matter by copying from "comic books, school books, and magazines" (Polidoro 2002).

From this website. Sorry, Charlie.

http://www.skepdic.com/icastones.html

Posted by: Ichthyic | October 11, 2010 1:02 AM

DIE! DIE! WHY WON'T YOU DIE?

Posted by: Owlmirror | October 11, 2010 1:48 AM

Point 14 references evolutionary history, which is baseless if the stones are genuine.

Bullshit.

Here's point 14 in full:

  Over the time frame from the late Hadean to the present, this becomes sufficient to explain both the diversity within and similarities between the forms of life observed on Earth, including both living forms directly observed in the present, and extinct forms indirectly observed from the fossil record.

Even if your fake stones were not fake, the above would still stand. It isn't refuted in the slightest.

I'm saying it falsifies the accepted evolutionary timeline,

Except that it doesn't falsify the evolutionary timeline. The evolutionary timeline does not require that non-avian dinosaurs became extinct.

not saying it shows new kinds of organisms can't form.

Or in other words, evolution remains true. Which is the whole point.

Then you're just rendering that theory unfalsifiable, and as such unscientific.

No, it's falsifiable because actual evidence -- rather than fakes -- would falsify it.

If the Ica stones are genuine, what reasonable basis would you have for saying any organisms never existed together?

The fact that there is no evidence of them having done so.

If one of your great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparents was found alive and well and living in Atlantic City, would that mean that everyone's great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparents are alive?

If the Ica stones are genuine, those methods didn't just give you a minor misunderstanding, they caused a colossal error!

So? Errors can be corrected.

They lead you to conclude that a huge number of species died tens of millions of years before man when in reality they've been right beside us the whole time.

So?

You find the evidence; you correct the "error".

But until you do, the reasonable conclusion is that the stones are fakes. We have the evidence that they're fakes -- you have no evidence that they're real.

You'd have to have more faith than Honi the Circle-Drawer to still believe in any conclusions those methods give!

You still don't understand the scientific method, do you? The whole point is that knowledge can be corrected, with reason and empirical evidence.

Which you don't have.

Not that I see how another fossil in the area of a land-based dinosaur would convince you people saw it when it had skin.

Why should we be convinced, when there are none?

Palaeontologists and archaeologists have had ... how many years, to find something?

And still there's nothing.

Yes, but its such fun to decieve people!

You being an asshole is noted.

Posted by: Menyambal: Making sambal (it isn't dragon magic). | October 11, 2010 2:47 AM

Zeta, the Spanish may have mentioned decorated stones with strange animal images on them, but that doesn't mean that they saw stones with accurate depictions of dinosaurs on them. The Spaniards didn't know what dinosaurs looked like, so the certainly wouldn't have said that they saw, say, a Tyrannosaurus Rex--they couldn't have said that. So nobody said that, whatever you think.

They may have said "estrange lizardo monstrosotito" or something. (It's like the natives who thought that the Spaniards on horseback were some weird animal, or that the horses were dogs. They were in error, but they worked with what they knew.) But the stones don't give scale and the Spaniards probably didn't give a damn. So nobody said anything about giant critters.

So saying that there are records of Spanish seeing dino stones is just shit. Stone, yes. Dino, no.

If, say, Don Pedro Gonzo y Hupta y Banana y Honcho had collected a couple of stones, taken them back to Spain, where he presented them to the Court, they were sketched and placed in a museum and ignored, but kept with proper provenance, and today you could walk us into that museum and show us a T-Rex chipped into a patina-ed rock, then we'd have something.

But you saying that some Spaniard saw rocks with carvings, and the carved rocks now have dinosaurs, and the dinosaurs are under patina, and patina is un-fakable, is well, just a bunch of internet bullshit.

Look, nobody has anything to lose if some dino diehards were hanging out in the Alta until the First People wandered in. Humans wiped out a lot of charismatic megafauna, them whacking a few last dinos doesn't break anything. We could mourn them as we mourn the dodo. Coelacanths popped up a few years back, and they were greeted as long-lost relatives. And a Spanish museum rock with a Utahraptor on it would rock the world in a good way.

There is just simply no evidence, not even your damned stones, for a population of dinosaurs in the post-Cretaceous. Komodo dragons and crocodiles, yeah. Dinos, no.

Until you show some evidence--it can even be one of your rocks if it has valid documentation--we have no reason to treat you as anything other than just another damned fruitloop with a bug up his ass, coming in here being insulting and stupid and doing the delusional dance that we have suffered through so many goddamned times befuckingfore.

