Footprints and the like

One type of ‘anomaly’ that has proved enduringly popular, especially among Creationists, is the supposed human footprint found in geological strata that ought to be older than the origins of Homo sapiens. Many of them are simple misidentifications, but some are outright frauds. Others are a combination of misidentification, ‘enhanced’ to make them appear more human. The sub-section presents a selection of them.

12 Replies to “Footprints and the like”

    1. Jerry MacDonald’s discoveries of Permian footprints were certainly ground breaking. However, the print shown on the page to which you link is one that has been thoroughly debunked and is not one of MacDonald’s discoveries. The site you which you link claims that MacDonald found “large mammal and bird tracks”, whereas the article cited (but, significantly, not quoted) describes them as tracks belonging to large amphibians and mammal-like reptiles, creatures perfectly at home in the Permian.

      It’s particularly telling that the site to which you link concludes that ”evolutionists have not tried to argue their authenticity or debunk them. Nor have they tried to argue that the footprint isn’t human. (Often they claim that it’s a print that just “looks like” a human footprint.) Their very silence is deafening”; you’ve seen the link to an ‘evolutionist’ debunking. Silence, indeed!

      1. It is very frustrating to have creationists denying the existence of something just because they, personally, don’t know about it. To me it seams like they assume that everything worth knowing was already inside their heads when there is a whole fascinating world to discover.

  1. While this particular batch (described in the linked article) may indeed be misinterpretations and some outright fraud, I’m of the opinion that there are, indeed, valid human footprints (and shoe-prints) in fossilized mud; and I can’t shake the feeling, conventional wisdom aside, that humans did at least see some “dinosaurs.” I freely admit, this is just a suspicion and my humble opinion.

    1. Oh yes, there are genuine human footprints. There are some at Formby in Liverpool Bay, for instance, that show a group of Mesolithic people walking across the mud. There are much older footprints at Laetoli in Tanzania, made by early hominids. We have all seen dinosaurs, according to one interpretation of biological cladistics: we just call them birds!

      1. I love how people use the phrase “thoroughly debunked” without the slightest evidence. I actually worked in the Paluxy River and saw the clear human tracks being uncovered for the first time. Anyone who says these are fake is a wishful thinking fanatic. Science is impartial. I observed the evidence first hand. The Permian tracks are CLEARLY mammal and bird tracks and not even the Smithsonian goes as far as you dishonestly claim to explain them away as ‘amphibian’ which would simply be an ‘excuse’ not a scientific observation. Science is so far from evolutionary philosophers that it’s almost comical. Creationists are not the ones who touted Piltdown Man and Peeking Man and Nebraska Man to the masses as ‘evidence’. Not to mention recapitulation of Phylogeny which was a fraud that is STILL in text books today.

        1. Creationists are not the ones who touted Piltdown Man and Peeking Man and Nebraska Man to the masses as ‘evidence’”; nor are they the ones who debunked the Piltdown fraud or exposed the Nebraska Man mistake. And what is wrong with Peking Man (Homo erectus)? Oh, I forgot. You’re a creationist who thinks that Homo erectus is fully human, no, an ape, no fully human, no an ape

        2. Really? You saw the clear human tracks being uncovered for the first time? Because that was back in 1938 and unless you are in your late 80’s (figuring you had to be at least ten years old at the time) I don’t buy your claim for being there.

        3. Because you clai that you snow as something on a public forum and therefore it’s real and we should all believe it proves one or all of a few things:


          1: You’re completely full of sh*t.


          2: You’re a complete failure of a scientist and shouldn’t be working at ANY dig sites. Because even the most basic of scientists knows that anecdotal evidence, along with thst which we just “see” and don’t rigorously prove to the n’th degree, SHOULD NEVER BE REFERRED TO AS FACTUAL.


          3: The “work” you were doing at the site consists of porcelain lavatory maintenance and nothing more.

          I would bet all of my 5 houses that you’re a straight-up liar, in EVERYTHING that you do in life.

  2. Nobody knows for sure, do they? Let’s keep an open mind and remember that everyone projects from their own limited perspective. You don’t know what you don’t know. Maybe there were civilizations even before that Permian one. Not having evidence does not mean it didn’t happen.

Agree or disagree? Please comment! If you've never commented before, you may have to wait until I approve it: please be patient.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: