(October 26, 2011 at 7:38 pm)Rhythm Wrote: So human musicians don't use tracks of rain hitting the roof now eh? The actual definition doesn't suit your argument, it's hard to bullshit people with it, so you argue against it, round and round we go.

Give me a break; just because a musician may use a sound of nature in their music it does not automatically make the sound of nature music. You are reaching on that one. Why don’t you tape of video of yourself pouring water on a roof and send it to Juilliad’s school of music and see how excited they are to sign you up. Lol.

(October 26, 2011 at 7:43 pm)Shell B Wrote: Animals make music in the same fashion humans make music. The only difference is that their only instrument is their voice.

What distinguishes human music from other sounds is it is an art form. It is designed to invoke a particular reaction, emotion, or interpretation by the listener. So a bird's mating call could be considered music in a generic sense, but not as an art form. Only humans produce artistic music.

More manouvering. Whales sing, so do birds, and not just as a mating call. Bullshit. Julliard doesn't like it so I guess it isn't music, alert pop artists everywhere.

Rhythm is right. These are not just mating calls we are talking about. As for the "art form" part, what distinguishes what you do and makes it "art" over that which any other animals does to create music. Hint: the answer is nothing.

LOL, as if our own ballads weren't mating calls btw.

(October 26, 2011 at 8:05 pm)Shell B Wrote: It was hosted by the Smithsonian, Stat. If you think you are smarter than professionals at the Smithsonian, there is no help for you.

Are you saying the people at the Smithsonian are inerrant? They did publish an article by Stephen Meyer in their journal supporting creation though, so are you saying you now support creationism because the Smithsonian gave the article the thumbs up?

Quote: At any rate, your source does not say whether the turn off was caused by damage to the "mechanism" or if an extra mechanism is required to allow for lactose tolerance throughout life.

The only sources I can find that even detail how the process works are creation sources (they cite a few articles from Nature Genetics, but I do not have those articles), since you don't accept those I won't waste our time posting them. However, if the mutation had actually resulted in a new mechanism we would be hearing about it all over the news because it would be the first ever observed case from this happening. I think it’s safe to assume this is no different from all the other cases; the mutation damaged the already existing mechanism.

Quote: It does matter. You stated that evolution results in loss of genetic information and that no genetic information is gained by it. Now, you are saying it doesn't matter if it is gained. This is pointless if you are not consistent.

I was being consistent, when I said genetic information I was speaking of semantic information. Then you came in pointing to increases in Shannon information, which is meaningless. Creationists are well aware that Shannon information is changed all the time, but in order for common descent to be true we would need to observe increases in semantic information all the time, we have never observed even one. So we kind of missed each other on that one.

---

(October 26, 2011 at 8:19 pm)Rhythm Wrote: LOL, as if our own ballads weren't mating calls btw.

Is that why 95 percent of the fans at a Cannibal Corpse concert are male and 90 percent of the fans at a Lady Gaga concert are female?

It wouldnt be the first case, as has already been pointed out to you, but how does that help you bullshit people? Oh, right, it doesn't.

I'm going to ask this again..have you been reading "Signature in the Cell"?

(October 26, 2011 at 8:22 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Are you saying the people at the Smithsonian are inerrant? They did publish an article by Stephen Meyer in their journal supporting creation though, so are you saying you now support creationism because the Smithsonian gave the article the thumbs up?

No, I was saying they are unbiased. Thank you for arguing my argument for me.

Quote:but in order for common descent to be true we would need to observe increases in semantic information all the time,

Really? Hm.

we have never observed even one. So we kind of missed each other on that one.

---

Tell me where you got that Cannibal Corpse statistic. I saw Cannibal Corpse at the Palladium not too long ago. There were quite a few women there. I would say closer to 50% than 5%.

(October 26, 2011 at 8:25 pm)Rhythm Wrote: It wouldnt be the first case, as has already been pointed out to you, but how does that help you bullshit people? Oh, right, it doesn't.

Oh you mean you asserting it? Yeah I kind of just ignored that because it was not backed up with anything.

Quote: I'm going to ask this again..have you been reading "Signature in the Cell"?

Where did you ask that the first time? I have that book yes, it’s a pretty good one, I have not read all of it because it’s over 500 pages.

(October 26, 2011 at 8:26 pm)Shell B Wrote: No, I was saying they are unbiased. Thank you for arguing my argument for me.

If that’s what you were trying to argue then I missed it. It sounded to me like you were saying the people were so smart at the Smithsonian that they couldn’t possibly be wrong on evolution. They are extremely biased though, after Meyer’s article was published the editor lost his job for publishing it even though he and the other reviewers felt it passed the merits test. Science isn’t about merits anymore, it’s about censorship.

Quote: Tell me where you got that Cannibal Corpse statistic. I saw Cannibal Corpse at the Palladium not too long ago. There were quite a few women there. I would say closer to 50% than 5%.

I was just estimating judging by their concert videos. Looks like a total sausage fest to me. You could pick another band though as an example if you’d like, there are plenty of male bands out there that do not draw large female crowds.

See, I knew I'd heard this bullshit somewhere. It's not a good book, it's not good science, and you're arguing the "theory" here as though it were. Apologetic bullshit.

(October 26, 2011 at 8:42 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I was just estimating judging by their concert videos. Looks like a total sausage fest to me. You could pick another band though as an example if you’d like, there are plenty of male bands out there that do not draw large female crowds.

Do those bands perform ballads? Rhythm said that ballads are quite like mating calls. He didn't say all music was.

Music videos are staged, even if they take place at concerts. Oftentimes, they convince the crowd to have overblown mosh pits. Most women remove themselves from near the stage when mosh pits break out at a metal show. You can find them near the back or, in the case of the Palladium, on the balcony. I have been at many shows where they are filming videos. Static X at the Brockton Fairgrounds, Black Label Society at Ozzfest, Slipknot at Ozzfest for a rockumentary, etc. It's all the same. "Hey guys, we're filming this. We need you to go fucking crazy!" Commence wall of death.