The track was sectioned by Loma Linda University and the results were not definitive. While they reported some structures within the rock which seemed to conform to the surface features of the track, they considered the evidence "equivocal."

Furthermore, it is not "in situ" (in place). It was removed from the original site years ago and now resides in the Creation Evidence Museum. "Exactly where did it come from?"

Since it looked "too good," and the cross-section was not definite and it was not "in situ", the evolutionists were sure that the track was carved.

Early in 1990, the decision was made to do whatever was necessary to either verify or falsify the hypothesis that this was a real, human footprint from the Cretaceous limestone of the Glen Rose Formation (supposedly 110 million years old).

Hastings had contended that man-track claims could be easily evaluated by sectioning the rock to check for pressure structures within the rock beneath the track. Such indications would eliminate the possibility that they were the result of random erosion or carving which would cut across these structures. However, he does not mention that removing tracks from the river bed is forbidden by Texas law nor does he mention that real dinosaur tracks do not always reveal such structures when sectioned. Sometimes pressure structures are recorded; sometimes they are not. Consequently, a failure to find pressure structures would not falsify, yet finding them would verify.

Since the Burdick had already been removed from the river, we arranged for Cordell Van Huse, lapidary expert from Midlothian, Texas, to cut across the heel of the track with a diamond saw.

The heel was a more logical location than the ball of the foot, chosen by Loma Linda. Greater displacement of material would occur at the heel where force is concentrated. At the ball of the foot, force is broadly dissipated.

The results were dramatic. The picture speaks for itself. The material directly under the heel had been disturbed by pressure. These contours were not carved!

Hastings then acknowledged that this procedure established that it was a real track, but contended that it must be a dinosaur track on which someone had carved toes. Of course, there was absolutely no evidence for such a notion, but for an entrenched evolutionist, it was a philosophical necessity.

It is the impression of many that evolutionists do the work of science. Creationists just sit back and believe in spite of the evidence. Please observe that who is doing science and who is "just believing."

Following Hasting suggestion, we determined to section the toe area to see if the toes were real. Since pressure structures are not always visible in large dinosaur tracks, the requirement that we find such pressure structures indicating individual toes, seemed quite a reach, but it did represent a possibility that we determined to pursue. Van Huse, our lapidary expert sectioned across the toes.

Again, the Burdick Track was vindicated, even at the toes. The cross section was photographed under black light so that the structure would shows up more dramatically. Clear, obvious pressure structures can be observed following the contour of the toes, especially at the great toe. There is now demonstrable evidence that even the toes were not carved.

The laminations under the little toe may appear to be the result of pressure, however are more likely algal structure called stromatolites. A number of them can be detected within the matrix of this print, unassociated with the depression made by the print.

Kuban argued that the stromatolites provide proof that the track was carved.

Of course, if he can demonstrate that the print is carved into the bottom of the slab rather than the top, he would successfully falsify our hypothesis.

However his claim that stromatolites always grow upward is false and demonstrates his lack of knowledge of stromatolites.

Robert R. Schrock of M.I.T. wrote the book, SEQUENCE IN LAYERED ROCK, from which I was taught at Indiana University. He is perhaps the leading expert on the processes used to determine top and bottom of strata and does affirm that stromatolites can sometimes be used to determine top and bottom of a layer.

His statement that "structures of many kinds are expected" and "the ones useful for top and bottom criteria usually can be identified without great difficulty," indicated you have to know which ones can and which ones cannot.

In Johnson's book on LIMESTONE BUILDING ALGAE AND ALGAL LIMESTONES, he illustrates a variety of stromatolites built by different species of algae. From these pictures we see that some grow in all directions. They obviously would not be definitive in terms of up and down.

Furthermore, some stromatolites are oriented randomly as a result of turbulence, indicative of catastrophic circumstances.

The real "proof of the pudding" in this instance is seen in the randomly oriented stromatolites in this matrix. While randomness is most observable on the side view, it is seen clearly in the view which shows the toes. Obvious examples are indicated by the arrows.

In one small area we see three different orientations.

