Footprints/animal tracks in rock stratas

[otseng]

Animal footprints/tracks have been found in various rock stratas. There are even some animal footprints found in coal deposits.

So, how did animal footprints get preserved in rock stratas?

[Jose]

Since there are exposed tracks in strata of the Grand Canyon, it must be the case that the tracks were formed by animals walking on those strata before the next layers were deposited. This can't have happened during The Flood, since the layers were deposited during the flood, which killed the animals--and the receding water carved the canyon, so the strata weren't exposed until after the flood. It must be that the canyon is very old, and the footprints were made by living animals when those strata were the normal earth surface.

In coal mines, there are many layers of fossils, indicating many times that the forest were buried in sediment. New forest grew over the old, then became buried in turn. A coal miner has said that this must be evidence for an old earth, and no single flood.

This indicates that footprints must represent exactly what current science interprets them to be: fossil prints of ancient animals. This clearly supports evoluton.

[otseng]

Actually, I think it's pretty amazing that we see animal tracks at all, even whether one believes in the Uniformitarian Model or the Flood Model.

What is required to fossilize a footprint? Here is one explanation:

Let us suppose that we ourself we wanted to leave testimony of our step, leaving our own tracks. In order to make our assignment we needed to look for a place in where the land is dampened, or, a pool, the border of some lake or the creek of some river. First we must verify if this muddy land has the sufficiently argillaceous consistency to mark our feet, because if the mud is too humid the track was become deformed, because when raising our foot, the mud adhered to him will rise, on the contrary if the land is very dry will not have the sufficient plasticity to leave our mark, therefore we needed neither a very humid nor very dry, single land thus we will be able to leave our feet noticeable. But this is not all, after leaving the tracks, these must be dried with the environmental heat and soon to be protected, that is, to be covered by other sediments to prevent that natural agents destroy them like the wind, the water, the ice or the passage of other animals over these. If our tracks have been able to draw for these obstacles, then we will have a future fossil track.

Source: Morphology of the tracks

Tracks will need to be made in mud of the right consistency and then rapidly buried. And not only rapidly buried, but sufficiently buried with enough sediments to preserve the prints. This by itself is consistent with the FM.

So, how could tracks be formed in the layers of the rock stratas if the flood created all the stratas?

I was doing some research on the Internet about this question, and surprisingly, I was able to find nothing from a creationist point of view. So, I have devised my own theory to explain it.

The layers of sediments were deposited by the global flood over a period of time (months, perhaps weeks). It was deposited by precipitation that was a mixure of water and sediments. (More details of this is in the thread - Global Flood) But, this rain did not necessarily have to be occurring on every square inch of the globe at the same time. Meterologic factors could produce rain at some places and not at others. But, over time, all places would get some amount of precipitation over the course of the flood.

The immediate places that would get buried are the low lying areas since water would run to the lowest points on the earth first. The initial part of the flood would sweep away vegetation and carry it to low lying areas. Animals at this point could still have lived through the flood if they were in high lying areas. As they are running around, their footprints could be captured and then as more sediments came, it would be fossilized. This can account for footprints found in coal deposits.

There are some things this model would predict:
The frequency of footprints found would be less in the upper layers than the lower layers.
The frequency of large footprints would be less in the upper layers than the lower layers.
If you dig straight down at any point of the earth, you will find few stratas where footprints are found.
(Exceptions would be footprints made in the topmost layers that were formed in the past 6000 years)

So, I'm providing a way to falsify my theory. If there are any evidence contrary to my predictions, then my theory would be wrong.

[jwu]

The immediate places that would get buried are the low lying areas since water would run to the lowest points on the earth first. The initial part of the flood would sweep away vegetation and carry it to low lying areas. Animals at this point could still have lived through the flood if they were in high lying areas. As they are running around, their footprints could be captured and then as more sediments came, it would be fossilized.

