>> While I agree that William's expression of his perspective is problematic,

>> he isn't that far off the mark.



Sorry Ron, but there is a huge difference between saying we are best adapted to meat because of our "experience" or evolution or "upbringing" (or however you want to say it), and saying we are adapted to meat because we are "made of it". HUGE difference. 



>> If Wally wants me to believe twaddle he must pay, that will be difficult 

>> as I killfiled him long ago.



I will readily admit, I have absolutely no idea what that sentence means. Sorry.



>> Where is the 'evidence' for creationism?

>> Dedy 



Creationism can best be described as an "un-theory". It bases its premise on a lack of something. And faith, of course.



>> Could it be we were just designed that way to start with? Why are we not

>> evolving to use modern foods?



I would be the first to say... I can't rule it out. However, if the literalists of the Bible get their way, then we have pretty much relied on grain for our entire existence (roughly "4000-6000 years").



>> The car does not have offspring (motor scooters?) 



LOL!



Actually, one could talk about the "evolution" of cars if you looked at cars as a species. Or, actually more like a phylum. Over time (an attribute of evolution), cars have changed radically. Comparing a Model T to a Chevy Volt you might actually think a species change had occurred. And, to take it a step further, some of the changes over the years have been regressive, which is another attribute of evolution. Of course, comparing genes to components and nuts and bolts is a little bit of stretch, but a fun exercise nonetheless.