That he might be a crazy old man definitely has occurred to me.
There is, however something else you said that piques my desire to debate further.
You said according to the rules of evolution.
Now, as far as the Darwinian view goes, remember, it's called the "theory" of evolution, not the "fact" of evolution.
Again, what we are taught in school, and what the reality may (or may not) be, could quite possibly be two entirely different things.
(ps. Heir Doctor, I really am enjoying these debates between us; it allows me another perspective, which is why I am on this site to begin with. I
enjoy debating, especially mass debating...
sorry, I couldn't resist...)
Now, (damnit I wish I had the link) modern day humans (in our current form) have been around far longer than orthodox academia would have us believe
(a la Michael Cremo the archaeologist among others); something like multiples of millions of years as oppossed to the tens of thousands of years that
we're taught in school. That being said, it actually kind of kicks the (general) theory of evolution in the nuts (so to speak).
But in the Indian (vedic) culture (among others) they claim that some of their stories (which some of the most profound religous doctrines come from)
go back millions of years, which, again, contradicts the general theory of evolution (at least, as far as humans go).
Now, getting back to what you said about thinking about bipedal aliens as opposed to whatever shape, I do agree about that, hands down.
I would imagine many factors come into play (enviornment, intellectual capacity, cell structure/metabolic function and so on) but I do definitely
believe that the bipedal form is just as common as any potential other form.
But yes, on many levels, I totally aggree with you (although, at this point, I kind of forgot which points I aggree with:lol