Natural Science

Tracking Humans on the Cretaceous Rocks of Texas’ Paluxy River

By Ademar Rakowsky



Figure 1. Map of Texas. Glen Rose is a short distance Southwest of Fort Worth. [2]
In North Central Texas (Fig. 1), in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex, about an hour Southwest of the city of Fort Worth itself, lies the second-smallest county by area in the State: Somervell County (Fig. 2).

Figure 2. Location of Somervell County in Texas on left map.[3] Tarrant County, where Fort Worth is located, is on the right map.[4]
Its county seat is Glen Rose, an example of small-town American Southwest. Winding through the county and its seat is the short, smallish Paluxy River (Fig. 3), which arises in neighboring Erath County, and flows for 37.5 miles[6] roughly Southeastward before emptying into the large Brazos (originally Brazos de Dios: Arms of God) River a short distance East of Glen Rose.

Figure 3. Paluxy River Map. North is roughly to the right. Area of interest is around the boxed “205” to left of Dinosaur Valley State Park.[5]
The Somervell County stretch of the Paluxy is famous for having numerous dinosaur footprints and trackways on the flat rock strata on its bed and banks. It is also famous, arguably more so, but definitely controversially, for having the footprints and trackways of human beings among those of the dinosaurs.

Mainstream Geological thinking, which uses the Evolutionist paradigm for its interpretation of field data, considers the rocks of the Glen Rose Formation[7], upon which the tracks are found, to be of the Lower (i.e., Early) Cretaceous Period (Fig. 4),

Figure 4. Geologic Time Scale per Evolutionist Paradigm (Ga = billions of years; Ma = millions of years).[8]
 dating back to 115-105 million years ago, a period during which dinosaurs are thought to have lived, but not humans, who are thought to have evolved into their anatomically modern form only a mere 300,000 years ago[9],  during the Pleistocene Epoch, a subdivision of the Quaternary Period (Fig.4). Therefore, the existence of human footprints in the Glen Rose Formation is considered impossible, and thus the markings looking human must either be markings not formed by animals, or prints made by non-human creatures, or outright fakes.

Traditional Catholic thinking – assumed to be that predating the 20th century -- and that of many non-Catholic creationists, considers the world to have been created over six actual 24-hour days, with each species of creature, whether plant, animal, or human, having been created complete, without evolution, in its final form at the beginning. This means that humans and dinosaurs, and indeed all other now-extinct species of creatures, were at one time living together upon the Earth. This is the outlook that the author of this article takes. It is one that matches the observational data the best. For the purposes of this article, it will be called the Young Earth paradigm.

This same Traditional Catholic thinking/Young Earth paradigm considers the Genesis Flood, which was survived only by Noah, his wife, his three sons with their wives, and the air-breathing animals on the Ark, to have been a real historical event, of the relatively recent past: approximately 4-5 thousand years ago. It was an event so cataclysmic that it radically altered the face of the earth, not only by destroying the then-extant air-breathing land animals and most of the plant life, but also by splitting the continents apart and covering them with thick sediments containing trillions of fossils, by peppering and patching the surface with volcanic activity and its lavas, and by altering the weather of the Earth.

This Traditional Catholic/Young Earth paradigm considers dinosaurs and humans to have been contemporaries, with the sediments of the Glen Rose Formation laid down during the Great Flood, and the human and dinosaur tracks thereon being traces left by those who were not on the Ark, but not yet destroyed by the ongoing cataclysm.

True Natural Science of any branch, whether Physics, Astronomy, Chemistry, Biology, and so forth, develops and perfects itself as an organized body of knowledge through the application of the human intellect upon information about the natural world acquired through the senses, with the intellect organizing the acquired information into categories, and abstracting it further by coming up with explanations for the interrelations among the phenomena observed. A provisional explanation is called a Hypothesis. If the Hypothesis is backed up by increasing data, it acquires the higher status of Theory. If the Theory is prolongedly backed up by observational data, it is, by inductive reasoning, then considered a Scientific Law.

Honesty in acquisition of data is indispensable to the validity of a theory. Also indispensable is the validity of the assumptions behind the principles used in organizing and interpreting the data that observations provide. The assumptions are the weak links in the chain of reasoning, and need to be carefully considered when applied to interpretation.

Assumptions themselves are based on the paradigm with which one interprets the world in general. Just as assumptions need to be grounded in the Truth if they are to be valid, so much more must one’s paradigm be grounded in the Truth. A defective or outrightly false paradigm will lead one to reject obvious data that contradicts one’s paradigm, and will lead one to false conclusions.

