(October 26, 2011 at 8:44 pm)Rhythm Wrote: 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.

Don't even pretend you have read it. It is a good book, and it is good science.

Science doesn't agree..lol. Which is why it is a text on apologetics, published by a group that promotes apologetics.

(October 26, 2011 at 8:46 pm)Shell B Wrote: Do those bands perform ballads? Rhythm said that ballads are quite like mating calls. He didn't say all music was.

Well I wouldn't call it a mating call like we see in animals, but sure ballads are usually meant to invoke some swooning.

Yeah, you wouldn't call anything that exposes your bullshit for what it is what the rest of us call it, so I'm not sure why that should matter to anyone?

(October 26, 2011 at 8:52 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Science doesn't agree..lol.

Circular argument. You can't say something is not science because science told you so. Many scientists do like his book, and the reviewers at the Smithsonian respected his work enough to publish it.

(October 26, 2011 at 7:37 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(October 26, 2011 at 7:30 pm)IATIA Wrote:

---

mu•sic (myzk) n.

1. The art of arranging sounds in time so as to produce a continuous, unified, and evocative composition, as through melody, harmony, rhythm, and timbre.
2. Vocal or instrumental sounds possessing a degree of melody, harmony, or rhythm.
3.

1. A musical composition.
   
2. The written or printed score for such a composition.
   
3. Such scores considered as a group: We keep our music in a stack near the piano.

4. A musical accompaniment.
5. A particular category or kind of music.
6. An aesthetically pleasing or harmonious sound or combination of sounds: the music of the wind in the pines.


mu•sic noun, often attributive \ˈmyü-zik\

1:

1. the science or art of ordering tones or sounds in succession, in combination, and in temporal relationships to produce a composition having unity and continuity
   
2. vocal, instrumental, or mechanical sounds having rhythm, melody, or harmony

2:

1. an agreeable sound : euphony <her voice was music to my ears>
   
2. musical quality <the music of verse>

3: a musical accompaniment <a play set to music>
4: the score of a musical composition set down on paper
5: a distinctive type or category of music <there is a music for everybody — Eric Salzman>

---

Well if you are using that definition then you’d have to say that the rain hitting my roof is producing music. That hardly seems like a proper comparison to human created music.

As much as the drum solo in "In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida" or the drum solo in Take Five" by Dave Brubeck, but that is not what either of us mean.

A song bird sings a tune that is rhythmic and musical. It possible to put a bird song down on paper as sheet music and play it with different instruments. Is it Beethoven? No, but it follows the rules of rhythm and progression. This shows the capability of music in the genes. Hell, dinosaurs may have whistled tunes.

Anyway, the capability of music in the genes along with the higher intellect of man, presents us with the ability to create abstract music, i.e., beyond what is in our genes or what we hear. The first music was probably percussion (piano and harpsichord excluded) and vocal imitations of the song birds.

I fail to see why you cannot appreciate the music birds present us with and accept it as such, unless you are just stuck in argument mode, refusing to give in no matter what. Facts and empirical data be damned, full speed ahead. (and we have not yet touched on whales which create a unique song every year)

(October 26, 2011 at 8:54 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Yeah, you wouldn't call anything that exposes your bullshit for what it is what the rest of us call it, so I'm not sure why that should matter to anyone?

You know as time passes by you make less and less logical sense, maybe you should get that looked at. :-)

Yeah, actually I can. When someones work is picked over and determined to be bullshit by science at large, I get to say exactly that. In fact....thats exactly how the process works. You don't like it, and so you call apologetics science, but again, bullshit, and I don't know why anyone should care.

(October 26, 2011 at 8:56 pm)IATIA Wrote:

---

As much as the drum solo in "In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida" or the drum solo in Take Five" by Dave Brubeck, but that is not what either of us mean.

A song bird sings a tune that is rhythmic and musical. It possible to put a bird song down on paper as sheet music and play it with different instruments. Is it Beethoven? No, but it follows the rules of rhythm and progression. This shows the capability of music in the genes. Hell, dinosaurs may have whistled tunes.

Anyway, the capability of music in the genes along with the higher intellect of man, presents us with the ability to create abstract music, i.e., beyond what is in our genes or what we hear. The first music was probably percussion (piano and harpsichord excluded) and vocal imitations of the song birds.

I fail to see why you cannot appreciate the music birds present us with and accept it as such, unless you are just stuck in argument mode, refusing to give in no matter what. Facts and empirical data be damned, full speed ahead. (and we have not yet touched on whales which create a unique song every year)

---

No argument mode here, I am in a pretty chipper mood this evening. I already conceded to you that you could call birds singing music; I just don’t think it’s the same sort of thing as human music. I also think the only reason we consider it music is because humans have a musical ear. It’d be a stretch to say it is music to the bird itself.

I found something you said interesting….you said as far as our genes could take us? How is there anything past our genes? How can we do or think anything that is not determined in our genetic make-up? That seems like you are wandering astray from the naturalistic path on that one.

---

(October 26, 2011 at 8:56 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Yeah, actually I can. When someones work is picked over and determined to be bullshit by science at large, I get to say exactly that. In fact....thats exactly how the process works. You don't like it, and so you call apologetics science, but again, bullshit, and I don't know why anyone should care.

Scientific fact is not determined by consensus or majority.

It's determined by evidence. In this case, the evidence says bullshit, next?