Riddle me this, evolutionists:

the oldest noted instrument is 56000 years old and is a bear femur.
the story goes that they were sucking the marrow out and liked the noise

>>138343683
So is your argument that natural selection acted upon people who liked the sound of bear femurs over those who didn't and now we have music; did you think citing a bearily-relevant fact constitutes an argument; or were you just sharing something neat?

>>138344481
just sharing something neat. i dont really get where you are trying to go with the thread, notes are mathematically correct and chords are based on harmony.

>>138343324
> Any music that didn't exist to be acted upon by natural selection did not evolve.

Music doesn't have heritable traits and isn't subject to natural selection. Nothing else in your logic follows.

>>138344676
>notes are mathematically correct and chords are based on harmony.
Association fallacy. Just because a property of a naturally-existent thing (debatable. see "nominalism") is shared by another thing, doesn't mean that other thing naturally exists. You need to explain how your factoids imply your conclusion.
>i dont really get where you are trying to go with the thread
Two arguments are clearly and explicitly presented, basically:
"Uncreated music doesn't happen in nature, thus modern music can't have evolved, thus neither did we," and "Experience of music, or anything really, is unnecessary and therefore wouldn't be selected."

riddle me this

>post this thread
>post it again a few hours later

Y tho

>>138345447
also,
sage

>>138345439
>naturally-existent thing
it's just frequency and how it's arranged and noted isn't natural. music is just organised sound, if it wasn't organised it wouldn't be music (by my definition anyway).
>shared by another thing
it's only one thing, frequency.
>Uncreated music doesn't happen in nature
i have no idea what that means.

spell out your argument concisely.

Are you saying that noise on earth, in the universe, etc is unorganised and chaotic therefore to have some thing organised God must've created it?
I'm genuinely confused as to what you are trying to say

>>138343324
>>>/sci/

come back op, i dont get it

>>138346129
It's also a false equivalence between notes and harmony, and music and experience of music, m8. Maybe these are equivlanet down undah, but not anywhere logic applies.

>>138343324
>merrikans

>>138349159
so
you think music is proof of god ?

>>138349159
i was mostly talking about the notes, which is just frequency of radiation that we have ascribed names for.
as for the rest of "what music is", that is tempo, timing and rhythm. You can have rhythm with out timing though, if i drop a coin on the ground the positions in time that noise is made is the rhythm, it doesn't have to be organised in a timing or tempo structure. but i dont see that as music as it isnt organised.
>experience of music
we all feel it differently.

>>138349494
If evolution or God is a dichotomy, it would be, if music is proof that we didn't evolve. Sometimes stating things so simply doesn't allow for necessary appreciation of the implicit premises... but this is proof of God: https://pastebin.com/eaEGgUa3

>>138349946
tl:dr
>if god doesnt exist life has no meaning
>life has meaning
>therfore god exists
Every 3 or 4 points boil down to this type of stupidity

>>138344732

Sexual selection retard. Brains like interesting patterns, they are just pattern matching machines after all.

Guys who were more interesting musically got laid more, had more kids.

See birds for an animal example. Even today some species create NEW songs, the more complex, the more female interest and offspring.

>>138349861

Notes have a specific mathematical relationship with each other. The exact frequency is arbitrary, but the distance between notes of any tuning is not.

imagination.

>>138343324
Jesus christ. It's almost like you're so retarded that you've never heard of Darwin tunes.

https://m.soundcloud.com/uncoolbob/darwintunes-evolution-of-music?in=uncoolbob/sets/darwintunes

>>138349946

so things you don't understand and/or give your life meaning count as proof something exists? this is why people think religion is stupid, idiots like you who are mentally retarded

ah look it's the idiot who thinks he can use completely incorrect logic to answer atheism. only now it's stupid drivel about music.

>>138349946
>that pastebin

Complete and utter autism

>>138343324
What the fuck are you talking about?