Finally, one’s paradigm is based on one’s spiritual, moral, and philosophical outlook. Thus, ultimately, how one sees and interprets the world depends upon what one chooses to believe or not, which then renders the disagreement between the Evolutionist and Young Earth outlooks on Physical Science as a religious conflict at its core.

With these preliminary thoughts in mind, this article will proceed to look upon the controversial-for-evolutionists footprints that are found in the rocks in the bed and on the banks of the Paluxy River upstream from Glen Rose, Texas.


The dinosaur and human footprints in question occur on layers of the Glen Rose Formation[10], a sequence of alternating horizontal hard limestone and marl or marly limestone layers. By Evolutionist reckoning, this formation is considered Lower (i.e., Early) Cretaceous, dating back to about 115-105 million years ago. The marl layers are softer, and erode more easily, while the hard limestone layers do not, so the landscape in the area, where not thickly covered by vegetation, generally has a staircase look (Fig. 5).

Figure 5. Behind the Comfort Inn in Glen Rose. The differential erosion of the strata exposed behind the Inn shows how the local topography can often have a staircase look. Softer strata alternate with harder, with the harder prominent as the softer wears away more quickly. (Photo by author.)

This is evident in cliffs and steep slopes as well as in the banks and bed of the Paluxy River itself (Fig. 6).

Figure 6a. Paluxy River, looking upstream, roughly West. Note rocky channel, staircase bottom visible further upstream. Also, note broad limestone shelf on bank. (All Figure 6 photos by author, a-d in 2022, e in 2021.)
Figure 6b. Looking downstream. Roughly East.
Figure 6c Flat rock strata in channel. Both human and dinosaur footprints occur on the layers in the channel and on the banks. Looking downstream. Note security camera.
Figure 6d. Bank strata. The alluvium is to the far right, under the trees. The harder, upper limestone layer is to the right of the foreground sapling. The softer, lower layer is to the left, right above slope into river channel. Looking downstream.
Figure 6e. Flood debris. Due to the narrow channel of the Paluxy River, its steep gradient, and the erratic nature of the local rainfall, the river occasionally floods, leaving mud and debris atop the limestone layers on the bank. This photo is from the 2021 dig, when the river ran much higher, unlike this year’s near-empty channel.

The footprints occur in both kinds of layers, though they are longer preserved in the hard limestone, but more readily formed albeit more rapidly weathered in the marl layers.

Figure 7a Sample of rock like the top limestone layer, resting on another rock. Note largely smooth surface. (Sample collected and photographed by author.)
Figure 7b Same sample (top rock in picture), with pen for scale, turned sideways to show layering.


As can be seen by samples of each type of layer taken by the author, the hard layer is blocky, generally smooth-surfaced, and keeps together well (Fig. 7), while the marly one roughly resembles petrified flaky pastry dough, with an irregular surface and texture (Fig. 8).

Figure 8a. Sample of lower, softer limestone layer. Note irregular surface and crumbly texture. (Sample collected and photographed by author.)
Figure 8b. Side view. Note irregular layering as well as fracturing.

To understand the setting for the strata and footprints thereon, it is necessary to take a brief excursion into the Geological principles and theories offering a plausible explanation for what happened.

The Uniformitarian approach to Geology taken by the Evolution paradigm assumes the Principle of Superposition as the explanation for layering in sediments, whether soft or petrified: the oldest layer is deposited first, with each overlying layer successively younger. While this principle often holds true in still water, it does not consider the layering that occurs when mixed-size sediment particles are deposited together into still water or by a horizontal current. The research done by sedimentologist Guy Berthault[11] and others shows that a mixture of different sized particles entering still water will form lamina (layers) in still water (Fig. 9a), while a current carrying a mix of particles will deposit a particular vertical pattern of layers that will extend horizontally over time, preserving the same vertical sequence over a horizontal distance:

it is a factor of the particles of varying sizes interacting with one another as the current carries them, and the deposition time for the sequence is short (Fig. 9b,c).

Figure 9a. Lamina (layers) formed in still water when mixed-size sediment particles enter it. (Figure 9a-c are from[12])
Figure 9b. Sediment layers deposited in pattern horizontally when a current carries mixed-size particles. Flow in this case is from right to left.


Figure 9c. Sample diagram of how simultaneous sediment layering happens in a current carrying mixed-size particles. t1 occurs before t2, which occurs before t3.


Thus, for example, the mile-thick vertical sequence of sediments visible in the walls of the Grand Canyon (Fig. 10), instead of requiring millions of years of superpositional deposition in relatively still waters, by the action of countless streams, etc., could have been deposited by a very strong, heavily sediment-laden current in a short span of time.




