Footprints, Fossils, and the Flood

The only thing we can figure out about stuff like this is that it’s supposed to impress the droolers. It’s a new post by Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else.

At the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), Hambo’s creationist ministry, he just posted Fossil Footprints — Found Millions of Years Before the Creatures Who Made Them? Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

Every year, hordes of tourists descend on Grand Canyon to enjoy the natural beauty of this geological wonder. But many tourists hiking the popular Bright Angel Trail missed something very interesting — a series of fossilized footprints preserved in a boulder, lying next to the trail, that had broken off a cliff in the nearby Manakacha Formation. But in 2016, a geology professor hiking with his students noticed the footprints, and now research on these tracks has been released.

Hambo links to an article at a website about the Grand Canyon maintained by the National Park Service: Cliff Collapse Reveals 313-million-year-old Fossil Footprints in Grand Canyon National Park, and he doesn’t like it. He says:

One of the scientists who studied these tracks, Stephen Rowland, shares:

[Hambo quotes Rowland:] These are by far the oldest vertebrate tracks in Grand Canyon, which is known for its abundant fossil tracks . . . More significantly . . . 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.

Hambo believes the world is only 6,000 years old, so we can imagine that he’s red in the face, foaming at the mouth, and rolling around chewing the carpet. After recovering his composure he tells us:

He believes these tracks are 313 million years old [The fool!] and represent two separate animals moving along the slope of a sand dune. These prints show movement identical to that of “living species of tetrapods” (cats and dogs are provided as examples of tetrapods), showing “the use of this gait very early in the history of vertebrate animals.” In others words, even after 313 million years of supposed evolution — tetrapods still walk the same way!

What’s the problem? Fish still swim, birds still fly, so why can’t tetrapods still walk? Perhaps it will be explained. Hambo continues:

In places like the Grand Canyon, scientists routinely find fossilized trackways millions of years before they find fossils of the creatures that made them. [Does he expect every creature to drop dead in its tracks?] It’s pretty convenient that creatures made footprints . . . then millions of years later the same creatures lived in the same region and just happened to be fossilized too! (Actually, such a notion strains credulity! [Why?] It makes much more sense that these footprints and the creatures that made them were buried very soon after one another as the global floodwaters buried creatures as they fled).

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Yes, that makes much more sense. Let’s read on:

Geologist Dr. Andrew Snelling, who heads up our Research Department here at Answers in Genesis, comments on finds such as this one:

[Hambo quotes his creationist geologist:] Yes, 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. [It’s not the identical animal that made the footprints!] … Often there is 5 to even 20 million years between the fossilized footprints and the fossilized foot bones of the same animals. How did these animals survive for these millions of years after making their footprints before their bodies were buried and fossilized? … It all only makes sense if the time between footprint-making and the animals perishing was hours or days at most during the global flood. … Once again the secular millions-of-years belief fails to explain the evidence, whereas the flood model based on God’s eyewitness account in His authoritative, inerrant Word easily makes sense of the observed evidence.

Amazing, isn’t it? Having quoted Andrew Snelling, his creationist geologist, Hambo finishes with this:

Like Dr. Snelling said, once again, the evidence confirms what we’d expect starting with God’s Word in Genesis and not the “just-so” evolutionary story.

Once again the evidence confirms creationism. So why, dear reader, are you still a Darwinist?

Copyright © 2020. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.


. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

12 responses to “Footprints, Fossils, and the Flood

  1. I think Bill Ludlow (deceased) had somewhat to say about those tracks back in 2019 when he broadcast this video (time marked link to his discussion of the tracks):


  2. He’s saying that if the animals left their footprints at the same time and place that they were buried by the Flood, then the fossil record doesn’t make sense.

  3. “then millions of years later the same creatures lived in the same region”
    Huh? The same creatures? Well, according to Ol’Hambo and co several people mentioned in the OT lived hundreds of years, so I guess I should not be surprised.

