Huge dinosaurs flee rising waters of Noah’s Flood in Australia
ABC’s Catalyst program reports Kimberley dinosaur footprints
Published: 30 October 2012 (GMT+10)
Measuring dinosaur tracks on sandstone platform.
In October 2012, Catalyst, the science television show of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, featured amazing dinosaur footprints from the Kimberleys in north-west Australia.1
Thulborn ref. 4
At James Price Point, 60 km north of Broome on the Dampier Peninsula, paleontologist Steve Salisbury was filmed checking multitudes of footprints preserved in the rocky platforms.
Catalyst reporter Mark Horstman says, “You’ve gotta be quick to study the fossils here. This tide is racing. And this was dry a few minutes ago. The tidal range is up to 10 metres, and the fossils are only visible at the lowest of low tides, so that’s for a few hours for a few days for a few months every year.”
Sand is washed in and out of the area, continually revealing new footprints. The program shows Steve Salisbury measuring a recently-exposed sauropod footprint about 1.7 metres long—a world record. He said the animal that made that print could be 7 or 8 metres high at the hip and more than 35 metres long.
These footprints were made during the global Flood of Noah’s day as recorded in the Bible.
These footprints were made during the global Flood of Noah’s day.
There are so many clues in the rocks at that point to the catastrophe of Noah’s Flood, yet Steve Salisbury and his team did not make the connection. They have been trained for years to think in one particular way, and Noah’s Flood is not on their radar. Worse still, if they ever did seriously float that possibility they would almost certainly lose their jobs (see Expelled).
Indeed, the footprints help us work out the timing of when the rocks were laid down during that year-long catastrophe.2 Clearly the land animals were alive when they made the prints, so the floodwaters had not yet peaked. After that, there would be no footprints because all land animals perished. Other evidence of the timing comes from the geology and from the landscape. This indicates it was not long before everything was inundated. The scale of this destruction is graphically described in the Bible:
“The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits [~7.5 metres] deep. And all flesh died that moved on the earth, birds, livestock, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and all mankind. Everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died.” (Genesis 7:20–22)
One clue that we are looking at an unprecedented geological catastrophe is the enormous extent of the sedimentary deposits.
One clue that we are looking at an unprecedented geological catastrophe is the enormous extent of the sedimentary deposits. Host Mark Horstman explains that the footprints are preserved in the Broome Sandstone, which extends for 200 km along the coastline and is up to 280 metres thick. He says, “At the time this was a vast river plain of muddy swamps and sandbars.” Actually, there was not a lot of mud.3 Mostly it was fine to very coarse sand with areas of gravel. The Broome Sandstone is known to cover the whole of the Dampier Peninsula.4 A river plain of such an enormous extent is monstrous compared with the rivers on the earth today. The Broome Sandstone points to an exceptionally large depositional system.
The surface of the sediment was soft and wet, and the animals walked on it soon after—before it had gone very firm. Steve Salisbury describes the tracks of a stegosaurus:
“It’s got four stubby little fingers on the hand and then quite a fat three-toed foot, and that combination is really characteristic of stegosaurs. … he’s gone for a bit of a slip down there. It looks like there’s a double step—he’s kind of slid for a bit and then had to gain his grip, and got to the bottom there and probably quite relieved that he’s made it … and then continued up that way.”
The idea of a river plain comes from the pattern of cross-bedding in the sandstone. These beds indicate that the water was flowing as the sediment was deposited. Some of the cross-beds are very large, so large that they indicate water flows of biblical proportions. In order to avoid such an interpretation, the sand deposits with the large cross-beds have been interpreted as forming in a desert. That’s right—a desert. This switch implies a puzzling sequence of environments. How could there have been a fast flowing river system, followed by a dry desert, followed by another river system? By ignoring the possibility of Noah’s Flood these palaeontologists create problems for themselves as they try to interpret what was going on.
