Despite finding no evidence of humans mingling with dinosaurs, creationists still continue to pump out one stupid lie after another and promote what they believed to be evidence to support their claims which includes showing off a collection of blatant distorted photos taken of centuries old drawings, carvings, and paintings depicting modern animals and mythical monsters creationists mistook as dinosaurs on purpose only because they're shaped like them, never mind the details inside that clearly shows to us they're not.
One of the images creationists claim to depict a dinosaur only because of its shape comes from the ruins of a ancient Hindu – then Buddhist Temple known as Angkor Wat located in Angkor, Cambodia. According to cryptomundo.com, it is concluded to be an Indian rhinoceros since the carving has real big horns jutting from its head and faint markings of hard, tough rhino skin. But creationists, such as these staunchest ones here from s8int.com, still insists it's a Stegosaurus (as told in Kenneth Cole's article located on Ken Ham's idiot site) since, to them, the animal in the image below (center)…
….appears to be a four-legged “reptile” with bony plates on its back as depicted in many classic dinosaur paintings like this one.
But did the creationists ever mention that the creature in the carving has what appears to be long horns and/or ears growing from both sides of its head, which is something Stegosaurus don't in fact have?
Did the creationists ever mention the fact that the creature in the image has a short, skinny, droopy mammalian tail and legs at an even height unlike the real Stegosaurus that has a thick reptilian tail and long hind legs and short front legs? Did they mention that the creature bore a big, round, neckless head with a beakless mouth and have what appears to be faint lines on its body that's an indicative of sheets of tough rhinoceros skin? Not to mention the fact that the so-called plates perfectly match the embellishments surrounding the animal images and are not being fully triangular, kite-shaped, and arranged in a zig-zag, double row pattern?
Nope. Apparently not.
And why is the so-called plates similar to the decorative embellishments surrounding a circle of modern animals that's surrounding the animal? Could it be that the so-called plates are in fact just embellishments located right behind the creature and nothing else? Could be!
Did the carving have a pebbly pouch underneath its jaw and a much longer neck than what is shown in the carving? Nope.
If what they claimed to be evidence of Stegosaurid dinosaurs roaming the area 800 years ago, then why are the fossils of Stegosaurus found exclusively in North America and nowhere else? Where can we find traces of their physical remains and accounts of their sightings dated to about 800 years ago? It'll be a miracle if the creationists for once get honest and just say 'Nowhere' which is exactly what the correct answer to the question is.
How do creationists explain the complete lack of stegosaur fossils in the Cambodian fossil record? How come dinosaur fossils found in Cambodia do not include Stegosaur remains and more importantly human remains in and around them? They can't!
To an untrained eye, it is a Stegosaurus as depicted in many dinosaur books. But if one looks really up close at the carving….
and compare that with this accurate skeletal model of Stegosaurus below based on a completely intact Stegosaurus skeleton discovered and unearthed in Canon City, Colorado in 1992 …
…one can find that it's not at all the case. Especially when it comes to the fact that this grossly misidentified Indian rhino carving on the temple wall, which is exactly what the carving depicts, has everything Stegosaurus don't in fact have, including long ears, horns or tusks, tough skin coverings, a big, round, beakless head with hardly any neck attached to it, and a short, skinny mammalian tail.
