[DWPittelli]

I wrote: "You obviously deny [that eohippus evolved into the horse]. Do you also deny.. that eohippus grew several-fold? Or is it that the little eohippi were killed first by the flood?

Then your wrote: Please provide a link to my post advocating a global flood.

Obviously, I was making a joke intended to ridicule your position -- or lack thereof. You do explicitly deny that there is an unbroken chain between eohippus and the horse. Fine.

But you refuse to say that eohippus never grew and became more horse-like (because the fossil record clearly shows that it did), and you refuse to say that eohippus did grow and become more horse-like (because that would mean conceding one example of evolution).

And the only way that eohippus did not evolve larger is if there were at one time eohippi of many sizes (perhaps babies and adults), but that during the Flood the little ones drowned first and ended up in the bottom layers. This is of course an absurd view, although it's one that people took seriously before Darwin.

[AndrewC]

But you refuse to say that eohippus never grew and became more horse-like (because the fossil record clearly shows that it did),

This is, of course, the same fossil record that (unmistakably) shows the mesonychus morphing into Shamu.