Rare Pterosaur Tracks Discovered In France

What is being considered nothing short of a miracle especially for those who believe in an old earth, tracks were made by flying reptiles have been found in a place now labeled as “Pterosaur Beach.” David Hone, a paleontologist at the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology of China in Beijing, explains the discovery…

“If tracks from pterosaurs are going to get preserved, it’s likely to be in the softest muds or finest sands, and it’s unlikely even then, so to get traces of a pterosaur landing like this is very exciting,” Hone noted. He added the case the researchers make for the way the pterosaurs landed “is very strong and convincing.”


A pterosaur is a very light animal which made it unable to make an imprint in sediment that is too coarse. So the only way as described previously would be on a soft surface, making indentation possible by this particular animal. The preservation of these pterosaur tracks were caused by Noah’s flood.

A rapid occurrence was needed to make this discovery possible not something that progressed slowly through time.  Kevin Padian of the University of California, Berkeley, a co-author of the study said that extensive slabs of hardening limestone do not happen today. Keep in mind, evolutionists look for things in the present to explain the past. Making present processes the only considered option as possible causes for events of the past presents a problem for any viable explanation especially for things like these fossilized animal tracks.

What geologists call “ephemeral markings” which include raindrop indentations, lizard tracks, and delicate ripple marks from flowing water are found to be consistent with the worldwide Flood of Noah as described in the book of Genesis. Only a flood could have caused the pterosaur tracks to be exposed to a cementing agent fast enough which enabled the tracks to be discovered thousands of years later.


3 thoughts on “Rare Pterosaur Tracks Discovered In France

  1. Observations: Tracks of a small flying animal seem to require soft, fine silt. Preservation would have required hardening of the silt. Guess: The hardening would have to be rapid. Confession of ignorance: We have not yet observed such rapid hardening at the present time.

    Creationist conclusion: A worldwide flood, requiring hundreds of times more water that the Earth contains, occurred in the recent past, millions of years after the dinosaurs in question had gone extinct.

    This leap of faith certainly puts to shame any “miracle” of footprint preservation. Of course, even given the cited suppositions, and disregarding all the contrary evidence, we are left to wonder…. How would a worldwide flood have produced the fine grains for preserving the tracks? Such a violent event would have produced coarse rubble instead. Why is a “worldwide” flood required to cement the tracks in a local area? Why would any “ephemeral markings” require more than local floods, stream flows, or even rainfall, to preserve them?

    Michael: “[E]volutionists look for things in the present to explain the past. Making present processes the only considered option as possible causes for events of the past presents a problem….”[1]

    Present processes are a guide to the past, especially when there is no evidence to the contrary. However, when current processes seem to contradict the evidence, we hypothesize different processes—and then gather evidence that confirm or deny the new processes.

    One easy example is the Chicxulub impact 65Mya. First the hypothesis that a body hugely larger than any known today had impacted the Earth. Then the search for evidence. A worldwide distribution of glass spicules, dated to the putative impact time. A thin layer of iridium, rare on Earth but abundant in meteorites. Ballistic tracing of the debris predicts an impact area off the Yucatan peninsula. Exploration of the area reveals a subsea crater of the predicted size. The crater contains material known to comprise meteorites and consistent with the KT boundary material.

    Another example. For decades, creationists used the finding that the Earth’s magnetic field is decreasing as evidence of a recent creation. Scientists investigating benthic rocks found that, 700ky in the past, the field actually reversed direction—a process that was not dreamed of as happening today. In this case, the evidence not only found a past process, but one that is likely to happen again in the future.[2]

    The scablands of Eastern Washington show evidence of thousand of km3 of water flow in a few days ~10kya. Nothing like that occurs today, nor could it occur today. But, in the different conditions of the last glaciation, we can hypothesize a huge lake having an exit blocked with ice. Computer simulations indicate that melting could cause a sudden breach of the exit. Evidence confirms that the local topography could have held such a volume of water. Sediment patterns of the outflow match the rock types in the hypothesized lake.

    Formation of the Moon by a glancing impact on Earth. Uranus and Neptune switching orbits 2Bya. A giant nuclear reactor found in Africa—that doesn’t happen these days.[3]

    Scientists hypothesize princesses that do not occur today. The difference from creationism is that scientists don’t merely make up ad-hoc stories and then sit back smugly. They search for evidence that confirms their hypotheses.

    Michael, as long as you slavishly repeat your creationist sources without doing any critical analysis yourself, you will continue to draw derision from those who do. Did you really not even think about what you were writing? Did you imagine your readers would not question it? Especially given the well-earned reputation of creationists for humbuggery and thimblerigging?

    [1] But not as large a problem as making up nonce explanations, often inconsistent with other evidence, and even with each other.

    [2] A few creationists who have not yet got the word still do make this claim. The ones who don’t didn’t stop because the evidence was against them, but because of the universal ridicule. See Creation Ministries International, “Arguments we think creationists should NOT use.”

    [3] And the Bible seems to have totally missed these You’d think that one of the patriarchs would have noticed.

  2. “Kevin Padian of the University of California, Berkeley, a co-author of the study said that extensive slabs of hardening limestone do not happen today.”

    Kevin Padian was the star paleontologist of the Kitzmiller trial in 2005. It was he and Ken Miller who convinced Judge Jones that intelligent design is unlacquered bushwa. So why do you believe anything he says?

    Only when it’s convenient?

  3. Olorin,

    Isn’t it you who do the selective quoting? When otherwise would you site Professor Padian?

    And what if I went to a young creationist website and quoted you to say that the earth is not 6,000 years old and therefore creationism is bushwa.

    You see, that is the problem of appealing to authority. And which side uses that argument as its central feature?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s