"Dudeman320" said this is a little more proof of evolution and how we got to where we are today
I find that the argument of evolution vs creationism is rather irrelevant. If we ever caught a Yeti, or abominable snowman, we would have to decide whether it was a highly evolved animal or a less evolved man. The creationists would probably be arguing about whether it had a soul or a spiritual nature or not. When, we eventually contact ET, we will have to define it as well which could be interesting if ET considers us to be animals or sub - "human".
Moreover the evolutionists (according to their theory) would have to mull over two different evolutions on two different planets that produced...what? It depends on how you define man and human in the "larger picture" of the whole universe.
The creationists would have to (according to their beliefs) mull over two different "images created in the likeness of God" that look and act completely different and perhaps not even in an equally "human" fashion.
So, I don't think that either theory/belief has a future beyond a documented meeting with a genuine ET who is extremely different from earthlings. For those who don't believe in ETs, it would probably not have a future beyond the cloning of ancient DNA to reproduce an ancient man either.
"Bibbi" said this is a little more proof of evolution and how we got to where we are today
I find that the argument of evolution vs creationism is rather irrelevant. If we ever caught a Yeti, or abominable snowman, we would have to decide whether it was a highly evolved animal or a less evolved man. The creationists would probably be arguing about whether it had a soul or a spiritual nature or not. When, we eventually contact ET, we will have to define it as well which could be interesting if ET considers us to be animals or sub - "human".
Moreover the evolutionists (according to their theory) would have to mull over two different evolutions on two different planets that produced...what? It depends on how you define man and human in the "larger picture" of the whole universe.
The creationists would have to (according to their beliefs) mull over two different "images created in the likeness of God" that look and act completely different and perhaps not even in an equally "human" fashion.
So, I don't think that either theory/belief has a future beyond a documented meeting with a genuine ET who is extremely different from earthlings. For those who don't believe in ETs, it would probably not have a future beyond the cloning of ancient DNA to reproduce an ancient man either.
Again you seem to think that ETs would throw a monkey wrench into Evolutionary Thought. It wouldn't. It is already fully accepted that Evolution would likely occur very differently on other Planets. There would be no crisis.
"sandorski" said Again you seem to think that ETs would throw a monkey wrench into Evolutionary Thought. It wouldn't. It is already fully accepted that Evolution would likely occur very differently on other Planets. There would be no crisis.
OK, then you are agreeing with my previous statement elsewhere that evolution is random and on Earth man is the accidental consequence.
"Bibbi" said Creationist Translation: Ancient footprints show we've walked this way for 10 thousand years, Praise Jesus!
Atheist translation: Ah duh, what?
I think he is saying that because man's foot has not "evolved" since that print, therefore no evolution took place and creation is correct.
Rather an extreme stretch in logic, in my opinion. Actually I think he's being sarcastic. Also the article says these footprints are over a million years old. So we've walked the same way for well over a million years.
this is a little more proof of evolution and how we got to where we are today
I find that the argument of evolution vs creationism is rather irrelevant. If we ever caught a Yeti, or abominable snowman, we would have to decide whether it was a highly evolved animal or a less evolved man. The creationists would probably be arguing about whether it had a soul or a spiritual nature or not. When, we eventually contact ET, we will have to define it as well which could be interesting if ET considers us to be animals or sub - "human".
Moreover the evolutionists (according to their theory) would have to mull over two different evolutions on two different planets that produced...what? It depends on how you define man and human in the "larger picture" of the whole universe.
The creationists would have to (according to their beliefs) mull over two different "images created in the likeness of God" that look and act completely different and perhaps not even in an equally "human" fashion.
So, I don't think that either theory/belief has a future beyond a documented meeting with a genuine ET who is extremely different from earthlings. For those who don't believe in ETs, it would probably not have a future beyond the cloning of ancient DNA to reproduce an ancient man either.
Ancient footprints show we've walked this way for 1.5 million years
Posted By:
2009-02-27 14:48:38
this is a little more proof of evolution and how we got to where we are today
I find that the argument of evolution vs creationism is rather irrelevant. If we ever caught a Yeti, or abominable snowman, we would have to decide whether it was a highly evolved animal or a less evolved man. The creationists would probably be arguing about whether it had a soul or a spiritual nature or not. When, we eventually contact ET, we will have to define it as well which could be interesting if ET considers us to be animals or sub - "human".
Moreover the evolutionists (according to their theory) would have to mull over two different evolutions on two different planets that produced...what? It depends on how you define man and human in the "larger picture" of the whole universe.
The creationists would have to (according to their beliefs) mull over two different "images created in the likeness of God" that look and act completely different and perhaps not even in an equally "human" fashion.
So, I don't think that either theory/belief has a future beyond a documented meeting with a genuine ET who is extremely different from earthlings. For those who don't believe in ETs, it would probably not have a future beyond the cloning of ancient DNA to reproduce an ancient man either.
Again you seem to think that ETs would throw a monkey wrench into Evolutionary Thought. It wouldn't. It is already fully accepted that Evolution would likely occur very differently on other Planets. There would be no crisis.
Again you seem to think that ETs would throw a monkey wrench into Evolutionary Thought. It wouldn't. It is already fully accepted that Evolution would likely occur very differently on other Planets. There would be no crisis.
OK, then you are agreeing with my previous statement elsewhere that evolution is random and on Earth man is the accidental consequence.
Creationist Translation: Ancient footprints show we've walked this way for 10 thousand years, Praise Jesus!
Atheist translation: Ah duh, what?
Creationist Translation: Ancient footprints show we've walked this way for 10 thousand years, Praise Jesus!
Atheist translation: Ah duh, what?
I think he is saying that because man's foot has not "evolved" since that print, therefore no evolution took place and creation is correct.
Rather an extreme stretch in logic, in my opinion.
Creationist Translation: Ancient footprints show we've walked this way for 10 thousand years, Praise Jesus!
Atheist translation: Ah duh, what?
I think he is saying that because man's foot has not "evolved" since that print, therefore no evolution took place and creation is correct.
Rather an extreme stretch in logic, in my opinion.
Actually I think he's being sarcastic. Also the article says these footprints are over a million years old. So we've walked the same way for well over a million years.