As Steve Salisbury is filmed walking over the rocks we are told we are “exploring an extinct ecosystem as we walk through a landscape frozen in time.” However, what is preserved is quite unusual compared with ecosystems we see today. Fossils in the sandstone include marine organisms such as plankton and bivalves as well as land plants such a pine trees and ferns.4 Describing it as an ecosystem gives a misleading impression. So many different kinds of plants, animals and organisms that would be found in a normal ecosystem are missing from the deposits. That is because the dinosaurs, during the Flood, were not part of a normal ecosystem. The landscape was in the process of being destroyed by a devastation that impacted both the land and the ocean. This particular situation represented by the Broome Sandstone lasted for only a few weeks and months.
Host Mark Horstman pointing to dinosaur tracks (highlighted).
It’s interesting that Steve Salisbury recognises the transience of the situation. He says, “Most of the track sites that we see probably only represent, you know, between a few days and a couple of weeks, 130 million years ago, so they really do provide a fantastic snapshot.”
Note, “A few days and a couple of weeks”, and “snapshot”.
The footprints are the clear evidence for this brief, short time frame. They were made in soft sediment, and that provides a tight time constraint. And the imprints have been well preserved, which also constrains the time before the subsequent sediment was deposited on top. If the footprints had been exposed for any longer than a few weeks they would have been eroded away.
Clearly, people who talk about those mind-numbing time periods of 130-million years have a time problem: where do they propose to insert all those millions of years into the sediments?
Most people would imagine that the 130 million years was measured by precise laboratory equipment using hi-tech radioactive dating. That is not the case. The quoted date was decided by comparing the mix of fossils found in the sandstone with fossils found in other parts of the world.5 Actually, it is impossible to measure the ages of sedimentary rocks, or any other rocks, by analysing samples in the present (see The way it really is).
The Catalyst program captured the dramatic attempts of dinosaurs trying to escape the rising waters of Noah’s Flood some 4,500 years ago. Although the program made no reference to this global event, and presented the information exclusively in terms of evolution over millions of years, the evidence is plain to those who know what to look for. As my friend who brought this program to my attention said, “I have to admit I just thought of dinos running from flood waters when I saw it.”
- Kimberley Dinosaurs, http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3603069.htm; 4 October 2012. Return to text.
- Walker, T., A biblical geological model; in: Walsh, R.E. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 581–592, 1994; http://www.biblicalgeology.net. Return to text.
- On the 1:250,000 geological map Pender the Broome Sandstone is described as fine to very coarse, mudstone in part, minor conglomerate, ripple marked, cross bedded, bioturbated in part, and plant fossils, SE 51–2, 1st edition, 1983. Return to text.
- Thulborn T., Impact of Sauropod Dinosaurs on Lagoonal Substrates in the Broome Sandstone (Lower Cretaceous), Western Australia, PLoS ONE 7(5): e36208. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0036208, 2012. ): e36208. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0036208; Thulborn interprets the environment as lagoonal which is contrary to the interpretation of a river plain Salisbury gives on the Catalyst program. One reason for the lagoonal interpretation is the huge geographical area of the sandstone. In other areas the sediments show cross bedding, which indicate flowing water. McCrea, R.T., Lockley, M.G., Haines, P.W. and Draper, N., Palaeontology Survey of the Broome Sandstone—Browse LNG Precinct, Department of State Development, Government of Western Australia, pp.12–13, 2011, report various interpretations by various authors at different outcrop locations. Return to text.
- Thulborn, ref. 4. McCrea, et al., ref. 4, report the age as Early Cretaceous (Valanginian to Barremian) based on limited biostratigraphic data (Nicoll et al. 2008). Return to text.
Thankyou for reinterpreting the evidence presented in the Catalyst programme. My 11year old son and I watched the show and could see the glaring inconsistencies in their story, particularly the river, desert, river scenario. The other problem we saw which wasn't picked up on was why the huge tides in that area and constant water movement wouldn't erode the relatively soft sandstone footprints in the intervening millions of years. We got to see some of these footprints ourselves while travelling last year and were frustrated to hear others marveling over the age of the prints, whilst we marveled at being able to see first hand evidence of Noah's flood. If I hadn't had the information from your magazines and website to help me explain what we were seeing to my son I think it could have been quite faith eroding as the evolutionary story was EVERYWHERE!