Figure 10. The Grand Canyon.[13]
This same principle could account for the stair-step limestone and marl layering of the strata around Glen Rose, indeed in much of Texas (Fig. 11).

Figure 11a. Landscape near London, Texas, about 170 straight line miles Southwest of Glen Rose. Note flat-topped hills with staircase edges. (All Figure 11 photos by Jason Yoakam, friend of author.)
Figure 11b. Closer view of the staircase sides of the hills.
Figure 11c. Close up of a hilltop edge.

However, given that footprints are found in more than one layer around the Paluxy River near Glen Rose, they must have been deposited sequentially, with the humans and other creatures able to walk on succeeding fresh surfaces.

However, the principle of multilayer deposition of sediment by moving water researched by Berthault et al would account for the assorted thin layering found within both types of footprint-bearing rock layers around the Paluxy (Fig. 12).

Figure 12a. Closeup of upper layer-type limestone. Note the many small layers deposited simultaneously per the mechanism described by Berthault et al. Scale in Figure 7. (Both rocks collected and photographed by author.)
Figure 12b. Closeup of lower layer. Scale in Figure 8.

The broader picture within which these sediments were formed, is currently best explained, in the opinion of the author, by Walt Brown’s Hydroplate Theory[14]. Now, it is important to note that this theory, preferred by the author of this article because of its comprehensive scope, is subject to future change or rejection based on the appearance of new data that would require such action. Also important is the fact that the cataclysm of the Great Flood was also supernatural in nature: a Divine chastisement, and thus cannot be totally explained or understood by merely natural explanations.

The Hydroplate Theory assumes, per the clues provided in Genesis, that the Earth was created with a sixty-mile thick layer of granitic crust overlying a tidally superheated layer of water at least a mile thick[15] that in turn overlay a solid basaltic interior (Fig. 13).

Figure 13. Pre-Flood Earth Cross-Section[16] (Figure 13 online.)
The subterranean water was so hot that it had dissolved much calcium carbonate (limestone chemical), sodium chloride (salt), and silicon dioxide (quartz) from the floor and ceiling of its chamber. The surface of the Earth was very heavily vegetated and abundantly populated with animals of various types but had only half the surface area of water that today’s Earth has post-Flood. The climate was that of a warm, cloudless greenhouse that experienced a daily morning mist watering the vegetation. The diameter of the Earth, per Brown’s Theory, would have been 10% larger than that of today’s Earth, this means a surface area 21% greater, volume 33% greater, and gravitational pull 10% stronger.

When man had repeatedly grievously sinned, God punished the human race, with the exception of Noah and his family and the creatures that he was commanded to take into the Ark, through the cataclysm of the Great Flood. God permitted a rupture to occur in the granitic crust that ended up encircling the globe like the seam of a baseball (Fig. 14).

Figure 14. (From Brown, p. 102, Figure 41.)

The superheated water from the depths – “the Fountains of the Great Deep” – burst forth at hypersonic speed, cooling rapidly upon expansion, and coming down as torrential rain. The force of the ejected water crushed and eroded the sides of the rupture, spreading much resulting sediment of various particle sizes onto the surface of the Earth and widening the crack; accompanying the water were abundant particles of limestone, salt, and quartz, plus their equivalents in solution, from the subterranean chambers. The crust near the rupture fluttered[17] violently from the global equivalent of water hammer (Fig. 15), producing many waves on the increasing world water cover and, with those waves and its own shaking, sorting sediment particles by size in a manner akin to shaking a can of mixed nuts. Also, strong horizontal currents carried sediment for long distances, depositing it rapidly in multilayered form. The world’s vast plant cover was uprooted from the ground and floated in huge rafts that got buried by waves of sediment-laden water, to become coal deposits. Trillions of animals, killed by drowning or rapid burial by sediment, ended up as fossils in the sedimentary strata, often sorted by the hydrodynamics of their bodies, and many also were converted by subsequent heat and pressure, into oil and gas deposits. Humans that scoffed at Noah, and their children, were among the dead, but their bodily traces are relatively few, as are the artifacts they had made: this is because, according to the book of Jasher[19], excerpts of which are quoted in Genesis (Joshua, 2 Kings, and possibly 3 Kings), men of that age were not only killing one another but disdained God’s gift and blessing of fertility[20]. The vast quantities of limestone ejected by the Fountains of the Great Deep were deposited along with the erosional sediments, as was salt and quartz, this last and limestone, in their dissolved form, serving subsequently as the predominant cement for the particles in the many sediment layers, thereby petrifying them, and many of the dead plants and animals.

