In regards to the speed of light change, no such theories have passed peer review. Regarding the link above, the only suggestion that is specific in scope is one person who suggests that the speed of light might have been faster at the start of the big bang, but that faster speed would have lasted for only moments before returning to the current speed. There is no evidence whatsoever that suggests a change in C would have resulted in a big bang several thousand years in the past, and there has been no observations of the speed of light changing in a control group (creationists regularly argue that if it can't be observed in a control group, it's not science).
In regards to the Delk track, I've seen it before, and even I, with my limited education in science, can tell by eye that the Del print isn't human. The middle toes are not abnormally long and jut out at an odd angle, and the big toe print is much deeper than the other toes. Plus, the division between the ball and toes doesn't line up with human feet. See the instep? It's straight, whereas a human print is curved, and the heel is square where a human print is round. Also, a human carried his weight on the heel, resulting in a deep heel depression. This heel lacks such a depression. This isn't a human print, but it is consistent with animal prints that have human features (even modern animals often leave human-resemnling prints).
And of course, that's all separate fro the fact that this print is being touted by Carl Baugh (who, like Kent Hovind, got his degree from a diploma mill), the guy who tried to claim the Paluxy tracks were human. But that's a separate ost altogether.
Now, that said, the fact that the Delk track isn't human, or that no predictable changes in C support a youn universe, neither contradicts nor bolsters a creationist model.