Yes, again I find it strange how so called scientists keep ignoring the real evidence of the great flood fairly recently. Odd that such footprints are so pronounced after so called millions of years of erosion. I suppose next we are to believe that such footprints will remain for all to see for another 100 millions years. What a farce.
Firstly, what is the problem with the 'river-desert' scenario? Seasonal rivers and flash-floods are a common feature of desert environments! Secondly, why do you say the Broome River deposits are "monstrous compared with the rivers on the earth today"? The outflows of both the Nile and the Amazon extend over 240km of coastline!
Do you envisage your flash flood is 200km wide? Actually, the deposits of the Nile and Amazon deltas are quite diferent. Their actual form depends on how distal you are from the coast.
My relative says that we come from matter and our matter returns to the universe when we die. You get some, I get some. No hope, no future, non-existence. Very sad. The scientist see the evidence, the truth but would rather choose a lie. These people are listened to and held with a great deal of respect. They are leading adult and youth to a place of no hope, no joy. Makes me very sad.
Among the footprints, were any of them of mammals? Small mammals would not have left prints, but large ones like kangaroos would have. Any seen?
Only dinosaurs were mentioned on the program, and there was a variety of those described. Their descriptions have not yet been published.
Very interesting article! However, I could not determine from the article whether the footprints are near the bottom of the Broome Sandstone deposit, well above the bottom, or on top of it. Obviously, they are on top of the sandstone that Salisbury is standing on, but how much of the deposit has eroded away in the 4500 years since the flood to reveal the footprints? I'm guessing they are near the bottom of the deposit and tens of meters of sandstone have been eroded away because it would seem difficult for dinosaurs to survive while up to 280 meters of sediment formed under them. If I'm wrong, where would all these land animals have been standing while that enormous amount of sediment was deposited?
The program did not say whether the footprints were toward the bottom or the top of the deposit. However, it is not uncommon for dinosaur footprints to be found on multiple stacked bedding horizons. Mike Oard has written on this in several places and you should be able to find some of his articles. In particular he has addressed this in his latest book available from the CMI store called Dinosaur Challenges and Mysteries.
He suggestes temporary changes in water level temporarily exposed recently deposited sediments. The dinosaurs were swimming while the sediment was being deposited and when the water level dropped they walked on the freshly deposited sediment. This is why the sediment was so soft and they slipped and slid.
See Terrible lizards for an example of a dinoasur swimming in deepish water.
Let me see if I understand your scenario. First there was enough of a flood to lay down a layer of sand 280 meters thick. Then that part of the flood went away so that the dinosaurs could walk on the top surface. Then the flood waters raged back again (taking care not to erase the footprints) and drowned the dinosaurs. By reading the creationist literature one could marvel at how the flood could come and go to fit whatever ad hoc explanation is being generated.
I've answered a similar question to yours under the comment by Gary J. It has to do with relative water level changing as the sediment was being deposited. I'm surprised that you are not aware of this explanation because there are articles on our site about this and you have been a regular visitor and commenter for a long time.
Can I suggest that you dig out your Bible and read the account of the Flood in Genesis 6, 7 and 8 as well as the comment about Noah in Hebrews 11:7, where he is held up an example to us. Note that in holy fear Noah built an ark to save his family. That attitude is something that you and I both need to seek. Ultimately, Richard, your continual opposition to these articles is not with Creation.com. It is with the God who is revealed in the Bible. Don't be foolish like the people of Noah's time, but be wise like Noah, for the blessing of your family.
This article reminds me of the National Geographic coverage of the dinosaur prints in the Paluxi River, which many creationists insist include Humanoid bipedal foot prints. Although many mainstream scientists claim creationists have dismissed that claim as unprovable, I have seen nothing credible that refutes that claim. Why would we not expect to see, in places, human footprints in the same soil as those that contain dinosaur footprints? Evolutionary science is perhaps the least rational interpretation of the evidence.
In order for one to prevent evolutionary propaganda documentaries from eroding one's faith, just access the vast CMI article / information database. This should provide the correct interpretation of the documentaries' facts / evidence.
If the evolutionarily interpretation pertains to an extremely recent discovery, just wait a little while.
