March 1, 2011
Debunking the “Dinosaurs” of Kachina Bridge
The Kachina Bridge "dinosaur," as drawn by a young earth creationist (left) and as depicted in a line drawing of the petroglyph (right). The dark shading on the line drawing represents carving done by humans, while the light shading represents mud stains that add to the dinosaur illusion. From Senter and Cole, 2011.
About 65.5 million years ago, the last of the non-avian dinosaurs were wiped out in the fallout from one of the earth’s most catastrophic extinction events. They left only bones and traces in the rock behind. Yet there are people who claim that humans actually lived alongside dinosaurs. Young earth creationists have a habit of twisting natural history to fit within the narrow confines of their interpretation of Genesis, and they insist that humans once co-existed with sauropods, tyrannosaurs, ceratopsians and other dinosaurs within the last 6,000 years or so.
To support their fantastical claims, some creationists cite what they believe to be various sculptures, carvings and other artistic representations of dinosaurs made by ancient cultures around the world. Most of these have been discredited as forgeries and misinterpreted objects, but creationists continue to use them as evidence for their peculiar view of earth history. Among the most oft-cited is a petroglyph of what appears to be an Apatosaurus-like sauropod on Kachina Bridge in Utah’s Natural Bridges National Monument. According to the fundamentalist-apologist group Answers in Genesis, “The petroglyph of a sauropod dinosaur clearly has important implications—indicating that dinosaurs were indeed known to men after the Flood until they eventually died out and became (apparently) extinct.” The assumption is that the petroglyph was intentionally carved by humans to represent a single animal that people had actually seen walking around the landscape in the recent past. A paper just published by paleontologists Phil Senter and Sally Cole demolishes this argument.
Have you ever watched the clouds go by and thought you saw one in the shape of an animal, or seen the “man in the moon”? These are examples of pareidolia—seeing what we believe to be a significant shape or pattern when it isn’t really there. This phenomenon also explains the “dinosaur” on Kachina Bridge. Upon close inspection by Senter and Cole, the “sauropod dinosaur” turned out to be made up of distinct carvings and mud stains. It is definitely not a depiction of a single animal, and, viewed in detail, it looks nothing like a dinosaur. The separate carvings and mud stains only look like a dinosaur to those wishing to find one there.
While certainly the most prominent, the supposed sauropod was not the only dinosaur carving creationists thought they saw on the bridge. Three other dinosaur depictions have been said to exist, but Senter and Cole easily debunked these, as well. One of the “dinosaurs” was nothing but a mud stain; a proposed Triceratops was just a composite of petroglyphs that do not represent animals, and what has been described as a carving of Monoclonius was nothing more than an enigmatic squiggle. There are no dinosaur carvings on Kachina Bridge.
The Kachina Bridge petroglyphs were not hoaxes or frauds. They were carved by people who once lived in the region, but there is no indication that any of them represent animals, living or extinct. What creationists thought they saw in the rocks has turned out to be an illusion, but I wonder how many of them will actually admit their mistake?
References:
Senter, P.; Cole, S.J. (2011). “Dinosaur” petroglyphs at Kachina Bridge site, Natural Bridges National Monument, southeastern Utah: not dinosaurs after all Palaeontologia Electronica, 14 (1), 1-5
Sign up for our free email newsletter and receive the best stories from Smithsonian.com each week.
23 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Looks like I’m updating my articles with this!
Yeah i wouldn’t count on the new paper swaying any on the biblical side… after all, it was researched and published by fallible man in service of evilution! but seriously, it’s good to see an actual scholarly rebuttal to the silly petroglyph myths peddled by creationists.
First on of all, not all of us on the “biblical side” believe in the literal seven days. Many of us see them as God’s timing and, yes, we believe in the Big Bang.
I do think Creationist try to “box God” to fit thier own beleifs. I’ve seen it several times. You can’t box God or put your limits on Him.
[...] in Utah, hailed by creationist groups as evidence of man and sauropod walking the Earth together, don’t actually depict a dinosaur. Let’s hope creationists are [...]
[...] in Utah, hailed by creationist groups as evidence of man and sauropod walking the Earth together, don’t actually depict a dinosaur. Let’s hope creationists are listening.Thanks for the great posts to all the contributors. [...]
If it had been a picture of a horse, there would be no debate, but since it threatens your religious worldview you bring out the arsenal of microscopic examination. You “experts” are truly amazing, you can’t go on fooling the public forever,careful …. your bias is showing. OH…. and Don’t forget to see if I spelled words right and used proper grammar or used paragraphs correctly so you can dismiss me as a stupid layman.
[...] the ‘Dinosaurs’ of Kachina Bridge,” Brian Switek, Dinosaur Tracking, Smithsonian [...]
Clearly Craig @6 must be absolutely correct! It’s gotta be the author’s (and scientists’) bias preventing us from seeing that the carving is all too obviously a winged brontosaurus chowing down on an enormous turtle with antlers. I mean, this is God’s work, right? And he can create anything, right? Including giant turtles with antlers!
Methinks the commenter doth protest too much. “Bias” indeed.