Since the flood model considers the postcambrian strata to be laid down by the flood, these footprints should only exist in cambrian and earlier strata then. This is not what we observe, there are no footprints in cambrian strata that were formeda the the same time as the strata, but they exist in (a lot) younger strata.

jwu

[Jose]

There are some things this model would predict:
The frequency of footprints found would be less in the upper layers than the lower layers.
The frequency of large footprints would be less in the upper layers than the lower layers.
If you dig straight down at any point of the earth, you will find few stratas where footprints are found.
(Exceptions would be footprints made in the topmost layers that were formed in the past 6000 years)

Otseng has proposed a reasonable hypothesis, with clear predictions. An excellent scientific approach.

jwu suggests that one prediction is not met: that Cambrian strata (the lowest) should have the most abundant footprints. But, perhaps the Cambrian strata had actually been buried before the flood occurred? I guess, we'd then suggest that Ordovician strata should have the most footprints.

More observations may help. The types of footprints that we find tend to be specific to certain strata. I have found trilobite footprints in Cambrian rocks near Death Valley, and tracks of different trilobites in Ordovician rocks in eastern Indiana. I have found small lizard-like footprints in Jurassic rocks in Utah, and large dinosaur prints in Cretaceous rocks in Utah and Colorado. And, of course, footprints of giant cave bears, titanotheres, and sabertooths are found in even higher strata.

There seems to be no correlation of footprint size and the level of the strata in which they are found. There are small ones at the top and at the bottom, and large ones from about the middle of the Paleozoic on up. The locations of the footprint-containing rocks do not correlate with locations of obvious canyon-carving by receding flood waters. Some are in flat plains, some are on mountain ridges, some are on rocks that are eroding out of cliffs. But, in many cases, the strata with specific footprints also have other fossils, including other animals as well as plants. These other fossils and the sediments themselves are what would be produced by a viable ecosystem composed of many species in a certain kind of physical environment.

It looks as if each of these ecosystems was buried intact, in order to retain these collections of fossils. Each one may be accounted for by a flood (though the Morrison formation is clearly volcanic ash), but to account for all of them by a single flood strains the imagination. How could a single flood cover so many different ecosystems at such wildly different levels in the geological column? I feel that the observations from the earth itself--God's creation--force us to conclude that there were many floods in many regions at many different times.[/quote]

[jwu]

jwu suggests that one prediction is not met: that Cambrian strata (the lowest) should have the most abundant footprints. But, perhaps the Cambrian strata had actually been buried before the flood occurred? I guess, we'd then suggest that Ordovician strata should have the most footprints.

However, using that explaination no more than one layer can have been formed during the flood. The footprints below it were buried by the flood, the footprints in it (at its top) were left after the floodwaters had receded.
If the flood had laid down more than one layer, then we should not see any footprints except at the very bottom and the very top of the flood layers. Since footprints have been found in many layers (probably all), this severely limits the strata which could have been laid down by the flood.

jwu

[otseng]

jwu suggests that one prediction is not met: that Cambrian strata (the lowest) should have the most abundant footprints.

I would not necessarily say that the Cambrian strata would have the most footprints. It could, but it's not necessary.

More observations may help. The types of footprints that we find tend to be specific to certain strata. I have found trilobite footprints in Cambrian rocks near Death Valley, and tracks of different trilobites in Ordovician rocks in eastern Indiana. I have found small lizard-like footprints in Jurassic rocks in Utah, and large dinosaur prints in Cretaceous rocks in Utah and Colorado.

Out of curiosity, are you an archaeologist? If so, it's good to have some firsthand sources to debate this topic.

That is interesting that only certain types of footprints are to be found in certain stratas. Can you point to some weblinks documenting this?

There seems to be no correlation of footprint size and the level of the strata in which they are found.

I wouldn't say my predictions would make a correlation between footprint size and the strata, but simply the frequency of footprints found (and footprint size) at one specific point. Is there data available showing the types and frequency of footprints found at a particular place for all the stratas beneath it?

However, using that explaination no more than one layer can have been formed during the flood.

Multiple layers would be formed by a combination of processes. One process I've explained already is that multiple flood occurences would have occurred over the entire length of the flood. I can't imagine this happening very often. Certainly less than the number of stratas found in any particular place. So, why then do we see so many stratas? I would guess it could be a number of possibilities. Experiments on Stratification of Heterogeneous Sand Mixture has a number of theories. Some experiments on stratification also shows how it can occur in a laboratory setting.

