I think that with regard to paleo diet, the whole creation/evolution debate is a bit of a red herring.  The rationale is that the diet of pre-agricultural humans is optimal for the species, n'est-ce pas? Whether they were evolved or created to thrive on such  regime is not particularly relevant, in my view.

It is also intriguing that everyone assumes my objection was to evolution, where it is the historicity issue which drove me to respond.  The documentation for Jesus of Nazareth is better than for almost anyone of that time period - unless one rejects the Scriptures a priori, simply because they were written by people who knew him.

Andromeda




> Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 17:27:19 +0000
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: R: [PALEOFOOD] R: [PALEOFOOD] R: [PALEOFOOD] Keith Massey
> To: [log in to unmask]
> 
>  
> Forgive william, he has all sorts of strange ideas re Creationism(and other  ****, such as the  absurd notion that pemmican is all-raw). Unfortunately, for him, palaeolithic diets, by their very definition, are anti-Creationist since they hearken back to a time  far beyond the  ridiculous 4004 BC years that Bishop Usher cited, ages ago. Palaeolithic diets, also, by their very definition, focus on evolution and its effects on humans, so anti-evolutionary beliefs here are a waste of time.
> 
> 
> Geoff
>