Posted by: Owlmirror | October 11, 2010 3:23 AM

I'd said: "If the Ica stones are genuine, the idea that dinosaurs lived and died millions of years ago has little basis in fact."

Now, let's assume they are genuine. How can dinosaurs have lived and died millions of years ago if people saw them?

What a moronic question.

When a mommy dinosaur and a daddy dinosaur love each other very much, they fuck. The mommy dinosaur lays eggs. Baby dinosaurs hatch from the eggs. The baby dinosaurs grow up and repeat the cycle. This can go on for millions of years, if all of the dinosaurs avoid dying. There's nothing stopping it from going on for millions of years. This can continue while primates on a completely different continent evolve over millions of years and eventually become humans, and migrate to the continent where the dinosaurs are.

Was that simple enough for you to understand, or do we need to dumb it down more?

It fits perfectly with the Ica stones, and doesn't require any faith in methods that can yield titanic errors that decieve nearly all who buy into them.

There are no "titanic errors" in the current geological timeline.

And your timeline has titanic errors of its own, which we know exist, and have known for a few centuries now. So your timeline must be false. QED.

Where does that come from now?

It seemed a necessary tangent to go on, to deal with that particular argument.

Right, you need to go with something falsified, because you can't cope with the simple truth that it's false.

There are also (according to you) no signs dinosaurs lived with humans, yet the Ica stones show that's clearly the case.

Except that the Ica stones showing these non-avian dinosaurs are fakes. The evidence that there was no global flood is not fake.

Was that simple enough for you to understand, or do we need to dumb it down more?

I did not sneak it in, I provided evidence.

You did no such thing.

In this case, the only way to deal with the latter is by doing the former.

All the more reason to reject your fakes as being fakes. Of course, you don't have the brains to cope with that.

...they didn't coexist with the dinosaurs since they're from the Carboniferous period (Paleozoic).

You're assuming such a time existed.

No, we have evidence that such a time existed. You don't have evidence that it didn't.

Infinitely lower, in fact, as that many millions of years ago nothing existed! (Indeed, not even that many millions of years have existed)

You being a moron is noted.

Zeta Metroid: Why don't you get this published in a peer-reviewed journal?

Which one?

The Journal of Geoclimatic Studies would be the perfect place for you.

Posted by: Menyambal: Making sambal (it isn't dragon magic). | October 11, 2010 4:29 AM

Zet, honey, listen to me a minute, and I'll try to not call you names.

A lot of people think that Science is some sort of religion. It isn't. It is science.

A religion can be considered to be a worldview, and so can science, but usually a religion's worldview involves the supernatural, somehow, and often starts with the assumption that the supernatural exists.

Science starts off with the assumption that there is no supernatural, that everything is natural and that if something seems to be supernatural, it can be examined and understood and brought into the known world of natural things. For instance, radioactivity, lightning, dinosaur bones and gravity all seemed supernatural at some time, but entire sciences are founded on them now.

Notice the plural on the word "sciences". There are many fields of science nowadays, but they are all part of the greater whole, and they all harmonize and interact and interrelate. Radioactivity helps give the age of dinosaur bones, and electricity helps biologists understand the chemistry of nitrogen-using plants. It all works together and it is the most amazing thing that humans have ever done.

We have devised a way to seek truth, and we have discovered the Universe.

See, religion can be summed up as "He speaks God's truth", while science is much closer to "how can we check if the bastard is lying?" A religion already knows everything, a science is fully aware of how little it knows, and really doesn't even trust that any more than provisionally. But the things that are now known to science, even tentatively, far exceed everything ever written before in any collection of books. And still we search for more and more, learning and yearning.

And you come here, into a scientist's blog, and start speaking about what somebody said, something you accept as God's own truth, and you accuse us of not wanting to learn or to accept something new.

We, as scientists, want some indication that you aren't just babbling.

We don't trust you. And that's not really personal. We don't even trust ourselves, not professionally. We follow procedures, we get someone to check our work, and we see if it fits into the rest of Science. If there is a conflict, we check for our mistakes, and we check for possible new discoveries.

So show us your work, show us your evidence, and don't expect us to chuck out all of science just for you.

You have to buy us dinner first, or at least give us a kiss.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | October 11, 2010 2:58 PM

Patina's can be faked fuckwit. That's why they are usually meaningless. Here's a patent for making patinas on several rocks, including andesite used for your frauds and fakes. Which, if you were the least bit scientfic, you would have found it in literatures searches before you embarassed yourself going on about patinas. So, until that and other patents/papers are utterly and totally refuted, your stones are frauds. The patina evidence is worthless.

