Subject: Creation is the truth. Bondfield.Except so many things.
From: "Clive Bondfield"
John 3.16" For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son that whoever believes in Him should have eternal life. God did not send His son into the world to condemn the world but that the world through Him might be saved".
Keep believing evolution. There are a lot of Christians who also believe in it. If you want to be an atheist that's up to you, but leave our kids minds alone. Even if you are 100% correct you offer NOTHING at the end of the road, so it is just a big ego trip. That doesn't seem very clever to me.
PILTDOWN MAN. Fraudently planted modern human skull on to of an orangutang.
RAMAPITHECUS. Based on a few fossilised teeth, later proved to be those of a modern orangutang.
JAVA MAN. Based on thighbone only, later found to be identical with modern man
NEBRASKA MAN. BASED ON ONE TOOTH FROM WHICH A PRIMITIVE MAN AND WOMAN WERE CREATED. LATER THIS TOOTH WAS FOUND TO BE THAT OF A PIG.
COLORADO MAN. Based on a single tooth, later found to be that of a horse.
PEKING MAN, NEANDERTHAL MAN, CRO-MAGNON MAN. have now bee proven to belong to modern humans.
To save you further embarrassment it would be better if you saw that these missing links remained missing.
I suggest you add another dimension to your thinkin John 14.6g. To really prove your theory you should also study the Bible, then you would have a comprehensive knowledge of both sides.
Jesus said:"I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the father but by me" John 14.6 Clive Bondfield.
I can be an atheist, but leave our kids' minds alone?! Which kids? Yours? I am leaving them alone. Mine? None of your business, Clive. All children? Who are you, again, to tell me this? If I am 100% correct then I do too offer something, so it's not a big ego trip (not that I follow the logic). I offer the truth that there is no God, for I follow the evidence. And following the evidence is the only path to truth, and the truth shall set you free. That doesn't seem very clever to you, but that is your mistake.
Sahelanthropus tchadensis. Between 6 and 7 million years old.
Ardipithecus ramidus. Estimated age is 4.4 million years.
Australopithecus anamensis. About 4.0 million years old.
Australopithecus afarensi. About 3.4 million years old.
Kenyanthropus platyops. Estimated age is about 3.5 million years.
Australopithecus africanus. Between 2 and 3 million years old
Australopithecus garhi. About 2.5 million years old.
Australopithecus aethiopicus. Estimated age is 2.5 million years.
Australopithecus robustus. Between 2 and 1.5 million years old.
Australopithecus boisei. Estimated age is 1.8 million years.
Homo habilis. Estimated age is 1.8 million years.
Homo georgicus. Estimated age is 1.8 million years.
Homo erectus. Thought to be about 700,000 years.
Homo ergaster. Estimated age is 1.7 million years.
Homo antecessor. This fossil is over 780,000 years old.
Homo heidelbergensis (aka Peking man). Have not been proven to be the same as anatomically modern humans. Estimated age is between 400,000 and 700,000 years.
Homo neanderthalensis (aka Neanderthals). Are emphatically not anatomically modern humans. Between about 600,000 to 30,000 years old.
Please see TalkOrigins for more details.
Now, I am no anthropaleontologist, so I cannot assess these fossils, and as I can see, some of them indeed only consist of a few pieces of skull, teeth, and bone, and not complete skeletons. However, the evidence is abundant that there have lived bipedal human-like beings that were not apes and not humans, and this evidence overwhelmingly favors the hypothesis that we humans have evolved from ancestors that weren't anatomically modern humans. Clive is right to imply that it is embarrassing when people build fancy stories out of scarce evidence, and on top of that, when the fossils then turn out to be just an ape or a different mammal entirely. But again, there's plenty of other evidence, and it keeps coming.
"I suggest you add another dimension to your thinkin John 14.6g. To really prove your theory you should also study the Bible, then you would have a comprehensive knowledge of both sides."
Come again?! If I were to study the Bible, that would help me prove my theory? I actually did read a lot of the Bible (no, not it all), and it seems like a collection of very different stories told by a lot of very different people from very different times. Nothing in there has anything of relevance to say about our origins. Also, the Bible isn't the "other side" of atheism, anymore than the Qu'ran, and all the other scriptures. I believe in things only based on evidence, or absence thereof (yes, absence of evidence does equal evidence of absence, as in "there's no evidence for Unicorns, so...").