Evolution Theory - please show the proofs

[NoGodaloud ?]

If it doesn't start "IN THE BEGINNING...." he's not interested, Shel.


Here's what his Moonie 'scholar' believes.

Unification Church beliefs are summarized in the textbook Divine Principle and include belief in a universal God; in striving toward the creation of a literal Kingdom of God on earth; in the universal salvation of all people, good and evil, living and dead; and that a man born in Korea in the early 20th century received from Jesus the mission to be realized as the second coming of Christ.

I guess he takes his allies where and when he can find them!

so what does this have to do with the issue we are debating ?

---

That is neither here nor there. Please tell me how the lack of this things [sic] proves that other animals cannot communicate verbally.

Animals can communicate with each other of course. The point is the qualitiy of communications, and what can be accomplished through it. No animal comes even close to human communication. We are quit alone. Neither is any animal known, which is on a advanced transitional form to get close our way to communicate. there is a big gap, and this constitutes a big gulf, which evolutionists are not able to explain.

[Shell B]

Animals can communicate with each other of course. The point is the qualitiy of communications, and what can be accomplished through it. No animal comes even close to human communication. We are quit alone. Neither is any animal known, which is on a advanced transitional form to get close our way to communicate. there is a big gap, and this constitutes a big gulf, which evolutionists are not able to explain.

Do you speak dolphin? No? Then how do you know how well they can communicate?

Of course, you have the scale on which you rate 'quality.' Can you make a sound underwater that can be heard by humans for miles? I would say that is a special quality. I find quality to be a subjective thing, capability as well. Other animals can communicate just as well as we can. You just have to look at it from a usefulness perspective. I sincerely doubt that they miss the technology that comes with human communication.

Anyway, I allowed you to cause me to digress. When I came in, we were talking about whether or not other animals can communicate vocally, or have a language, to be precise. You are skirting that like it is your job. Do you think we could get that out of the way before we move on to quality of communication?

[NoGodaloud ?]

If you think language is only present in humans, you may want to watch this video (6 parts). Noam Chomsky is wrong on this issue; plain and simple. But then, he is a linguist and philosopher, not a biologist, so he can be forgiven for thinking that language is unique to humans

this is the typical bullshit that is thrown at us, without a hint of proof. The video begins with : even if we ( monkeys and we, humans ) wouldn't know we are related.......

At least I don't KNOW this. And i don't believe this. In think its always a agression to my intelligence, when i see such assertions on tv. As this would be a fact...... As long as there are no conclusive proofs, they should not sell pure guess as a fact.

Moreover : We can see ourself in their faces
If the speaker does this, fine for him. I don't see myself in their faces. Neither do i believe, we share a long familiy history. He can't prove this either. This is the typical bullshit i hate. Evolutionists portraying things in a way, as their way of seeing things would be uncontroversial, and being accepted by everybody. Thats not the case.

What makes us human, may not be unique, after all.

We can however think abstractly, appreciate beauty, express love, make decisions, and know to distinguish what is right, and wrong. We have also a spirit, and can accept or reject God in our lives.
No animal, no ape is able to do this.

I think the beginning of this video is so much full of sh**** and lies, its worthless to see it all.
If there is a further message, you wish me to know, just present it here in your own words, and we can discuss it. I don't want to waste my time further.

[Edwardo Piet]

There is mountains of evidence for evolution and it's still piling higher. So however "shit" you may think that video is, at least it follows the evidence unlike yourself.

[AnunZi]

At least I don't KNOW this. And i don't believe this. In think its always a agression to my intelligence, when i see such assertions on tv. As this would be a fact...... As long as there are no conclusive proofs, they should not sell pure guess as a fact.

And what “Intelligence” would that be? Do you have proof that you posses it? Because so far all you’ve done in this thread is preach your xiatain crap and not listened to a single point raised. You ignore evidence and then claim no body can refute your argument.

You have demonstrated that you have only a very basic understanding of evolution yet you try to attack it from a position of ignorance

You keep waffling on about “absolute proof”. This has been said about 5 times in this thread but I'm going to try again and make it through the brain washing…..
The ONLY thing on this world that will offer you “Absolute proof” is religion. The only reason religion can do that is because it’s MADE UP. It’s not real so they don’t need any actual proof!

Science can only offer you evidence. What you make from said evidence is a case of logical reasoning to come up with a theory that best fits the evidence. That reasoning Is then peer reviewed to see if it holds water. So far evolution has held its water for a long, long time.

[NoGodaloud ?]

Do you speak dolphin? No? Then how do you know how well they can communicate?

because they cannot accomplish, what we can.

Of course, you have the scale on which you rate 'quality.' Can you make a sound underwater that can be heard by humans for miles? I would say that is a special quality. I find quality to be a subjective thing, capability as well. Other animals can communicate just as well as we can. You just have to look at it from a usefulness perspective. I sincerely doubt that they miss the technology that comes with human communication.

they communicate in a way, which fits their need for survival and socialize. But their level and quality of communication is far distinct from ours. Animals are limited in their way of communication. We can express our feelings, emotions, thinking, ideas, imagination, beauty, etc. in a way, animals cannot. In short, we can share and exchange information, feelings, and ideas. Animals can't . Beside this, we can express our thoughts through symbols of common agreement. Animals can't do this either. Beside this, animal vocalisation, chattering etc. cannot be defined as language, with its enormous possibility of expression of the most diverse variation of things.We can also express ourself, and speak about the past, and the future, about reality, and hypothetical things. we can lie, and say the truth. We can decide to do things, or not. We can create new things, which is also a essencial and exclusive trait of us. Our language has grammatics, and we can write down, what we think. Animals don't.

