‘Impossible’ fossils cast doubt on evolution


delk_cretaceous_footprintBy Michael Ashcraft and Mark Ellis

A handprint, a finger, a footprint and a hammer are part of a growing number of “impossible fossils” – so called because they upend the evolutionary timetable and puncture the theory of evolution.

A handprint in limestone from the Cretaceous Era – 110 million years ago – was found near Weatherford, Texas, in the 1970s. It is on display at the Creation Evidence Museum in Glen Rose, Texas.

Either human-like creatures were on earth much earlier than thought, or the dating methods are flawed and the earth is much younger than most scientists will admit.

finger_1A fossilized human finger also from the Cretaceous Era was found also in the 1970s in the Commanche Peak Limestone formation in Texas and is on display at the Creation Evidence Museum. The fact that flesh has been fossilized (normally only bones make it through millennia as fossils) could result from instant entombment in mud (from a huge flood, for example).

A footprint – known as the Burdick Track – was found again in Cretaceous limestone in the Cross Branch stratum, a tributary to the Paluxy River in Glen Rose, Texas.

Staunch evolutionists have worked vigorously to poke holes in the credibility of these discoveries – with good reason, because they poke holes in the theory of evolution. The extent to which they defend a pet theory in spite of discrediting discoveries reveals a lack of scientific integrity, many believe.

london-hammer-2“These amazing fossilized imprints/remains have left the scientific community scratching their heads,” said Mihai Andrei on ZME Science, himself no creationist.

Another footprint – called the Alvis Delk Cretaceous Footprint – is even more intriguing because it is intersected by the footprint of an Acrocanthosaurus dinosaur print. This suggests that dinosaurs and man walked the Earth at the same time. The infrequency of such intersections in fossils makes sense: humans tried to stay away from the fearsome animals.

“Human footprints in geologically ancient strata would indeed call into doubt many conventional geological concepts,” wrote James Stewart Monroe, a professor emeritus of Geology at Central Michigan University, in Journal of Geological Education (source Creation Evidence Museum website).

Hand300The so-called “London hammer” is a relic that pre-dates human history, according to current models. It was discovered by Max and Emma Hahn in 1936 on a walk. The old hammer was so strange that they submitted to scientists for examination. It was found to be 400 million years old.

Again Mihai Andrei observed: “Creationists were all over this.” Andrei writes from the perspective of marveling over the mysteries of science, not from the point of view of any model of the origins of the world or of animal life.

The existence and validation of such “impossible fossils” is worth further scientific examination. As Bill Nye “The Science Guy” said in his 2014 debate against Creationist Ken Ham that for him to lose faith in evolution, “We would just need one piece of evidence. We would need the fossil that swam from one layer to another.”

A salvo of criticism rained down on Nye for participating in the debate because it “gave legitimacy” to a position evolutionists regard as untenable.

nye ham
Ken Ham in the foreground debates Bill Nye “The Science Guy”

“If Nye wants to further acceptance of evolution, he should just continue to write and talk about the issue on his own, and not debate creationists,” said Evolutionary Professor Jerry Coyne of the University of Chicago, as quoted in the Christian Post. “By so doing, he gives them credibility simply by appearing beside them on the platform.”

Ham responds that suppressing such academic debate is more in the spirit of the Inquisition than in the spirit of inquiry.

“I believe there’s a censorship going on in our culture, if you notice in response to Bill Nye agreeing to do this, which I admire him for doing, that there’s a number of the aggressive atheists saying he shouldn’t be debating, it gives creationists a platform it, it legitimizes their view,” Ham said in MSNBC online. “He’s out there making public statements about evolution about creation, well why can’t we have public discussion about it? I think one of the greatest things that comes out of it, is that people start talking about this topic, and are challenged by it, and go do some research on their own.”


  1. This is a perfect example of terrible, dishonest journalism. Before even getting into the content of it’s claims, the article lacks any citations for those claims. Additionally, I couldn’t find a legitimate source for the quotations from Mihai Andrei that wasn’t some creationist or pseudoscience website with an agenda. There is good reason to believe that the quote has been fabricated, or altered drastically from the origin statement.

    Now, on to these “discoveries”. They have actually been debunked and shown to be examples of fraud by actual scientists working in the field.

    The human hand imprint: http://paleo.cc/paluxy/hand.htm

    The finger: http://paleo.cc/paluxy/finger.htm

    The footprint: http://paleo.cc/paluxy/delk.htm

    The London hammer: http://paleo.cc/paluxy/hammer.htm

    In addition to the above refutations from the experts (refutations that I’m confident you will not bother to read), lets see what creationist websites have to say about Carl Baugh, the person that supposedly unearthed these four relics:

    “[Baugh] uses a lot of material that is not sound scientifically. So we advise against relying on any ‘evidence’ he provides, unless supported by creationist organisations with reputations for Biblical and scientific rigour.”


    To conclude, your article is a poor attempt at discrediting the scientific experts in the field while spreading fallacious and fraudulent artifacts as evidence of a young Earth. Your article also did not cite it’s sources. You should be ashamed of yourselves for this poor piece of journalism.

  2. The theory of evolution is only perpetuated because of circular reasoning by the people most desperate to claim it as fact. It will remain a theory for eternity.

  3. As a young earth creationist I am skeptical of any form of bad evidence or poor logic. It was the Lord Who helped me to doubt the evolutionary theories and He is the one who corrects me.

    However, I am skeptical of this fossilized handprint in ‘cretaceous’ limestone.

    How does one make a handprint in limestone? Limestone is formed from hard calcified shells which initially are solid and, well, hard.

    To leave a handprint requires something soft, like concrete or clay.

    This piece of evidence is doubtful. I want creation scientists to have substantial evidence and this piece of evidence strikes me as being falsifiable.

  4. Why on earth are you in 2016 giving any credence to these so called evidence of creation which have been debunked years ago as total frauds.

    Even Answers in Genesis ( Ken Ham’s organisation) have warned creationists not to use these fraudulent artefacts as evidence of Young Earth Creationism as they are well aware of that they have been proved as being carved by locals. This was a cottage industry in the Palaxy area during the Thirties depression and sold as souvenirs to gullible tourists.

    ‘Dr’ Carl Baugh is still peddling these items as genuine despite all the evidence that has overwhelmingly shown them to be fraudulent

Comments are closed.