Creation Science Issues - Fossil Footprints
In an article by Leona?d Brand and J?mes Florence, titled Stratigraph?c Dist?ibution of V?rtebrate Fossil Footprints Compared ?ith Body Fossil? (Footnote 1), the authors d? ? fasc?nating stud? of fossil footprint sites, and correlate them with the distribution of actual fossils. Fossil footprints are n?t true fossils, and are more corre?tly identified by the term "trace fossil." Tru? fossils are t?e actual remains ?f the animal.
In their comparison, the? show that the quantity of bird and mammal foss?ls cor?elate with the nu?ber of trace fossils. In othe? words, where you see a larg? quantity of fos?ils in the rock re?ord, y?u h?ve a corresponding numb?r of trac? fossil footp?ints. However, when comparing reptile, amphibian, and dinosaur trace fossils, they do not correspond to the nu?ber of actual fo?sils ?n th? rock record.
They equate this to th? f?ct t?at during th? fir?t part of the flood (the Tri?ssic sediments) the din?saurs we?e more active, and during the later part ?f th? flood (upper Jurassic and Cretaceous ?ediments) there were v?ry few live amphibians or reptiles to produ?e footpr?nts, except f?r the large dinosaurs. (This is ?ontrasted with the ?oung earth creationist book, G?and Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, ?n which all th? Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceo?s sediments a?e all “late flood.”)
Rebuttal
There a?e sev?ral problems with thi? theory. As any paleontologist knows, fossils are a hit and miss scenario. We consider our?elves luc?y ?hen we find ? dinosaur fos?il. However, ?e ha?e found many mass dinosaur graves in the Jurassi? and Cretaceous, which skews the data. Conditions were right for the mass burial of t?ese bones ?y flu?ial, riv?r systems (n?t ocean systems, or global Flood related). We ?ay yet discov?r un?nown trackways, o? great a?undances of T?iassic fossils which make? the correlation closer. We are lucky to have found the trackways that we ?ave, and I'm certain there ?re many m?re we can't se? bec?use they are c?vered b? other rock layers.
Second, and more importantly, if the Flood mod?l is to be believed, ALL t?e dinosaurs h?d to ?e k?lled d?ring the first 40 d?ys ?f the flood. At day 40, when th? r?in stop?ed, the water was at it? deepest. Why th?n do we have footprint trackways in multiple rock strata, on top of ?ach other? By the time th? se?ond, higher layer w?s d?posited, all the dinosaurs should have been dead...then who ?as making these tracks? It is e?ident from St?atigraphy, that you can't la? down all the rock layers ?n the world during the 370+ d?ys ?f Noah'? Flo?d. In many in?tances, y?u have fossil trackways, in a lacustrine system, covered by other sediment?, then another trackway in ? l?ter lacustrine s?stem. Thi? would require fluctuating sea levels during the flood, ?ut during the flood, the waters rose fo? 40 day?, then they ?eceded for 330 days...no fluctuation.
Third, the a?thors pr?pose the Tr?assic sediments w?re deposited during the early fl?od. Loo? ?t th? lead?ng Flood mod?l proposed ?y the Institute for Cr?ation Res?arch, ?n thei? book Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe. They claim the rock? of the Grand Canyon were dep?sited early in the Flood, and th? ro?ks above this point, which show up no?th of the C?nyon, were deposited during the receding of the floodwaters (Figure 4.1 ?f th? boo?). These “receding” ?ock l?yers included the Triassic layers. G?nesis 7:24 states the wate?s were ?t their maximum for 150 d?ys. All the rocks which contain dinosa?r fossils and footprints wer? deposited in this receding phase of the Flood, more than 150 days after the Flood started. Genesis 7:21-23 states that all living flesh d?ed during t?e first 150-day prevailing period of t?e flood. How then are dinosaurs ma?ing f?otprints, d?ring t?e receding pha?e of t?e fl?od! God SAID in Genesis 7:21-23 that they were dead! T?e fact that ?e even h?ve footprints ?s conclusive p?oof that the Flood did not create all these ro?k layers.
Finally, the authors left out a key piece of infor?ation, that being the paleoenvironment. Were the environments of the tim? conducive to making footprints? You would hav? to consider thi? in order for their ?tudy t? b? conclusive.
Conclusion
The authors conclude "th?t t?e footprint data ?ake a very natural fit w?th ? global flood model." Actually, th? global flood model fails t? adequately e?plain t?e existence of trackways in late-flood ?ediments. I admit that this i? dependent upon which “flood model” ?ou believe in.
FOOTNOTES:
1 Stratigr?phic Dist?ibution ?f Vert?brate Fossil Footprints Comp?red with Body Fossils (www.grisda.org/origins/09067.htm)
About the Author:
Greg Neyman is the founder of the web?ite ministry Answers In Creation.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|