I hope they do test it.

Then, (sorry to say) I hope you will be wrong.

After that they can test these:

https://www.bible.ca/tracks/dino-fossils.htm

I hope Carl Baugh tests it too,... but I"M NOT HOLDING MY BREATH.

i dont beliv in dinsor

heh. Good for you!

@Patrick. Have written quite a bit about the Alvis Delk footprint on this site, this is not the only article. In fact, the gist of the article above is about Texas schoolbooks and not the footprint itself. (Do a search on Alvis). Here's an article from Stones and Bones blog to start you off. 

and yes, the education system would be stupid to highlight anything about the Alvis Delk footprint in any textbook that was meant to *educate* children. Not merely stupid, though, but illegal.  If Carl Baugh wanted to ensure that people other than credulous creationists took what is clearly a fake seriously, he would have it seen by reputable paleontogists, say, at the State of Texas.  Here are some articles about Carl Baugh, including ones involving his credentials. 

Creationism shouldn't be taught as science because, first, it's based on a flawed book with a mythological origin story. But beyond that, 

Science and religion are two different human activities that seek to understand our world. Science rigorously applies the observation of natural phenomena and systems plus studies of modifications to these natural systems, to develop models that explain the order and function of the universe. As a key principle of science, evolutionary theory cannot be dismissed or diminished by characterizing it as mere conjecture or speculation. Furthermore, because it has developed out of scientific investigations, evolution cannot be equated with socially or religiously derived beliefs. Evolutionary theory, like all scientific descriptions of the workings of nature, is subject to continuing modification to reflect new knowledge gained through observation and experimentation.

The U.S. education system has witnessed repeated efforts to incorporate religious beliefs into scientific curricula as a counterpoint to evolutionary theory. Most recently these efforts have focused on intelligent design, which has been mischaracterized as a scientific theory by its principal proponents. Because intelligent design is not built upon a scientifically testable hypothesis, is not derived from a base of valid experimental studies, cannot point to any scientifically validated body of literature, and makes no testable predictions, it cannot be described as a scientific theory. The inclusion of non-scientific explanations in science curricula misrepresents the nature and processes of science. It also compromises a central purpose of public education—the preparation of a scientifically literate citizenry and workforce. Portraying non-scientific content as science in curriculum at any educational level poses a threat to the future scientific, technological, and economic competitiveness of the nation. 

Incidentally, this is not the place to prosletyze or post links to creationism websites. If you have a comment on Alvis Delk's footprint, have at it,that is, after all, the topic,  but leave out the religious dogma, won't post it.