Just like your testament. Try an expedition to find the bones in the area. If you have enough cajones to do so, and actually prove yourself right. Further talking here just shows you have no idea how science works. You are wrong until you prove, not suggest, you are right. Where is your evidence???

As for the journal, your choice. Both will reject your inane, stoopid, and unscientific paper. You need to step up your game, and get some real intelligence and scientific savvy, in order not to appear stoopid when trying to publish.

The stones aren't going to get you where you want to go. They are too easily forged and patinaed. So, why not go for the bones??? That way, your evidence will shoot up in reliablity several times. You could be man to discover dinos lived to a couple of thousand years ago in SA. Which in no demolished evolution.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 11, 2010 3:20 PM

I seem to recall that Alan Clarke wasn't exactly a paragon of honesty, but does anyone else remember him as being quite this bad?

Yes.

When confronted on his insane assertions about post Noachian flood geology and its complete lack of anything suggesting the massive geological upheavals required for the flood and today's existing geological features to both exist caused him to behave exactly like Mr. Fake stones here is behaving.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 11, 2010 3:28 PM

That you aren't immediately aware of a refutation is not sufficient proof that something is true.

Yeah it's called argument from personal incredulity. Or more specifically Argument from self knowing.

A favorite of creationists and denialists alike.

Mr. Fake Stones is no exception apparently.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | October 14, 2010 8:55 PM

I am a total and ignorant fool.

Sorry fuckwit, I quoted you. You are the total and utter fool. Still no bones, which means you have nothing even close to true scientific evidence. Your opinion of what is scientific is also based on foolish ideas and ignorance. For example, still pretending your Ica Stones aren't total and utter frauds. Tsk, tsk, shows you have no idea on true science and how it's done. More foolery and idiocy on your part. Try for the bones, they are much, much better evidence. But that means you need to shut the fuck up about the Ica Stones, which aren't the evidence for anything other than gullible customers/creobots like yourself, and try for real evidence. Dem bones. Mount your expedition tomorrow.

Posted by: Iain Walker | October 15, 2010 1:04 PM

Zeta_Metroid (#340):

That one [#260] wasn’t to me, so I didn’t read it…which part of it deals with this?

For the second time, go back and read it yourself, you dishonest, lazy little shit.

Its saying # 269 was one of my posts

Hmm. So it does. I probably meant #271, but since I seem to spend most of my posts pointing out the lack of identifiable accuracy in the examples you keep citing, pretty much any comment of mine would do.

How so? It shows the bumpy nodules on their skin.

No, the Ica dinosaur stones show only crude, patchy cross-hatching and large, widely-spaced donut-like shapes. The former is too crude and generic to support any claim of "accuracy". The latter appears to be an abstract design motif, although possibly originally suggested by reptile scales. In this image here, a donut is even repeated as free-floating motif, unattached to any animal. Note also that both motifs (crosshatching and donut), are used indiscriminately for all dinosaur types, again suggesting a generic design style. They certainly show no detailed resemblance to actual dinosaur skin patterns - as can be seen just by looking at the dinosaur skin included in the image linked to above. Similarly this image here - the differences are greater than the (very vague) resemblance.

There’s no known way to fake that type. See paragraph 3, page 14 here: http://www.dinosaursandman.com/research/Fortean_Times_Rebuttal.pdf

Sigh. Paragraph 3, p14 of the PDF is talking about faking the "mummy blood", not the patina.

Ah, I see. That stone comes from a Nazcan tomb near the Rio Grande Palpa. It was found by archaeologists in the Spring of 2001. (See page 12, paragraph 3, same source as above).

And I see you're still citing Swift without any corroborating sources. I don't suppose you have an independent verification of the stone's provenance?

As a general note, the PDF doesn't contain any images, and the very vague description of the stone ("two dinosaurs, a sea creature, and some unknown animal") doesn't clearly identify it. Based on the context, I assume that it's this stone again, but this is just a close-up which doesn't show the stone clearly, and I can't seem to find any other images that do. So it's not too clear what one is to make of this particular artefact.

However, I'm beginning to wonder if a few of the Ica "dinosaur" stones (including possibly even this one, since it looks rather different from the black and white Cabrera stones) aren't in actual fact genuine pre-Columbian depictions of mythological animals. We do know that the Ica-Nazca and Moche cultures depicted a variety of mythic creatures in their art (e.g., see post #288). Such images, found and misinterpreted due to their superficial resemblance to popular images of dinosaurs might well have been the inspiration for the later fakery by Uschuya and others.

