Aren't Science vs. Creation Debates......rather pointless?

[IATIA]

For example, recently I was debating with a guy whether if perfect pitch is a 'learned ability' or an ability people are simply 'born-with it'. I have perfect pitch and I learned it about 13 years ago as a teenager and my skill actually exceeded many of those that were 'born-with-it'.  Anyway, so my argument was simple: Since obviously our notation system is a man-made system, and not made by nature, obviously there is no way to be 'born-with-it'.

Birds? Whales?

[brewer]

A new creationist always comes around thinking that they have the answer. Have yet to see one but that does not stop them.

[Ravenshire]

Dude... what's an "intensive purpose"?

A mangling of "intents and purposes" maybe?

[robvalue]

The Nye-Ham debate might have exposed some kids there for the first time to a straight representation of how evolution works and what it is.

To me, this is the benefit of debates. The audience at home can think about what's being said, learn some things, and maybe be brought round to a more rational way of thinking. This is the intended target.

If you remove that audience, for example in a private debate with an entrenched theist, there is probably no point at all.

[Socratic Meth Head]

Nothing is really pointless. Everything has a point. The point of Evolution and creation debates are to try and debunk the opposing side of what someone defines as truth. I learned a lot from these debates. Tiktallik (i probably spelled that wrong, spellcheck is disabled on my phone for some reason),and Pre-Cambrian fossils. Hell, it was the debates mainly that led me to the conclusion that since we have no evidence for a god of any kind, then he probably doesnt exist.

[maestroanth]

---

Well, by semantics I mean when it doesn't add value to the argument.

---

---

My point is that he didn't have a good argument so he attacked the semantics by saying that 'young children don't learn it, they simply have exposure to it early' which pissed me off because really? You say tomato, I say tom-ah-to, it's the same fucking thing we're both referring to. So I didn't reply and tallied it as my victory since no one will ever admit defeat over the internet.  Likewise, I feel like a lot religious people go the same rutty route in their arguments.....

And......I already gave examples of what I consider as actual learning. From what I can tell of epistemology in a quick google search, I feel the same about that concept too. Arguing over what constitutes a 'justified belief' vs 'opinion' is just silly and distracting 

(BTW, please don't let this stray off topic about perfect pitch in future replies...thanks! )

---

---

---

Ya, that pretty much summarizes how I feel and I always feel guilty when I click on a 'Dawkins vs. some Christian Guy' debate over the calculus tutorial which is 100000 times more interesting but requires focus.  - it's like eating ice cream when I should be eating a salad, ;P  

---

Now, I wonder why you didn't want this thread to stray off topic into perfect pitch? Is is possibly because you did no research into the subject and didn't know what the fuck you were pontificating about? I have a doctorate in music. Perfect/absolute pitch studies have been quite popular for the last thirty years or so.  In a nutshell, it has been found that the vast majority of humans have the ability to identify pitches, but if they don't have cognitive labels to hang that knowledge on early - while they are forming language - the ability is almost never gained in adulthood.  There have been studies on the curricula that attempt to teach it, but no results that rule out a pre-existing ability gained in an early life environment.  
http://discovermagazine.com/2001/dec/featbiology    Diana Deutsch is the current leader for cognitive tonality studies.
"Certain genes may help some people acquire perfect pitch more easily than others, but Deutsch's findings suggest that almost anyone can learn to label notes—provided they start young. Children who don't learn to do it by the time they learn the rudiments of language may never gain the ability."
It's also clearly understood - - dozens of studies - - that tonal language speakers develop perfect pitch at a much higher rate than speakers of non-tonal languages.  http://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/05/us/stu...guage.html
'What it means to me is that people have a very accurate memory for musical pitch,'' said Dr. Daniel Levitin, a cognitive psychologist at McGill University in Montreal who has studied perfect pitch. Louis Svard gives a 2013 overview of absolute pitch studies here: http://www.themusiciansbrain.com/?p=190

My younger brother has absolute pitch at a very high level. A door can squeak and he can tell you what pitch it was. He clearly had the predisposition, but gained that skill by listening to me press piano keys and name the notes. I have it at a much lower level than he does, because I was 4 years old before I started assigning names to pitches.  

Since you apparently like to brag about how you are "better" than people who are "born-with-it", you will obviously trot out your superiority to someone else for the sake of stroking your own ego.  Perhaps if you read up on your subject, instead of pulling "facts" out of your ass, you might actually sound intelligent.

I hit a nerve somewhere.  I really don't appreciate your tone. Plus you're all talk, I can find numerous of tests testifying to the same stuff you mention everywhere, and I was even part of a California study which 'of course' testified to the same thing. My point is, there are exceptions and statistical outliers. - I was I think only one out of two that actually passed their exam with flying colors that also had no early training in perfect pitch and music in general. I actually stayed quite in close touch with the professor doing those studies too since you accused me of "not doing any research".

I've actually walked the walk learning perfect pitch and been part of a couple studies. So if you want me to respect your 'doctorate in music', then you should respect what I accomplished as well and also sound professional in your responses. It's hard to take you seriously when you have lines like, " Perhaps if you read up on your subject, instead of pulling "facts" out of your ass, you might actually sound intelligent," and "Is is possibly because you did no research into the subject and didn't know what the fuck you were pontificating about?" Those are lines an arrogant, whiney teenager would say - not an educated professional.

And I hate to say it, but I have a master's in music too, and those degrees are a lot easier to come by than in most scientific fields. I have a second masters but in computer science and it was a lot harder. Anyway to show my "walk", feel free to check out http://www.prolobe.com and it has oodles of concrete statistics there under two usernames I had: maestroanth and curiousgeorge. You should maybe try that program yourself sometime too instead of finding more studies by psychologists with questionable musical skills to quote, but I think your mind is already set.

If you are still angry and want to argue about this, then there is a forum there too on that site where you can post so it's not off-topic.

[maestroanth]

For example, recently I was debating with a guy whether if perfect pitch is a 'learned ability' or an ability people are simply 'born-with it'. I have perfect pitch and I learned it about 13 years ago as a teenager and my skill actually exceeded many of those that were 'born-with-it'.  Anyway, so my argument was simple: Since obviously our notation system is a man-made system, and not made by nature, obviously there is no way to be 'born-with-it'.

Birds? Whales?

---

Birds? Whales?

[Silver]

The debate is only pointless due to theists who cannot differentiate reason from mythology.

[AFTT47]

It's often pointless because creationists want to debate facts - something I refuse to do. If something is classified as a fact it's because there is no more room for debate. The debate's over. Such is the case with evolution. It's NOT the case with abiogenesis but we do KNOW present lifeforms have evolved from simpler ones over a period of several billion years. I firmly believe that debating said fact gives false justification that there is any doubt that it is fact. So not only is it pointless, it's harmful and misleading.

[maestroanth]

For example, recently I was debating with a guy whether if perfect pitch is a 'learned ability' or an ability people are simply 'born-with it'. I have perfect pitch and I learned it about 13 years ago as a teenager and my skill actually exceeded many of those that were 'born-with-it'.  Anyway, so my argument was simple: Since obviously our notation system is a man-made system, and not made by nature, obviously there is no way to be 'born-with-it'.

Birds? Whales?

They can't name notes......