The Kachina Bridge "Sauropod" in Utah's Natural Bridges National Monument


 CLAIM: A petroglyph discovered at the Kachina Bridge, Natural Bridges Monument in southeastern Utah that likely dates from around 1000 CE depicts a sauropod, likely a Diplodocus. (Dupre, 2014, p.4-6) (Ham, 2013, p.36) (Ham, 2017, p.162) (Hodge & Welch, 2011, p.5) (Hovind, 2003, 36:59) (Swift, 1997)

RESPONSE: The Kachina Bridge "sauropod" in Utah's Natural Bridges National Monument has had a wide circulation in young-Earth circles as evidence that humans existed with dinosaurs. However, detailed analysis by paleontologist Phil Senter and archaeologist Sally Cole has refuted the idea that the figure is a sauropod and responses to their work have been left wanting.

COMPOSITE NATURE OF THE PETROGLYPH
Senter and Cole's examination indicates that the "sauropod" is not a single animal, but comprises two separate petroglyphs: one forming the "neck" and "back", and the other contributing to the overall shape, with the "legs" of the sauropod being natural staining, not carvings. (p.3)

How the "sauropod" has been depicted in young-Earth literature vs its underlying structure
(Black, 2011)

It's understandable that, on the surface, the figures could be seen as resembling a sauropod. As cliche as it sounds, pareidolia - seeing familiar patterns where none exist - seems to be the most significant problem causing the "sauropod" interpretation. Senter himself acknowledged that when viewing the petroglyphs in person, it was not difficult to view it as a sauropod. (Niiler, 2011) However, even if the figure had not been shown to be a composite, the figures do not exhibit anatomical features consistent with sauropod dinosaurs. Sauropods are characterized by long necks, massive bodies, and distinct limb structures. The petroglyphs, as interpreted as a single image, do not reflect these characteristics. The "neck" and "body" proportions are inconsistent with sauropod anatomy, with the tail dragging the ground and being more than double the body-length of the "sauropod". These discrepancies should preclude the identification of the petroglyph as a sauropod and would need to be explained by young-Earth advocates who want to hold to the sauropod interpretation.

CREATIONIST REACTIONS
Both Answers in Genesis (Abrahams, 2011) and the Institute for Creation Research (Thomas, 2011) have offered responses to Senter and Cole's paper, but their rebuttals have notable shortcomings. AiG's article primarily questions Senter and Cole's adherence to mainstream geological timelines and suggests that their interpretation of the petroglyphs are influenced by a commitment to naturalism and humanism, emphasizing a biblical timeline and asserting humans and dinosaurs co-existed per Scripture. It lacks any kind of refutation of the specific findings reported by Senter and Cole, like counter-evidence or alternative analyses of the petroglyph's features and fails to effectively challenge the original paper's findings. ICR's article offers a more observational critique, but relies entirely on photos taken by their IT manager Daryl Robbins, which purportedly show "peck" marks extending into areas identified by Senter and Cole as natural staining, suggesting that this undermines the composite image interpretation. However, the article does not go into detail on this point or engage with the full range of evidence presented in the original paper, putting forward a flat criticism lacking detail and leaving many of Senter and Cole's points unaddressed.

It's worth noting that numerous young-Earth creationists have concurred with Senter and Cole's findings. When Frank Sherwin, a graduate-level zoologist with the Institute for Creation Research, observed the petroglyphs in person, he concluded that the sauropod interpretation was nowhere near as compelling as other arguments he could think of for a human-dinosaur co-existence. (Thomas, 2011) Young-Earth geologist Paul Garner reported that the arguments presented by Senter and Cole were convincing to him, and young-Earth biologist Dr. Todd Wood agreed. (Garner, 2011; Wood, 2011) It's also worth noting that the young-Earth creationist group New Creation counts ancient artwork supposedly depicting dinosaurs among their arguments that creationists should not use. (2024)

REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING

Abrahams, I. (2011, March 18) Kachina Bridge Dinosaur Petroglyph: Still Good Evidence. Answers in Genesis.