If people saw them, they couldn’t have died millions of years before people.

But it does not prevent them having lived millions of years before people.

I didn’t mean they’d overheat because the planet would become too hot. I meant that they’d need the denser atmosphere because it removes heat faster.

Which would be offset by lower ambient temperatures due to the lower atmospheric pressure. The rate of heat loss by convection depends on the temperature difference between the the object and its environment, not just the density of the convective medium.

Yup, but that isn’t necessarily evidence they [smaller dinosaur species] weren’t there.

Not in itself, perhaps. But the lack of variety of the types of dinosaurs depicted, and their restriction to just a handful of generic types made popular in 20th century culture is nevertheless more consistent with the fraud hypothesis than the "pre-Columbians walked with dinosaurs" hypothesis.

If they were only showing ones considered power (or another) symbols or perhaps ones useful for labor

Which brings us back to Owlmirror's point in #330. If the pre-Columbian Peruvians were actually domesticating dinosaurs, why are there no dinosaur bones in their middens? Why are there no artefacts made out of dinosaur teeth, bone and hides? The Moche, the Inca and the Ica-Nazca people used llamas as beasts of burden and meat animals, and llama remains are often found associated with their settlements and burials. So why not dinosaurs, if the peoples of ancient Peru lived alongside them, and what's more made use of them? Why is the only archaeological trace of this alleged co-existence to be found on a set of carved stones from one limited geographical locality?

Then authenticity of the stones really doesn’t depend on whether there was a flood or not. Once we reach a consensus on that, then we can discuss the Flood and how they relate.

Then can I take it that you won't be making any further reference to the alleged flood, or any other claims you're not prepared to justify, in support of your assertions about the stones? Good. We'll hold you to that.

A what?

A valid empirical argument. Why am I not surprised you've never heard of such a thing?

Posted by: Zeta_Metroid | March 5, 2011 8:13 PM

Hey guys, sorry about the prolonged absense!

@ Iain Walker # 311

Cabrera isn't the most reliable of sources…

Cabrera isn’t the source. In this case, it’d be the geologist Eric Wolf, who did the tests.

…forgers interviewed by Vicente Paris claim that Cabrera used to commission forgeries from them (including providing them with pictures on which to base their work).

So he claims…but he also claims there are stones showing a crucifixion and Da Vinci’s Last Supper that Cabrera said were authentic…but the guy wasn’t stupid, even if he tried to make his story sound more exciting than it was. I think a lot of this is just Paris trying to make his case seem more solid than it is!
I’d also be interested in having more information on these other people Cabrera allegedly hired to forge stones…

We only have Cabrera's word as to which stones were subjected to testing…

I don’t see why he’d submit stones that didn’t have any prehistoric life on them, as the entire point of the tests was to see if those stones had the patina. It’d be pointless for him to have done it on other stones, as everyone agrees there are authentic stones that don’t show dinosaurs.

…his account doesn't go into detail as to the procedures used…

I don’t see why it should be expected to. He had to consult a specialist on dating because he didn’t have that knowledge himself.

…(although it doesn't look as if any control groups were included in the tests…

In this case, a control wouldn’t really be necessary because how long it takes for the patina to form is known.

Not much help, unless you're a trained geologist.

Look at the bottom right, though. You can see the ancient mummy blood, which there’s no known way of faking.

I doubt anyone thinks that the idea that pre-Columbian Peruvians based the dinosaur images on random fossil finds is particularly likely.

Its been proposed in this very discussion.

…a vague summary of unspecified tests…

It specifies it was done by microscope analysis, and doesn’t summarize the tests, but gives their results.

…of indeterminate rigour from an unreliable source, this time David Swift.

David Swift? The name isn’t mentioned anywhere there. It says the test was done by Dr. Richard Fales, who has a Ph.D in archaeology.

One oddity is the claim about “mummy blood". How was this identified?

According to paragraph 3, page 14 here: http://www.dinosaursandman.com/research/Fortean_Times_Rebuttal.pdf , it leaves behind an unmistakable stain called a “burn”.

…including full methodology…

According to Swift’s book, USB microscopes were used to examine them, and the scientists doing it look for certain signs of age (like the “burn”).

…and specific details of the stones actually tested…

What counts as “specific details”?

…(pictures would help)…

See here: http://www.dinosaursandman.com/index.php?option=com_zoom&Itemid=15&catid=5

Which specific stones?

Let’s take the stone with the “burn”, for example.

Which specific tombs?