Figure 15. Water Hammer: The powerful escape of superheated water from under the granitic crustal plate into an open space would have caused the plate to flutter analogously to water hammer that occurs in pipes.[18] (Figure 19 online.)
Figure 16. Atlantic Ocean Floor Rebound: As the exposed deep Atlantic floor rose upward, the Pacific and Indian Ocean portion of the earth sank to compensate.[21] (Figure 3 online.)
After the world had been totally covered by water, and the rift become very wide on the Atlantic Ocean side of the world, the basaltic ocean bottom rebounded upward (Fig. 16) to compensate for a loss of sixty miles of overburden (Fig. 17), while the Pacific side collapsed downward, shattering into a million fragments.

Figure 17. A More Detailed Treatment of the Mass Shift of the Earth During the Great Flood[22] (Figure 89 online.)
The relative depression on the Pacific side of the world caused the now-thickly sediment-covered continents to slide Pacificward until the friction in their now nearly empty subterranean water chamber forced them to stop, causing buckling into mountain ranges (Fig. 18), often, but not exclusively, at their leading edges. The friction from the sliding and Pacific collapse produced abundant magma and volcanic activity worldwide, activity that was also found in various places in the middle of the continents.

Figure 18. World Ocean Floor Map.[23] This orientation, showing the mountains of the Western Americas, from Alaska to the Tierra del Fuego, positioned almost horizontally across the page, highlights the sliding of these two continents towards the sinking Pacific floor, the mountains forming on their leading edge by the continents’ bottom surfaces snagging on irregularities in the now-nearly empty subterranean water chambers. In the opinion of the author of this article, there is obviously room for further study of this mountain-forming mechanism when considering, for example, the Appalachians of Eastern North America, the mountains of Scandinavia, and the ranges around the Mediterranean.
Because the rain of the Great Flood lasted for almost six weeks – forty days – it is safe to say that the footprints in question were made sometime in the middle of those forty days, when there was still unsubmerged land to walk upon, but already an abundance of fresh, soft sediment underfoot.


Important to keep in mind is the fact that human feet are unique in the animal world: they each have five toes that generally point forward, with some splaying (Fig. 19).

Figure 19. The Human Foot.[24] (Figure 1 online) The bones of the human foot are designed to transfer the weight of the body from the calcaneus bone forward to the phalanges, with the big toe pushing the body forward.
Unlike the animals closest to man in anatomy, the apes, humans have an adducted (aligned with centerline) big toe that helps us push forward as we walk: the big toe of an ape tends to point to the side, and serves as a grasping digit in addition to locomotion (Fig. 20). Ape feet, lacking arches, are made for grasping, not for upright walking.

Figure 20. Comparison of Ape and Human Big Toes.[25] The ape big toe is for grasping, and aimed off-center for locomotion. The human big toe is aimed forward, and used exclusively for locomotion.
Also, human feet are notable for having a large heel bone, and short toes as compared with the apes (Fig. 21).

Figure 21.[26] (Figure 1 online.) Comparison of Ape and Human Foot Bones. Both illustrations show the bones of right foot of a human and a chimpanzee. The human heel is larger and the toes shorter. The chimpanzee big toe is thinner-boned and to the side rather than center-aimed.
Figure 22. Arches of the Foot.[27] They transfer the weight of the body from heel to big toe during stride. (From
The human foot is designed for bipedal locomotion, a function unique among mammalian animals. Its structure reflects that (Fig. 22): a large heel in back for holding full body weight during stride, longitudinal (lengthwise) and transverse (width-wise) arches for shock absorption and mid-stride weight transfer during mid-stride, a ball in front of the arches to transfer weight to the toes close to a stride’s completion, and toes serving as stabilizers and for propulsion for the next stride, with the big toe doing most of the work.

Because of its unique function the human foot leaves a print unique in the animal world. In soft material the human footprint shows a large heel at the back, a figure-eight-type narrowing in the middle, where the arches are, and forward-pointing toes (with big toe prominent) that come out of a wide ball at the front.

That said, recognizing a human footprint in whatever medium it is left in, whether a wet shape on dry rock or an impression in mud or soft sand, is straightforward. If pertinent details, like toes especially, are missing from the print, one can argue that a print is merely an elongated oval hole or the damaged impression left by any creature, human or not. That’s why in such cases it is important to look at the impressions made in the entire trail, if a trail exists, to determine from the other prints what creature made the impressions. If one is honest in one’s science, one will accept the finding of the uniquely shaped human print at face value, and not allow philosophical presuppositions to lead one to the denial of the obvious.


