Back to Business Best Books of the Month Valentine's Day Shop Learn more nav_sap_SWP_6M_fly_beacon Chi-Raq Bose SoundTouch 130 Amazon Fire TV Stick Luxury Beauty Valentine's Day Cards Find the Best Purina Pro Plan for Your Pet Amazon Gift Card Offer chiraq chiraq chiraq  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 Kindle Voyage Prime Exclusive Savings in Video Games Shop Now SnS
Customer Discussions > Classical Music forum

Does music evolve? (2)


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 726-750 of 1000 posts in this discussion
Posted on Jul 4, 2012 1:31:41 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 4, 2012 2:28:10 PM PDT
Larkenfield says:
I'm delighted that the proliferation of the beautiful and perfectly intricate crop formations continue to confound the arguments of both science and religion, defying convincing explanations from either side and the source of them remaining unknown. And no. I do not accept that they are ALL the product of a hoax by drunken students high on Guinness or members of the British secret service using flat boards to deceive the public. I consider them the product of a higher unknown intelligence: http://davidpratt.info/cropcirc1.htm

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 4, 2012 1:57:52 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 4, 2012 2:16:35 PM PDT
KenOC says:
Well pJ, "ancient astronauts" is a pretty weak attempt at explaining human existence. For all we know we're like fish in a mud puddle. We can't imagine or conceive anything outside of our puddle, even though we may explore our "universe" thoroughly and for thousands of years (assuming it doesn't dry up). Now a car comes along and parks over our puddle, cutting off the light and dripping oil in the water. Catastrophe! How can we possibly understand what has happened?

In fact, what has happened is beyond our understanding or any understanding that we, as fish, could possibly have. But we might call the car "God" since it lies beyond our mental powers to comprehend and is not subject to any of our fishy sciences, no matter how far advanced.

This is by no means an argument against the existence of God. Merely noting that phenomena that lie forever outside of our science or our minds are not necessarily signs of divine intervention.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 4, 2012 2:40:27 PM PDT
Wow. great website Lark.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 4, 2012 2:52:56 PM PDT
K. Beazley says:
pJ,

I said, "Either it all came together by random natural forces or it was created. There is NO third option."

You said, "not so fast. you scream 'bait and switch' often enough that you should know better than this."

There is no "bait & switch" at all. It is only common logic. Either the Universe & everything in it was created by an intelligent outside creator, or it was brought about by entirely random natural forces. I invite you to read up on it, as both sides understand this. They also understand that, even if there IS "an explanation that is unknown to us at this point", it will be either an explanation from design or from nature.

But this is also one of the principal reasons why this debate always has a real sense of intensity unlike any other in the scientific domain, because it is also understood within the scientific domain that if you only have two possible theoretical explanations (even if there's a myriad of alternative possibilities within each one), then if one of those explanations is shown to be false, then by default the other is true.

This should come as no surprise to those who are fully conversant with both sides of the argument, because there are plenty of writers & commentators on each side, who I have read over many years, who state that as a basic understanding of the situation.

In short, contrary to what you say, "someone with real understanding of Science would not make the emphatic claim: "There is NO third option"", *everyone* on *both* sides *knows* there is NO third option.

Kim.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 4, 2012 3:07:17 PM PDT
K. Beazley says:
Ken,

"Creationism is very insistent on the historical accuracy of the Bible. Since it is a religion-based movement..."

It is only a "religion-based movement" within its field, which is to deal with the pseudo-religion & metaphysically naturalistic dogmatism of Evolution, which can be traced to Darwin's own writings & private correspondences, & which typifies the rabidity of Evolutionary spokesmen from Richard Dawkins all the way to Eugenie Scott, who are not backward in coming forward on moral issues like abortion & euthanasia, outside of their scientific expertise.

So are you suggesting that they can & Creationists can't? Or are you saying that their morality is higher than that of the OT?

"If I wanted to "smear" you, I would have quoted the verses."

Oh, really??? So, you'd rather "light the blue touch paper" & stand back while I "smear" myself, & you just point the finger, is that it? Seriously, in this respect you stoop to the same gutter level as C Culver!

Kim.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 4, 2012 3:09:49 PM PDT
KenOC says:
Kim, you've been away for a while. A lot of catching up to do! I look forward to reading your pleasant and informative posts.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 4, 2012 3:11:45 PM PDT
K. Beazley says:
pJ,

"the unknown option comes into play quite frequently in science. take for instance the extinction of the dinosaurs. 50 years ago we had an accepted theory that they became extinct be volcanic activity (disney/stravinsky/stokowski model) now the belief is that an giant meteor or asteroid hit the earth."

This proves my previous point. They are not different theories. They are both naturalistic explanations *within* the larger naturalistic explanation of how the Universe & everything in it came to be.

Kim.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 4, 2012 3:25:56 PM PDT
K. Beazley says:
pJ,

"Disproving one theory does not prove another."

