----- "Geoffrey Purcell" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: 
> I had always been under the impression that Creationists mainly believed in Bishop Usher's notion that the Earth was created in 4004 BC, as stated in the Bible. Since palaeolithic diet theory, of necessity, goes at least back to 10,000 years ago, that particular theory is indeed in direct opposition to palaeolithic diet ideas - after all, the main point of a palaeolithic diet is that 10,000 years is way too little for genuine adaptation to certain non-palaeo foods. Of course, since raw, palaeolithic diet dogma goes back even further(to beyond c. 250-000 to 300,000 years ago), Creationism is even more at odds with that particular dogma. 
> 
> I had no idea that some Creationists had earlier dates in mind than 4004 BC. 

You may be surprised. One of the more influential creationist spokesmen is Gerald Schroeder, an Orthodox Jew, not a Christian. He argues, with great erudition, for a kind of Old Earth Creationism that is compatible with Young Earth Creationism due to relativistic time dilation. You may not agree, but only a fool would call this man naive. He has a PhD in physics from MIT and has published extensively in theoretical physics. He's no rube from the Bible Belt. 

One of the most influential Christian creationists in the world is Hugh Ross, who is also an Old Earth Creationist. 

I'm not trying to turn this list into a seminar on creationism, but I don't think anything is gained by making ill-informed generalizations. We've all had our hackles raised by reading some equivalently superficial dismissal of paleo diet written by some hack who has only the dimmest idea what it's all about. We should know better. 

As stated in my previous post on this subject, all you need to make sense of the paleo diet is the possibility of adaptation through selection pressure, and that is compatible with any version of creationism but Young Earth creationism. Adaptation is not evolution (although it is necessary for evolution). 

Todd