Black, R. (2011, March 1) Debunking the "Dinosaurs" of Kachina Bridge. Smithsonian Magazine.

Garner, P. (2011, March 5) Phil Senter strikes again. The New Creationism.

New Creation Staff (2024, June 26) Arguments Creationists Should NOT Use. New Creation.

Niiler, E. (2011, March 25) 'Proof of Creation' Dino Drawing Just a Mud Stain. NBC News.

Schimmrich, S. (2011, March 29) Kachina Bridge Dinosaurs? Hudson Valley Geologist.


Thomas, B. (2011, April 7) Utah Dinosaur Petroglyph Disputed. Institute for Creation Research.

Wood, T. (2011, March 9) Yet another helpful paper from Phil Senter. Todd's Blog.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Did Marco Polo see dinosaurs in China?

Image
CLAIM:  Marco Polo documented dinosaurs in his travels throughout China between 1271 - 1288 CE. (Butt, 2010 ) (Clarey, 2015 , p.19) (Hodge & Welch, 2011 , p.6) (Hovind, 2003 , 34:24) (Thomas, 2013 , p.19) RESPONSE:  Despite popular opinion throughout young-Earth creationist literature, there is no good reason to believe that Marco Polo witnessed dinosaurs. Polo's own description favors his encounter with a much more likely creature, the extinct 20ft. long crocodile Hanyusuchus . WHAT DID MARCO POLO DESCRIBE? In the records of his travels, Marco Polo mentions giant serpents residing in the province of Karazan, which some young-Earth creationists have interpreted to mean that Polo witnessed living dinosaurs in 13th and 14th-century China. Polo described the creatures as follows (taken from Thomas Wright's 1854 revision of William Marsden's translation): "Here are seen huge serpents, ten paces in length, and ten spans in the girt of the body. At the fore-part, near th...
Read more

Did St. George kill a dinosaur?

Image
  CLAIM:  St. George killed a dinosaur near the end of the third century CE. (Ham, 2006 , p.161) (Ham, 2013 , p.35) (Hodge & Welch, 2011 , p.18) (Hovind, 2003 , 31:46) (Petersen, 2012 , p.165) (Thomas, 2013 , p.18) RESPONSE:  In his 2013 Dinosaurs and the Bible , young-Earth creationist Brian Thomas notes that he believed, as do many other creationists, that St. George's legendary encounter with a dragon is actually shaped around a historical encounter with a late-surviving dinosaur: "The few dinosaurs that remained (after the Flood) were often hunted, as many dragon legends portray. St. George was reputed to have slain a dragon in the Middle East in the late AD 200s, and another legend holds that the prophet Daniel killed a dragon near Babylon centuries earlier. These two examples represent scores of historical accounts from around the world." (Thomas, 2013, p.18) St. George was a historical figure, though he was not reputed to have actually killed a living, breathin...
Read more

Was Elasmotherium the Biblical unicorn?

Image
CLAIM:  The Biblical unicorn may have been an Elasmotherium . (Ham, 2010 , p.30) RESPONSE:  In Ken Ham's New Answers Book 3 , Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell floats the idea that the unicorn of the King James Bible may have been an Elasmotherium , an extinct rhino genus native to Asia. However, this interpretation has numerous theological and scientific problems. BIBLICAL ISSUES - Language and Depiction:  Other young-Earth creationist ministries like Creation Ministries International and Got Questions point out that the Hebrew word that the KJV translates as unicorn, re'em , likely refers to a type of bovine given that it is a plausible cognate of the Assyrian rimu  (wild bull/ass) and/or the Ugaritic rum  (auroch, wild buffalo). (Got Questions, n.d.; Wieland, 1992; Wiktionary, 2024) The most likely candidate for the re'em  was the auroch ( Bos primigenius ), a megafaunal bovine well known to those in the Ancient Near East as a symbol of strength and divinity that w...
Read more