Additionally Kuban says:

If the laminations were consistently truncated, carving would be a possible explanation. Some of the algal structures do appear somewhat truncated. That is the case under the little toe though certainly not the case under the great toe. Here, the contours unmistakably follow the toe depression.

One of the world's leading experts on stromatolites, Harold L. Levin, wrote, "These algae cause the development of stromatolites by trapping fine particles of sediment between the minute filaments of their matlike colonies. The carbonate is temporarily bound within a film of gelatinous organic matter." (Life Through Time p. 39, 1975) When we realize that these fragile structures would offer little more resistance to deformation than the mud itself, we can understand how small features of foot would sink into them (truncate) in some instances. However, the great toe, producing greater displacement, would afford the best evidence and it is definitive.

There are additional indications of pressure under the toes. Lambe and Quitman describe the action of load bearing plastic material in their textbook, Soil Mechanics. When the load is concentrated, pressure is exerted downward, outward and upward to form a mustache shaped structure. That is not necessarily what most would expect, it is not intuitive, but it is what we see.

The textbook illustrates with the diagram below.

This phenomenon can be reproduced in computer models. Here the computer depicts half of the predicted structure. The force is exerted downward and its transferred to the plastic medium down and out. This is like putting the foot pressure in the mud.

The next diagram depicts the ends of a stack of rods. Notice the structure that forms when a load is brought to bear on the rods. When the force is exerted downward the mustache shaped structure is produced directly under and to either side it.

It should also be noted that the structure, the lines of force are dramatically truncated by that which produces the force, analogous to the toes in our circumstances.

Looking back to the cross section of the toe area of the Burdick Track, notice where the pressure is concentrated under this toe by the calcite inclusions. The downward and outward motion producing the mustache shaped structure is seen here, perhaps even more obviously than the textbook illustration. The pressure structure in the rods is more difficult to see.

The close up demonstrates the effect even more dramatically.

Once the heel and toes were verified, Hastings then began another tack. "It's much too wide to be a human track." No documentation was given. He simply asserted it was so.

It just so happened that, about that time, evidence on this point appeared in the March 1990 issue of Natural History (p.63), in the form of an article by Russel H. Tuttle, Professor of Anthropology at the University of Chicago and Affiliate Scientist with the Primate Research Center of Emory University. Dr. Tuttle had been chosen by Mary Leakey to examine the Laetoli footprints from Africa. His article destroys the uninformed objection that the Burdick track is too wide to be a human footprint. In his description of the Laetoli footprints, Dr. Tuttle points out that individuals who habitually go barefoot have significantly wider feet than those whose feet are "deformed" by shoes. He illustrates his point with a picture which compares a habitually barefoot Indian foot with his foot.

Considering the variability of size and shape of the human foot, it is rather ironic that the length to width ratio of the foot in Tuttle's picture and the Burdick track are almost exactly the same (48%).

Kuban felt compelled to make a response to this evidence, even if it was somewhat irrational.

These toes are not splayed. That article says nothing about toe width. He appears to have made up a "straw man." I referred to that which was at issue, the width of the foot. The width to length ratio is exactly what Tuttle was talking about and it answers the unsubstantiated objection that The Burdick Track is too wide. The ratios of Tuttle's example and the Burdick Track match.

The Burdick Track is large (13 1/4") but not outside the range of variation that we see today. Barry's, a major shoe retailer, based in the Dallas area, provides shoes for many of the large basketball players in America. We took them a cast of the Burdick track, and they confirmed that they have shoes that would fit the foot that made this print. In fact, they revealed that it was similar to Shaqeil Oneal's foot, though his is slightly larger. His is size 23EEEE. The Burdick track indicates a foot what would wear size 22EEEE.

Then, Kuban decided to attack the morphology of this footprint that had been "too good to be true."

We can quantify that and determine what is and what isn't "normal" with information readily available, published in the technical literature.

Regarding toe width to toe length, an issue addressed by Kuban, the average is about 77%. The Burdick track is 58%. This is in the narrow range but well within the observed range of variation. So the statement that it is too wide is just not so. It fits within the range illustrated by the chart. The superimposed arrow indicated the position of the Burdick Track.

