Wild, Wacky World of Answers in Genesis
Every once in a while, I'll head over to Answers in Genesis to see what propaganda they are peddling. Today, I was not disappointed. In their desire to 'prove' that they have properly interpreted the bible, the folks at AIG have abandonded reason and criticism and adopted a stance of 'accept anything if it fits our preconceptions'. In todays feature, we are treated to evidence that man and dinosaur (Specifically stegosaurus) lived together as recently as 800 years ago (from the ruins at Angkor, Cambodia). The article describes to us the following:
"What one sees are roundels depicting various common animals?pigs, monkeys, water buffaloes, roosters, snakes?and what appears to be a dinosaur! There are no mythological figures among the roundels, so one can reasonably conclude that these figures depict the animals that were commonly seen by the ancient Khmer people in the twelfth century."
Might we also reasonably conclude that the animal pictured in the roundel is not a dinosaur? Nope, we must take the author at his word. Earlier in the article we see the following description:
Most of the great Angkor ruins have vast displays of bas-relief depicting the various gods, goddesses, and other-worldly beings from the mythological stories and epic poems of ancient Hinduism (modified by centuries of Buddhism)
Should we also reasonably conclude that the Cambodian people co-existed with these gods 800 years ago? After all, they carved those into a place of prominence as well? Still, let's take a closer look at the carvings. Here is the original photo:
Here's a much clearer figure (you can go to the website linked below and look at the figure): Check out the bottom figure (ever read "where the wild things are"?)
and one more close up with scale!
Here's a rendition of stegosaurus
See how many differences you can spot (begin with the head). This is another case of people seeing something that they want to see and ignoring the rest. But of course, AIG is not the first to posit this and at least one creationist has already 'critiqued' the alleged problems of scale by noting:
One is tempted to respond to these claims by pointing out that our modern restorations involve some guess work, that Stegosaurs may have exhibited a significant amount of anatomical variety (like dogs), that a view of tail spikes may well be blocked by the surrounding stone circle, etc., etc. However, this line of reasoning focuses the discussion on the wrong issue. The relevant question is not, Can you find anatomical differences with today's popular restorations? Rather, the real question is, What kind of sculpture would be produced by an artist who remembered seeing a Stegosaurus?
Indeed, something a lot better than what is depicted here
What's even more interesting is that the second (better photo) of the 'stegosaurus' at the Cambodian ruins is headlined "This I found astonoshing....". read the rest of the quote. It makes me wonder if tour guides are embellishing this just a bit. In fact, at least two of the books on the ruins also makes mention of this 'dinosaur':
The large, beautiful 320 page book, Angkor, Cities And Temples, by the same author and photographer, includes a half page picture of the stegosaur sculpture. On page 213 the author describes it as "an animal which bears a striking resemblance to a stegosaurus".
Along the vertical strip of roundels in the angle between the south wall of the porch and the east wall of the main body of the gopura there is even a very convincing representation of a stegosaur."
I'll let the reader decide how good a representation of steggy. The other roundels are fairly clear with regard to scale:
I also wonder what creature is portrayed at the bottom of the column. AIG must know what that one is! It might just be the chupacabra