The Kentucky Print Kentucky 290 to 354 million years ago

Dr. Ingalls, a geologist, discovered human-like prints in the Upper Carboniferous Strata (This period included the formation of coal) in Kentucky. Dr. Ingalls has also found these prints in Missouri, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, and even westward toward the Rocky Mountains (Ingalls, 1940, 162:14; see also, Wilder-Smith, 1970, p. 300).

The strata in which these prints were found are dated by the evolutionists at 354 to 290 million years ago, over 200 million years before man evolved.

The evolutionary community is silent on these prints with the exception of Dr. Ingalls, the discoverer of the prints and an evolutionist. In "Scientific American" he writes the following. "If man, or even his ape ancestors, or even that ape ancestor's early mammalian ancestor, existed as far back as the Carboniferous Period in any shape, then the whole science of geology is so completely wrong that all the geologists will resign their jobs and take up truck driving. Hence, for the present at least, science rejects the attractive explanation that man made these mysterious prints in the mud of the Carboniferous with his feet." Ingalls suggested that they were made by some unidentified amphibian. But a human-sized Carboniferous amphibian is just about as problematic for evolutionary timetables as humans in that era!

The Creationists who have commented on these prints note that the prints do look very human. Dr. Ingalls doctrinal bias is very prevelent in the above article. He does admit that they look very human but they could not be because it does not fit the evolutionary timetable.

According to the evolutionary theory no mammals, or five toed creatures, existed during the carboniferous period. Because of the unique shape of these prints it does not appear that they were geologically formed leaving two possible conclusions for these tracks. Either they are created recently as a prank or hoax or humans existed during the carboniferous period (although the prints appear artificial and do not exactly look human, contrary to some opinions).

Glen Kuban 7-8-06
Mr. Benner; I meant to ask you about the Kentucky prints. You say that creationists who have looked at them agree they appear human. I suppose so, if you use the term very loosely--say. compared to aardvark tracks. But they certainly do not look like normal or natural human prints. You don't show a picture of them, but if you look on my site where I do, you'll see that they look as phony as a three dollar bill. Please look at the prints, which are shown on my site. To endorse such artificial looking prints (which are not even in striding sequences) as real is unscientific and embarasses careful creationists. If you are going to claim that creationists support these prints, please name some major and credible creationist groups who do. I don't know of any. The few individuals who support some of these prints, like Carl Baugh, have histories of unfounded claims, and have been explictly questions by more careful creationists. Unlike your implications that all those who reject these prints are biased by evolution, the creationist groups clearly are not, and in fact would be pleased do endorse reliable human prints. What they don't want to do is to promote unreliable material in the Lord's name. My prayer is that you too decide this is wise, and remove or rewrite some of the unwarranted promotions of unreliable tracks on your site.
Best regards,
Glen