[OriginalIntent]

I am pretty sure that creationists would say that footprints in the snow are not made by chance and thus prove a foot was needed to make them.

Along the same line of thinking, the creationist would say that the design of the foot proves a designer was necessary for the very foot that made that footprint.

Since you have shown that you recognize that a footprint did not get there by random (could have been a fascimile), then I am sure you would know that a foot that made the print is complex enough that it did not get there by accident either.

[Modernman]

I am pretty sure that creationists would say that footprints in the snow are not made by chance and thus prove a foot was needed to make them.

Creationist logic would say that since we did not see the footprints being made, we cannot scientifically conclude that they were made by a person.

[orionblamblam]

> the creationist would say that the design of the foot proves a designer was necessary for the very foot that made that footprint.

So you're saying that if you saw footprints in snow you'd think that God put them there?