I've mentioned this before...
Aside from every other sort of problem which evolution has with basic logic, mathematics, the basic laws of probability, palaeontology (the lack of intermediate fossils), failed experiments (fruit flies) and everything else, there is a double time problem for evolutionism. The laws of population genetics say evolution would require quadrillions of years to create our present biosphere if that was possible at all (it isn't) while, at the same time, overwhelming evidence is turning up that they only have a few thousands or tens of thousands to work with and that the 70,000,000 years which you've read about all your life which supposedly separate our own age from that of the great dinosaurs, are basically a fiction, based on a perceived need to provide Darwinists with the time which was thought necessary rather than on any sort of evidence which could withstand close examination.
In past ages this new body of evidence involving dinosaurs would have been smothered and kept under wraps by a scientific establishment committed to Darwinism and a media too ignorant of scientific realities to challenge them. In our present internet age, this is no longer possible.
Aside from soft tissue which shouldn't be there inside tyrannosaur bones, aside from accurate images of known dinosaur types in Amerind petroglyphs and such diverse places as column stones at the temples at Angkor Cambodia, aside from detailed studies of Amerind oral traditions by experts like the late Vine DeLoria, there is the question of two or three categories of carved stones found in central and south America.
Darwinists will claim that these stones are all frauds. They HAVE to claim that; these stones are instantly fatal to their garbage theory.
The arguments against the stones are weak to nonexistent and you can even sense this looking at Wikipedia's entry on the topic:
One claim is that the stones can be faked:
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.
There are other claims that faux Ica stones have been created with dremel tools. Problem is, the originals turned up before Dremel tools existed and in places where the natives didn't even have electricity much less Dremel tools or dentist drills.
The other claim you see is that individual Peruvian artisans have admitted to faking the stones and even diehard skeptics now recognize the problem with that one. The artisans HAVE to say that; otherwise they'd be put in prison for selling off natural cultural treasures. One typical skeptic website offers the following lame explanation:
After a BBC report on the “artifacts”, the Peruvian government was under some understandable pressure to ascertain whether genuine antiquities were being hawked as souvenirs. An investigation was launched. The farmer, afraid of the severe penalties for such an offence, confessed to carving them himself, but as there were about 15,000 of them in existence by then it seems unlikely that he produced them all. There must have been a cottage industry at work in the area, with whole families feverishly scratching Andesite in between watering the yams and feeding the llamas.
But that pretty much gets to the main problem these stones present to the Darwinists. They are made of andesite, which is fairly hard and difficult to carve, and the original batches which ever turned up numbered in the thousands:
The Ica stones were popularized by Javier Cabrera, a Peruvian doctor who received an engraved stone as a birthday gift in 1961. Cabrera identified the engraving on the stone as a stylized depiction of an "extinct fish" that lived millions of years before. Carlos and Pablo Soldi, two collectors of artifacts who had failed to interest the archaeological community with their findings, found an interested party in Cabrera, to whom they sold 341 similar stones. Cabrera soon found another supplier, a peasant named Basilio Uschuya, and from these and other sources, Cabrera collected over 15,000 engraved stones over the next thirty-five years.
Likewise a Fortean site notes that:
Dr Cabrera " who had a long-standing interest in the prehistory of the region " examined the design on the stone and identified it as a species of fish that had become extinct millions of years ago. News of his excitement reached the ears of Carlos and Pablo Soldi, brothers and well-known collectors of pre-Inca artifacts. They showed Cabrera thousands of similarly-marked stones found in the nearby Ocucaje region and told him that they had repeatedly failed to interest archæologists in investigating the area. Cabrera bought 341 stones from them for the equivalent of UK£30.
If you want to believe these things are all fakes, and Darwinists want to believe that BAD... then there are two possible scenarios here involving the question of producing such items on pure speculation. One of those two scenarios is halfway believable, and the other is not:
"Hey, Pancho, I hear them honkey gringos will pay for unusual archaelogical art-deco pieces; lets make up one or two of em and see if we can get some scientist to buy em and maybe sell em to the gringos and then, if we can, we can get some of the village women to make a couple dozen of em!!"
"Hey Pancho, I hear them honkey gringos will pay for unusual archaelogical art-deco pieces; lets pay the villagers to make up about 20,000 of em, and then see if anybody will buy em!!!"
Nobody should need to be Albert Einstein to comprehend which scenario is believable. The basic reality is that nobody is going to go to the trouble to carve hundreds and thousands of intricate scenes on hard stone on pure speculation.
If all of that isn't bad enough, they also have to explain how anybody hoped to make money in such a fashion selling such stones to the conquistadors in 1562:
The first mention of the stones is from a Spanish priest journeying to the region of Ica in 1535.2 Father Simon, a Jesuit missionary, accompanied Pizarro along the Peruvian coast and recorded his amazement upon viewing the stones. In 1562, Spanish explorers sent some of the stones back to Spain. The Indian chronicler, Juan de Santa Cruz Pachacuti Llamqui, wrote at the time of the Inca Pachacutec many carved stones were found in the kingdom of Chincha in Chimchayunga which was called Manco.3 Chinchayunga was known as the low country of the central coast of Peru where Ica is located today
I won't even go into the myriad problems the Darwinists would have trying to claim that these things were faked for the benefit of the Spaniards and then the idea occurred to somebody else independently in 1962.
Again, Darwinists HAVE to try to claim these things are fakes; if real, they kill the theory of evolution stone dead.