Eric Lyons, has state:,
(1) In an attempt to explain away “human-like footprints” embedded in 250-million-year-old coal veins in Kentucky, Illinois, Missouri, and westward toward the Rocky Mountains, Albert G. Ingalls (the state geologist of Kentucky) could muster only the following explanation.
If man, or even his ape ancestor, or even the ape ancestor’s early mammal ancestor, existed as far back as in the Carboniferous period in any shape, then the whole science of geology is so completely wrong that all geologists will resign their jobs and take up truck driving. Hence, for the present at least, science rejects the attractive explanation that man made these mysterious prints in the mud of the Carboniferous period with his feet (1940, 162:14, emp. added; see also, Wilder-Smith, 1970, p. 300).
Evolutionary scientists still are rejecting the “attractive explanation”—i.e., the obvious fact—that these prints are human footprints.
(2) In attempting to explain away how two trilobites were found fossilized inside of a human sandal print in Antelope Springs, Utah, in 1968, evolutionists have asserted that the print is merely a spall (cracking or chipping) pattern in the rock (see Conrad, 1981, 4:30-33). They do not question the authenticity of the trilobite fossils, yet they reject the interpretation that these trilobites are found inside a human sandal print. One wonders what kind of explanation they have for the stitching that is visible along the edges of the sandal print?
(3) During the summer of 2004, while I was visiting the Natural Bridges National Monument in southeast Utah, I asked one of the staff members at the visitor’s center how scientists explain the presence of an antiquated dinosaur petroglyph at the base of Kachina Bridge. Her response: “They don’t really want to explain it.” Truth be told, if I were an evolutionist, I would not want to explain it either. This piece of evidence blatantly contradicts their timetable. According to the theory of evolution, humans never lived with dinosaurs. But if humans never saw living dinosaurs, how did the Anasazis, who inhabited southeastern Utah long before dinosaur fossils were found in modern times, carve such an accurate picture of a dinosaur onto the side of a rock wall?
If the responses by evolutionists to the mountain of evidence that points toward the Creation model were not so pitiful and potentially soul damaging, they would be somewhat comical. To think that some men and women who call themselves “scientists” actually reject facts of science in order to embrace the evolutionary theory is revolting. May humanity recognize that God has left testimony of His work in Creation all around us (cf. Psalm 19:1; Romans 1:20).
“Know that the Lord, He is God; It is He who has made us, and not we ourselves” (Psalm 100:3).
“Let all the earth fear the Lord; let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him. For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast” (Psalm 33:8-9).
No evolutionists will ever be able to explain away these truths!
REFERENCES
Conrad, Ernest C. (1981), “Tripping Over a Trilobite: A Study of the Meister Tracks,” Creation/Evolution, 4:30-33.
Ingalls, Albert G. (1940), “The Carboniferous Mystery,” Scientific American, 162:14, January.
Wilder-Smith, A.E. (1970), Man’s Origin, Man’s Destiny (Wheaton, IL: Harold Shaw Publishers).
First, I suspect he's lying about his conversation with a staff member, or else the staff member meant he didn't want to waste his breath explaining it to someone who believed the Anasazi lived with dinosaurs. Real scientists are happy to explain it:
Have you ever watched the clouds go by and thought you saw one in the shape of an animal, or seen the “man in the moon”? These are examples of pareidolia—seeing what we believe to be a significant shape or pattern when it isn’t really there. This phenomenon also explains the “dinosaur” on Kachina Bridge. Upon close inspection by Senter and Cole, the “sauropod dinosaur” turned out to be made up of distinct carvings and mud stains. It is definitely not a depiction of a single animal, and, viewed in detail, it looks nothing like a dinosaur. The separate carvings and mud stains only look like a dinosaur to those wishing to find one there.While certainly the most prominent, the supposed sauropod was not the only dinosaur carving creationists thought they saw on the bridge. Three other dinosaur depictions have been said to exist, but Senter and Cole easily debunked these, as well. One of the “dinosaurs” was nothing but a mud stain; a proposed Triceratops was just a composite of petroglyphs that do not represent animals, and what has been described as a carving of Monoclonius was nothing more than an enigmatic squiggle. There are no dinosaur carvings on Kachina Bridge.
The Kachina Bridge petroglyphs were not hoaxes or frauds. They were carved by people who once lived in the region, but there is no indication that any of them represent animals, living or extinct. What creationists thought they saw in the rocks has turned out to be an illusion, but I wonder how many of them will actually admit their mistake?