Fossil Tracks vs. Fossilized Bones

The oldest tracks ever discovered in the Grand Canyon provide yet another example of evidence supporting a global flood.

The tracks, considered “by far the oldest vertebrate tracks in Grand Canyon,” have been ‘precisely’ dated at 313 (+/- 0.05) million years, according to Paleontologist Stephen Rowland. In fact, he said, “they are among the oldest tracks on Earth of shelled-egg laying animals, such as reptiles, and the earliest evidence of vertebrate animals walking in sand dunes.”

This is exciting news alone. The discovery was made by Professor Allan Krill, and it gets better. The tracks were made by two different animals, and the arrangement tells scientists a lot about how they walked. Their gait was a distinctive “lateral-sequence walk” commonly seen by cats and dogs, and it’s significant because of how early in the fossil record this trait exists. According to Rowland, scientists “previously had no information about that.”

But what makes this discovery even more special is the fact that the animals that made the tracks don’t exist in the fossil record for another 50 million years! How is it that something as delicate as footprints can be preserved, but the animals that made them don’t exist until millions of years later? Evolutionists don’t have an adequate explanation. And this is the rule, not an exception. Fossil bones often don’t exist for 5 to 20 million years after their tracks. But if the geologic record of millions of years is scientifically accurate, then both the tracks and the bones should be fossilized together. That’s the rub.

Perhaps evolutionist’s understanding of the geologic column is inaccurate. But if the global flood described in the Bible was a real event, then this discovery begins to make sense. Sediment would have covered the tracks shortly after they were made, and then the animals that made them were buried in subsequent sediment layers- hours or days later- as they tried to escape the rising floodwaters. Evolutionary geologists date these sediments millions of years apart when they were made during the same geologic catastrophe.

Creation scientists, like Dr. Andrew Snelling, point out, “it’s a pattern in the fossil record that footprints are found in strata millions of years before foot bones, and evolutionists never explain how the critter survived millions of years after leaving its footprints until it finally got buried.” Snelling also points out that this pattern is the same for reptiles, amphibians, dinosaurs, birds and mammals.

The creationist models make much more sense based on the evidence at hand. The Biblical flood was a real event, and this makes it unnecessary to accept millions and billions of years. All Earth history can be adequately explained with a recent creation.

2 thoughts on “Fossil Tracks vs. Fossilized Bones

  1. Very good post. I like the look and navigation of your site. The tracks and the bones is a very profound demonstration of the inaccuracy of the dating methods. As a mechanical engineer I can read the in depth geological papers and I have read a few. They are as a matter of the actual chemistry and geothermal dynamics way over the head of most people but can be related on a laymen’s level. I still want to see ONE transitional species. I know there is carbon in the dinosaur bones. Soft tissue is the norm as Mark Armitage predicted in the alleged fossil record. As Isaac Newton said, “There are more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible that in any profane history.” Isaac Newton.

    Correct Sir Isaac. “I can solve the math from my seat in history that you could not from your seat in history.” Chris Queen Quote. My readers at , all over the world have seen from my posts June 7, 2020 until July 24, 2020 the math and Objective Evidence and simple statistical science grow as follows now with Sir Robert Anderson’s mathematical evidence in his book “The Coming Prince” HERE. So lets add it up in simple statistics with Sir Robert Anderson’s 100 plus years old contribution.

    1/15 x 1/14 x 1/13 x 1/12 x 1/11 x 1/10 x 1/9 x 1/8 x 1/7 x 1/6 x 1/5 x 1/4 x 1/3 x 1/2 x 1/1 =

    7.647163731819816e-13 = 0.000000000000765 How many of you would concede that is zero?

    • Thanks! There are many evidences contradicting dating methods as you’ve correctly pointed out and given examples of. I do like your Newton qote, as I hadn’t heard that one before. And I also enjoy reading some of the technical journals, and can mostly understand them, but normally have to read them more than once!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s