Despite having come across a large number of emails, photographs, articles, personal correspondence, etc. among the files of the late Hugh Miller, a Columbus, Ohio-based Paluxy investigator since the 1980’s, for whom the author worked before the end of Mr. Miller’s life, these files including various accounts and photos of finds as they happened, controversies, and even a case of vandalism of a human print, the author has chosen to focus on the key finds because, given the current intense philosophical/religious opposition to evidence supporting the Young Earth paradigm, it is important to present evidence that is difficult for anyone to refute.

The area in question is featured on this map (Fig. 23) from the personal files of the late Mr. Miller.

Figure 23. Paluxy River Study Area (Annotations by author.)

The river winds quite a bit and, from the author’s personal experience of the portions in town (E on map), by the Creation Evidence Museum (C), and the prime investigational area (A) on and near the McFall Ranch, it flows in a narrow, rocky channel of varying depth consisting of a bed of stepped horizontal limestone strata, with little sediment on them. The channel sides are staircase-type outcrops of horizontal limestone beds with some loose slabs and vegetation. Above the channel sides one finds a multi-foot layer of alluvium consisting of fossil-rich gravel, sand, and loamy soil (Fig. 24); this alluvium extends from the channel in spots in level, field-sized patches, like one would expect to find in the flood plain of any river. Beyond the alluvium areas, the land rises into savannah-vegetated hills with largely flat to rounded tops, but exhibiting the staircase bedrock in many places.

Figure 24. Alluvium above the riverbank on the McFall Ranch. A on map. (Photo by author.)

The authenticity of the footprints themselves along the Paluxy is supported not just by the unique shape of the human foot, but also frequently by mud pushups between the toes and along the sides of the foot, which is what one would normally expect of the prints of any creature walking through a muddy substance, which the assorted layers of limestone would have been before hardening, even by evolutionary thought.

In the 1950’s, O.W. Willet discovered the print along the banks of the Paluxy at the current site (D) of Dinosaur Valley State Park[28]. It is unmistakably human. Mud pushups are evident between and around the toes as well as along the foot margins.

Figure 25a. Willet Print. Note mud pushup on outer side of foot. (This and Figure 25b from
Figure 25b. Willet Footprint. Held for scale.
Figure 25c. Willett Print. Enlarged to show detail. Note mud pushups between the toes and around the outside of the foot. (Photo for this Figure, as well as 25d and 25e, courtesy of David Lines of the Creation Evidence Museum.)
Figure 25d. Willett Print. Closeup of toes.
Figure 25e. Willett Print. Closeup of arch and heel.

The Burdick footprint was found in the area on the map at F, from a higher stratum on the bank of Cross Branch Creek.[29] It too, besides the unmistakable human anatomy, has mud pushups between the toes and around the foot. Multiple cross-sections through the print reveal mud or calcite crystal alignments around the toe contour, indicating that it really is a print, not a forgery.

Figure 26a. Burdick Print. The slab was cut in multiple places for cross-section imaging.
Figure 26b. Burdick Print. Cross-sectioned. (Photo courtesy of David Lines of the Creation Evidence Museum. Same credit for c, d, e, and f.)
Figure 26c. Burdick Print. Cross-section through toe region, big toe at right. Note semicircular calcite crystal alignment under second toe from left.
Figure 26d. Burdick Print. Close up of cross-section through impression of second toe from left, to show calcite crystal alignment around toe, indicating pressure.
Figure 26e. Burdick Print. Big toe on left. Note darker mineral particle alignment around contour of big and middle toes.
Figure 26f. Burdick Print. Closeup of big and middle toe region to show dark mineral particle alignment around toe contours, indicating toe pressure on the particles when rock was still mud.

Arguably, the crown jewel of the Paluxy River area footprints is the Alvis Delk print, found by Alvis Delk along a Paluxy River tributary in 2000. Initially, the slab of rock had a dinosaur footprint on it, and he had taken it as an addition to his fossil collection. Intending to sell the print eight years later to help pay off medical debt, he cleaned off the mud and found a human print within the tip of the dinosaur impression.[30] (Fig. 27)

Figure 27a: Alvis Delk Print. (All Figure 27 photos courtesy of David Lines of the Creation Evidence Museum.)
Figure 27b: Alvis Delk Print from a different angle and lighting conditions.
Figure 27c: Alvis Delk Print: Note the deep imprint of the big toe as well as the friable structure of the rock itself: a more marly layer that took impressions more readily, but crumbles more readily as well when hardened. Also, note mud pushups between the toes of both the human and dinosaur.
Figure 27d: Alvis Delk Print closeup to highlight friability of the rock.
Figure 27e: Alvis Delk Print: Closeup of rock texture. Note the many laminations and the grainy/crumbly texture.
Figure 27g: Alvis Delk Print. Closeup of Human big and middle toe prints.
Figure 27f: Alvis Delk Print: Further enlargement to show rock texture.

