When did Homo Sapiens become 'in the image of God' ?

Bet?---Question 4 is interesting. I think that the flaw in it is that it presupposes a point. Now a waxwork of you is in your image, as to a lesser extent is a hologram ... a color photograph ... a pencil sketch by a gifted artist ... a crude caricature ... a "smiley".The first rough sketch of your face by an artist is in your image, as is, more so, the finished work of art. Is it not a matter of degree? Does there have to be a particular point in evolution at which we have to say: well, these hominids were not at all in God's image, whereas this slightly later group totally are? Does it have to be all or nothing?---To look at it another way, what do we mean by saying that we are in God's image? Well, it has been made quite clear by Christian theologians that it isn't meant to be taken in an anthropomorphic sense --- it doesn't mean that God has underarm hair, for example.So what does it mean? It means that we're smart --- but not as smart as God; we have creative ability --- but not as much as God; we have a moral sense --- but, unlike God, an imperfect one.So clearly Homo sapiens is an imperfect image of God. How perfect does a hominid need to be, then, to be considered "in God's image"?---To look at it yet another way, it is quite conceivable that an adult Homo erectus might have more of the faculties we identify as being in God's image than, for example, a newborn specimen of Homo sapiens. What would we make of that?(You may further ponder where that leaves someone who is a member of our species, but who, through some genetic accident, is born without the usual human mental faculties.)---Finally, I should like to hear the creationist answer to your own question. Whether or not you accept that the hominid fossils are records of evolutionary development, you still have to draw the line --- if a line needs to be drawn, if there is some particular demarcation between that which is, and that which is not, in God's image. Is Homo erectus in God's image? How about Homo habilis? What about the australopithicines? What criterion are you going to use? Cranial capacity? What?I leave you with this image: Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

No, I think you'll find that atheists can tell the difference ... I don't see that they have more of a dilemma than you do: as I have pointed out, the intermediate forms exist whether or not you admit that they are evidence of descent. And why can't they get out of it the same way you did, by saying: "I also think his whole creation is somewhat also 'in God's image'"?

That might be the dumbest single mistake I've ever seen a creationist make. Scientists can do science. Why can't you read a simple graph?

I notice that you are pretending that everyone who accepts the results of scientific inqury is an atheist.I think it is fair to say that everyone participating on this thread knows that you are lying. The effort is therefore superfluous.

Well of course LucyTheApe is well aware of the existence of such people. This is why I used the word "lying". LucyTheApe is lying: she knows perfectly well that her garbage is not true.