Why? The Bible is absolutely correct in its statements concerning origins, and everything else for that matter, and CMI has some exceptional staff members who shall provide the appropriate Biblical interpretation.
while i think it consistent with the noahic flood i did wonder if that is really the only possible explanation.in discussion on a site i was told that the large crossbedding is not exceptional.i,m sure CMI would not want to use inaccuracies should my paleo opponent be correct.
You would have to find out more about what they mean because the response is too vague to be answered. You might want to do some reading about the Coconino Sandstone which is a classic deposit interpreted as a wind deposit becasue of the size of the dunes but is better explained as a sub-marine deposit.
I find myself turning off the volume as it is one sided and although I did not see this, I was watching a documenrty and they could not understand why dinos still had food in there mouths and yet buried in mud... it was painful to watch and they made no link to the flood, if thats not a clear example, then the genesis evidence should be... it was available for 48 hours and then offline... with no reply.. If the world got to see this, I only managed to download a few parts before the site shutdown... noone would speak of evolution again.
Thank you for this interesting article. As a specialist of Hydraulics and Hydrology and Fluvial Geomorphology, I'd like to offer a plausible explanation of the apparent rise and fall of the flood waters over the dragon's footprints.
I suggest that the land itself fell, rather than the surface elevation of the sea. When sand or dirt becomes saturated, it swells, increasing in elevation. As the water drains and the ground tightens up, it shrinks and falls in elevation. If this great mass of sand and gravel, being 230 meters thick were to partially drain out, it would shrink as much as 8 to 12 meters. Additional sediment layers would then be deposited as the waters rose once again.
What would allow it to drain? A drop in the ocean basement would affect sea levels worldwide, momentarily exposing the edges of the land mass. The swimming critters would suddenly find footing and land to slip and slide on. Subsequent inundation would provide additional sedimentation, freezing the footprints in place just like dog prints in a concrete sidewalk.
Very interesting article and conversation. Thank you for posting this article. The dynamics that occurred could be rather complicated. Remember that both rain was falling and water from subterrian caverns was being released. So as Dan S. stated fluxuations in land altitude could have occured. Secondly, remembering the events in Japan after the Tsunami and the devastation and huge loss of life. I am not surprised to see tidal waves racing across landscapes, clearing them of all vegetation and depositing them in long huge deposits that are mixtures of animals, trees, mud, ... So to see any footprints is truly amazing in the first place. When you have the correct viewpoint all of the pieces fall into place. I am in fear and humble before God for his dynamics to leave animals alive long enogh to leave footprints as reminders to us of how much he hates sin and how he sent his only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ to redeem those whom he has saved. To God Be the Glory.
When I read articles like this I am reminded that even though many Pharisees were eyewitnesses to the miracles of Jesus, they chose not to believe He was who He said He was, the Son of God, the Creator. Times have not changed how people respond to Truth. The more entrenched people are in their belief system the more difficult it is to set it aside, however false it is, however objective the contradictory evidence is before them. Well done, CMI. And thank you for providing a venue for parents to present scientific evidence to their children and preempt a philosophical battle later on in life which for some, sadly, may never come if early on they swallow evolution philosophy (it can scarcely be termed science) hook, line, and sinker.
If you ever have the opportunity to visit Henderson Island (in the Pitcairn Group-Wold heritage), you will find giant footprints at low tide on some old Lava at tide level. My wife Sue measured the footprints at (the biggest) 18 inches. Prior to the flood animals and men were double the size and more. Many of the Dinosaurs are actually just huge current species, ie Crocs, Emus (look at huge Emu prints out at Lark Quarry-fleeing the rising waters, etc Wombatasaurs???). This is born out by the massive men still around in David's time ie Goliath (9feet+) and Og the King of Bashan (13ft. bed), etc. Anyway, there is not enough said about size prior to the flood. Not only did God restrict age to 70+ years but man's size suffered also as did the animals.
It is not correct to say that the dinosaur's fled Noah's flood in Australia without more evidence. You first have to show that the sediment was caused by a flood about 4,500 years ago. Also you have to show more generally that dinosaurs were around at that time, by dating some dinosaur fossils to 4,500 years. There is so much scientific evidence now that dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago, that you need do more than just make a claim. It is not enough to ignore scientific evidence because it doesn't fit with your interpretation of the Bible in a young earth.
