Tracking Humans on the Cretaceous Rocks of Texas’ Paluxy River

INTRODUCTION

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).

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.

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),

 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 20^th 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 GEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND

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).

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

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.

 

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).

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).

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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).

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).

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).

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

THE HUMAN FOOTPRINT

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).

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.

Also, human feet are notable for having a large heel bone, and short toes as compared with the apes (Fig. 21).

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.

KEY HUMAN FOOTPRINTS

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

RECENT ACTIVITY

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).

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)

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.

SOME STRUCTURAL GEOLOGY CONSIDERATIONS

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.

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]

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.

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.

CONCLUSION

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.

---

Footnotes:

[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 https://www.tourtexas.com/texas-maps/map-of-texas-cities.

 

[3] Benbennick, David. (Updated 2006, February 12). Location within the U.S. state of Texas. Somervell County, Texas. Retrieved October 6, 2022, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somervell_County,_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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarrant_County,_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 https://tpwd.texas.gov/publications/pwdpubs/pwd_rp_t3200_1047/22_c_tx_paluxy_pedernales_san_bernard.phtml.

 

[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 http://southwestpaddler.com/docs/brazos19.html

[7] Wikipedia. (Updated 2022, August 9). Glen Rose Formation. Wikipedia. Retrieved October 4, 2022, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glen_Rose_Formation

[8] Paleontological Research Institution. (2021). Geologic Time Scale. Earth @ Home^TM.  Retrieved October 4, 2022, from https://earthathome.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Geologic-Time-Scale-2000px-1200x675.png

[9] Wikipedia. (Updated 2022, September 4). Early modern human. Wikipedia. Retrieved on October 4, 2022, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_modern_human

[10] op. cit.in fn 7.

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

[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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Canyon#/media/File:Grand_Canyon_Panorama_2013.jpg

 

[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 http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html. (Also referenced as a book: Brown, Ph.D., Walt, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, 8^th Edition, Phoenix, AZ, Center for Scientific Creation, 2008. The website contains updates by Brown since the publication of the 8^th 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 http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/HydroplateOverview5.html

[16] Ibid. Retrieved October 4, 2022, from http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/HydroplateOverview4.html

 

[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 http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/HydroplateOverview6.html

[19] Wikipedia. (Updated 2022, July 2). Book of Jasher (biblical references). Wikipedia. Retrieved October 4, 2022, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Jasher_(biblical_references)

[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 http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ225.html

[21] Ibid. Retrieved October 4, 2022, from http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Trenches2.html

 

[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 http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Trenches3.html

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

[24] Bernstein, Pinney, and Veillette. (2022) Anatomy of the Foot and Ankle. Orthopaedia.com. Retrieved October 4, 2022, from https://orthopaedia.com/page/Anatomy-of-the-Foot-Ankle

[25] Bergman, Ph.D., Jerry. (2022, January 28). Laetoli Footprints Were Made by Humans. Creation Evolution Headlines. Retrieved October 5, 2022, from https://crev.info/2022/01/laetoli-footprints-human/

[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 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263097257_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#pf2

 

[27] Physiopedia. (2022). Arches of the Foot. Physiopedia. Retrieved October 5, 2022, https://www.physio-pedia.com/Arches_of_the_Foot)

[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 https://www.footprintsinstone.com/the-footprints/o-w-willet-fossil-human-footprint/

[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 https://www.footprintsinstone.com/the-footprints/delk-footprint/

[31] Wikipedia. (2022, September 24). Lepidodendron. Wikipedia. Retrieved October 6, 2022, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lepidodendron

[32] Gibson, Richard I. (2014, February 18). February 18. The Southern Oklahoma Rift. History of the Earth. Retrieved October 6, 2022, from http://historyoftheearthcalendar.blogspot.com/2014/02/february-18-southern-oklahoma-rift.html

[33] Communications and Publishing. (2018, January 25). Understanding the Mineral Resources of the Midcontinent Rift. USGS. Retrieved October 6, 2022, from https://www.usgs.gov/news/science-snippet/understanding-mineral-resources-midcontinent-rift

[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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1811%E2%80%931812_New_Madrid_earthquakes

[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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Madrid_Seismic_Zone#/media/File:NMSZBig.gif

[37] Wikipedia (2022, October 6). Aulacogen. Wikipedia. Retrieved October 6, 2022, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aulacogen#:~:text=An%20aulacogen%20is%20a%20failed,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, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Oklahoma_Aulacogen#/media/File:Soamap.png

[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 http://www.largeigneousprovinces.org/11nov