Burdick Footprint

Proponents of the Burdick Footprint or Burdick Track argue that its human-like footprint features in Cretaceous limestone provide compelling evidence for the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs, challenging conventional geological timelines.

Quick Facts

Location Found:	Paluxy River, Texas
Discovery Date:	1930's
Current Location:	Creation Evidence Museum
Authenticity:	Confirmed
Open to the Public:	Unknown

The Burdick Footprint

The Burdick Footprint, also known as the Burdick Track, is a controversial fossil impression from Glen Rose, Texas, claimed by some young Earth creationists to represent a "giant man track" from the Cretaceous period—over 100 million years ago. However, mainstream scientists and many creationists alike have raised serious doubts about its authenticity, with evidence suggesting it was likely carved in the early 20th century. This entry explores the history, technical examination, and divergent opinions on the print’s origins.

Discovery and Description

Originally brought to attention by Clifford Burdick, a geologist aligned with creationist ideologies, the Burdick Footprint measures roughly 15 inches in length and shows what some perceive as toe and arch features similar to a human footprint. However, unlike other fossilized footprints in the Glen Rose area, the Burdick Footprint was found on a loose rock slab rather than in situ within the riverbed.

Creationist Claims and Arguments for Authenticity

Supporters of the Burdick Footprint’s authenticity argue that it substantiates the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs, supporting a young Earth interpretation of history. They point to what they perceive as anatomical details in the print, such as distinct toe impressions and an arch, to argue that it resembles a genuine human footprint. Proponents, including creationists Carl Baugh and Don Patton, assert that the print’s age, as inferred from its Cretaceous limestone setting, contradicts conventional timelines of human evolution and offers physical evidence for their worldview.

In support of the Burdick Footprint’s authenticity, some researchers have cited subsurface “deformational lines,” which they claim indicate compression, as would occur underfoot if the print were genuine. Patton, in particular, has promoted cross-sectional cuts of the print’s heel and toe areas as evidence, stating that they show subsurface deformation indicative of a natural footprint rather than a carving.

Historical and Scientific Critiques

Numerous scholars and researchers have raised concerns about the authenticity of the Burdick Footprint, arguing that it was likely fabricated in the early 20th century by Glen Rose resident George Adams. According to testimony from local residents, Adams carved several similar "man tracks" on rock slabs in the 1920s and 1930s, a time when the Great Depression motivated some locals to create curiosities to sell to tourists. These carvings were reportedly made using tools such as hammers, chisels, and even muriatic acid to simulate aging, after which the slabs were covered with manure to further create the appearance of fossilization.

In addition to historical testimony, scientific investigations have cast doubt on the footprint’s anatomical plausibility. Experts point out several anatomical inconsistencies, such as unnaturally long toes, a disproportionate ball of the foot, and a narrow heel. The print’s triangular shape and lack of a curved, natural toe-to-heel line diverge significantly from typical human footprints, leading scientists like Laurie Godfrey to suggest that the carving was likely made without accurate reference to a human footprint.

Further evidence against the print’s authenticity includes algal fossil orientations on the rock. The stromatolite structures within the limestone, which typically indicate the original “up” direction in the sedimentary layers, were found inverted on the Burdick Footprint. This suggests the carving was created on what was originally the underside of the slab, reinforcing the idea that it was manually crafted.

The Paluxy River Context and Related "Man Track" Claims

The Burdick Footprint is one of several purported "man tracks" found in the Glen Rose area, many of which creationists initially believed to represent fossilized human footprints alongside dinosaur tracks. However, further studies have shown that the alleged “man tracks” are often the result of misidentified phenomena, such as erosional marks, metatarsal dinosaur tracks, or carvings on loose rock slabs. For instance, paleontologist Roland T. Bird, who investigated the Glen Rose tracks in the late 1930s, recognized similar impressions as carvings and questioned their authenticity.

Despite this, creationists like Carl Baugh and Don Patton continue to promote these tracks as genuine. However, most creationist organizations have distanced themselves from these claims, and prominent creationist scholars have acknowledged the likelihood that many of these prints are carved.

Conclusion

The Burdick Footprint, alongside other so-called "man tracks" from the Glen Rose area, remains a topic of interest within creationist circles but lacks scientific credibility. The overwhelming anatomical inaccuracies, historical context of local carvings, and structural evidence in the rock all point toward it being a man-made artifact. The Burdick Footprint is now largely dismissed by both mainstream scientists and many creationists as a forged artifact, although it continues to be displayed in some creationist museums as a curiosity rather than a valid scientific specimen.

References

1. The "Burdick Print" - Glen J. Kuban and Gregg Wilkerson
2. Cole, J.R. and Godfrey, L.R., The Creation/Evolution Journal, 1985.
3. Kuban, G.J., "The Burdick Print Revisited," Journal of Paleontological Science, 1986.
4. Morris, H.M., Scientific Creationism, 1980.
5. Patton, D., "The Burdick Print: An Analysis," Creation Evidences Journal, 1990.