Dinosaur Footprints, Eggs and Bones – Are Paleontologists Creating Fake History?

Dinosaur tracks and eggshells are abundant findings within the geological column, capturing the attention of numerous dedicated paleontologists. Their relentless pursuit involves uncovering, studying, and interpreting these remnants of long-extinct creatures. However, is all this painstaking effort merely an illusion when considering the young-earth perspective? Could the majority of paleontological work be seen as fabricating a false historical narrative? In this blog post, we will explore a recent paper that sheds light on this question.

Today, a fascinating study (1) was published, presenting the examination and discovery of 31 dinosaur fossil and track sites within a single rock formation in Spain. Like countless other studies of its kind, the sheer volume of data collected and the insights derived from these fossils amazed me. The authors’ objective was to utilize these fossils and other trace fossils to reconstruct the environmental conditions of a specific time and place. This historical reconstruction portrayed a diverse array of dinosaurs coexisting within a river floodplain, interspersed with small lakes, streams, and sporadic elevated areas.

Let’s delve into some key findings from this research:

Dinosaur Tracks: Seven distinct sets of dinosaur tracks were discovered, with four of them located at different levels within the rock formation. This implies that these sets of tracks were formed during separate events, separated by a period during which sediments accumulated between them. The tracks were preserved in sediment that had undergone significant dewatering, meaning the muddy and clay-like material had dried out enough to retain the shape of the tracks until new sediment filled them.

Skeletal Fossils: Twenty-two sites containing skeletal fossils were identified, spread across 12 different levels within the rock formation. The condition and deposition patterns of the bones were not random. Certain bones and bone fragments were more likely to be found in coarse-grained deposits associated with river or stream-bed environments, while others were more likely to be discovered in poorly drained flood plain deposits. This indicates that the fossils are not randomly associated with different rock compositions.

Eggshell Fossils: Eighteen distinct levels within the rock formation yielded fossilized eggshells from multiple dinosaur species. These eggshell remains were also found in specific types of sedimentary rock associated with lake-shore environments. The local density of these shells suggests the presence of nesting sites where groups of dinosaurs returned years later, only to have their old nesting sites buried under additional flood-plain sediments. The paper even mentions the remarkable density of up to 50 eggshell fragments per 2 kg of sediment.

Rock Formation and Context: All the bones, footprints, and eggshells were found within a rock formation that is approximately 100 meters thick. Interestingly, there are very few, if any, dinosaur remains in the adjacent rock layers above and below this specific formation. These neighboring rock layers have different compositions, indicating they were formed under different conditions that apparently were not as suitable for supporting dinosaur life.

What have these scientists accomplished? They have amassed a wealth of evidence. The existence of footprints, bones, and eggshell fragments, along with their precise locations and the composition of the surrounding rock, are the factual findings of this study. We can consider these facts as circumstantial evidence, providing valuable insights into the past.

Based on the abundant evidence, I firmly believe that we can make confident inferences regarding the past. For instance, we can infer that footprints were created by an existing foot at the time of their formation. Similarly, the presence of eggshells suggests that they originated from animals that lived in the past. By analyzing the degree of abrasion on the eggshells, we can deduce whether they were transported over long distances by water or if they remained in close proximity to their original location. The stratification of rock layers containing eggs indicates that they were laid at different times. Additionally, the grain size of the surrounding rock provides insights into footprints being made in dewatered soils. On a broader scale, all these data converge to suggest that the entire region constituted a low-lying floodplain with diverse local habitats.

Are all these inferences pure fantasy?

When we carefully piece together all the available data, a compelling narrative emerges. It paints a vivid picture of a dinosaur community inhabiting a floodplain region, reminiscent of a vast valley nestled between two mountain ranges. In this dynamic environment, dinosaurs laid eggs, traversed temporary ponds that alternated between filling and drying out. Some eggs hatched, while others were trampled upon or preyed upon, resulting in their fragments becoming mixed with the sediment. Periodically, floods submerged the entire region or parts of it, depositing layers of coarse sediments followed by clays in low-lying areas that temporarily held water.

The wealth of information gleaned from these inferences provides valuable insights into the past and contributes to our understanding of the ecological dynamics of the region.

While the conclusions drawn from the aforementioned study may appear reasonable, it is important to consider them within the context of the young-earth creationist (YEC) paradigm. According to this worldview, which presupposes a global flood, nearly all of the interpretations presented above would be considered almost entirely incorrect. YEC advocates would argue that the authors of the paper have constructed a fictional historical narrative, rendering any news derived from this research as “fake news.” While they may acknowledge the presence of bones, footprints, and eggshells within the rocks, they would label the majority of inferences made from these “facts” as false. This dismissal stems from their belief that these facts have been wrongly interpreted due to the use of an erroneous interpretive filter.

Admittedly, this is an exaggerated stance. YEC proponents would likely agree that certain inferences about historical events are appropriate. For instance, they would not dispute that footprints were created by a foot, despite not having personally witnessed the foot making the imprint. They accept this inference from historical science without hesitation, even though it cannot be proven beyond doubt.

