Summations Only

Creationists have been nipping at the heels of the Theory of Evolution for 150 years, all to no effect.But the gyrations they go through and the "silver bullets" that are going to slay evolution (but never do) are sometimes pretty funny.What's not so funny are the lies and self-delusions that you can find in creationist books and websites.

"Useful to applied science" is not a defining criterion in science.What is not useful now may be most useful in a few years.And in either case, creationists are not the judge of what is useful to science and what is not. They are more like fleas trying to tell the dog which path to take.

Acceptance of bible literalism is inversely proportional to scientific knowledge.

Science does quite well for itself. It may make errors but it has mechanisms built in to correct those errors.Religions, on the other hand, are subject to many delusions (talking snakes, young earth, global flood to name just three) as well as competing beliefs. Religions have no error correcting mechanism, which is why there are so many different religions and denominations--with no way to evaluate competing beliefs, internecine disagreements lead more often to schisms than to agreement.So don't be badmouthing science until you can do as well or better.

For 150 years creationists have been nipping at the heels of evolution like an overzealous Chihuahua, all to no effect.Science is just getting stronger all the time, while creationist arguments are increasingly tenuous or disproved.I'm not worried.

You're getting as bad and irrelevant as DavidJay. Lately you're nothing more than a troll.

There is one big difference you are trying to gloss over.Science is based on evidence, theology is the study of God(s) or of religion.

But unlike religion, science corrects itself in time.

Its been a while for that stupid food pyramid, but hopefully its finally being corrected a bit.And as you note there are alternative sources out there now.The Paleo diet and all the related ones are a welcome relief!

Controversial New Theory Suggests Life Wasn't a Fluke of BiologyIt Was PhysicsControversial New Theory Suggests Life Wasn't a Fluke of BiologyIt Was Physics | WIRED

The biophysicist Jeremy England made waves in 2013 with a new theory that cast the origin of life as an inevitable outcome of thermodynamics. His equations suggested that under certain conditions, groups of atoms will naturally restructure themselves so as to burn more and more energy, facilitating the incessant dispersal of energy and the rise of entropy or disorder in the universe. England said this restructuring effect, which he calls dissipation-driven adaptation, fosters the growth of complex structures, including living things. The existence of life is no mystery or lucky break, he told Quanta in 2014, but rather follows from general physical principles and should be as unsurprising as rocks rolling downhill.

​

More

From Ayn Rand:

What is the nature of the guilt that your teachers call his Original Sin? What are the evils man acquired when he fell from a state they consider perfection? Their myth declares that he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledgehe acquired a mind and became a rational being. It was the knowledge of good and evilhe became a moral being. He was sentenced to earn his bread by his laborhe became a productive being. He was sentenced to experience desirehe acquired the capacity of sexual enjoyment. The evils for which they damn him are reason, morality, creativeness, joyall the cardinal values of his existence. It is not his vices that their myth of man’s fall is designed to explain and condemn, it is not his errors that they hold as his guilt, but the essence of his nature as man. Whatever he wasthat robot in the Garden of Eden, who existed without mind, without values, without labor, without lovehe was not man.

​

Man’s fall, according to your teachers, was that he gained the virtues required to live. These virtues, by their standard, are his Sin. His evil, they charge, is that he’s man. His guilt, they charge, is that he lives.

—Ayn Rand Lexicon

There is evidence for one "starting point" but not for the other. In fact, the evidence flatly contradicts a young earth.

This is a very dishonest post, a complete moving of the goalposts. The topic I responded to was young earth. I pointed out that there is no evidence for a young earth--that it is flatly contradicted by the evidence and is not a valid "starting point."Now you are back to your high-horse going on about the first cell, while totally ignoring the subject of my post.You're either a very confused debater, a very dishonest creationist, or a complete troll.*And in any case you have shown that you have no answer to the lack of evidence for the young earth belief.* Or all three.Edited by Coyote, : Added footnote.