Cryptozoology forums > Cryptids > Prehistoric Survivors? > view thread
Subject: Re: New website
From: luna1580 posted Sat, Oct 17 2009, 9:43pm 
you know the ica stone in your profile is an admitted hoax, right?

if the lack of wear on the engravings wasn't a red flag that they are recent creations, you can always fall back to the fact that Basilio Uschuya admitted he hoaxed them and you can go to ica today as a tourist and buy one yourself...produced especially to sell to you.

and you want feedback, but only if it's positive? why don't you just post this "announcement" at a known YEC website and only invite those who already agree with you to visit?

falling for hoaxes is no way to show off critical thinking skills and entice non-believers to your side (or site...).

of course, denying every single thing all geologists, geochronologists, biologists, geneticists, anthropologists, paleontologists and cosmologists have ever learned about the age of the earth requires such intense mental gymnastics (or profound ignorance and denialism) that i guess your critical thinking skills should be the least of our worries.

i hope you enjoy your new website. maybe you can advertise with dino-phil?
Subject: Re: New website
From: cloudyboy87 posted Sat, Oct 17 2009, 10:33pm 
Wow...a bunch of atheists attacking and mocking me and the evidence for YEC i put forth..Didn't see that coming...
Subject: Re: New website
From: Ursustyrannis posted Sat, Oct 17 2009, 10:41pm 
(Rolls eyes) Really? I mean....REALLY?

And by the way, they just pointed you into directions you ought to investigate. Don't just go by your own bias. As it says in the good book. "By My works, you shall know me". By the way, we do have living dinosaurs, they're called birds.
Subject: Re: New website
From: luna1580 posted Sat, Oct 17 2009, 10:43pm 
this isn't even close to mocking -it's not mocking, slander, or libel if everything you write is true.

you do deny that the ica stones are a hoax? or did you just not research it?

we can't mock your "evidence" because you haven't got any evidence.

my question was serious, why don't you spread the word about your site on other sites that cater to YECs? or do y'all compete for readership and not share? that would be weird, jesus loved sharing.....

and if you saw this response coming why bother to post here in the first place? i believe there are only around 5 actual YEC members of this site, so who were you hoping to get all the "positive feedback only" from? that is also a genuine question.
Subject: Re: New website
From: luna1580 posted Sun, Oct 18 2009, 4:31am 
if anyone cares, this has become a duo-posted thread, enjoy! (or ignore, whatever):

the twin in E vs C.....
Subject: Re: New website
From: Phillip O'Donnell posted Tue, Oct 20 2009, 10:01pm 
Luna1580,
I have researched, held, and studied some real Ica Stones. There are genuine Ica Stones that depict dinosaurs.

Rebuttal to Skeptics
Subject: Re: New website
From: Stu posted Wed, Oct 21 2009, 9:35am 
You link to an article full of assumptions & errors from The Fortean Times as proof of the Ica Stones' authentically portraying relict dinosaurs?

lol
Subject: Re: New website
From: Bearman58 posted Sun, Oct 18 2009, 5:51am 
Wow..a bunch of crap from another YEC who has zero evidence-and he didn't expect to be mocked.. Didn't see that coming
Subject: Re: New website
From: john80c posted Sun, Oct 18 2009, 6:08am 
If you want feedback you have to accept negative from positive ie we learn from our mistakes
Subject: Re: New website
From: Stu posted Sun, Oct 18 2009, 6:27am 
Aren't you going to reply to my question, which was neither "mocking" nor "attacking"?

You say on your site that the 1972 Rines Nessie photo is "real and authentic".

Can you tell me where it was authenticated, by whom, & link me to scientifically peer-reviewed papers & evidence to show that the photo portrayed a real animal?
Subject: Re: New website
From: LightZone posted Sun, Oct 18 2009, 8:50am 
well i'll say one thing at least he got of his backside and built a website about his beleifs how many of us would be prepared to do it?
Subject: Re: New website
From: Stu posted Sun, Oct 18 2009, 9:09am 
It's a free-hosted website. He didn't 'build' it, he slotted chunks of text & photos into a pre-existing, 'built' pro-forma site model. He's obviously done a lot of work collating, but he's collated almost all info from other sites, & has knowingly posted info long proved to be incorrect. Thousands of people do it every day - on MySpace, Facebook & other such free sites built ready to hold whatever info you want them to hold. He's also refusing to answer my question on the '72 Rines Nessie image, which he claims to be 'real & authentic'. I've no problems with his work ethic & desire to reflect his beliefs. What I have a problem with is presenting proven hoaxes, obvious Photoshops & unidentified imagery as "real & authentic". And I didn't have a go at him, either.
Subject: Re: New website
From: church posted Mon, Oct 19 2009, 10:11am 
"DURRRRRR everyone who thinks stuff I believe is fake is an athiest DUURRRRRRR!"


You got bookend "Durrrrr"s for that post, it's called constructive criticism you ninny, get over yourself
Subject: Re: New website
From: raditz posted Mon, Oct 19 2009, 5:14am 
Last I heard, it was only some of the Ica stones that had been admitted hoaxes, after interest in the stones was initially sparked. From what I've read, most of the stones have been dated to be quite old. If you have additional information on the stones, please direct me.
Subject: Re: New website
From: Rainbow Medicine Man posted Mon, Oct 19 2009, 3:43pm 
Raditz Man, the stones sure are old. The engravings are not...