If you watch the Catalyst program you will see that they do not justify their statements either. They just make claims, as you describe. It's the same for virtually every news report on dinosuars, fossils, stars, etc. It's all claimed to have evolved over millions and billions of years.
What we have here is a worldview issue. Evidence is interpreted according to one's worldview. That's what this article does. It reinterprets the evidence you see on Catalyst from within the biblical worldview.
This article does not stand on its own. There is now a wealth of information that has been published fleshing out the biblical worldview. Search this site with some of the questions you have and you will find relevant articles. Search the archives of the Journal of Creation. Have a look at some of the other creationist sites on the web. Read your Bible.
You will find the the Bible makes a lot of sense of the world because it records the true history of what actually happened. And you now have a lot of information to help you work that through.
This reminds me of fossils I found littering the hills on Vergemont Station in western Queensland, Australia, near the historic "Carbine Mine" I was mining opals at the time <1987> and was intrigued that there were fossil footprints at Lark Quarry, only tens of kilometres distant. The femur bones of these fossils were about 2.5 metres long, and I snapped off the head of one and took it to the Queensland Museum in Brisbane. The palaeontologist I showed it to looked at it under his binocular microscope and admitted it was probably bone structure he saw. I told him that I was a geologist and was 100% certain that it was from a large dinosaur. I gave him the colour aerial photo of the site, but he showed little interest, stating budgetary problems.
These fossils very probably represent the flood-trapped dinosaurs that were stampeding from the Flood as revealed by the Lark Quarry prints.
I don't think we even need to believe the narrator's “A few days and a couple of weeks”. The water surface dynamics during the Flood would have been enormously complex, as tide behaviour in complex coastlines shows, with standing waves in some places and tsunamis in other places. A standing wave (permanently high water in one place, for a few hours perhaps, and complementary low levels next to it) could allow time for recently deposited sediment to lose water and provide sufficient surface hardening to take the weight of these giants. Likewise, a tsunami could sweep in and carry everything before it while leaving dry land behind it, perhaps for long enough for some surface settling before the backwash returned.
...having read the feature article and many of the posts, there is one small point many of you are missing.
The rocks in which the prints are fossilised are 120million years old. Now I know you will all try and wriggle around saying all the dating methods used by every geological organisation in the world are wrong, and all the scientists are involved in some global conspiracy. I had promised myself to stop posting here as everything I have read on this site is distorted for one purpose only, to discredit any fact that conflicts with the bible. This makes any rational discussion on a very interesting topic, like the one contained in the article, completely pointless. Science has always evolved and moved on as new evidence appears, and you sadly will be for ever locked in a small and diminishing backwater constantly fighting against the deluge of evidence from all the branches of science that all point toward our wonderful earth being 4.5 billion years old and the cosmos being at least 13.7 billion. The question as to wether there is a god that is your god is still open.
Eric, Ask yourself how do they know the age of those rocks. Actually the article itself gives the answer to that. Have a look at the multitudes of articles on our site about how rocks are 'dated'. See if you can find the article that explains the only reliable method of knowing the age of anything.
Yes, everything on this site is framed within the perspective of biblical history. So, yes, we are biased, and we tell everyone what our bias is.
But, everything you read in the press and watch on TV presents the evidence in terms of naturalism, that it all evolved over billions of years. They don't tell you that they are biased and that there are other ways of interpreting things. They just tell you that what they are saying is right.
Your task is to work out what bias is the best bias to be biased with. It's hugely significant for you and your family. Keep reading.
