Question re; Giant Human Footprint in Granite

Posted by Chris Parker
Sep 08 2010

just curious about an article on page 2 of ‘giants in those days’ which says a footprint was found in 2002 in granite. Footprints in sedimentary rock makes sense because it was liquid mud at some point, but Granite is usually made volcanically, so it seems strange that any imprint could be made. Either the rock is not granite (probable – an easy enough mistake) or the nephiliim could walk in liquid/setting lava (possible if they were part-supernatural). Any ideas?
Bless, Gerry.

Dear Gerry,

Thanks for your email. You pose an interesting question, I suppose and its certainly one I’ve heard before. My question is; in the absence of a complete understanding of how a giant footprint was captured in granite, who does it pose the most difficult puzzle for, creationists or evolutionists? I say evolutionists. As a Christian, and a believer in the Genesis account, the find does not cause me any problems and in fact is something that I might have expected. Evolutionists would be off by 4.5 billion years.

The very existence of a human footprint in granite, giant or otherwise, falsifies the current scientific thinking on how and when granite was formed. The most common types of granite are thought to be 4.5 billion years old. Clearly according to evolutionists there would be no men around to make such a footprint for nearly 4.5 billion years.

Therefore, assuming for a moment that the footprint is genuine and that it is in granite–how or why would one use the current scientific thinking on the age and formation of granite–to falsify the footprint in granite!? Au Contraire. If the footprint is genuine and it is in granite then we surely can’t then turn around and ask science to tell us how granite is formed!

If on the other hand, the footprint is not genuine or if it is in another type of rock the question of liquid granite doesn’t obtain. Most rock however is supposed to be too old for that “modern” footprint except perhaps Quarternary sedimentary rock. By the way, 70% of the earth is covered with a relatively thin crust of sedimentary rock which dovetails quite nicely with the Genesis flood.

On the very same page is a story about the 1877 discovery of a human knee and leg bone embedded in red quartz. Can we ascertain without examination that this is impossible because science says red quartzite is billions of years old? On the contrary, such a find calls into question everything science tells us about the evolution of man; the age of quartzite rock and/or its formation (if genuine).

Here is another story about giant footprints in granite: Giant Footprints. Here is a “290,000,000 year old” primate bone in a coal formation which is also impossible according to modern science: Primate Bone in Coal for $2 million

By the way, according to Wikipedia The origin of granite is contentious”. I doubt the contention relates to late formation granite but still–even some scientists don’t agree fully with the paradigm for its formation.

I suspect that some granite was mud that later became hardened into “granite” because old newspapers are “full” of reports of “devil’s footprints or the like; footprints of common creatures in granite or other hardened rock which according to current scientific understanding would be impossible.

One thing is sure; either this is a giant human print in granite or it isn’t. If it is, there is no point in considering what science says about granite formation because it would be moot. It would not be scientific or logical to deny a fact simply based on the fact that it contradicts the position that you currently hold.

There is no expression more common in lay articles on science than; “scientists had previously thought”.

take care,


You must be logged in to post a comment.

Trackback URL for this entry