Hilmar,

>>Under normal, everyday circumstances, Newton's laws still maintain their validity, but under certain extreme conditions, they have to be replaced by more accurate formulae, from the Theory of Relativity, or from Quantum Physics.

A creationist might say that under normal, everyday circumstances, Creationism still maintains its validity, but under certain extreme conditions (eg finding a fossil that is relevant to daily life) it has to be replaced by more accurate theories.

It wasn't part of my point to delve into the basis of the inaccuracy of Newton's Law of Gravitation. Like you, I regard the errors as irrelevant to my daily life, so I tend to ignore them.

What matters is that we think we are being pragmatic and sensible ignoring error because we judge it irrelevant, but if a Creationist dares to behave exactly the same way, some of us call him/her names.

This also goes back to my original point: perhaps this is why some people say "it is only a theory". Theories are allowed to be ignored if they are not convenient. QED.

No I am not a Creationist, but I am a Christian and I've never experienced any problem correlating Genesis with fossils and other evidence. However, if a mid-west Creationist prefers to ignore ten-million-year-old petrified remains dug out of the ground in places they will never visit, then good luck to them. Their belief is irrelevant to our daily lives, so to be consistent we should ignore it. ;-)