  4. I am guessing that Ham found someone who called them “dinosaur” tracks, as opposed to the reptiles and amphibians that were alive at the time of the Pennsylvanian. Or he is complaining that they are found out of place since they came from higher up in the canyon.

  5. Michael Fugate
  6. chris schilling


    DARWINIST: Dogs and cats evolved from a common tetrapod ancestor.
    HAM/SNELLING: No, they didn’t!

    DARWINIST: Tetrapod descendants resembled their walking ancestors.
    HAM/SNELLING: Why didn’t they evolve into grazing spiders?

    PALIN: An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
    CLEESE: No, it isn’t!

  7. If dogs and cats evolved from tetrapods, how come there are still tetrapods?

  8. Michael Fugate

    Why is a millipede the crown of creation? Isn’t more better?

  9. As far as the most favored species, the most numerous, the most successful and therefore the fittest, it might be the bacterial species Pelagibacter ubique.
    One might be tempted to say that there are viral species which are more numerous, but viruses are not living. One might as well count numbers of a species of mineral. How many crystals of quartz in the Earth? No, I’m goimg with one estimate of the number of individuals of P. ubique: 24×10^27 as representing the most successful, the fittest.

  10. @TomS proclaims: “viruses are not living”
    Ah, but they are not dead either. So this sparked my interest. I visited AiG to find out what “the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else”. There is no better way to start a new day by drinking in his words of wisdom.

    “Is Christianity a virus”?
    An interesting question, though I’d rather ask if creacrap is a virus. However this obviously is an analogy and hence not what I’m looking for today.

    “God created both viruses and birds with huge genetic variability, and they have reproduced within their kinds to become . . . viruses and birds. No surprise there, but what is surprising is the “remarkable similarity” of alleged 19-million-year-old viruses to modern ones.”
    OK. The usual bla bla. Nothing new, we can move on.
    But this is nice.

    Aha, folks, that’s how to convince a creacrapper – show him a fish evolving into a philosopher right before his eyes.

    “remaining safe from rabies takes mostly common sense”
    “If caught soon after infection, rabies can be treated”
    But now I’m confused. Is Ol’Hambo suggesting that we should try to escape divine punishments we deserve so much ‘cuz Original Sin?

    However it’s this golden oldie I’d like to draw attention to.

    “Scientists first discovered and studied this mysterious form of ‘life’ at the turn of the century. ”
    Yes – scientists who accept evolution.

    “Some evolutionists hypothesize that viruses ‘evolved’ from bacteria by natural selection.”
    Those evolutionists happen to use exactly the same methods as those scientists who discovered and studied the first viruses.

    “The fatal problem with this theory is that viruses are not living.”
    Aha! This creacrapper is on TomS’ (and my) side. Unfortunately he doesn’t explain why this is a problem; I suppose because of that creacrap law that says life only can come from life.
    In the meantime – and it’s a lengthy article – I’ve found nothing that addresses the central question: goddiddid or not?

    “No doubt the Fall has contributed to problems developing in what once was a symbiotic, functional relationship between viruses and their hosts.”
    Ah, how comforting. That other important creacrap law applies once again:

    – something good (like a friendly, cozy virus before Adam and Eve got kicked out), praise the Lord.
    – something bad (like COVID-19), blame Homo Sapiens.

    My conclusion as an evilutionist, however, is slightly different. Let me assume (usually I’m not that generous) that the scientific part is reliable (I’ve skipped it, because I know little about the topic anyway). Precious little addresses the question that’s supposed to be central. Another analogy pops up in my mind: this creacrap is a parasite on actual scientific work based upon evolution theory.
    Exactly what we can expect.

  11. So viruses only evolve to be viruses, birds to be birds … and mammals to be mammals. That does not stop the evolution of whales from fully terrestrial mammals, or of humans from other primates.

  12. Michael Fugate

    Interactive to view earth in the past