Dinosaurs and man lived together, which destroys the theory of evolution

There have been petroglyphs found at Natural Bridges, attributed to the Anasazi Indians who lived there between AD 400 and AD 1300, showing man and Apatosaurs (previously incorrectly named Brontosaurus) together.These cave drawings cannot be explained away and are authentic. This COMPLETELY destroys the theory of evolution and the age of the earth and dinosaurs.Too much info to go into here.I have a summary page at this URL:http://www.geocities.com/...ropics/Shores/1951/dinosaurs.htmRegards,MatthewThis message has been edited by Matthew777, 10-16-2004 05:27 PM

MatthewWelcome to EvC.Unless you can provide some additional information, for example, where you think Natual Bridges, Arizona is, I can't really see promoting this thread.While there are a few natural arches in Arizona, TTBOMK there is no town called Natural Bridges. In addition, I've tramped most of the Anasazi sites in Utah, Arizona and New Mexico and I'm not aware of anything even remotely resembling what you propose.If you can provide some supporting information I will reconsider.

---

How pierceful grows the hazy yon! How myrtle petaled thou! For spring hath sprung the cyclotron How high browse thou, brown cow? -- Churchy LaFemme, 1950

Hi,Sorry, I keep writing down Arizona for some reason, it's actually in Utah, the Anasazi territory spans the borders of 4 states which is why I keep writing down the wrong state =o).Most petroglyph locations are not marked on maps or roadways. Mesa Verde National Park has one impressive panel known as "Petroglyph Point" that is accessible by a 2-mile trail.Hovenweep National Monument has a well-known solstice marker petroglyph site. Newspaper Rock in southeast Utah is a drive-up site with many images and time periods represented. In general, there seem to be more petroglyphs in southeast Utah than in the adjacent part of Colorado.The dinosaur petroglyph is in White Rock Canyon, Utah, if that helps...Here's a couple links:Natural Bridges National Monument Utah - DesertUSAdfltweb1.onamae.com — —.com’This message has been edited by Matthew777, 10-16-2004 05:28 PM

Matthew, I still believe we need some additional information before I can promote this topic.In particular, some additional information about where the petroglyph is located would help. Having spent several years visiting many of the Anasazi sites in the area, I must say I saw nothing resembling what you describe.If you have some addition references perhaps you can provide them.

---

How pierceful grows the hazy yon! How myrtle petaled thou! For spring hath sprung the cyclotron How high browse thou, brown cow? -- Churchy LaFemme, 1950

You know what's disheartening, which is why I hesitated to post here initially...instead of looking at this evidence objectively, what do most scientists do? They say things like "Oh, they must've drawn it from a fossilized skeleton".Except that it has all its skin and tail and is clearly seen eating a plant, which brings up another point, how did they know it was a vegetarian?Here's a link to the University of California, Riverside photo of it. Note how they just discount it in their description of the carving, because again, the thought that perhaps it was carved by eye-witnesses would destroy the evolutionary theory: Even when legitimate evidence is posted, it seems to be always be explained away somehow...This message has been edited by Matthew777, 10-16-2004 05:40 PM

And here is the main UC Riverside page of Petroglyphs:File: <pet-utAgain, I do have more proof if even this is not enough, although I fear it will be in vain.. This message has been edited by Matthew777, 10-16-2004 05:39 PM

MatthewFirst, a few hints. When you reply to a post if you use the small read reply button it will notify the person you're replying to that there has been a message. It also links posts together so that trains of thought can be followed.So far you have presented no evidence for anyone to debate. As I said, if you can find references to additional information on this petroglyph I will be happy to reconsider.

---

How pierceful grows the hazy yon! How myrtle petaled thou! For spring hath sprung the cyclotron How high browse thou, brown cow? -- Churchy LaFemme, 1950

Here is another link with a better picture:http://www.omniology.com/AnasaziDino.htmlIt's easy to miss. I encourage you to go see it the next time you're there!

One more thing, sorry for all the replies,Here's a picture of a book which also documents this find, which they sell (or used to anyway, you can still get it on Amazon.com) in the gift shop at Natural Bridges. It's called "Canyon Country Prehistoric Indians":http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0915272245.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpgThe next time you're there, browse through it. The book shows the dinosaur petroglyph on page 201.

Hi again,Finally found some directions for you to see it for yourself:HOW TO FIND THE PETROGLYPHSThe trail to Kachina Bridge is 1.5 miles round trip and a descent of 500 feet into the canyon. You will approach the natural bridge and notice a guest book directly underneath the bridge to the right of the span. When we were there, the river was dry except for a few puddles. The two sauropod petroglyphs were on the right hand side of the bridge about ten feet up and twenty feet to the left of the guest book. BRING LOTS OF WATER.The Monoclonius petroglyphs were on the other side of the bridge about six feet up from the rock ledge in front. The two petroglyphs in question are connected by a wavy line. Petroglyphs and pictographs were very numerous, and to the left side of the bridge was a small ruin.HOW TO GET TO NATURAL BRIDGES NATIONAL MONUMENTThe Monument is about 40 miles west of Blanding, Utah on state road 95, and about 40 miles north of Mexican Hat, Utah. If you approach from Mexican Hat, be aware that state road 261 turns to dirt and climbs a thousand foot cliff in a series of precarious switchbacks. It is not recommended for large trucks or RV's in either direction. We stayed in Blanding, where there is an excellent dinosaur museum.This message has been edited by Matthew777, 10-16-2004 06:57 PM

MatthewI'm still hesitant to promote this topic. Perhaps one of the other admins will do so, that is certainly possible.My problem is that you still have not provided enough information for there to be any debate.Second, even if dinosaurs and men lived together, even if we found living dinosaurs tomorrow, that says nothing about the TOE.IMHO, it's a weak topic with no evidence or support.We'll wait and see if one of the other mods will chime in.

---

How pierceful grows the hazy yon! How myrtle petaled thou! For spring hath sprung the cyclotron How high browse thou, brown cow? -- Churchy LaFemme, 1950

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.I think the topic is a reasonably narrowly defined topic which may be discussed based on what has been presented so far.I intend to offer a comment or two in my none admin mode as well.This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 10-16-2004 08:45 PM

This isn't a "better" picture. The first one was not a picture but rather a drawing done with significant enhancement that seems to have been put in there by hand.The remaining question around this one is:How do we know that it is genuine? It isn't possible to tell if it is laid over all the others or not. There is no information about the dating of the surface of the rock in the sauropod outline.At face value it is 'interesting' at least. However it has a nasty resemblance to modern cartoon dinosaurs which is a bit suspicious.Why is there no further information available?

quote:

---

At face value it is 'interesting' at least. However it has a nasty resemblance to modern cartoon dinosaurs which is a bit suspicious.

---

Looks like a hoax to me. None of the other figures that I saw in quick sampling had the same facial details. The 'dinosaur' also seemed more superficial on the rock face. If this is a hoax, it is also a crime, by the way.

I'm afraid Jar's bias is showing early in his new mod role. It appears that his usual aversion to anything supportive of the Biblical record is his problem with this topic, yet he continually makes this profession of being a follower of the Christ of the Bible.