The distinct human heel, arch, and five forward-pointing toes are clearly visible, as are mud pushups between the toes. Multiple X-rays and spiral CT scans have shown density changes under both the dinosaur and human feet (Fig. 28),  indicating that the then-liquid mud was moved and compressed by overlying weight, thus precluding the possibility of hoaxer carving, which would have had a rock matrix of even density or density variations unrelated to the shape of the carving.

Figure 28a: Alvis Delk Print: CT scan Results. (Enlargements follow. Figure 28 credits same as for Figure 27.)
Figure 28b: Alvis Delk Print. Enlargement to show pertinent CT Scan slices.
Figure 28c: Alvis Delk Print. Enlargement of pertinent slices showing density variations in rock under both the human and dinosaur prints, a phenomenon impossible to duplicate by carving.
Figure 28d: Alvis Delk Print during CT scan at Harris Methodist Hospital in Fort Worth, Texas.
Figure 28e: Alvis Delk Print during CT scan as Dr. Carl Baugh (r.), Director of the Creation Evidence Museum in Glen Rose, TX) and a hospital staff member look on.
Figure 28f: Alvis Delk Print. Hospital staff member at the control console of the CT scanner during scan.
Figure 28g: Alvis Delk Print. The CT scan was done on November 25, 2008, the year that Mr. Delk uncovered the human print when cleaning mud off preparatory to selling what he thought was a slab with only a dinosaur print.


The public excavation run by the Creation Evidence Museum during the week spanning June and July of 2021, and attended by the author, was notable for its find of a petrified lepidodendron root (Fig. 29).

Figure 29a: Lepidodendron Root. Note its angled position with regard to the layering of the limestone. (Photos in Figure 29 by author.)
Figure 29b: Lepidodendron Root. Enlargement of rock to show texture and layering.
Figure 29c: Lepidodendron Root. Found in the partially-buried slab in left foreground, visually between small sapling on left and patch of open mud to the immediate right. The closest person to it is the man in the blue tee-shirt.
Figure 29d: Position of lepidodendron root-bearing slab: partially buried in mud and soil.

According to the Evolutionist paradigm, lepidodenrons[31], which were very tall tree-like plants reminiscent of the ankle-high club mosses one finds in moist temperate woods, are thought to have gone extinct by about 252 million years ago, by the end of the Permian Period, over 130 million years before the rocks laid down at the Paluxy River.  As can be seen in the photo, the root fossil is dark brown. This find alone is a significant piece of data: at minimum it shows that the time-scale for lepidodendron existence assumed by the Evolutionist paradigm is mistaken; it is thereby also another piece of evidence supporting the Young-Earth paradigm.

Also, when one considers the angled position of the root in the limestone layer, it is obvious that the portion of the limestone layer that the root is encased in must have been rapidly deposited; otherwise, the root would have rotted away. This is indicative of rapid deposition.

The 2022 public excavation run by the Creation Evidence Museum, again during the week spanning June and July, was also attended by the author, and was notable for its finds of multiple clam burrows with the clams still in burrow. (Fig. 30)

Figure 30a: Clam burrows in upper layer, with trapped clams. (All Figure 30 photos by author.)
Figure 30b: Closeup of burrow with trapped clam.
Figure 30c: Closeup of trapped clam.

This appears to indicate a rapid burial and solidification of the limestone sediment that the clams were burrowing up through. In the Young-Earth paradigm, each rock layer is hypothesized by Dr. Carl Baugh, Director of the Creation Evidence Museum, to have been deposited rapidly by a sediment-laden tide occurring twice daily in that location during the Great Flood, but each sediment layer was of sufficient thinness for buried clams to burrow upward to near the top of the new layer. This particular layer apparently prevented clams from escaping upward to the subsequent, now removed by erosion, layer; rapid solidification appears to have been the cause of the arrested motion and subsequent death of the trapped clams.


When one considers a global map of the ocean bottom, it is obvious, according to the Hydroplate Theory, that the mid-ocean ridges were the locations of the original ruptures of the Fountains of the Great Deep. However, when one zooms in on at the structural Geology of the continents, one will also find various rifts in them that are largely buried under sediments. Looking at North America (Fig. 31), several are evident.