That stone was found in a tomb discovered in 2001. Its near an irrigation canal that goes around the Nazca Pampa. The burial complex its part of dates between 400 and 700 AD, according to the article Tombs for the Living: Andean Mortuary Practices by Tom D. Dillehay (which is online here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1525/aa.1996.98.4.02a00750/abstract) . That’s what was cited as the source in Swift’s book on the Ica stones.

…unless it is shown that any of the early discoveries or the properly documented stones also depict dinosaurs.

For the early discoveries, those writing about them talk about the strange creatures carved on some of them. For the properly documented ones like the above “burn” stone, you can see the image of the dinosaur youself, I gave the link earlier!

Posted by: Nightjar | March 9, 2011 5:38 PM

Holy crap, Zeta, I can't believe you're back!

Oh, and BTW, I'm Dania. Changed my nym a while back.

And, um, I think I need to scroll up and reread some posts before responding, because it has been so long I'm not sure I remember what we were talking about!

Posted by: Nightjar | March 9, 2011 7:20 PM

Zeta_Metroid:

…but there really isn't a conspiracy out there to keep evidence for creationism out of the peer-reviewed literature.

It isn’t so much a conspiracy as its simply an issue of what certain journals think. Some think Creation is ridiculous, so many things trying to support it don’t get published.

The problem is that all peer-reviewed scientific journals seem to think that creationism is ridiculous. Why is that so, if creationism is in fact not ridiculous? Why is there consensus in the scientific community that evolution is the scientific theory that better explains the diversity of life given all the available evidence? Either there are good reasons for that to be the case or it's all big conspiracy. Or scientists are all blind.

Peer-reviewed journals with articles that’re from a Creationistic viewpoint won’t have evidence for evolution in them. Nobody’s conspiring, its just a matter of what theories they subscribe to.

Creationism is not a theory. There is no evidence supporting it, it doesn't explain what we observe, and no one has ever proposed a mechanism for how it might have happened (and no, magic! doesn't cut it). It also posits a mysterious being that has never been detected.

Creationism is answering the hard questions with Goddidit and claiming victory. It is denying the evidence and completely throwing away the principle of parsimony. It is... ridiculous.

What you were saying was that the Ica stones weren’t evidence evolution couldn’t happen…which I never claimed. They’re evidence it didn’t.

How so?

Posted by: Ichthyic | March 9, 2011 7:40 PM

Is Zeta a zombie troll?

damnit! I traded in my flamethrower when I moved to NZ; not enough room on the plane.

still, it's obvious the only way to get rid of this thing is with lots of fire.

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/e/e1/Zabityprzezogien.gif

Posted by: Nightjar | March 13, 2011 8:59 PM

Seriously, what bizarre confusion of stupid ideas leads you to the conclusion that the Ica stones could possibly be evidence that evolution didn't happen?

I don't know, but it's starting to sound too much like "if man evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"

When Zeta says, @#324:

I’m saying it falsifies the accepted evolutionary timeline, not saying it shows new kinds of organisms can't form.

It sort of looks like he thinks that an isolated population of dinosaurs having survived until recent times would have meant that evolution couldn't have happened the way science shows it did. You know, kinda like "monkeys" having survived until the present day somehow falsifies the idea that humans evolved from a monkey-like ancestor.

Zeta doesn't seem to realise that the date in which non-avian dinosaurs became completely extinct has little to do with the accepted evolutionary timeline, just like some creationists don't realise that it would indeed be possible for humans to coexist with an ancestral species or with a species similar to it. The evolutionary timeline does not concern extinctions*, it concerns speciation events.

And it's not like non-avian dinosaurs needed to go completely extinct in order for humans to evolve. Zeta's bizarre claim that the Ica Stones could be evidence that evolution didn't happen (if they weren't fakes) makes no sense.

*At least not directly. Extinctions can lead to the formation of new species to fill the empty niches, but that's not the point here.

Posted by: Ichthyic | March 13, 2011 9:08 PM

You know, kinda like "monkeys" having survived until the present day somehow falsifies the idea that humans evolved from a monkey-like ancestor.

actually, I think he was going for a kindof reverse angle to the "rabbit in the cambrian would falsify evolution" thing.

of course, not realizing that (because he hasn't the first fucking clue how evolution works) it actually wouldn't work in the reverse direction.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | March 13, 2011 9:39 PM

Funny how creobots always disappear when real evidence must be shown to confirm their delusions. Like dino bones from recent strata...

Posted by: John Morales | March 13, 2011 9:43 PM

Ichthyic,

I always wondered how an elephant and a bird managed to get together though...

Runty roc? ;)

(Hey, I've seen roosters at work!)