[jwu]

Multiple layers would be formed by a combination of processes. One process I've explained already is that multiple flood occurences would have occurred over the entire length of the flood.

This however would conflict with the footprints.

E.g. strata A has no footprints, B has footprints, C has footprints, D has foorptints, E has NO footprints, F has footprints
(all those footprints on the top of the strata)

A single flood cannot have laid down the strata B and C, as this would mean that the footprints in strata B would have been formed at a time when it was underwater.

A single flood however could have laid down the strata E and F, as no footprints are found within the strata that would be considered to be laid down during the flood - only some at its end (on top of F), when the waters had receded. If the flood had also laid down layer D, then the footprints on top of it could not have formed.

So, why then do we see so many stratas? I would guess it could be a number of possibilities. Experiments on Stratification of Heterogeneous Sand Mixture has a number of theories. Some experiments on stratification also shows how it can occur in a laboratory setting.

These hypothesis fail to explain things like chemical sorting, and they do not account for footprints at all.

jwu

[Jose]

otseng wrote:

Out of curiosity, are you an archaeologist? If so, it's good to have some firsthand sources to debate this topic. Smile

That is interesting that only certain types of footprints are to be found in certain stratas. Can you point to some weblinks documenting this?

I'm actually a molecular biologist, but I collect fossils, and love wandering in the wilds of the Southwest.

I haven't found weblinks for everything, but here's a sampling: Dinosaur track information can be found at the National Geographic, and the National Park Service--at Pipe Spring National Monument, Lower Jurassic. There are also some sites (many from NPS) discussing Permian tetrapod tracks in the Grand Canyon, more Permian tetrapod tracks in the Grand Canyon, and more Grand Canyon Permian tracks. There are also reports on Lower Triassic footprints like those I've seen in the Moenkopi formation, and Crayfish burrows from the Upper Triassic. There is also a report on Therapod tracks. I think that most of these are from regions not too far from the Grand Canyon, although the global Flood should have treated the entire earth relatively similarly, one would think.

Is there data available showing the types and frequency of footprints found at a particular place for all the stratas beneath it?

Some of the reports listed above might have some of this, but footprints are quite rare fossils, so types and frequencies would necessarily be a small number of examples, and statistically unreliable. As for footprints at a locality and for all of the strata below it, that would be a monumental task. We would have to dig down thousands of feet, into hard rock,which would preclude discovering much except the type of rock. Fossils usually require at least a bit of natural erosion to expose them, and then a lucky paleontologist coming along before they are eroded further. The best you could hope for would be footprints in fortuitously-eroded exposures along a geological transect (if that's the right word), such as the face of a cliff--like the Grand Canyon, or the Monument Uplift, or even sedimentary strata in the Rockies.

There's a lot of material out there, and many reports describing some of it. There has not been, to my limited knowledge, a compendium that puts it all together in one place. So, I rather like my method: put on a pack, carry a lot of Gatorade, and go walking.

Cheers.

--Jose

[otseng]

E.g. strata A has no footprints, B has footprints, C has footprints, D has foorptints, E has NO footprints, F has footprints
(all those footprints on the top of the strata)

A single flood cannot have laid down the strata B and C, as this would mean that the footprints in strata B would have been formed at a time when it was underwater.

The global flood would not necessarily be one giant flood, but in my theory, it would be a series of waves of floods. Not all places would get the entire stratas laid down at one time. Rather, a set of stratas would get laid down. Then as another flood came, more stratas would be laid down. So, according to my theory, the only time footprints could be found would be during these waves of localized floods.

These hypothesis fail to explain things like chemical sorting, and they do not account for footprints at all.

I would not say those theories explain footprints, but simply explain stratifications.

Could you expand on chemical sorting?

I'm actually a molecular biologist, but I collect fossils, and love wandering in the wilds of the Southwest.

Great! A molecular biologist. I've got some more questions for you, but I'll ask those in Questions for Jose.