I worked on the huge Peace River dam project in northern British Columbia several years ago, the buzz in the bunkhouse was all about the dinosaur tracks in the rock, the rockwork had all been cleared previous to pouring the concrete for the dam footing, I went over to check it out, they were huge prints similar to a chickens foot but enormous, 18 inches long at least,I could not believe my eyes, how I wished for some plaster of Paris to have made a casting,the concrete crew covered it all up in a hurry as I believe that the whole dam project would have been delayed had it been common knowledge, the Peace river area of BC have many coal deposits and I found many 'fernlike'imprints in the low grade coal showing along the sides of the newly constructed roadside, God is so wonderful as to be beyond our comprehension, as a boy I believed in evolution, I read all the material and books by Julian Huxley etc, nobody can call me 'uninformed' it took many years of study to arrive at the truth,it has been said, and truly so that it takes more faith to believe that it all just "happened" that to believe in our Creator-- I am 80 years old now and happy in The Lord-- Bill Richens Salmo BC Canada
How extraordinary that this group of highly qualified experienced people with so much information available to them should not immediately conclude that this was evidence of a world wide flood only 4500 years ago.
No doubt if they ever did discover the footprints of mammals alongside those of dinosaurs they would ignore that as well. I would suggest that CMI look at the evolutionary history of the World and then publish all the occasions when footprints of animals have been found together when they are supposed to be millions of years apart. Sadly no such evidence has been found on this occasion, But I am sure it has before, It wouldn't make any sense if it had not- that would only support the evolutionary lie. Go on CMI show them the evidence they are wrong.
Peter, we have said on many occasions that this is a worldview issue. Scientists generally see what they expect to see based on their worldview. In their years of training they are programmed to look at evidence in one particular way. CMI has published thousands of articles on all manner of topics showing how the evidence fits with biblical history. The Bible says that humans have an inbuilt bias against the knowledge of their Creator because of our sinful heart (E.g. Romans 1). Keep reading the articles on our site and you will make good progress. Use the search box to find answers to particular issues.
Thank you for this article.
Were any fossils of Homo Sapiens ever discovered? I have never heard of any such thing. If such fossils are found, what would the scientists say? Homo Sapines 65 million years old? Older that Australopithecus?
There is no absolutly indisputable find of humans in dinosaur rocks, although there are many examples of fossils of other modern creatures (see book Evolution the Grand Experiment for documentation), as well as claimed evidence of humans and dinosaurs coexisting. What would evolutionists say? There are many options they could pursue: E.g. The human fossils are not actually humans, the dinosaur fossils are not actually dinosuar, dinosaurs lived longer than we thought and survived until early humans, humans evolved sooner than we thought, etc.
Thanks, Tas, for the fascinating article. One thing I have never understood about trackways is how they were preserved by being buried under more sediment, then lithified, yet later the overlying sediment was eroded exactly down to the level of the tracks, even removing the sediment that had filled the tracks, without destroying the tracks themselves. That seems an unlikely sequence of events, yet apparently it occurs over and over in many places. I suppose I am missing something. Can you help?
How they were covered does raise questions but it's likely that rapid cementation of the sediment was important. They were covered as sedeimentation during the Flood continued. The overlying sediment was eroded mostly by the receding waters of the Flood.
Which dinosaurs did God send along with Noah on the ark?
The Bible says Noah took two of every kind. I've seen estimates that there may have been as many as 50 dinosaur kinds. You would find articles on this if you did a search.
This "good science" is but another way of bearing witness to the epistemological truth of the creation, flood, and restoration of this world. Rubble drift on a world-wide scale dwarfs extant river-deltas and other sedimentary depositions other than catyclysmic events past and current. By comparison, look at the rubble accretion caused by "Sandy" in less than 24 hours. Think 40 days/nights.
Scientific debates often can be rather dry, filled with unfamiliar terms and minute details difficult for the lay reader to follow. But over the last five years, a shocking discovery has taken center stage in an intense debate that even children can follow. Soft, unfossilized blood vessels and red blood cells have been discovered in dinosaur fossils! How could soft tissues survive after being buried in rock for 65 million years?
It is so true that our biases shape our opinions on those things we cannot provide verifiable evidence for. I have no scientific expertise in any field whatsoever, therefore my worldview is based solely upon the Bible, God's word. The evolutionist, not being present at the time, bases his opinion upon his own word, and that of his peers, that being his interpretation of what he sees in nature.
