Creation Science Issues - Fossil Footprints
In an article by Leonard Brand and James Florence, titled
Stratigraphic Distribution of Vertebrate Fossil Footprints
Compared with Body Fossils (Footnote 1), the authors do a
fascinating study of fossil footprint sites, and correlate them
with the distribution of actual fossils. Fossil footprints are
not true fossils, and are more correctly identified by the term
"trace fossil." True fossils are the actual remains of the
animal.
In their comparison, they show that the quantity of bird and
mammal fossils correlate with the number of trace fossils. In
other words, where you see a large quantity of fossils in the
rock record, you have a corresponding number of trace fossil
footprints. However, when comparing reptile, amphibian, and
dinosaur trace fossils, they do not correspond to the number of
actual fossils in the rock record.
They equate this to the fact that during the first part of the
flood (the Triassic sediments) the dinosaurs were more active,
and during the later part of the flood (upper Jurassic and
Cretaceous sediments) there were very few live amphibians or
reptiles to produce footprints, except for the large dinosaurs.
(This is contrasted with the young earth creationist book, Grand
Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, in which all the Triassic,
Jurassic, and Cretaceous sediments are all “late flood.”)
Rebuttal
There are several problems with this theory. As any
paleontologist knows, fossils are a hit and miss scenario. We
consider ourselves lucky when we find a dinosaur fossil.
However, we have found many mass dinosaur graves in the
Jurassic and Cretaceous, which skews the data. Conditions were
right for the mass burial of these bones by fluvial, river
systems (not ocean systems, or global Flood related). We may
yet discover unknown trackways, or great abundances of Triassic
fossils which makes the correlation closer. We are lucky to have
found the trackways that we have, and I'm certain there are many
more we can't see because they are covered by other rock layers.
Second, and more importantly, if the Flood model is to be
believed, ALL the dinosaurs had to be killed during the first
40 days of the flood. At day 40, when the rain stopped, the
water was at its deepest. Why then do we have footprint
trackways in multiple rock strata, on top of each other? By the
time the second, higher layer was deposited, all the dinosaurs
should have been dead...then who was making these tracks? It is
evident from Stratigraphy, that you can't lay down all the rock
layers in the world during the 370+ days of Noah's Flood. In
many instances, you have fossil trackways, in a lacustrine
system, covered by other sediments, then another trackway in a
later lacustrine system. This would require fluctuating sea
levels during the flood, but during the flood, the waters rose
for 40 days, then they receded for 330 days...no fluctuation.
Third, the authors propose the Triassic sediments were
deposited during the early flood. Look at the leading Flood
model proposed by the Institute for Creation Research, in their
book Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe. They claim the rocks
of the Grand Canyon were deposited early in the Flood, and the
rocks above this point, which show up north of the Canyon, were
deposited during the receding of the floodwaters (Figure 4.1 of
the book). These “receding” rock layers included the Triassic
layers. Genesis 7:24 states the waters were at their maximum
for 150 days. All the rocks which contain dinosaur fossils and
footprints were 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 died during the first 150-day
prevailing period of the flood. How then are dinosaurs making
footprints, during the receding phase of the flood! God SAID in
Genesis 7:21-23 that they were dead! The fact that we even have
footprints is conclusive proof that the Flood did not create
all these rock layers.
Finally, the authors left out a key piece of information, that
being the paleoenvironment. Were the environments of the time
conducive to making footprints? You would have to consider this
in order for their study to be conclusive.
Conclusion
The authors conclude "that the footprint data make a very
natural fit with a global flood model." Actually, the global
flood model fails to adequately explain the existence of
trackways in late-flood sediments. I admit that this is
dependent upon which “flood model” you believe in.