"Theist": is a Transitional Form In Human Cultural/Cognitive Evolution

Pro again accuses me of going off topic, but when he says "Now Finally, Back on the Debate Topic:" what point does he address? My argument on language, which shows that my argument on language was indeed on the topic of the debate and wasn't staying anywhere; but that's the same argument I made from the very beginning. So its obvious that Pro is trying to divert people's attention from my arguments because he can't handle them. How does he respond to my argument on language? By an argument from authority - that something is true because a scientists says it, that something is true because the experts or some well respected person says it. But in every case all his source are making the claim without any proof to back it up, that ancient humans were unable to communicate with complex language. They make this assumption because humans only began mass producing tools at a certain point, and thus they ASSUME without proof that the development of language is responsible for this. They are plenty of reasons why hoarding the knowledge of how to make tools would be useful to individuals: it could give them a competitive advantage over others. But eventually, the sharing of knowledge is going to benefit the whole society. But tool making in itself wouldn't prove that those making them can communicate any better than other people because the Egyptians were building pyramids at the same time as other nations which never built a single pyramid, but no one assumes these other people couldn't speak as fluent as the Egyptians just because they didn't build such impressive structures. Many people living today speak quite fluent languages and still their marriages and families break down because of lack of proper communication, so Pro is making some big assumptions and so are his sources. Merely asserting that ancient humans began with simple grunts before it evolved into complex language doesn't prove anything. The oldest written documents we have on earth contain complex languages, even more complex than the ones e have today, and over time they have become simpler. Pro never addressed this. He never explained to us the examples I gave comparing English with Hebrew, and English with Latin, showing ways in which these two languages are more complex than modern English. If, as Pro argues, the cognitive ability of mankind is evolving from the simple to the complex, then he needs to explain why mankind's languages are becoming more simple with age. This is the opposite of what evolutionary theory predicts. Evolution predicts development from the simple to the complex, creation begins with already complex things. The evidence supports that language was complex as far back as we have had written languages; and Pro has given us no reason to think it was ever not complex. This is the last post so we won't be ever getting an answer from him on this, although he does like to do most of his debating in the comments section even though no one is arguing with him there. Pro says that "Continuity based theories are currently held by a majority of scholars," as if truth is decided by majority vote. Then he goes on to list four different theories proposed by these scholars on how language originated, without telling us which one he believes. What this tells me is that these scholars are simply speculating, but they don't really know for sure, and its unwise of Pro to give their conflicting theories as an argument in this debate as if the origin of language were a settled issue among scientists, it isn't! It maybe that each of these guys trying to make a name for him/her self might be very wrong, and some other theorist will come up with a more plausible theory; but not a single on of these theories explains to us why the oldest languages are the most complex! Pro thinks that because atheism is on the rise in New Zealand that therefore mankind is evolving his cognition away from religion, but when faced with with rise in Christians in other parts of the world he doesn't think making is evolving his cognition toward religion. What a double standard! "The share of the population that is Christian in sub-Saharan Africa climbed from 9% in 1910 to 63% in 2010, while in the Asia-Pacific region it rose from 3% to 7%." "There are 2.18 billion Christians around the world, up from about 600 million in 1910." http://search.tb.ask.com...; For the Roman Catholic Church: "Church membership in 2007 was 1.147 billion people,[5] (17% of the global population at the time) increasing from the 1950 figure of 437 million[6] (17% of the global population at the time) and the 1970 figure of 654 million.[7] On 31 December 2008, membership was 1.166 billion, an increase of 11.54% over the same date in 2000, only slightly greater than the rate of increase of the world population (10.77%). The increase was 33.02% in Africa, but only 1.17% in Europe. It was 15.91% in Asia, 11.39% in Oceania, and 10.93% in Americas. As a result, Catholics were 17.77% of the total population in Africa, 63.10% in Americas, 3.05% in Asia, 39.97% in Europe, 26.21% in Oceania, and 17.40% of the world population. Of the world's Catholics, the proportion living in Africa grew from 12.44% in 2000 to 14.84% in 2008." http://search.tb.ask.com...; So when the numbers are going his way its a great sign of man's cognitive evolution but when the numbers don't go his way it doesn't mean much. This isn't going to cut it, Pro! In comparing Alexander the Great to Jesus, Pro says: "Alexander The Great, left many witnesses and writings from independant sources to his existence," but first of all he never referenced any of these witnesses. Who were they? The only biographies we have for Alexander come from Arrian and Plutarch, no one else. I at least mentioned my sources, Pro doesn't. And no credible historian doubts the existence of Jesus either. On Alexander, Pro says he left a trail of destruction in his wake, but since Jesus was no military commander invading other peoples we don't expect to find such things for Jesus, and since he was not an imperial ruler we don't expect to find his name on a coin, and since he returned to heaven we don't expect to find his body. If he wasn't resurrected the Jews would have produced the body and Christianity would never have gotten started! And while we're on the point of archaeology, did you know they found the burial box of Jesus' brother, James? And it has Jesus' name and the name of his adoptive father Joseph on it? http://www.google.com... Now that's evidence. Regarding Mary, Jesus' mother, Pro says: "She disappeared and likely distanced herself completely from the rot they fabricated within the 70 years after his death." If it was a fabrication, wouldn't we have some historical reference to Mary's denial of the whole thing? Pro didn't refute the resurrection of Jesus, so theism is indeed God's revelation. Amen.