Can you find the obvious evidence that humans and dinosaurs lived together in this 5000 year old Egyptian plate?
No? Well, the Institute for Creation Research continues to publish the graphic below suggesting that this is yet more evidence that dinosaurs and humans lived together. They just posted it again on Facebook which spurred me to comment.
Do they seriously think that these “resemble long-necked dinosaurs”? Lets see, feet of a cat, tail of a cat, hip structure of a cat/mammal, jaw of a cat, eyes of a cat, nose of a cat, ears of a cat. A long-necked dinosaur? I think not. Sure, it has a long neck but that is the only characteristic that is similar to a dinosaur. Egyptian art is full of fanciful and chimeric creatures. The exaggeration of characteristic, such as the neck, of an animal is not uncommon. To believe this image represents dinosaurs is to ignore most of the data and the most obvious interpretation of that data and choose to elevate one piece of data, a very general one at that, over all the rest? This is like taking one unclear verse from the Bible and then raising ones interpretation of that to trump all the other clearer texts. Bad hermeneutics and bad observational science.
This graphic is typically seen by a Facebook or ICR website audience in a smaller format and so the details of the animals are obscured. An audience shown this image likely will be drawn only to the neck and not have time to take note of the other features. My first image above shows greater detail and the ICR staff are clearly aware of the details of this image. I find it difficult to imagine they can honestly believe that these images where meant to depict dinosaurs interacting with humans in Egypt.
November 2015 update: I attended an Answers in Genesis conference in November 2015 with my daughter and the speaker showed the image below. He did exactly as I predicted above. He didn’t show a close-up image and he drew the inference that the simplest explanation for the images was that Egyptians knew about dinosaurs. He showed several additional images all of which are equally as dubious to those that know more about the images. This speaker is probably completely unaware of the facts or “observational evidence” with respect to these presumed dinosaur images because he has never investigated them himself but he trusted others as AiG to provide the images and text for his talk. Unfortunately his faith was misplaced with respect to this image and many others.
Naturalis Historia 
Yes, this image lacks convincing detail but it is just one of a number of images and descriptions that are adduced to make a case for the coexistence of dinosaurs and humans. Opponents must now make a case that they did not coexist. The discovery of soft dinosaur tissues won’t help them.
LikeLike
This image lacks more than just any convincing detail but lacks any detail at all that suggests these were dinosaurs. They could as easily be giraffes by the logic used here. What detail point to a dinosaur at all? Unfortunately for creationists it is just this type of speculation that renders serious doubt about their other claims. Why must they make a case for them not coexisiting? One first has to have some evidence that they did before the other side “must” do anything.
LikeLike
But, RA Gillman, if even you admit that this image is clearly NOT meant to be that of dinosaurs, why is it being adduced at all? Why is AIG still touting it, and not warning its supporters that they shouldn’t use this particular image? Don’t they care that something manifestly false is being claimed on their site – that this picture is of dinosaurs?
It’s like someone who believes that fairies really exist posting those notorious photos forged by two little girls with cardboard cutouts that deceived Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, and, when it’s pointed out that the girls later ADMITTED that they were forgeries, and showed how they did it, saying “But it’s just one of a number of images and descriptions of fairies.” Yes – one that clearly shows how gullible and unscientific people are when they’re desperate to believe something. One that suggests that if they can seriously tout THIS as evidence for their theory, their credibility is at rock bottom when they tout other “evidence” where it may not be quite so obvious what the real explanation is, or they may have concealed/omitted to mention contradictory evidence in their original source, just as they ignored the visible evidence of cathood in this image.
LikeLike
According to Mesopotamian legend, the ancient Uruk king Gilgamesh, along with his friend Enkidu, killed a fearsome creature called Khumbaba (or Humbaba).8,9 This monster, which lived in a cedar forest, was said to have the shape of a dragon, a voice like a storm and to spit fire.10 It was also described as having a long tail and talons on its feet.
Why does the animal below tbe so called feline have normal features, not exaggerated?
LikeLike
To me it looks like Egyptians applied their cat worship to the Mesopotamian Caduceus of about the same period.
LikeLike
One of the questions that I would like to ask a creationist is, If dinosaurs and humans definitely coexisted, then why don’t you just show us scientific evidence? Instead, they use ambiguous drawings and carvings from cultures replete with mythology.
This is also the case with their defence of the global flood. Most apologists, instead of using scientific evidence, merely point to the preponderance of flood myths in cultures all over the world — conveniently ignoring the fact that many are strikingly different.
This is a rather common and quite disturbing theme in creation apologetics, and one that speaks of the credulity of those who find Arguments such as these convincing. So, just out of curiosity, what evidence do you think would be required to make a compelling case for dinosaurs existing alongside humans?
LikeLike
A compelling case for dinosaurs existing alongside humans? Bona fide dinosaur and human bones fossilized together in the same rock. I’m referring of course, to real fossils, not things like the obviously faked and misinterpreted Glen Rose “human” footprints. (This acknowledges the fact that when we say “dinosaur” in this discussion, we are limiting ourselves to those dinosaurs that went extinct and not the ones that survived and continue to thrive today in the form of birds).