Figure 31: Rifts in the Continental USA. Note locations of the Reelfoot Rift, Mid-Continental Rift (MCR), and the Southern Oklahoma Aulacogen.[32]
Figure 32: The Midcontinent Rift[33]
One of them is the Midcontinent Rift (Fig. 32), most obviously expressed by the basin of Lake Superior. A deeper investigation, outside the scope of this article, reveals, in the Young-Earth paradigm, a very high-energy series of events within a short period of time[34]: arguably an episode of great geologic violence, which is in keeping with the cataclysmic nature of the Great Flood.

Another is the Reelfoot Rift of the Mid-Mississippi Valley. (Fig. 33) It is the location of the strongest earthquakes historically recorded in the contiguous United States East of the Rocky Mountains, in 1811-1812.[35]

Figure 33: The Reelfoot Rift is the location of the New Madrid Seismic Zone (NMSZ), location of the strongest earthquakes historically recorded in the Lower 48 States East of the Rockies.[36]
The one of greatest interest to the Glen Rose area, in the opinion of the author, is the Southern Oklahoma Aulacogen (a failed rift[37]) (Fig. 34), which runs about four hundred miles Southeastward from the middle Panhandle of Texas through Southern Oklahoma, roughly parallel to and North of the Red River, which serves as the state line; this places it about one hundred miles Northeast of the Glen Rose Area.

Figure 34a: The Southern Oklahoma Aulacogen. The Glen Rose Area is located in the white area approximately between the Eastern end of the yellow area labelled “AGM” and the magenta area of the Aulacogen itself. (Credits are the same as in Figure 31.)
Figure 34b: Another view of the Southern Oklahoma Aulacogen.[38]
Figure 34c: Yet another view.[39] (From
If the main rifts (Fountains of the Great Deep) were the major sources of water and sediment, perhaps this one, being narrower, was a less powerful one that enabled rapidly-repeated (by water hammer), but lower volume pulses of limestone and marl sediment from the subterranean water chambers to overrun the land at short intervals that did not quickly overwhelm the humans and other creatures near this rift, enabling numerous incursions of shallow limestone and marl mud that recorded multiple episodes of footprint emplacement on successive layers of sediment. It is a scenario worthy of further investigation because it may be a predictor of other human traces in similarly-arranged parts of the world.


From the above data and considerations, it should be obvious that the Traditional Catholic/Young Earth paradigm of a Global Flood of a cataclysmic nature is backed up not just by the simultaneous presence of man and dinosaurs recorded in the Paluxy rocks, but their presence is recorded in a sedimentary environment that, in its petrified form, indicates rapid and repeated deposition of limestone/marl muds that quickly hardened, but apparently under conditions that prevented the evidential footprints from being eroded away or disfigured, i.e. an environment indicative of rapidly changing – thus arguably cataclysmic – conditions of a somewhat prolonged duration.


[1] Alvis Delk Print. Photo courtesy of David Lines of the Creation Evidence Museum, Glen Rose, Texas.

[2]AJR Media Group. (2005) Map of Texas Cities. Tour Texas. Retrieved October 3, 2022, from


[3] Benbennick, David. (Updated 2006, February 12). Location within the U.S. state of Texas. Somervell County, Texas. Retrieved October 6, 2022, from,_Texas#/media/File:Map_of_Texas_highlighting_Somervell_County.svg

[4] Benbennick, David. (Updated 2006, February 12). Location within the U.S. state of Texas. Tarrant County, Texas. Retrieved October 6, 2022, from,_Texas#/media/File:Map_of_Texas_highlighting_Tarrant_County.svg


[5] Texas Parks and Wildlife. (n.d.). An Analysis of Texas Waterways: A Report on the Physical Characteristics of Rivers, Streams, and Bayous in Texas: Major Waterways of Central Texas: Paluxy River. Texas Parks and Wildlife. Retrieved October 3, 2022, from


[6] McCord, Marc W. (2012). Paluxy River. Southwest Paddler: Outdoor Recreation Guide for Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri, New Mexico Arizona, Colorado, and Utah. Retrieved October 3, 2022, from

[7] Wikipedia. (Updated 2022, August 9). Glen Rose Formation. Wikipedia. Retrieved October 4, 2022, from

[8] Paleontological Research Institution. (2021). Geologic Time Scale. Earth @ HomeTM.  Retrieved October 4, 2022, from

[9] Wikipedia. (Updated 2022, September 4). Early modern human. Wikipedia. Retrieved on October 4, 2022, from

[10] op. fn 7.

