Inca Stones

Inca how do we authenticate inca stones
?
The ones that show dinos and man together.
as in man riding.. the dino in war or dino (branded) like the do cows .
brontasaursous steg and tricetops

i have never heard of this have you got any links.

im quite interested if there are

can you please provide a picture of these stones?

they are probably just reptiles that are around today that come creationist want to claim are dinosaurs. or maybe some dinosaur bones were unearthed from erosion and the incas carved them onto stone.

if dinosaurs and man lived together, why in no of the "supposed" 200-65million year old rock layers do we have only dinosaur fossils and no man?



AIG

"Page 165—Promotes the Cabrera discovery of the Ica dinosaur stones. We featured these very gingerly in the magazine, saying that they might turn out to be man-made artifacts. The evidence now appears to strongly suggest that they are of modern-day manufacture."

[edit on 14/11/07 by cheeser]

The relevence of the Ica Stones is disputable to creationism because their authenticity has been questioned. It is known that at least some fakes were created within the last few decades to generate money from sales to curious tourists.

Here is a site with some images of the stones with dinosaurs. Other stones have images of men using telescopes, allegedly performing open heart surgury and other more modern marvels:
Ica Peru "Dinosaur" Burial Stones This site states that:

[indent]"Paleontologists use to ridicule the rosette skin pattern and the dirmal frills prior to the 1990's. Since then fossil dinosaur clearly showing rosette skin patterns... and... dirmal frills were confirmed for the first time.

... The Indian chronicler, Juan de Santa Cruz Pachachutillamgui wrote that at the time of the Inca Pachachuti many carved stones were found in the kingdom of Chinca, in Chinchayunga. He also states that some of these stones were taken back to Spain at that time.

... described a Spanish priest traveling in the area in 1525 inquiring about the unusual engraved stones with the strange animals on them."
[/indent]

If only we could find those stones in the back rooms of some Spanish museum to prove these stange stones existed before the modern (1800's) discovery of "dinosaurs".... hmmmm...

they were created by a farmer to sell as a survenier[gift].

he had almost 1000 of stones inside a cave, and when they were analyzed it showed sings of modern paiting.

the farmer just wanted to make some money.

this stones are being use by creationist to say, see dinosaurs walked with men. but everytime they say that, is a lie, cuz this stones are fake.hahaha


[edit on 14-11-2007 by Drzava]

I am aware, as are most creationists, that SOME are recent fakes... copies of originals? To declare them ALL to be fakes, however, seems to assume more information than seems waranted other than extreme predjudice. That is not to say that they may not all be fakes, only that the declaration that they are all fakes is, at this time, unwarranted by the evidence.

There is also a division amongst some Christians not only between the Old Earthers and the YEC's (Young Earth Creationist), but even between the YEC's as to the authenticity of the stones.

See www.bibleandscience.com... for a negative (i.e., "fake") view of the stones.

See yecheadquarters.com... and also www.creationinfo.com... for more critical looks at the skeptics offhand dismissal of the evidence.

From that last reference we read:
"In 1978, the NOVA program aired, "The Case of the Ancient Astronauts." They included the Ica stones as part of their analysis of the claims that ancient astronauts visited earth. NOVA showed the viewing audience close-ups of the incision on the rocks. The incisions appeared to be fairly new. If they were new, how new? Cabrera claimed the rocks were carved one hundred million years ago. Such a claim is sheer nonsense. But what about thousands or a few hundred years old?


The microscopic analysis of the Cabrera rock or Ica stone revealed that it had a fine patina covering the grooves and incisions of the stone. There was dirt and sand embedded in the crevices of the stone including some of the incisions. The natural oxidation had slightly colored the incisions so that they did not have a bright white look. No evidence of modern tool usage or minute metal particles were found. The laboratory conclusion was that the engravings on the stone were not recent but of some age. That age could not be determined because patina and natural oxidation cannot be accurately measured. The patina is not an absolute proof of age, but it would be impossible to find patina on a recently engraved stone.

The stone has an outside layer of coloration and weathering. When an incision (cut) is made, it breaks that layer. If the weathering had been scraped away and the stone’s natural color shows at the base of the incision, the cut is probably new. If the incisions have become weathered and the stone’s coloration extends down into the incisions, then the stone’s incisions are at least "old" to some degree.

Any attempt to date the stones is a doomed exercise. The stones themselves are eons old. We can’t date the stones and we don’t even want to try. We want to date the lines or incisions on the stones. The line we scratch on it today is only as old as—well, today. So the only way to date the scratch is to look for patina, weathering oxidation, microorganisms, lichens or other features indicative of age.

The NOVA television special on Ancient Astronauts left the audience with the undeniable impression that the cuts on the stones were so new that they had to be made in the last few years or even "yesterday." However, under a microscope and not a television camera closeup, there was real patina and a film of oxidation."

... "The second stone from the Cabrera Museum was thoroughly examined. The groove did not appear bright or fresh but dull and slightly gray. This was verification that they were not of recent manufacture. The stone had no pitting or pock marks in the grooves which are the result of saws or rotary powered tools. The stone had an even wear to the grooves except in one area where there was considerable wear. The worn area may have been caused by constant handling before it was buried.

... Anyone who postulates that they are fakes has gone out on a broken limb without historical or scientific support."

Originally posted by cheeser
if dinosaurs and man lived together, why in no of the "supposed" 200-65million year old rock layers do we have only dinosaur fossils and no man?

The authors of Forbidden Archaeology, Cremo and Thompson would disagree... artifacts and evidences of man HAVE been found in rocks OLDER than the supposed 65 million year age (note: Cremo and Thompson are NOT creationists, they are Vedic Hindus).

I would agree that no UNDISPUTED evidence has turned up, but then ANYTHING which contradicts evolutionary theory and the "standard" and accepted geological ages is automaticly "discredited".

There is a Powerpoint slideshow about geology, out-of-place strata, out-of-place-artifacts (OOPARTS) and out-of-place human fossils. You can see it online here:
nwcreation.net...
or downloaded the Powerpoint slideshow here:
nwcreation.net...

I have some reservations about parts of the presentation - the geological column is claimed to have been preserved in a few (5 or less) places on the globe. Some of the finds are disputed even amongst creationist and many are considered 'anecdotal' evidences... but there certainly ARE finds made in ancient rocks of man's existance.

cre8id: I heard the opposite. That there was NO patina on the engravements, showing they must be young.
I also heard the hoaxers made the stones look older by putting them in the chicken pens and letting the chickens do the rest.

And things which contradict evolution aren't considered "automatically refuted", that would be bad science. Though they might be "automatically questioned". There are some propositions by creationists which are so bizarre and unscientific, you don't even need a test to be sure they're wrong. But if one does bring forth something reasonable, it will be treated fairly in the scientific community and examined.

Id definately question the authenticty of some of those stones.
However the Incas did believe in certain monsters that resembled dinos. And it was put into their art. We covered this in college,
However it wouldnt be the perfect representation of a T'rex for example.
It was also a story they told their children.

Another theory:

HOW DID THE INCAS CREATE SUCH BEAUTIFUL STONE MASONRY?:
www.ianlawton.com...

reply to post by Drzava


No, you're thinking of the Acambaro figurines.

www.detecting.org.uk...

This video is a slide show of a large display of these stones.

Worth viewing

Inca Dinosaur !?!

Interesting art and story