Skip to comments.Did Angkor really see a dinosaur?
Posted on 06/23/2014 9:24:28 AM PDT by fishtank
Did Angkor really see a dinosaur?
Jonathan OBrien and Shaun Doyle
The September 2007 Creation magazine back page feature article Angkor saw a Stegosaur? showed a stone carving on a temple of Angkor, Cambodia, (a. 1200 AD), depicting what looks like an artistic impression of a stegosaurian-type dinosaur.1 As such evidence clearly supports the biblical view of dinosaurs, it naturally provoked the ire of vocal atheists. Here are their objections:
If it is a dinosaur, they carved it from fossils
The plates along the back of the animal are unlike all the other decorative designs in the temple walls. One objection is that the temple carvers may have carved the stegosaur from nearby fossils. However, it takes a lot of training and skill to accurately reconstruct from fossils what a dinosaur looked like.2 There is no evidence that such was available in Cambodian culture of the time. As one dinosaur researcher has noted, if there are reasonably accurate dinosaur depictions that pre-date modern advances in the science of fossil reconstruction, then a tremendously powerful case can be made that dinosaurs were being depicted not from the bones, but from real-life encounters.3
Moreover, no stegosaurian fossils have ever been reported in Cambodia. Therefore fossils are unlikely to have been the basis for the carving on the temple.
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
CMI article image.
Close-up of the Angkor stegosaur carving. The trademark scales on the back have made it so easily recognizable that CMI speakers have never received another suggestion for what this animal could be other than a stegosaur.
From the website:
“”A readers comment
Patrick G., United States, 23 June 2014
Evolutionists have often strongly criticized creationists suggesting this artwork to be a stegosaurus. The problem is that one of the first people to suggest this in print wasn’t a creationist at all.
A photograph of this particular sculpture is found in the book Angkor Cities and Temples on page 215. The corresponding description of it is found on page 213:
“Roundels on pilasters on the south side of the west entrance are unusual in design. In particular, that at left shows an animal which bears striking resemblance to a stegosaurus.”
The man who described it in this manner was Claude Jacques, a long standing member of the Ecole Francaise d Extreme Orient. He lived in Cambodia for nine years where he taught Khmer history at the Archaeology Department of Phnom Penh. By reading his other comments throughout the book, it is obvious he was an old earth evolutionist. His credentials and time in the region should make him an expert in anyone’s mind. Yet he still saw this artwork as resembling the extinct dinosaur more than any other animal found in this area.
Anyone who wants criticize this carving being interpreted as a stegosaurus should start by criticizing this man first.””
CMI article caption.
The context of the Angkor stegosaur shows that it is pictured with numerous animals known to the locals, such as a water buffalo (above the stegosaur).
has to be.
People from the future time traveled back to Angkor, drew a picture of a stegosaurus for the stone artist, then went back to the future.
This is far more plausible than the idea that the stegosaurus was a contemporary of humans...
[ The plates along the back of the animal are unlike all the other decorative designs in the temple walls. One objection is that the temple carvers may have carved the stegosaur from nearby fossils. However, it takes a lot of training and skill to accurately reconstruct from fossils what a dinosaur looked like. ]
I disagree, any culture that deals with people who are butchers and hunter will have a decent idea of what an animal once looked like based off it’s bones.
Clearly this sculptor had once visited Kong Island.
Note that Angkor is largely ruins, supporting the Godzilla theory.
It’s not a Stegosaurus.
There is no Thangomizer attached to the tail.
Are there any other artifacts from the same region and period that depict the other animals? Why only that one, and why only a stegosaurus?
What’s the animal at the very base of that column?
I don’t know exactly what it means but I have noticed that dragons are pretty much the same in all ancient peoples.
They also look suspiciously like some dinosaurs.
I’ve read that some of the Mayan designs look like elephants,
And Earl Stanley Gardener, writing about Mexico, said there was a man who bought hundreds of statues of dinosaurs, found in the area.
Scroll down to photos.
Maybe it's a curelom?
I so miss the Far Side cartoons.
In Cambodia? It was seared - seared! - into Angkor’s memory. Christmas 1968, I think it was! Nixon was president, even though he wasn’t inaugurated yet.
