i'm really trying NOT to want to debate this :-) (do i sense a 'take it to the debate forum' coming?)
i tried to follow your thought process and couldn't. too many 'nots' in there. i think you said 'if the stones are red on the outside then the dye withstood the digestion process.'
if the dye is on the outside only, it wouldn't prove anything either way about the age of the ball. only if there's dye on the inside of the ball can one prove that the ball was made by ingesting the dye mixture. if there's no dye on the inside of the ball, then one could argue either way, that the ball is 1) old or 2) new but somehow missed being dyed. so if there's no dye on the inside, to me its no kind of proof of anything.
i probably shouldn't be responding to your note, since i REALLY don't want to start an opinion war. truly. i don't feel like its necessary for people to agree. so for the record, i certainly respect your opinion even if i don't agree. :-)