[11] Berthault, Guy. (2022) Experiments & Videos. Main principles of sedimentology. Retrieved October 4, 2022, from

[12] Ibid. Figures 1, 2, and 3.

[13] Bolsius, Roger. (2013, May 13). View from the South Rim. Grand Canyon. Retrieved October 4, 2022, from


[14] Brown, Walt. (Updated 2019, September 25). In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood. Center for Scientific Creation. Retrieved October 4, 2022, from (Also referenced as a book: Brown, Ph.D., Walt, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, 8th Edition, Phoenix, AZ, Center for Scientific Creation, 2008. The website contains updates by Brown since the publication of the 8th Edition, the last published of his book.)

[15] Brown, Walt. (Updated 2019, September 25). In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood. Center for Scientific Creation. Retrieved October 4, 2022, from

[16] Ibid. Retrieved October 4, 2022, from


[17] Brown, p. 277.

[18] Brown, Walt. (Updated 2019, September 25). In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood. Center for Scientific Creation. Retrieved October 4, 2022, from

[19] Wikipedia. (Updated 2022, July 2). Book of Jasher (biblical references). Wikipedia. Retrieved October 4, 2022, from

[20] Brown, Walt. (Updated 2019, September 25). In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood. Center for Scientific Creation. Retrieved October 4, 2022, from

[21] Ibid. Retrieved October 4, 2022, from


[22]  Brown, Walt. (Updated 2019, September 25). In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood. Center for Scientific Creation. Retrieved October 4, 2022, from

[23] Brown, p. 106, Figure 43.

[24] Bernstein, Pinney, and Veillette. (2022) Anatomy of the Foot and Ankle. Retrieved October 4, 2022, from

[25] Bergman, Ph.D., Jerry. (2022, January 28). Laetoli Footprints Were Made by Humans. Creation Evolution Headlines. Retrieved October 5, 2022, from

[26] Wang, Weijie; Abboud, Rami J.; Gunther, Michael M.; and Crompton, Robin H. (2014). Analysis of joint force and torque for the human and non-human ape foot during bipedal walking with implications for the evolution of the foot. ResearchGate. Retrieved October 5, 2022, from


[27] Physiopedia. (2022). Arches of the Foot. Physiopedia. Retrieved October 5, 2022,

[28] Restoring Genesis Ministry. (n.d.) Willet Fossil Human Footprint. Footprints in Stone: A comprehensive review of human footprints in stone. Retrieved October 5, 2022, from

[29] Helfinstine, Robert F., and Roth, Jerry D. 2007.Texas Tracks and Artifacts: Do Texas Fossils Indicate Coexistence of Men and Dinosaurs? R & J Publishing. Anoka, MN. Pp. 41, 75.

[30] Restoring Genesis Ministry. (n.d.) The Delk Footprint. Footprints in Stone: A comprehensive review of human footprints in stone. Retrieved October 6, 2022, from

[31] Wikipedia. (2022, September 24). Lepidodendron. Wikipedia. Retrieved October 6, 2022,

[32] Gibson, Richard I. (2014, February 18). February 18. The Southern Oklahoma Rift. History of the Earth. Retrieved October 6, 2022, from

[33] Communications and Publishing. (2018, January 25). Understanding the Mineral Resources of the Midcontinent Rift. USGS. Retrieved October 6, 2022, from

[34] Reed, John K. 2000, The North American Midcontinent Rift System: An interpretation within the Biblical Worldview (Creation Research Society Monograph Series No. 9). Creation Research Society Books. St. Joseph, MO.

[35] Wikipedia. (2022, September 14). 1811-1812 New Madrid earthquakes. Wikipedia. Retrieved October 6, 2022, from

[36] Boore, Sara, and Mayfield, Susan. (1996, January 1). Reelfoot Rift and the New Madrid Seismic Zone in a 3D topographic image.  Wikipedia. Retrieved October 6, 2022, from

[37] Wikipedia (2022, October 6). Aulacogen. Wikipedia. Retrieved October 6, 2022, from,that%20is%20no%20longer%20active.

[38] McGaw, C. (2014, December 7). A rough outline of the inferred bounds of the Southern Oklahoma Aulacogen. Southern Oklahoma Aulacogen. Retrieved October 6, 2022,

[39] (2011, November). November 2011 LIP of the Month: The Cambrian Wichita bimodal large igneous province in the Southern Oklahoma rift zone. Large Igneous Provinces Commission. Retrieved October 6, 2022, from

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Back to top button