If evolution from primoridal soup to modern man occurred in only 5000 years then would it not be valid to expect that man would have changed significantly since the beginning of recorded history? And, since this is not the case, then isn't it also valid to assume that evolution would have occurred over millions of years? After all, it's called "evolution" and not "revolution" <g>
Howie --- On Tuesday, August 02, 2005 5:56 PM, Ian Skinner scribed: --- > > I don't think evolution posits the age of anything. Archeology I'm > sure has something to say, fossils and all that. Now evolution is > happy to posit a reason for the changes in animals noted by > archeologists. But if all archeological evidence is disproved and a > creation date is found to be exactly 5000 years ago, evolution is > still valid, because life has still changed in that time. > > Anthropology might also have something to say about how long man has > been around. > > -------------- > Ian Skinner > Web Programmer > BloodSource > www.BloodSource.org > Sacramento, CA > > "C code. C code run. Run code run. Please!" > - Cynthia Dunning > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:167704 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