LikeLike
I think the biggest problem creationists have using things like this as “evidence” is that they must therefore also include everything that people have drawn and written as evidence they existed. If this proves dinosaurs and Egyptians co-existed, it also proves all the Egyptian dieties existed, along with the Greek myths, unicorns, fairies, the flying spaghetti monster, etc. To use Mr. Gillmann’s logic, he must now prove that the flying spaghetti monster and Cthuhlu do not exist. There are, after all, far more images of these than ancient peoples created of vaguely dinosaurian shapes if you squint really hard. Why should we take this as evidence of anything and not then also assume that Jurassic World shows an actual park? This logic assumes fiction and imagination do not exist. The fact they would certainly disagree is a testament to the amount of cherry-picking that must be done and cognitive dissonance suffered to support their view.
LikeLike
Thanks for responding.
The evidential requirement stated in your first comment is one that creationists have made a rather poor excuse for. When I was using Apologia’s General Science textbook, Jay L. Wile said that because dinosaur fossils and human remains are rarely fossilized, it would be unreasonable to expect to find them fossilized together. However, in a global flood model, we should expect to find human remains all throughout the fossil record, with some appearing in the same layers as dinosaurs.
Your analogy in the second comment is, in my opinion, invalid because creationists aren’t trying to prove that dinosaurs existed; they are trying to take the scientific fact that dinosaurs did exist and are using mythological “evidence” to prove that they existed alongside humans. If we knew, for example, that fairies really did exist perhaps 50 million years ago and that they have been presumed extinct ever since, then your analogy would be valid, as we could then argue on equal merit that humans and fairies did indeed coexist.
LikeLike
“The discovery of soft dinosaur tissues won’t help them.”
Fossilized soft tissue or remnants of soft tissue do exist —- but if you think that fresh soft tissue has been found in dinosaurs I suggest reading the scientific papers that describe them, rather than the creationist runaway garbling of the evidence. But soft tissues are preserved not only in dinosaurs —- what about all those gazillion fossil leaves?! All evidence of soft tissue —— preserved from eons ago.
LikeLike
Soft tissue morphologies preserved. Organic fragments, usually stabilised by intimate bonding to bone. Seen through creationist spectacles, these add up to “soft tissue preserved”. Perhaps the glasses need changing.
LikeLike
Paul and Christine, exactly right. I have read every original paper on these “soft tissues” and what the average person thinks when they hear “soft tissues” is far far from what is actually found. Yes, amazing preservation of some biomolecules but all are highly modified. Now look at the bone marrow of a mammoth fossil and that would be much more akin to cellular preservation including DNA. BTW, I will be able to speak to Dr. Schweitzer personally in a couple of weeks and have spent time with her in the past. It really helps to talk to someone who has worked with these sample directly and I hope to write more about this topic after my next meeting. Joel
LikeLike
They are Serpopards. Feline creatures that only exist in Egyptian mythology that are nothing more than just long necked cats.
LikeLike
I find it strange that people would be looking for evidence of honesty on a creationist scam site.
LikeLike
This reminds me of the pictures and stories I had heard about a dinosaur in Angkor Wat in Cambodia. Curious, I asked about it while I was there and was a bit disappointed. It looks like a water buffalo with palm fronds behind it, not a stegosaurus. Plus it’s a tiny six inch carving surrounded by dragons, nagas, lion and monkey headed people, and other carvings of legendary creatures of Buddhism. Even if it happened to be a dinosaur of some sort, then there are all the other fantastical creatures to contend with are we willing to consider those real too? But from having seen it close up, I think it’s probably just a water buffalo.
LikeLike
According to Mesopotamian legend, the ancient Uruk king Gilgamesh, along with his friend Enkidu, killed a fearsome creature called Khumbaba (or Humbaba).8,9 This monster, which lived in a cedar forest, was said to have the shape of a dragon, a voice like a storm and to spit fire.10 It was also described as having a long tail and talons on its feet.
LikeLike
I find it amusing you use this one picture to dismiss the notion that dinosaurs coexisted with humans, when there is large amounts of evidence to support it. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Whether that is through numerous cave paintings, pottery carvings, algological excavations, stone carvings and so on. All this article shows me is you’re either completely ignorant on this subject, or you’re completely bias.
This has one of the largest collections of research I’ve seen to date. Once you reach the bottom of the page hit next to find the Pterosaur section.
https://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/evidence/historical/ancient/dinosaur/
The real question is, when the evidence destroys the mainstream notion of the origin of life, how will you choose to react to the truth?
“Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.” – 1 Corinthians 3:18
LikeLike
We could write a similar article about every one of the images on that page. The author of your link has done very poor job of research. I you are trusting their information you have placed your trust in the wrong place and have yourself been deceived. Even other YEC organization have debunked some of these “evidences” which should itself call into question the information at this site.
LikeLike
One further small detail. christconspiracy’s site has a scaley creature described as a dinosaur, whereas we now know that dinosaurs were fluffy
LikeLike
So you’re calling ancient artefacts, pottery which include dinosaurs on them “poor research”? Art doesn’t lie. When something is accepted across culture like the “dragon” for instance, its not out of pure coincidence, its because each culture has been exposed to them. To deny that is to deny the evidence. Why does the Chinese zodiac include all real animals and one mythological one? because the one perceived mythological one was in fact real.
LikeLike
I recently had a discussion with someone on facebook about this very image. I pointed out that these were clearly long necked lions or some other cat, but to him the details I pointed out were circumstantial. Instead, he insisted that I was blinded by secularist preconceptions (I never divulged my ideology of course, he just assumed). He also wanted me to explain why out of all possible mythological creatures they would go for this exact shape, at which point I gave up the conversation 😛
LikeLike