I don't get that. How does that "clearly support the Biblical view of dinosaurs"? That's a 3200 year old carving. Creationist dogma says all of the dinosaurs were wiped out in the Great Flood 800 years before this carving was made.
Sorry, I misread that. This is an 800 year old carving, made 3200 years after the dinosaurs were supposed to have been wiped on in the Great Flood. That’s not anywhere near lining up with the Creationist timeline.
There is a group of creationist who believe there is a possiblity of present day dinosaurs and travel all around the Congo Basin looking for ‘them’.
So, Garudas really existed along with Dino's?
Huh what !!!
The explanation is funny:
“The arrangement of spikes originally had no distinct name; the term Thagomizer was coined in 1982 by cartoonist Gary Larson in his The Far Side comic strip, and thereafter became gradually adopted as an informal term within scientific circles, research, and education.”
Go, go.. Godzilla.
Yes, they saw it.
The last one of its kind alive.
Then they ground its plates into powder to use as an aphrodisiac.
From the picture, it seems to me that one could argue that the tail is not completely drawn, especially the part where the thagomizer would be located.
Actually, though those do look more like stegosaur plates, I think the head shape make it look more like an ankylosaurus to me.
Look a squirrel.....
Where was I?
“How does that “clearly support the Biblical view of dinosaurs”? That’s a 3200 year old carving. Creationist dogma says all of the dinosaurs were wiped out in the Great Flood 800 years before this carving was made.”
Creationist dogma? There’s no such thing. Creationists have a variety of opinions, and there is no central authority among them to enshrine anything into “dogma”.
The Bible does not say that dinosaurs all died in the flood. Some creationists may think they did, but certainly not all believe that.
Looks like a stylized lion to me.
Thanks fishtank. There are a lot of “ooparts” like this. The question is, how could they so accurately depict an animal they’d never seen?
Additionally, there are accounts of human interaction with large reptiles that were decimating livestock (and in some cases killing people). Invariably, the people banded together and eliminated the threat. (From ldolphin.org)
The giant reptile at Bures in Suffolk, for example, is known to us from a chronicle of 1405:
‘Close to the town of Bures, near Sudbury, there has lately appeared, to the great hurt of the countryside, a dragon, vast in body, with a crested head, teeth like a saw, and a tail extending to an enormous length. Having slaughtered the shepherd of a flock, it devoured many sheep.’
After an unsuccessful attempt by local archers to kill the beast, due to its impenetrable hide,
‘...in order to destroy him, all the country people around were summoned. But when the dragon saw that he was again to be assailed with arrows, he fled into a marsh or mere and there hid himself among the long reeds, and was no more seen.’
(This chronicle was begun by John de Trokelow and finished by Henry de Blaneford. It was translated and reproduced in the Rolls Series. 1866. IV. ed. H.G. Riley. (cit. Simpson, J., British Dragons., B.T. Batsford Ltd. 1980. p. 60).)
The Bible describes behemoth:
Job 40:15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
Job 40:16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
Job 40:17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
A huge animal whose tail is massive like a cedar. Elephant? Nope. Hippo? Nope. Rhino? Nope.
Go Go Godzilla!
That's the only explanation I've ever heard for their extinction.
That’s not a very popular stance with creationists, because it’s difficult to reconcile that with the idea that Noah took representatives of all living terrestrial creatures aboard the Ark with him.
The explanations I've heard is that Noah did not take the "unclean" animals on the Ark with him. Only representatives of some were taken, and those not taken all perished in the flood, becoming extinct.
What other theories do that have to explain the extinction of all the plants and animals that we find only in the fossil record?
Calling them ‘dragons’ instead of ‘dinosaurs’ might be enlightening...
“The explanations I’ve heard is that Noah did not take the “unclean” animals on the Ark with him.”
That’s incorrect, the Bible clearly states that he took both clean and unclean animals aboard the Ark. He just took fewer of the unclean ones. So anyone making that argument is probably not very well informed.
“What other theories do that have to explain the extinction of all the plants and animals that we find only in the fossil record?”
Personally, I think there was a radical change in the environment during the time of the flood, and that many species simply could not adapt. For example, many of the creatures we see that are extinct could not have survived at our current atmospheric pressure. If the pressure was higher before the flood, then dropped afterwards, any species above a certain size would have died very quickly, unless they were completely aquatic, like whales.
Gen 6:11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.