However, they struggle to accept most of the interpretations put forth by the authors. This reluctance stems from their unwavering conviction that the sediment layers in these rock formations were deposited during a single global flood. They believe that all the rock layers containing these footprints, bones, and fragments of eggshells were formed in mere minutes, days, or possibly a few weeks. It is evident that the authors’ interpretations, which involve processes that would require years, decades, and possibly thousands of years to account for the observed fossils, directly contradict this belief.

The YEC perspective, driven by their presuppositions and worldview, compels them to seek alternative explanations for the evidence. While they acknowledge the existence of fossils, bones, eggshell fragments, and footprints, they strive to construct a viable history that accounts for these specific observations. In contrast, hundreds of scientists have dedicated their entire careers to finding, documenting, and interpreting fossils like these, and they overwhelmingly concur with a general interpretive framework that explains not only the observations made here but also those made in numerous other locations worldwide.

Rather than questioning their interpretive assumptions and considering the possibility of errors in their interpretation of Genesis, YEC proponents tend to devise speculative explanations akin to the epicycles in the geocentric model of the solar system. Despite having extensively reviewed the literature written by YECs on dinosaur nests and footprints, I have yet to come across anything remotely resembling a plausible alternative history for these fossils.

Any theory must account for how all these fossils ended up in their specific positions, densities, and rock types as observed today. If all these rocks were deposited during a massive flood simultaneously, why are bones, footprints, and eggshells confined to only one thick layer of rock rather than being distributed across the layers above and below? How and why would a global flood selectively arrange these remains together? The YEC scenario simply defies logical sense. According to their theory, many dinosaurs managed to survive the initial stages of the Flood while 10,000 feet of sediment accumulated in Spain. Subsequently, as land temporarily emerged during the later phases of the Flood, these dinosaurs, who had been swimming or floating on logs for weeks, hurriedly made their way onto this small patch of land to lay thousands of eggs and leave footprints. Then, as the land was once again covered and more sediment was deposited in the region, the same species of dinosaurs apparently survived this second inundation, with some pregnant individuals returning to lay more eggs and make additional footprints. This scenario supposedly repeated dozens of times.

—————————————-

Recently, Ken Ham once again emphasized to his audience that the difference between creation and evolution lies not in the data itself, but in the interpretation of that data. According to him, one approach relies on fallible human perspectives and ideas about the past, while the other is grounded in God’s infallible eyewitness account. The question he poses is: Which foundation will you choose for your thinking?

On the surface, it seems straightforward. Select the right foundation, and you can interpret all the data accurately, reconstructing history correctly. However, when it comes to discerning the past based on present evidence, there is no infallible Word to guide us in determining what a rock resembling a footprint truly signifies. Nonetheless, Ken Ham remains resolute in his unwavering belief that he can flawlessly infer past events from the present.

In this particular case, however, I agree with him. We don’t need the Bible to provide eyewitness testimony for us to conclude with confidence that the footprints are indeed footprints. They were created in the past by a leg with a foot on it. It’s when these inferences clash with what Ken Ham perceives as an infallible truth that the principle of applying presuppositions before interpreting facts comes into play.

The crucial point here is that because these footprints and eggshells are part of a genuine historical narrative, they must hold a real story within them. For 200 years, paleontologists have examined these fossils tirelessly, striving to unravel the tale they convey. Could their conclusions be completely erroneous? It’s a possibility. However, if they are wrong, the true story must account for all the evidence. So far, no alternative model of Earth’s history has emerged that can make sense of all the data as effectively as the current old earth paradigm does.

The interpretation of the aforementioned paper, which I discussed earlier, is compelling. It aligns with intuition, makes logical sense based on the available facts, and fits the evidence found in numerous locations worldwide. Ken Ham cannot simply dismiss these interpretations, claiming his model makes more sense of the data, and insinuate that paleontologists are part of a grand conspiracy. If all this data could be explained just as easily within a different interpretive framework, then he and his team need to present a more plausible explanation for the same data they acknowledge exists.

——————————————————————-

I’ve written about the problems with their hypothesis in detail in the past:

Juvenile Dinosaurs Found Huddling In A Nest:  Testimony to a Global or Local Catastrophe?
Fossil Eggs, Nests, Floods and Stressed Pregnant Dinosaurs
Piles of Fossil Poo: Providing a Peak into the Past
A Tale of Taphonomy: Clam Shrimp Fossils and the Age of the Earth
NH Notes: Dino Doo-Doo (Coprolites) and the Genesis Flood
Exceptional Dinosaur Tracksite in Denali National Park Reveals Herd of Hadrosaurs

José M. Gasca, Miguel Moreno-Azanza, Beatriz Bádenas, Ignacio Díaz-Martínez, Diego Castanera, José I. Canudo, Marcos Aurell, Integrated overview of the vertebrate fossil record of the Ladruñán anticline (Spain): Evidence of a Barremian alluvial-lacustrine system in NE Iberia frequented by dinosaurs, Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, Volume 472, 15 April 2017, Pages 192-202, ISSN 0031-0182, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.palaeo.2017.01.050. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031018216305776

Below is another figure showing a geological column from Utah which indicates all the different stratigraphic levels at which dinosaur footprints have been found. I show this to demonstrate that what was reported today is not an isolated or rate example but rather footprints on multiple levels is a global phenomena.