I think Einstein's Gulf brings it really to the point :

http://www.christiscreator.com/evolutionclass101.htm

But all of the foregoing is hardly apt to be seen as a great difficulty to the lumbering clumsy logic that evolutionists typically apply. Nevertheless, Einstein's Gulf is hard to get around. For any materialistic theory of evolution-i.e., the kinds espoused by Darwin, Freud, Marx, Hitler, Stalin, Sagan, Gould, etc.-all of which propose that non-living chemicals sprang to life which eventually evolved abstract thought, Einstein's Gulf produces a logical burden under which they collapse. All those theories fail to show in a comprehensible and plausible way how it is possible for inert matter to cross Einstein's Gulf.

What is required is the transformation of an undifferentiated continuum of chaos into the articulate design known to us only through a common human language.
Only through the powers uniquely vested in the human language capacity, which is certainly not shared by apes, is it possible for us even to define what is meant by the realm of abstract ideas. The fact that such abstractions can be systematically associated with the material world in the manner of true representations is an undeniable miracle (exactly as Einstein claimed).

The fact that it is comprehensible is a miracle. At any rate, no one who has offered a denial , has given even a slightly plausible account of how material objects can be spontaneously forced to enter the realm of articulate and intelligent thought.

In fact, empirical studies undermine that hope of orthodox evolution that accidents of history enabled some ape-like ancestor to cross Einstein's Gulf by accidentally starting to speak intelligibly through arbitrarily chosen, conventional symbols. MIT professor Noam Chomsky wrote in 1972 that: "Human language appears to be a unique phenomenon, without significant analogue in the animal world (1972, p. 68)."

The real problem is that there is no plausible way to imagine the transformation of concrete substance into abstract representation without the preexistence and intervention of a well-designed embodied intelligence. What is required is something along the lines of a being created in the image of God.

---

You keep waffling on about “absolute proof”.

You keep bringing up a argument, which i clearly demonstrated, is not. Since i only demanded proof, because thedarkestofangels asserted he had proof of evolution.

[Shell B]

because they cannot accomplish, what we can.

Because you can't understand what they are saying, they can't accomplish what you can? How do you know they cannot accomplish this? Please present evidence.

they communicate in a way, which fits their need for survival and socialize.

As do we.

But their level and quality of communication is far distinct from ours.

Far distinct? Distinct would suffice, but I digress. . . again. Yes, their manner of communication is vastly different than ours. However, how do you know that they are not communicating as well as you and I? (I know, we're not communicating that well.)

Animals are limited in their way of communication.

You are aware that humans are animals? Either way, I agree. All animals, humans included, are limited in their way of communication.

We can express our feelings, emotions, thinking, ideas, imagination, beauty, etc. in a way, animals cannot.

We are animals. Other animals can express their feelings. It's obvious. As for communicating ideas and beauty, I wouldn't know. I only speak English and bits of French and Portuguese. I don't speak "animal."

In short, we can share and exchange information, feelings, and ideas. Animals can't .

See above.

Beside this, we can express our thoughts through symbols of common agreement. Animals can't do this either.

Symbols of common agreement? I'm going to have to assume you mean something like a nod. Have you ever seen chimps hunt together? How about dolphins moving in pods?

Beside this, animal vocalisation, chattering etc. cannot be defined as language, with its enormous possibility of expression of the most diverse variation of things.We can also express ourself, and speak about the past, and the future, about reality, and hypothetical things.

Now, you may be right about some of that. Of course, none of us would know, would we? However, I have always found it odd that certain animals know to hunt in certain places and the like. Their parents teach them this, I assume. Then, they teach it to their children. That is something of the past, isn't it? Teaching things you have learned in the past. As for the future, I don't know. Neither do you. Until you can speak monkey or cat, you ain't got jack.

Oh, define language please and tell me why "animal chattering" cannot be defined as such.

we can lie, and say the truth. We can decide to do things, or not. We can create new things, which is also a essencial and exclusive trait of us.

Say what now? We can create new things, that is an exclusive trait to us? No. No, it isn't. Oh, and animals can make choices. Duh.

Our language has grammatics, and we can write down, what we think. Animals don't.

I'll give you that. Other animals cannot write. I wouldn't put it past a chimp, though.

I think Einstein's Gulf brings it really to the point

You honestly think that there is concrete evidence of god and there is no evidence for evolution?

[Edwardo Piet]

The thing is, evidence may not be proved. But it does certainly have more than concrete evidence to back it up. As people have been saying.

Furthermore, even if evolution was proved false, even if it was falsified completely.... that would do nothing for God. If evolution was disproved that wouldn't prove God of course, because that's a complete non-sequitur.

So it makes absolutely no sense that creationists attack evolution, because even if it was disproved, they've still got all the work in the world ahead of them to give any evidence for God whatsoever.

[LastPoet]

Lets look at it this way: we are aware the human knowledge isn't perfect, but at least we base ourself in real evidence. People that claim absolute truth may think they possess it, but its not real, its not something that is equal to everyone, while evidence is there to be appreciated by those that maintain an open mind and do not stick to dogma.

One of the most honorable human traits is to acknolage(sp?) a mistake.

[Edwardo Piet]

It's spelt acknowledge. And it was cool how you acknowledged that spelling mistake in the process of what you said.

You could just use a spellcheck. Or google it if you want.