Footprints

[Ralph Chapman <MNHAD002@SIVM.SI.EDU>]

 RE the Human/Dinosaur footprints:

 The original human footprints found with the dino ones indeed were
apparently carved to sell to tourists. It's my understanding that this
was pretty well known during the depression and was thought to be a good
joke and raised a few bucks. The creationists from Loma Linda about 10-15
years ago did some sectioning work on the human prints and some dino
prints and saw that the sedimentary layers were deformed under the dino
prints but just stopped upon hitting the "human" prints. They then
conceded this meant that they were false and published a paper in their
publication Origins saying creationists should not use them as
evidence against anything. The Loma Linda group tends to be the more
sane of the creationist groups and have even done some interesting
work on reptile prints and their formation under small amounts of water
rather than subaerially, etc. I find most of their conclusions seriously
flawed but they seem to be trying to play by some rules and using more
of a moral base in some of what they do. The two footprint studies were
interesting though.

The later "human" prints were not all that human looking but were dumbbell
shaped or thereabouts - which obviously meant human to creationists
Two researchers - one a local school teacher in Texas - then followed a
human track and - surprise - it turned into a theropod trackway as
the lithology changed. Seems the difference in substrate hardness
caused only the base of the foot to imprint and not the toes, until
a different area was stepped in and the toes popped in. It's a nice study
and I'll try and dig up my copy of the refs and remember who did it.

I don;t know of the ICR studying it but would love the reference.
I'll try and prod Jim Farlow, who knows that area as well as anyone,
to give us the full poop.

Even before the recent discussions, the falsity of the prints was very
well known and some well known televangelists, who knew this, still went
on stating they were true because they had a non-questioning audience.
Funny these people should proclaim to be moral when they were knowingly
lying through their teeth.

Oh well, the later prints actually turn out to be a good example of
the results of varying preservation and finding what you're looking for.
Would be good for teaching, although might tick off some local
creationists for using it.

We'll see if Jim can add some real knowledge to the discourse.


Ralph Chapman, NMNH