As I've explained, if they're the only two possible meta-explanations, then that's *exactly* what happens.

"They really think showing evolution is wrong is good enough."

If you show repeatedly that there are serious flaws in a scientific theory & its assumptions, then by your own description of science, it should cause a complete re-think of that theory, & if the flaws are found to be substantial, then the theory will be jettisoned.

If CS & ID are, as you say, unable to be tested or falsified, then that does not prohibit them from being seen as an expression of the philosophy of science (which is where many of their critics want them to be restricted, & many of their adherents are happy to be identified), which still leaves them free to identify & comment on, the scientific shortcomings of Evolutionary theories.

On that basis, the link I gave to those 101 articles is a perfectly reasonable expression of criticism, particularly when the criticisms involved are principally those from scientists outside of the CS & ID communities. Those 101 articles are just the small tip of a very large iceberg.

So, pJ, are you going to tell me you think that Evolution doesn't have any serious flaws as a scientific theory?

Kim.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 4, 2012 3:43:18 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 4, 2012 3:45:39 PM PDT
K. Beazley says:
Ken,

"Probably plenty of alternate possibilities. Maybe an alien race seeded the earth?"

But where did the aliens come from? Were they the product of a Designer? Or the product of random natural processes? It's still the same question.

EDIT: Posted this before I saw my friend Omar had made the same point.

Kim.

Posted on Jul 4, 2012 4:06:22 PM PDT
Larkenfield says:
David, you're welcome.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 4, 2012 4:14:11 PM PDT
KenOC says:
David, my impression from the site: Either there's something strange going on or a lot of people have some *serious* time on their hands!

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 4, 2012 6:10:55 PM PDT
K. Beazley says:
Wyote,

"Well, it's an Occam's Razor situation."

If that's the case, then in the case of the intricately complex yet complementary laws of nature design is a far more parsimonious explanation than blind, directionless & purposeless chance.

Kim.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 4, 2012 6:39:15 PM PDT
K. Beazley says:
Wyote,

"It's nothing at all like a hurricane in a junkyard assembling a jet."

Then tell that to the great astronomer, Sir Fred Hoyle, who first said it. But I like his other analogy just as much:

"Anyone with even a nodding acquaintance with Rubik's Cube will concede the near impossibility of a solution being obtained by a blind person moving the cube faces at random. Now imagine 10 to the fiftieth power blind persons (standing shoulder to shoulder, these would more than fill our entire planetary system) each with a scrambled Rubik's Cube [making a move per second without resting] simultaneously arriving at the solved form."

So when you say, "Evolution doesn't pretend to "have the answer as to our origins" if what is meant by that is the origin of the first living cell", that is *only* true within that very narrow parameter, as Evolution is utterly dependent on a naturalistic explanation for that "first living cell". In respect of this noted physiologist Dr Frank Salisbury described the odds this way: Imagine 100 million trillion planets, each with an ocean with lots of DNA fragments that reproduce one million times per second, with a mutation occurring each time. In four billion years it would still take trillions of universes to produce a single gene - if they got lucky!

This is why I described it earlier as a theory which is forced to stand on one leg, as the abiogenesis which it is utterly dependent on for its own viability is so beyond the realms of possibility.

And you want to talk about Occam's Razor???

Kim.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 4, 2012 6:48:30 PM PDT
K. Beazley says:
pJ,

"it is not that they do not "LIKE' the question. They have yet to discover the answer. that is a major part of ongoing research."

No. If the answer is, as people like Hoyle & Salisbury (among many others) have shown the sheer impossibility of *finding* an answer, & yet, as you say, "that is a major part of ongoing research", then what, precisely, are they researching, except their own dogmatic insistence on finding a naturalistic answer? As you say, "They have yet to discover the answer", but if the "answer" they want simply doesn't exist, then what, other than philosophical imperatives, is driving them? They are no more scientific than alchemists!

However, because of these facts, if there is no naturalistic answer to the origin of life, then design is the only other possibility.

Kim.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 4, 2012 7:16:47 PM PDT
KenOC says:
"...if there is no naturalistic answer to the origin of life, then design is the only other possibility."

Is it? First, maybe we're barking up the wrong tree trying to understand the origins of life in our locality through evolutionary processes. This doesn't mean there aren't alternate naturalistic explanations. Second (as I suggested above in the mud puddle example) maybe we're simply incapable of understanding these things. Again, that's our limitation and doesn't mean that "God did it" (nor does it rule that out of course).

However, the history of the thousand-year struggle between divine and naturalistic explanations of observed phenomena doesn't suggest that religion-based understandings do well in these cases.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 4, 2012 7:40:01 PM PDT
K. Beazley says:
Ken,

As what I *actually* wrote was, "*because of these facts*..." as a qualification for "...if there is no naturalistic answer to the origin of life, then design is the only other possibility", then why not address the actual question arising from the issue being addressed (if you can), which is, "If the answer is, as people like Hoyle & Salisbury (among many others) have shown the sheer impossibility of *finding* an answer, & yet, as you say, "that is a major part of ongoing research", then what, precisely, are they researching, except their own dogmatic insistence on finding a naturalistic answer? As you say, "They have yet to discover the answer", but if the "answer" they want simply doesn't exist, then what, other than philosophical imperatives, is driving them?

