[Future Snake Eater]

No reason to think the Indians didn't find bones of "dragons," and didn't repeat stories about those discoveries.

...which would be a great explanation if we were talking about stories, but we're talking about actual drawings made by people thousands of years ago that clearly depict dinosaur species that have been discovered by more modern day scientists. How could these ancient peoples have known what dinosaurs looked like if they could never have seen one? Could they extrapolate their appearance based on a couple of bones? I doubt it.

[Wordsmith]

we're talking about actual drawings made by people thousands of years ago that clearly depict dinosaur species that have been discovered by more modern day scientists.

I dispute that they "clearly depict" these species. IMO, the "pterosaur" could be a heron, and the "triceratops" could be a stylized buffalo, ox, or rino. The stegosaur and pleisiasaur are more compelling, but still debatable.

How could these ancient peoples have known what dinosaurs looked like if they could never have seen one? Could they extrapolate their appearance based on a couple of bones?

Not all fossils are just "a couple of bones." And even a couple of bones can be instructive, depending on their relationship to each other when found, and which bones they are.

[Lurking Libertarian]

we're talking about actual drawings made by people thousands of years ago that clearly depict dinosaur species that have been discovered by more modern day scientists

I don't think most of those pictures are that "clear." The "pterodactyl," for example, looks more like an eagle to me. Besides, there are some pretty complete dinosaur skeletons lying close to--sometimes on-- the surface out west.

[Wordsmith]

One more thought on the pictographs. The "triceratops" is in a collection that includes people with antlers. Seems to point to the possibility that this artform included a high degree of stylization.

[Wordsmith]

One more thought on the pictographs. The "triceratops" is in a collection that includes people with antlers. Seems to point to the possibility that this artform included a high degree of stylization.

[medved]

Could they extrapolate their appearance based on a couple of bones? I doubt it.

Particularly since, as the articles on this find note, dinosaur skeletons are rarely if ever found with more than a fraction of the bones in one place.

[john in missouri]

#1) You know, if anybody could produce an early cave drawing of a stegosaurus that looks like this:

then, hey, I would say we have something. Instead, all we've got is something that looks like this:

Now that looks to me a hell of a lot like a threatened cat.

And this:

This is supposed to be a brontosaurus. Yet it could just as easily be a drawing of a guy standing beside a rock, or an ancient flower of some sort. Or maybe a sun symbol or a random abstract doodle. Yet we are supposed to believe that conclusive proof has been found that stegosaurs and brontosaurs walked with man.

#2: Even if stegosaurs and brontosaurs did walk with man, I don't really see how that would really mean a damn thing in terms of "disproving evolution." The fact is, we have at least two known species of dinosaurs that are living today because they have never died out -- the crocodile and the coelacanth.

So none of this makes a lot of sense any way you cut it -- unless, of course, you've already made up your mind and are looking for evidence to back up what you already believe. Which is, unfortunately, how most people make their decisions.