- The fossil record of the last sixty five million years doesn't show a single "unevolved" dino (you know, plesiosaur, T-Rex, Quetzacoatl, them big reptilian-looking critters). So, there are no surviving unevolved dinos, period.

- Apart from the Ica stones (all thousands of them on a single site!), no other stones, or artifacts, of similar age have been found showing similar engravings. Not a single one. So, the Ica stones are a fake, period.

Were does my reasoning fail?.
Subject: Re: New website
From: raditz posted Mon, Oct 19 2009, 6:03pm 
I was reading about the engravings, and how they were proven to be quite old. That's the dating I meant. It had something to do with a layer over the engravings, those without the layer were hoaxes, but the ones with it were very old. Some of the non-hoaxed engravings had the dinosaur-like images on them.

That's the information I have, I'm just wondering where I can find more. No offense to you, but I'd like to read what people who have actually held them and studied them have to say - though I can definately understand your reasoning.
Subject: Re: New website
From: luna1580 posted Mon, Oct 19 2009, 9:07pm 
can you tell us were you read that the engravings (not the undateable rocks) were found to be "old"?
Subject: Re: New website
From: raditz posted Mon, Oct 19 2009, 11:55pm 
Various place on the net, perhaps wiki, and several books. I believe Jerome Clark and perhaps John Keel have written on the subject.
Subject: Re: New website
From: Rainbow Medicine Man posted Tue, Oct 20 2009, 1:54am 
Yes, the problem with the web is that sometimes it is hard to ascertain what is fake and what is not. It is easy to write "some of the stones were old", or "my Aunt Mary had a dino pet". I say we must use "common sense". And extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof. The burden of the proof is on the one who makes the claim, not on the disclaimer. Living dinos?. I can deny that sitting on my chair. But to prove they exist you MUST show an specimen...or at least, a carcass (not a beluga one). Same for one-of-a-kind artifacts. Like, them million years old spheres with circular grooves around the "equator". They're not man-made bearing balls, but natural artifacts, and there's a process described on how they form. And so on.
Subject: Re: New website
From: raditz posted Tue, Oct 20 2009, 9:11am 
I've read on the subject from several sources, including published books, written by people who have studied the subject. From everything I have read, it would seem that the argument that they are hoaxed is a slightly misinformed one. I am interested in the stones regardless of the outcome, and was asking for a source that would explain the hoax explanation given in this thread.

Living dinos?. I can deny that sitting on my chair.


I never said anything about living dinos. If you must know, I do 100% believe that at one point in history, man and dinosaur walked the earth together. That doesn't necessarily mean that I think they're still alive this very day. The number of artifacts and written accounts in ages past, suggesting that people were looking at and describing dinosaurs intrigues me. In my own opinion there are enough of these artifacts and accounts to justify a study in the subject.

Of course you deny it without batting an eye, because it goes against the current scientific paradigm. I'm one of those people that thinks everything we know is wrong, so I suppose that makes me free to take certain subjects more seriously than other people can.
Subject: Re: New website
From: Rainbow Medicine Man posted Tue, Oct 20 2009, 12:28pm 
"I'm one of those people that thinks everything we know is wrong"

Be careful, you're using a keyboard that's surely wrong, then. Be careful, you're going to use a car, sooner or later, and it can be wrong, too. And, why tell you about planes?. They can be wrong, of course...your language is wrong, so you'll be unable to transmit your meanings...man, please, surely not EVERYTHING we humans know is wrong !.

OK, when you show me convincing evidence that dinos did not go extinct sixty five million years ago, or that humans were around sixty six million years ago, give or take, I'll believe you. Till then I'll go with what not only is evident, but is also accepted by the 99,99999% of people around, including dinophil and cloudedboy. Deal?.
Subject: Re: New website
From: raditz posted Tue, Oct 20 2009, 3:59pm 
1. Don't be retarded, you know what I mean by everything we know is wrong.

2. I'm not trying to convince you of anything.

3. Prove anything to me.

4. I'm done speaking with you, I've been more than fair with my statements. I think I've made it pretty clear that I'm not arguing anything with anybody, I believe what I believe. All I did was ask for information and you're trying to turn it into a back and forth "I'm right you're wrong" discussion. Go fight with somebodyelse. That's the one thing I hate about this place, doesn't matter what you say or how you say it, there's always a couple people that pick apart every little thing you say, then treat it like you're trying to prove something. I'm not. It's supposed to be a discussion on ideas. Some of you are respectful of others opinions even if you disagree. Other's act like Medicine Man and skim through every post looking for a fight.
Subject: Re: New website
From: Rainbow Medicine Man posted Tue, Oct 20 2009, 4:42pm 
1 Sorry man, I am what I am. "Everything we know is wrong" is a pretty inclusive statement, and I can't possibly discern what specific portion of knowledge you are making reference to. If you are a bit more specific we can maybe discuss, as you say. So, I DON'T know what you mean.

2 OK, good for you. So what?.

3 Mmmmm...nothing can be "proved". Nothing. One can show evidence. But then, my perceptions are not yours...But, why would you want me to prove "anything" to you?. Say, that two plus two on a base ten makes four?.

4 You asked for info and I supplied what I had, now what's your problem?. If you don't want to debate with me, that's OK, your prerrogative. Good for you, Hooray and all that. Have a nice day and may you find gigantic amounts of evidence against the stablishment. May you be blessed and may you win the lotto...


Close Window