I do have an advantage however over the evolutionist. Whereas his interpretation is a quite recent phenonemom, the last 200 years or so at most, I have 6000 years of history wherein hundreds of thousands men and women of all ages, inteligence, status, race, and language, many of whom incidentally were scientists, have all testified and agreed that their experience in knowing and serving the Creator God has convinced them, without wavering even to the point of death, that God is not a liar but speaks the truth always. My own experience in knowing Him has brought me to the same conclusion, and my testimony is equally sure, that when God said to the entire nation of Israel before Mt Sinai.....
"For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that therein is, and rested the seventh day". (Exodus 20:11)....
He meant every word. This is not a blind faith, nor is it 'unscientific'. My bias is based not only on thousands of years of history and agreed testimony, but also my own living experience knowing my Maker.
Frankly, I know of no more sure foundation upon which to rest my opinion other than God's immutable word.
I found your response confusing, are you saying that fossil footprint evidence has never shown animals from different places on the evolutionist scale together? I would have expected to have found some mixture of different species to show the evolutionists they are wrong. It has already been stated that we have many examples of such footprints, can someone at CMI explain this so that the evolutionists can not use it to bolster their view.
Actually fossils are continually being found in places where they are not expected to be found. This is called an extension of the fossil range and it has the effect of making the fossil record more mixed, as you say. This is not a problem for evolution which cannont be falsified by evidence. The evolutionist simply changes their story about evolution. See the article on Fossil range extensions. There are lots of articles on creation.com on this topic. The same phenomenon is documented by Carl Werner in his excellent books and DVDs entitled Evolution the Grand Experiment.
"If you watch the Catalyst program you will see that they do not justify their statements either. They just make claims, as you describe. It's the same for virtually every news report on dinosuars, fossils, stars, etc. It's all claimed to have evolved over millions and billions of years."
If someone is reporting new discoveries, why should they be expected to repeat old stuff? If you expect all the evidence already reported to be repeated with each new report, how are we to make any progress. Do you expect news reports to offer enough evidence to prove that the earth is round each time they report a plane crash?
On the other hand, you are the one claiming that virtually all of modern science is wrong. Surely it's not unreasonable to expect some evidence for that claim. Saying it's all a plot against God is a rather feeble cop-out, especially when much of it was discovered by God-fearing evangelical Christians, as is accepted by most God-fearing Bible-believing evangelical Christians today.
Did you read the rest of the comment that you quoted from where it said that there is a wealth of information on this site dealing with all manner of issues and discussing all sorts of evidence? Did you read any of those articles as the comment suggested? By the way, we are not saying that virtually all modern science is wrong. Nor do we say it is a plot against God. Did you see that we said it was a worldview issue. Have a read of a few articles on worldview.
And by the way, thank you for your comment about repeating old stuff. You have made a good case to justify the approach we have taken in our article.
You referred to "the Biblical worldview," but I would like to point out that it is a "young-earth Biblical worldview." I hold an "old-earth Biblical worldview." No, I am not a theistic evolutionist. I am a Day-Age creationist.
I find it puzzling as to why you would hold a day-age position when the Bible clearly says that God created in six days about 6,000 years ago. The age issue is resolved when you recognize that there was a global Flood that destroyed all land-dwelling, air-breathing animals except those on the Ark with Noah. The only reason I can think why you would hold such a view is because evolutionary scientists say the world is billions of years old. However, the day-age position is the worst of both worlds: it contradicts the Bible and it contradicts mainstream science.
This week our state newspaper printed a letter of mine disputing evolution as it had no basis. Next day one appeared accusing me of being scientifically illiterate and ignorant. Not so.
"Did you read the rest of the comment that you quoted from where it said that there is a wealth of information on this site dealing with all manner of issues and discussing all sorts of evidence?"
Perhaps then you can indicate where specifically you provide evidence for this particular statement:
"These footprints were made during the global Flood of Noah’s day as recorded in the Bible. "
Have there never been any other floods in the history of the world?
"Did you read any of those articles as the comment suggested?"
The only one I noticed referenced is this collection of misrepresentations and libels:
"By the way, we are not saying that virtually all modern science is wrong."
Only cosmology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, geology, palaeontology, quantum theory, archaeology, radiometrics, biology, optics, etc.
"Nor do we say it is a plot against God."
Then why do you refer to only those who disagree with the standard view as "God's people"?
