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: | Unknown |
| Open to the Public: | Unknown |
he Burdick Footprint, Burdick Track, or Burdick Print is a controversial limestone footprint found in Glen Rose, Texas, known for sparking debate between proponents of Young Earth Creationism and mainstream scientists. This purported human footprint, found in the Cretaceous limestone layers of the Cross Branch stratum near the Paluxy River, has been examined and argued over since its discovery. This entry synthesizes perspectives from both creationist claims of authenticity and scientific analyses that dispute its veracity.
Overview
The Burdick Track measures approximately 14 inches in length and 6.5 inches in width, a size consistent with that of a large human foot, theoretically belonging to a person around seven feet tall. This track has been cited as a potential anachronism by creationists, who argue it demonstrates that humans and dinosaurs coexisted, thus challenging conventional evolutionary timelines. The Creation Evidence Museum team, led by Carl Baugh and Don Patton, investigated this track, citing cross-sections that they claim show pressure marks consistent with authentic footprints.
However, the Burdick Track is one of several "man tracks" from Glen Rose and nearby areas that mainstream scientists argue are likely carvings, due to anatomical inconsistencies, evidence of chisel marks, and the presence of stromatolite structures within the limestone that suggest the footprint was artificially made.
Discovery and Initial Investigations
The Burdick Track was allegedly discovered in the Cross Branch stratum, a tributary of the Paluxy River, which is also famous for containing numerous dinosaur tracks. The exact timeline of its discovery is unclear, but the track was purportedly extracted from the riverbed decades ago. In the 1990s, creationist researchers, including Carl Baugh and Don Patton, attempted to locate the original site of the footprint, interviewing local residents to find the precise stratum for comparison. Their analysis focused on matching the composition and color (ivory-tan, fine-grained limestone) of the Cross Branch matrix to the Burdick Track, aiming to verify its authenticity as a natural footprint.
Proponents of the track’s authenticity argue that its size, shape, and alleged pressure marks validate it as a real human footprint from the Cretaceous period. The Creation Evidence Museum has displayed this footprint as evidence of humans coexisting with dinosaurs, aligning with a Young Earth Creationist viewpoint that challenges conventional paleontological dating.
Lapidary expert Cordell VanHuse later analyzed the track, and creationist researchers argued that cross-sectional cuts through the heel and toes demonstrated the presence of "pressure lines" which they claimed would be difficult to replicate through carving. Despite this, many experts remain unconvinced due to the footprint’s unusual proportions and details.
Counterarguments and Evidence of Carving
Mainstream geologists and paleontologists generally reject the Burdick Track as a genuine human footprint. Scientific analyses indicate several issues that point toward the track being carved. Key observations include:
Anatomical Inaccuracies:
The footprint displays unusually long toes and lacks consistent human foot proportions. For instance, the "big toe" is narrow, and the ball of the foot is excessively wide in relation to the heel, resulting in an almost triangular shape, inconsistent with natural human footprints.
Surface and Subsurface Features:
Cross-sectioning by various teams revealed truncated stromatolite structures under the footprint depressions. Stromatolites are layers of algae typical in ancient limestone, which grow in a specific orientation relative to the "up" direction of rock layers. In the Burdick Track, these structures appear cut off at the base of the footprint, which suggests the rock was flipped and carved on what was originally its bottom side.
Carving Techniques and Local Tradition:
Local accounts reveal that George Adams, a Glen Rose resident, was known to carve similar “man tracks” during the 1930s, during the Great Depression, for sale to tourists. His method involved using a hammer and chisel, simulating raindrop effects with a center punch, applying acid to age the appearance, and treating the slab with manure to mimic natural erosion. Roland T. Bird, a paleontologist, observed several such carvings on similar slabs and identified them as artificial.
Comparative Analysis:
Mainstream researchers, including Glen Kuban and Laurie Godfrey, studied the track’s unusual proportions and external features, noting that they were likely exaggerated by a carver rather than resulting from natural biomechanics.
Current Perspective
Although the Burdick Track remains a popular display at the Creation Evidence Museum and a point of contention among creationists, the scientific consensus deems it a fabricated artifact. Anatomical errors, inconsistencies in the alleged pressure markings, and the presence of truncated algal structures strongly indicate that the Burdick Track was artificially created. The track’s enduring legacy highlights the ongoing conflict between scientific and creationist interpretations of geological evidence.
Most researchers agree that the Burdick Track lacks in situ documentation, which is essential for verifying the authenticity of fossil footprints. Without such evidence, the track’s scientific value remains questionable, and it is generally classified by experts as an example of a historical forgery rather than a genuine human fossil footprint.
Videos
References
- The "Burdick Print" - Glen J. Kuban and Gregg Wilkerson
- Cole, J.R. and Godfrey, L.R., The Creation/Evolution Journal, 1985.
- Kuban, G.J., "The Burdick Print Revisited," Journal of Paleontological Science, 1986.
- Morris, H.M., Scientific Creationism, 1980.
- Patton, D., "The Burdick Print: An Analysis," Creation Evidences Journal, 1990.