Article updated on 10/30/12 — Despite finding no evidence of humans mingling with dinosaurs, creationists still continue to pump out one stupid lie after another by promoting what they believed to be evidence of a fictional world where non-avian dinosaur and human beings coexist thousands of years ago by 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 an ancient Buddhist Temple near Angkor Wat called Ta Prohm located in Angkor, Cambodia. The carving clearly depicts a baby Sumatran rhinoceros since the carving has real ears jutting from its head and an even shaped body. But creationists, such as these staunchest ones from s8int.com for instance, blindly still insists it's a Stegosaurus 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 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 unlike Stegosaurus who has a small, narrow triangular head? 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 a live Stegosaurus roaming the area 800 years ago, then why are there 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.
Fossils of stegosaurids have been found in a lot of places including North America, Africa, China, Europe, and East Asia. But not in Cambodia! How do creationists explain the complete lack of stegosaurus fossils in the Cambodian fossil record? How come dinosaur fossils found in Cambodia do not include Stegosaurus 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 National Geographic photo of the baby Sumatran rhino..
(Photo by Photograph by Michael Dick/Animals Animals-Earth Scenes)
..and the 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 the carving does not depict a stegosaur. Especially when it comes to the fact that this grossly misidentified baby Sumatran rhino carving on the temple wall, which is exactly what the carving depicts, has everything Stegosaurus don't in fact have, including long ears, thick, folding skin, a big, round, beakless head with hardly any neck attached to it, and a short, skinny mammalian tail.