"Did you see that we said it was a worldview issue."
Yes, "worldview" is a handy excuse for ignoring Daniel Patrick Moynihan's dictum that “You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.”
But thanks for your reply. Very few anti-evolution sites allow any feedback at all.
I suggest you search creation.com for articles on the "post-Flood boundary". Also this article classifying the sediments of The Great Artesian Basin gives the evidence and reasoning why the Cretaceous sediments in Australia were deposited late in the Flood. That will also answer your question about other floods in history. But specifically you may want to search also for "Lake Missoula Flood" and "jokulhaup".
Worldview does not mean people invent different facts. That is a misunderstanding of what is involved. Worldview is about how facts are interpreted. Same facts but a different interpretation.
Keep reading because your relationship with your Creator has huge consequences for you and you need to get that right.
I do not wish to be pedantic however, having read all the posts and links from this thread and, believing yourself to be well versed in the good book, found it surprising that you claim that the Bible clearly says that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago. I have always believed that this had been calculated by Bishop Ussher. If I'm wrong I would sincerely apologise and ask to be pointed toward the passages where this is stated.
The age of the earth is clear from the genealogical information the Bible contains. This page sets out how it is done. It's not hard to figure out that creation was about 6,000 years ago. That was not Usshers main achievement, but the fact that he integrated many sources of history.
Thank you for your wonderful creation ministries, I always look forward to reading these...
You have an article on dinosaurs, and that these foot prints were made during Noahs flood... is there any proof of that, or could it have been made when seas were much lower than they are now, after all they try to tell us that there was a land bridge between us and Indonesia..
If the sands were soft and wet then surely with the fast rising raging waters over the wet soft footprints in this sand would quickly have been washed away..
We have to wonder how did they go from being soft and wet foot prints to being hard and able to still see that they were dinosaurs foot prints. Obviously if the rising waters killed the dinosaurs the foot prints being soft would simply not have lasted.. so perhaps there has to be another reason that they were so firmly hardened in the stone enough to not be washed away hard enough for us to see some thousands of years later,
and why were the dinosaurs not in the ark???.. so perhaps another explanation is that after the flood they walked on the sands of the flood waters and the heat hardened the soil, and it became baked in the fierce Australian sun .
This article explains how it was concluded that the Cretaceous sediments of eastern Australia were Flood sediments. There is considerable discussion on these issues on creation.com. Search for topics such as "post-Flood boundary".
As a former geologist I am completely incredulous at the basis of your argument and the distorted logic used to refute the various non-conforming comments above. In effect you are teaching children that 4500 years ago, yesterday in geological terms, a mighty flood swamped the land and killed many animals including dinosaurs. If this were the case we would have evidence of a poorly consolidated layer including dinosaur and/or mammalian debris at various places all over the globe. Of course no such deposit exists because a) this event did not take place and b) Dinosaurs became extinct long before larger mammals existed. In promoting Creation, the broad debate you are engaging in was lost long ago. You are in denial of some of the most well understood and researched scientific knowledge we have.
Presumably you wouldn’t debate the scientific basis of, lets say, aeronautics, computer science, medical science, astrophysics, the list goes on, on the basis of what is said in the Bible. However you are able to reject knowledge accumulated through rigourous scientific research concerning Palaeontology and Sedimentology. You may actually still have a little time to obfuscate to your confused followers about the details of our earliest life forms, before it becomes generally accepted that Archaea and bacteria are the logical source of all complex life on our planet.(Talking about bones and floods just makes you sound foolish) Forget about creationism as an issue, it's a done deal. Palaeontology is based on science not a belief system. Stop wasting your time, instead why not give people who are not sure what to believe some philosophical guidance, not pseudo-scientific explanations. By the way is the Moon only 4500yrs old too?
Dear JF, If this is the first article along this line that you have read I can understand your incredulity. It's a totally different way of interpreting the geological evidence and it takes a little while to understand what is involved. You mentioned expecting to find a poorly consolidated layer, but you need to have a much larger understanding of the Flood than this. You say that we deny aeronautics, etc. but the articles on "historical and operational science" would clear this up for you. Keep reading the articles on this site, especially the ones about geology.