Replies

(3) During the summer of 2004, while I was visiting the Natural Bridges National Monument in southeast Utah, I asked one of the staff members at the visitor’s center how scientists explain the presence of an antiquated dinosaur petroglyph at the base of Kachina Bridge. Her response: “They don’t really want to explain it.” Truth be told, if I were an evolutionist, I would not want to explain it either. This piece of evidence blatantly contradicts their timetable. According to the theory of evolution, humans never lived with dinosaurs. But if humans never saw living dinosaurs, how did the Anasazis, who inhabited southeastern Utah long before dinosaur fossils were found in modern times, carve such an accurate picture of a dinosaur onto the side of a rock wall?

First, I suspect he's lying about his conversation with a staff member, or else the staff member meant he didn't want to waste his breath explaining it to someone who believed the Anasazi lived with dinosaurs. Real scientists are happy to explain it:

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?