[gore3000]

The point of the article was that evolution was used to identify the virus -- a practical application of the theory.

The point is that it fails to address the problem with evolution which I mentioned a long time ago - that it does not lead to any useful applications. First of all the identification of the similarity between it and other viruses has not served to find a cure. Secondly, as pointed out several times to you, comparative anatomy is as old as Aristotle. Classifying of species has been done since Aristotle and the present system is essentially the one established by Linnaeus long before Darwin wrote the 'Origins'. So evolution cannot claim this as an application of its theory or as something which has benefited humanity.

Again I must repeat, it is totally astonishing, that evolution, supposedly a scientific theory, has had so little fruitfullness in applications and in helping humanity in any way. That you had to pick an obscure virus which maybe infects a few dozen people a year and for which there is no cure anyways, shows quite well the desperation of evolutionists in trying to find a practical use for their nonsensical, unscientific theory. And 150 years later not only does it not cure belly ache, but it has not led to a single useful application.

[Doctor Stochastic]

And still the Creationists have offered no method to identify the virus. Pull down thy Vanity.

And still the Creationists have offered no method for a cure nor an approach to a cure. Pull down thy Vanity.

And still the Creationists only think that a "few dozen people a year" dying is not of importance. Pull down thy Vanity.

Of course a simple search would show that "few dozen" is actually around 200,000 infections per year, and the Creationists give these deaths no importance. Pull down thy Vanity.

These points should Pound home the point that Creationists are contributing nothing to medicine nor biology.