Gen 6:12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
Gen 6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
There's not shortage of examples of small animals and fish in the fossil records, not to mention plants. What evidence do you have that this is what happened?
Whatever changes occurred would have to be lethal to a wide variety of birds, land and aquatic animals, and plants, except for people and the modern animals we see today. Whatever conditions existed before that had to be suitable to all of them.
What do you think that means? Do you think that animals are included in the words “all flesh”? If so, wouldn’t that interpretation also mean that verse 13 declares that the end had come for the animals?
“There’s not shortage of examples of small animals and fish in the fossil records, not to mention plants. What evidence do you have that this is what happened?”
I said “for example”, to illustrate one type of drastic climate change that seems to have happened in the past that could account for the type of extinctions which occurred. I didn’t mean to imply that one cause resulted in all the extinctions, I just offered one example that I think is probably specifically relevant to dinosaurs.
“Whatever changes occurred would have to be lethal to a wide variety of birds, land and aquatic animals, and plants, except for people and the modern animals we see today. Whatever conditions existed before that had to be suitable to all of them.”
Well, ecology is precarious. A single extinction caused by environmental factors could lead to a chain of extinctions involving species which were not directly affected by the environmental factor, but which were dependent on the existence of an anchor species. One species could be affected by such a chain of events, but a closely related species living nearby with slightly different habits might escape unscathed. Trying to either predict, or speculatively reconstruct these events, with our current level of knowledge, is not going to be very fruitful I think.
If so, doesn't it provide the same disproof of any theory that the dinosaurs were wiped out in the flood?
“Do you think the evidence presented in this article is sufficient to disprove the theory of evolution?”
No, I don’t really think that this evidence alone is enough to do that. It might be enough, taken together with a lot of other evidences, to show the theory to be dubious.
“If so, doesn’t it provide the same disproof of any theory that the dinosaurs were wiped out in the flood?”
Yes, sure, if this could be shown to be positively a depiction of a living dinosaur, then that would have to mean they survived much later than the flood. Unless, of course, our dating of the temple and its builders were way off.
Doesn’t the article strike you as being a little one-sided in terms of what theories and ideas this evidence supposedly casts doubt upon?
Sure. Call me a literalist.
If so, wouldnt that interpretation also mean that verse 13 declares that the end had come for the animals?
Yep... In exactly the same way He said the end has come for all men:
Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
But Noah was not corrupt - being 'perfect in his generations' (stop and think about what that means)... So too those animals He selected to be saved along with Noah. I think YHWH made the dragon too - He sure brags it up about Behemoth and Leviathon... But I don't think the lion's share of what we know as dinosaurs were his design... full of violence, and corrupted... I think the Nephilim (fallen angels and their offspring) had a good bit to do with it (see Gen 6:1-4)
So if the "stegosauri" is a real depiction, what is the beast at the bottom of the totem> It looks like a bearded man on a lions body to me.
Sure, why wouldn’t it be? It’s an advocacy piece, not an academic text.
“But Noah was not corrupt - being ‘perfect in his generations’ (stop and think about what that means)... So too those animals He selected to be saved along with Noah.”
The Bible only actually says this about Noah though, it doesn’t say that about the animals. Also, it doesn’t say that was the reason Noah (along with his family) was chosen to be saved:
“7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.”
He was saved because of God’s grace, just as Christians are saved by grace.
Also, Gen 7:1 says:
“And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.”
This is what is meant by the phase “perfect in his generations” earlier in Gen. 6:9. The KJV uses the plural “generations” twice in that verse, but they are actually two different Hebrew words. The first (in “these are the generations of Noah”) is Strong’s #H8435, which carries the meaning of a person’s geneology:
The second (in “Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations”) is Strong’s #H1755, which carries the meaning of a span of time, or the people living during that period of time:
This same word #H1755 is also the one used in Gen 7:1, so both phrases are talking about Noah being perfect or righteous amongst those alive at the time, that generation of people.
I do not see why some dinosaurs could not have survived into the last few millenia. Are crocs and komodos imaginary?
There is no reason ,though, to think that a “modern” critter would have to be as huge as their ancient ancestors were-——look how much smaller many modern mammals are than their Ice Age predecessors. Maybe the stegosaur pictured was the size of a cow.
Some people think it’s a scientific journal.