Originally posted by Gawdzilla
So, they didn't. Shows that they're happy where they're at. Unless, of course, you think the fossils are < 6,000 years old.
The surface of a stone undergoes chemical changes when it's exposed to air. The scratches in the Ica stones show that they are very recent. No
surprise there, the guys that make them have fessed up.
They "fessed up" after they were threatened with imprisonment. I am curious how 1 poor farmer could carve so many thousands of these stones?
It would seem to me that if he hoaxed everyone, it would be VERY easy to prove. Do you have any sources that can support your assertion about the
relatively young age of the patina on the grooves in the stones?
RE: the coelacanth, not only did science get it wrong about its extinction, but virtually everything else was wrong, too. They believed it to be a
shallow water fish, and it turns out that it lives at a fairly great depth.
It just goes to show: the only difference between science and us "fringe" thinkers is that with science, their imagination is ordained as fact
(even when it is provably not so).
Add to the discussion the Japanese find of a plesiasaur.