Then the article presents a chart that describes toe width compared to the ball width. The Burdick Track is at 27%, well within the documented range of variation.

The article also documents the range of heel width to ball width. Regarding this proportion, Kuban said,

The truth is that the Burdick Track is almost right in the center of the documented range of variation. This is not shooting from the hip or wishful thinking. This is documented, scientific evidence.

Kuban also claimed the toes were at the wrong angle. This ratio was also addressed in the article. Various angles are observed and the Burdick Track, at 5%, is virtually average.

The truth is, many feet are rather strange. I obtained this picture from a podiatrist in Springfield, Missouri. If I were speaking to an audience and asked everyone to take their shoes off and look at each others feet, there would certainly be some who would not do so. We know how our feet look. We see some strange sites. The podiatrist tells me these crooked feet belong to a lawyer which is perhaps appropriate.

Most have not considered the range of variation seen in human feet, much less human footprints.

I have been interested for some time in what tracks look like in the mud. I found some recently on the banks of the Paluxy River at Glen Rose. Whoever made them had disappeared. I don't know who made them, or when they were made. When I happened upon them, this is the way they looked in the Glen Rose mud.

The sequence and general shape would certainly indicate that they were human tracks. Notice, however, that a wide variety of footprint shapes were made by this same individual. By the logic of Hastings and Kuban, this is not possible. A little experience with known human footprints can prove to be very instructive.

One might argue that the footprint on the left couldn't be a human track. The great toe is at the wrong angle. The one on the right is much too narrow for a human. Isn't it?

The two below are really strange, but made by the same human.

Jerry Simmons was doing work on his master's thesis at the University of New Mexico School of Mining and Technology when he performed a number of experiments to determine the shapes human feet made in wet concrete. He used junior high school students to make standing, walking and running tracks.

The similarity between one of the tracks made by the twelve year old girl and the Burdick Track is amazing. It would strongly imply that the Burdick Track is a running track. In fact, from what we have learned about running tracks, we would now conclude that if the Burdick Track looked different, it would be wrong.

We have demonstrated that the shape of Burdick Track is within the range of variation documented by the technical literature. However, experiments that reproduced the shape of the Burdick Track show that it conforms perfectly to the features of a footprint made by a running human. When we consider the deformation under the pressure points within the matrix, especially at the heel and great toe as expected, as well as typical load bearing structures where pressure is concentrated, we have demonstrated that the "carved" hypothesis is falsified. We have verified this is a real fossil footprint.

One more objection remained. Where was the track excavated?

John Morris described what we knew about where the track was obtained originally.

Dr. Carl Baugh and I determined to find the source and conducted an extensive search. The trail was cold but many of the "old timers" were still around Glen Rose. We interviewed them and we were told what John had been told twenty years earlier. The track came from a tributary of the Paluxy, specifically, Cross Branch. It flows into the Paluxy about three mile south of town.

Eventually, we found that they were right. We spent several weeks searching and finally found the layer from which this track came. It is a rather unique layer; ivory-tan color; fine grained, virtually non-fossiliferous, somewhat mottled with rounded, marble sized crystalline calcite inclusions. It has the same grape-sized calcite inclusions found in the matrix of the Burdick track. These inclusions get smaller and disappear toward the river. In the opposite direction, they get larger, up to fist sized a mile upstream. We focused our search at the point where the size of these inclusions matched the Burdick Track. Cordell Van Huse produced a thin section from the layer at this point as well as a thin section from the matrix of the Burdick Track. Microscopic examination demonstrated that they were identical. The layer is located about 30 feet above the level of the branch. As erosion eats back into the bank, support for the layer is removed. Angular blocks of the layer break off and fall down to water level. In the picture below, the anterior portion of the Burdick track rests on the layer from which it originated.

We now know the source of the Burdick Track. It came from a layer about 30 feet above water level of Cross Branch, a tributary of the Paluxy River. It is a part of the Glen Rose Formation, Middle Cretaceous, supposedly 110 million years old.