googlef87758e9b6df9bec.html A Sure Word: A Stegosaurus in Angkor? It's not a Magic Bullet

Sunday, March 6, 2011

A Stegosaurus in Angkor? It's not a Magic Bullet

Sometimes, we want to believe something so much that we fail to look at it objectively. Other times, we are overly trusting of the source and also fail to consider things objectively. If we believe things too easily, we set ourselves up for disappointment. At the very least, we risk looking foolish. No matter how exciting something sounds and no matter how much we trust the source, we need to be skeptical about anything we see or hear. Remember, only God is perfect. Everything else is suspect.

Such is the case for a carving found among some temple ruins in jungles of Angkor, Cambodia. Here is a photo taken of one of the carvings. What do you think it looks like? I admit, it looks a lot like a stegosaurus. I showed the photo to my 8 year old son who also immediately identified it as a dinosaur. If it is a dinosaur, the implications are significant. How could there be such an accurate depiction of a dinosaur unless the carvers had actually seen one? If they had seen a living stegosaurus, it would mean that humans would have been contemporaries of dinosaurs just as is predicted by young-earth creationists.

Such a find is extremely exciting. It's almost like a silver bullet that immediately dispels the notion that dinos lived millions of years before humans even existed. After seeing this glyph, many sincere creationists have accepted the most obvious interpretation (that it's a stegosaurus) without question. They haven't stopped to consider any other explanations. They aren't skeptical.

Now, like I said, I admit it looks like a stegosaurus. I'm not sure what else it could be. It doesn't look like any other creature that I recognize. Even so, I'm not entirely sure it's a stegosaurus. It could be a rather mundane creature, like a hornless rhino as some have suggested. Note the short neck and large head; these are not typical of a stegosaurus. The plates that seem to be on the back of the creature could actually be simple decoration or even a tree behind the beast.

Several inches below the suspect carving, there is another carving which I've also included here. What exactly is this other creature? I think it resembles a satyr (as in the Greek god, Pan). Does that mean these people once saw a satyr? Of course it doesn't. Some people believe it's a monkey but, if so, it's a very loose resemblance. More likely, it's either a mythical creature or a much elaborated upon depiction of a real creature.

Furthermore, look at the decoration around the head of the creature. I think it resembles the “plates” on the back of the suspect carving. It could be something like a mask or head-dress. It could also be just a fancy decoration these ancient monks liked to add to their carvings.

Obviously, then, not every carving on the temples walls was meant to be of a real creature. The "stegosaurus" could likewise be "dressed up" ordinary animal or even a mythical creature that just happens to look like a stegosaurus. Of course, don't get me wrong; I think it could be a stegosaurus. I'm just not sure. I know that dinosaurs were contemporaries of humans and I don't need this carving to prove that. The Bible says that God made all the land animals on the sixth day of creation – the same day He created man (Genesis 1:24-31). They did not live millions of years ago because the Scriptures tell us that the earth is only a few thousand years old. The Bible is really all the evidence that we need. If this carving is indeed a stegosaurus, it's nice that it reaffirms what I already know to be true. However, the Bible is true with or without this carving.

So I say again that we must be skeptical. Don't trust anything at first hearing no matter how exciting it might seem. Science is a useful tool but our understanding is limited and flawed. Things we think are true today are soon shown to be wrong. Only the Bible is without error. If we base our faith on the latest scientific discoveries, we are certain to be disappointed. If we put our trust in the Bible, it will never be wrong. If you wed your faith to science today, you will find yourself a widow tomorrow.


Anonymous said...

You may want to look at this.

RKBentley said...

Thank you for visiting my blog. By any chance, are you Doppelganger or did you simply link to his post? It doesn't matter. Your comments are welcome either way.

I read the article. I must first point out that the article is mistaken about the saddled dinosaur at the Creation Museum. The dino statue is a photo-op for kids to sit on. It isn't a "display."

As for the main thrust of the article, I'm not sure why you're showing it to me. I already know that some creationists are convinced it is a stegosaurus. That's why I wrote my post about it. We need to be skeptical.

I already know that dinos were contemporary with people. It would not surprise me to find evidence of that. I'm just not sure that this is evidence.

Thanks again for visiting my blog.

God bless!!

Anonymous said...

nice touch i like the dont get ur hopes us thing and alwayts be skeptical. i like tha way u said its lok like stegosaruous to prove the bible but ten questioned it. great stuff u got, u should alos serach for that thing taht says they found dino trakcs next to human tracks.

RKBentley said...

Thanks for visiting my blog.

When you mentioned the dino next to human tracks, I assume you mean the much debated Paluxy River tracks. The point of my post was that we need to be skeptical of our sources. Dino with human tracks would be another of those "magic bullet" finds. Yet just like the supposed stegasaurus, we shouldn't leap to believe anything at first hearing - especially something that sounds too good to be true.

Please keep visiting. God bless!!