re- lwj2op2, Nov 4 2005, 07:54 PM
WALT BROWN PT 1
Yet no fossil of a horse or itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s relatives has been found, (they wonÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t) so basically a D shaped print is found, and Walt Brown claims they belong to a horse, Ã¢â‚¬Å“outstandingÃ¢â‚¬Â not very creditable is it? Yet minimal research would find a creature of the time that can leve such prints with the need to claim an out of sequence find, seel this LINK
More of these refutations of this supposed Ã¢â‚¬ËœevidenceÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ can be found at talk origins, I think I have made the point, unless there was a specific topic you wished to pursue amongst the list.
There was nothing I saw that said the prints could not be horse. A horse is a likely candidate for the cause of the prints. Of all I read on the subject, the basic evolutionist sentiment is: they could be horse if a horse could have been there but a horse could not have been there so they cannot be horse. A perfect companion to; it must have happened so it did.