Dino drawing or mud stain: proof of creation?

[Still Waters]

Dinosaur or mud stain? An ancient cave drawing high on a rock formation in southeastern Utah has stirred a skirmish of sorts between creationists who believe it's proof that humans and dinosaurs lived together, and scientists who say no way.

A new research paper out on the subject probably won't change too many minds, but it is giving food for thought to those who wonder what the fuss is about.

The petroglyph at the Kachina Bridge formation in Natural Bridges Natural Monument has drawn curious visitors for years. By many accounts, it appears to be a hand-drawn plant-eating dino, like the happy green diplodocus that was the old Sinclair oil logo.

Phil Senter, a biology professor at Fayetteville State University, hiked the region with his fiancé two summers ago. "We got there and I couldn't believe it," Senter said. "It looked just like a sauropod."

Petroglyphs are common throughout parts of Colorado, Utah and New Mexico, drawn several thousand years ago by early Native Americans. The drawings represent deer and many other animals, but this was one of a few depicting prehistoric animals.

Read more...

[aquatus1]

The only problem is that it looks less like a sauropod and more like a circa 1970's brontosaurus. The tail is flopped down o. The ground and the neck is straight up, completely out of line with what modern research shows us should have been a straight tail lifted off the ground and a straight neck balancing the body forward.

[danielost]

before i read any of the other posts, let me guess someone will say it is a snake, or mud stain as implied in the story title. now i will read the other posts.

[danielost]

The only problem is that it looks less like a sauropod and more like a circa 1970's brontosaurus. The tail is flopped down o. The ground and the neck is straight up, completely out of line with what modern research shows us should have been a straight tail lifted off the ground and a straight neck balancing the body forward.

or he is eating from a short tree. i dont know about you, but i have never seen an animals head or tail stay in one spot. unless you count snakes but they dont really have a kneck or tail joint.

Edited March 27, 2011 by danielost

[danielost]

The only problem is that it looks less like a sauropod and more like a circa 1970's brontosaurus. The tail is flopped down o. The ground and the neck is straight up, completely out of line with what modern research shows us should have been a straight tail lifted off the ground and a straight neck balancing the body forward.

your also saying that some guy 10,000 years ago knew what our concept of a 1970s brontosaurus would look like.

[aquatus1]

your also saying that some guy 10,000 years ago knew what our concept of a 1970s brontosaurus would look like.

Seriously? That's what you got out of that?

[danielost]

Seriously? That's what you got out of that?

oh wait, you meant someone from 1970 took 10,000 year old paint and made those paintings. sorry i feel stupid.

[aquatus1]

Not quite. See what you can come up with if you do not pre-assume that the picture is that of a dinosaur.

Edited March 28, 2011 by aquatus1

[danielost]

Not quite. See what you can come up with if you do not pre-assume that the picture is that of a dinosaur.

ok how about this, the picts. are dated to 2000 years ago. so there is no way they would know what we thought a cino might look like.

as i stated no animal keeps its head and tail in the same postion from one minute to another. but i see you have failed to address this part of my post.

[danielost]

Not quite. See what you can come up with if you do not pre-assume that the picture is that of a dinosaur.

what can you come up with if you do not pressume it isnt a dino.

by the way when i went to the link to look i wanted to see the funny Dino. what i got was a good pic. of a known Dino.it may not be a perfect drawing but who can do that is an artiest. oh and didnt you see that i said someone would call it a snake.

Edited March 28, 2011 by danielost

[JGirl]

it doesn't look like a dinosaur to me.

[gnostic-deity]

yah, i dont see it. i wish it was an actual color photo.

[lsra]

Looks like it has wings to me. I say its a dragon.

[SKPandAVP]

Heaven forbid they have dinosaurs but scientists are quick to jump on the alien theory when they see weird stuff. Lol. I think it was probably done by a 5 year old cave baby. And when we are all dead we will look back and laugh at it.

[danielost]

Looks like it has wings to me. I say its a dragon.

funny dragons supposedly were inspired by dino fossols.

yah, i dont see it. i wish it was an actual color photo.

what do you want with a black and white painting.

[danielost]

after looking at the second drawing a little closer it is a snake. but the first one isnt a snake.

[Horus Christos]

Just for clarification, the black picture on the left is not a cave drawing, but a computer graphic to illustrate just how the creationists manage to see a "dinosaur" on the right (the fact there has to be an guide to show the "dinosaur" is pretty damning proof in itself that the drawing isn't very convincing). What is actually on the cave wall is what is shown on the right, and it looks nothing like a dinosaur - especially the so-called "legs" which appear to be totally separate from the rest of the drawing. I am also unaware of any sauropods with a shark fin on its back

I feel stupid, and kind of sad, that it is necessary to assert that man and dinosaurs never co-existed. It is like having to convince people that the earth is round, or that the earth revolves around the sun, or that astronauts actually went to the moon, or that ancient Egyptians (like the amer-indians after them) were perfectely able to put stones one on top of another in a pyramidal shape (not to lesson their great engineering achievement, but no extra-worldly explanations needed).