Kim.

Posted on Jul 4, 2012 7:47:23 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 4, 2012 7:52:31 PM PDT
<<If CS & ID are, as you say, unable to be tested or falsified,>>
then what is your personal falsification criteria for CS?

<< Hoyle & Salisbury (among many others) have shown the sheer impossibility of *finding* an answer, & yet, as you say,>>
and there are 'proofs' before the wright brothers that man would never be able to fly. t
there is research being done to create life in the laboratory.

<<However, because of these facts, if there is no naturalistic answer to the origin of life, then design is the only other possibility.>> doesn't cut it.

the fact that the naturalistic answer hasn't been found YET does not mean it doesn't exist.

Posted on Jul 4, 2012 7:47:30 PM PDT
K. Beazley says:
Ken,

BTW, how many of those 101 articles have you looked into? You're very good at quoting CS figures out of context, but what of all of those mainstream scientists whose findings contradict evolutionary assumptions & support young earth predictions? In the light of your enthusiasm for it, I really found the articles on the Grand Canyon & all of its features which point to its recent & catastrophic origin interesting, especially since you were so enthusiastic about recommending it to me. I'm really surprised, in the light of your enthusiasm, that you haven't mentioned it since.

Kim.

Posted on Jul 4, 2012 7:49:31 PM PDT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle's_fallacy
those interested in reading about Hoyle's "PROOF" that Kim seems so taken by.

Posted on Jul 4, 2012 7:58:21 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Jul 4, 2012 7:59:59 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 4, 2012 7:58:36 PM PDT
K. Beazley says:
pJ,

"and there are 'proofs' before the wright brothers that man would never be able to fly."

I'm glad you put the word proofs in parentheses, because logically, how could they be proofs if it was found that man could actually fly? Yet what I supplied from the likes of Hoyle & Salisbury are not "proofs" that life cannot be created in the lab, they are mathematical probabilities, a field which I never thought a mathematician like ourself would need to be told about.

In fact, as a mathematician you should be impacted far more strongly by the implications of these analogies than I am, as you would know that they far exceed the level of probability allowed for such equations, & so your final statement, "the fact that the naturistic answer hasn't been found YET does not mean it doesn't exist", as it runs counter to all of your inherent mathematical intuition, can only be based on blind faith that the impossible can somehow become possible.

Kim.

Posted on Jul 4, 2012 8:04:57 PM PDT
<<In fact, as a mathematician you should be impacted far more strongly by the implications of these analogies than I am, as you would know that they far exceed the level of probability allowed for such equations, & so your final statement,>>
are we really back to discussing the law large numbers?
I've gone thorough the 'lottery winners' example before.

again,
IF CS is a scientific theory what would be the 'falsification criteria' for it?
what evidence would you accept to admit it is an invalid theory?
that is a vital part of the scientific method you know(or maybe you don't, or maybe it is only important when dealing theories you want to be false)

Posted on Jul 4, 2012 8:10:54 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 4, 2012 8:14:32 PM PDT
<<"the fact that the naturistic answer hasn't been found YET does not mean it doesn't exist", as it runs counter to all of your inherent mathematical intuition, can only be based on blind faith that the impossible can somehow become possible>>
not at all,
in fact, even saying this shows how little understanding of science and the scientific method you actually have.

science and mathematics both have lots of unanswered questions.
some are shown to be true, some are shown to be false.

even in my lifetime they have 'solved' the Fermat problem.

Fermat's Enigma: The Epic Quest to Solve the World's Greatest Mathematical Problem

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 4, 2012 8:13:13 PM PDT
K. Beazley says:
pJ,

"then your understanding of the scientific method is ever sadder than I first thought"

Please explain how it is "scientific" to keep repeating the same unsupported assertion without even an attempt to logically contradict the statement I made. If you can tell HOW my contention that "They are both naturalistic explanations *within* the larger naturalistic explanation of how the Universe & everything in it came to be" is wrong, then do so. But to keep falling back on this mantra-like assertion that everything I say shows a lack of "understanding of the scientific method" says nothing & achieves nothing.

Kim.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 4, 2012 8:17:29 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 4, 2012 8:25:59 PM PDT
KenOC says:
pJ, for the record I think Wiki's article on the "Hoyle fallacy" is hardly NPOV. The entire article consists of arguments to rebut Hoyle's conjecture. This is pretty substandard for Wiki, and I suspect it will be changed in the future.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Classical Music forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Classical Music forum
Participants:  33
Total posts:  1598
Initial post:  Jun 20, 2012
Latest post:  Jul 26, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions