AIG, along with other YEC crazies, have claimed that humans and dinosaurs lived side-by-side - just like in the cartoons. To those of us who actually know something about geology and paleontology (or human history and archaeology, for that matter), this is just bat-shit crazy. It's not even remotely plausible - I'd be more likely to believe in fairies inhabiting my backyard than in some strange, alternate-reality world where dinosaurs and humans cavorted together a few thousand years ago.
Why does AIG believe this? Because, according to their own Statement of Faith: "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record." In other words, since the book of Genesis states that God created all life during a six-day creation week, dinosaurs and humans were created together. Since Noah brought all the animals on the ark, dinosaurs must have been on the ark as well. Therefore, humans and dinosaurs lived together until they died off due to climate change after the flood. Don't believe me, read the AIG article What really happened to the dinosaurs?
Answers in Genesis also runs the infamous Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky (about a half hour from Cincinnati, Ohio). One of the displays at the Creation Museum claims that there's a dinosaur petroglyph at a site called Kachina Bridge in Natural Bridges National Monument in southeastern Utah. Here's the AIG claim:
Wow! That looks like a pretty convincing carving of a sauropod, doesn't it? Here's a photograph of the rock (not enhanced) from a YEC's blog (click to enlarge):
The petroglyph is about 3 meters up a vertical cliff wall in a relatively inaccessible area so it's hard to get up close to it. It's been studied by binocular and telephoto photographs to date.
So, did the Native Americans living in Utah record sauropod dinosaurs in the area of Kachina Bridge? We know there were sauropods walking around in Utah since we find their trackways and fossils bones. The problem, of course, is that paleontologists say they were around in the Jurassic Period some 175 million years ago and that no dinosaurs survived the 65 million-year-ago mass extinction event.
Well, a real scientist has now looked at this petroglyph and written a rebuttal to the dinosaur claim. Dr. Phil Senter, a biology professor at Fayetteville State University of North Carolina, is an expert on dinosaurs (check out his publications list) and he interprets the petroglyphs a little differently.
At left is the AIG interpretation of a sauropod, at right is Dr. Senter's interpretation. He claims the "sauropod" is made up of two snake-like pecked areas (maybe done at different times since the pecking differs) and the "legs" are actually mud or mineral staining. Senter's paper is available electronically, go read it if interested:
Which is more plausible? The interpretation which goes against EVERYTHING we know about geology, paleontology, biology, history, archaeology, etc. and is only adhered to because of people's beliefs about how a book written thousands of years ago by a bedouin people in the Middle East who wouldn't know a dinosaur if it bit them in the ass or... What the hell, it's a rhetorical question. True Believers® aren't going to be persuaded by something as mundane as facts.