Is it just me, or are others also worried about what seems to be the increasing irrationality of the human species ?

[danielost]

Just for clarification, the black picture on the left is not a cave drawing, but a computer graphic to illustrate just how the creationists manage to see a "dinosaur" on the right (the fact there has to be an guide to show the "dinosaur" is pretty damning proof in itself that the drawing isn't very convincing). What is actually on the cave wall is what is shown on the right, and it looks nothing like a dinosaur - especially the so-called "legs" which appear to be totally separate from the rest of the drawing. I am also unaware of any sauropods with a shark fin on its back

I feel stupid, and kind of sad, that it is necessary to assert that man and dinosaurs never co-existed. It is like having to convince people that the earth is round, or that the earth revolves around the sun, or that astronauts actually went to the moon, or that ancient Egyptians (like the amer-indians after them) were perfectely able to put stones one on top of another in a pyramidal shape (not to lesson their great engineering achievement, but no extra-worldly explanations needed).

Is it just me, or are others also worried about what seems to be the increasing irrationality of the human species ?

this doesnt explain how dragons got their wings. remember the largest animals that the greeks or who ever gave them the idea for dragons had only seen were eagles, these being the largest fliers around.

now the Roc can be explained easily enough. you see there was an elephant on one of the med. islands that was the size of a goat and one of the eagles there was big enough to carry one of them off.

Edited March 28, 2011 by danielost

[Mattshark]

it doesn't look like a dinosaur to me.

Or me, seems like a huge leap to make based on nothing but pareidolia.

[Littlehawk]

Humans are so narrow minded, viewing things, cultures, events, unexplained phenomenon through the veil of their current understanding of reality.

If it IS a dinosaur, couldn't it just as easily mean that we came into being earlier than science accepts currently?

Here's another one: we were always here.

How about the Ancient Aliens theory? Our ancestors came here from another planet and got stranded here?

Or POOF creationism.

Maybe we're all holograms, as the quantum physicists now theorize and time is an illusion.

I think we don't know EVERYTHING, although scientists verbalize like their theories are the truth instead of what they actually are: a good guess, based on what they think they know.

The end. :-)

[Horus Christos]

this doesnt explain how dragons got their wings. remember the largest animals that the greeks or who ever gave them the idea for dragons had only seen were eagles, these being the largest fliers around.

now the Roc can be explained easily enough. you see there was an elephant on one of the med. islands that was the size of a goat and one of the eagles there was big enough to carry one of them off.

What are you talking about?

Dragons are mythical creatures, obviously based on oversized lizards with wings (nothing to do with eagles, elephants or goats). Humans are imaginative and can think in abstract ways you know. The Greeks also had cyclops in their mythology (i.e. oversized humans with one eye), as well as centaurs, nymphs, satyrs, winged horses(pegasus), griffins, phoenix, chimeras, etc.

Anyway....back to point. Having done a little research (there's a novel idea for you) it actually becomes apparent that both figures in the picture attached to the article are representations (and shame on the article for not making that clear). The black one on the left is unsurprisingly from a creationist children's book depicting the cave drawing, the one on the right a more scientific rendering showing man-made markings (dark gray) and natural coloring (light gray) to scale. If you want to look at the real thing check out picture 4 here at http://www.palaeo-electronica.org/2011_1/236/fig_1.htm

[ShadowSot]

I think this is the pic:

I dunno... stylistically it seems much different than the pic of the man, and the preservation in comparison to the other images leaves me suspicious.

Edited March 28, 2011 by ShadowSot

[lp21why]

Even looking at the second link, it doesn't look particularly like a dinosaur to me. Even so, who's to say that the creator of the image didn't come across a rather complete skeleton of a sauropod?

However they didn't live alongside one another - the 65 million year gap between the K-T extinction and the earliest evidence of humans in the US scratches that idea out.

Edit: The picture by ShadowSot looks much more like a dinosaur than the original links. Still my arguement stands.

Edited March 28, 2011 by lp21why

[Ms. Anita Cigarette.]

Oh, come now. We all know it's NOT a mud stain & it's a person depicting a dinosaur. They seriously expect me to believe there weren't people around then? & that they weren't "seeded" by "them"?? haha xoxox

[Horus Christos]

I think this is the pic:

I dunno... stylistically it seems much different than the pic of the man, and the preservation in comparison to the other images leaves me suspicious.

Uhh..that looks very suspicous - like photoshopped.