The religion is just a symptom of an impaired mind. Some of these followers (not all) cannot be reasoned with because they may have impaired reasoning or logic. For example, one with the same brain raised in China would have a completely different belief, but the symptoms would be the same.
I’d like to point out sevral things here. Firstly, I do not believe that dinosaurs were roaming the Earth just a few thousand years ago, I do not believe that Humans and Dinosaurs ever lived side by side. And I most certainly do not believe in some all powerful bearded man who created the universe.
That being said, I do believe that any scientific opinion must be carefully measured, well thought out and thouroughly unbiased. This article is one of the most blatant pieces of pseudo-science I’ve seen recently. The author essentially just says “You are all imagining it and that’s the only explanation.” There is no evidence presented nor any alternative theories. Not good science. I came here looking for an intelligent discussion of the possible explanations for this petroglyph and what I found was no better than the articles made by moon landing hoax fanatics who use pseudo-science to try to debunk that famous event.
Chris, that’s because you have to actually read the study. It would be illegal for them to copy and paste the study here. The study has the details of how the 3 “dinosaurs” in question where actually not paintings, but several paintings, with old mud stains between.
Though I agree it would have been nice if this article went into a little more detail as to how the study was conducted.
For instance, spectroscopic analysis can show us what materials were used in pigments, that lets us tell the difference between paint and mud, that the naked eye cannot. We use the same technology to analyze paintings and can see the several layers of paintings, or paintings underneath other paintings.
My name’s Eduardo
I’m from Brazil and not speak english. so sorry my spelling errors
But it does not matter, I believe in God,as evidencie of cration are many. how to explain eg the Cambrian explosion? And evolution of the eyes? and the lack of transitional fossils. Everyday someone people talking “I found…” when we search only a farce.
If you want to discuss with me my email: parmalat100@live.com
[...] the ‘Dinosaurs’ of Kachina Bridge,” Brian Switek, Dinosaur Tracking, Smithsonian [...]
Dinosaurs and Man walking side by side.
http://menwithdinosaurs.blogspot.com/
It looks like they glanced at it with a pair of binoculars and with complete bias state it’s an illusion. Here is better research:
http://www.untoldsecretsofplanetearth.com/docs/kachina_bridge-2011-10_mb.pdf
http://evidenceweb.net/pdfs/kachina-bridge.pdf Refutes Senter and Cole.
http://www.untoldsecretsofplanetearth.com/home.html Proves that dinosaurs were called dragons. Before they were called dinosaurs.
they did a close up examination and they found one continuos mark and no mud absolutely none so debunking the ”dinosaurs” is debunked
The authors are correct. However, the explanation for the creationists who have really no scientific proof and base everything on what they are taught by blinded religious individuals who cannot think for themselves. The universe was not created by a Bearded Man in a Robe.
The real fact for all is that we are all from a genetically manipulated species that was put into action by a superior Alien race thousands of years ago which can explain all the lose ends that Archeologists search for. Besides if classical Dinosaurs existed along side of man we would all have been their food.
I find it odd that a picture of the paintings was not placed on the website. If these creationists are simply seeing cloud figures then let us see for ourselves. This link does a better job.
http://hudsonvalleygeologist.blogspot.com/2011/03/kachina-bridge-dinosaurs.html
He allows us to see the drawings. Cave painting involves paint. . . mud. Its seems like the traditional scientists are saying “I know it looks like a dinosaur, but its not”. Guys, it looks like a dinosaur.
Evolution is a fact…because evolutionists have irrefutable facts to back it up! Oh wait, they don’t? I’m confused…evolution is most assuredly perpetuated as absolute truth. Can that be appropriate if the theory of evolution is still just a theory? One should not be surprised to learn the person or persons who’ve ‘proven’ this particular cave drawing as anything but a dinosaur simply viewed it binoculars. See below article, sixth or so paragraph from the bottom. And that’s sufficient inquiry to turn the assertion this drawing is a dinosaur completely on its head? Not quite…
The theory of evolution is largely a faith-based religion. That is all.
http://news.discovery.com/animals/creationism-dinosaur-drawing-cave-110325.html
I don’t have a particular stance on the age of dinosaurs, but this article is ridiculously slanted and biased. Not to mention that the whole argument begs the question–among other fallacies. This article says, in short, “dinosaurs are old, so any evidence that suggests they may be young is false, because dinosaurs are old. Therefore, dinosaurs are old”
C’mon, Smithsonian–this is beneath you.
Humans have depicted all sorts of fantastical creatures for many thousands of years. Are gargoyles and green men proof of the existence of such creatures? Of course not! No more than the fact that pegasi have been depicted proves their existence. Mankind is artistic and creative. It’s also a fact that people tend to prefer to impose their beliefs on reality, rather than adjusting their beliefs, based on reality. Tbh, I’d be more surprised if there were NO historical depictions that bore similsrities to dinosaurs. The laws of probability should make such examples almost certain. Especially considering the many similarities, in appearance, between dinosaurs and present day animals. If vague similarities in historical carvings are the best evidence that creationists can come up with, to support their co-existence claims, it speaks volumes about how shaky their ‘argument’ is. Especially considering the mountains of, verified and overwhelming, evidence that totally contradicts their viewpoint, from across the scientific disciplines…