No! Still me as the last post.
Still waiting on that survey, brother.
I didn’t take you for an anti-science guy. That’s interesting. I’ve learned something new today.
And yet the dance continues….
Let’s go back to your original post.
Now this starts it off as if you’re really out to get someone. I think you were more about the victory than the idea.
My, how radical you must feel. Instead of one or the other, you took the other one. So what? What makes your choice any more different than any other? Any more radical?
Once again, can you prove it? I mean I hate to be “that guy”, brother, but can you prove it?
But then you can’t even get the empirical facts:
But then you can’t even get the empirical facts. This is what I said:
And this is what you said about it:
- You act like I asserted my point with absolute conviction.
- ?: at what point did I assert that evolution did not exist
- I didn’t imply anything. I suggested a possibility.
- Ears may have developed because there were sound waves for them to hear; but that says nothing about why sound waves existed in the first place. I merely made an inquiry. Why is that such a problem to you?
sounds waves exist because of air compression. that’s what sound waves are. just a pattern of material behavior.
Did you just get let out of prison
or what?
Thank you Dr. Hawkings.
But what does your having read some physics have to do with our particular impasse?
And saying sound waves are just a byproduct of air compression is a cop out.
Did you learn that dance from your guru?
I mean you haven’t answered to one of the points I made concerning your response to my OP.
Anyway:
love ya, man
(with qualifications
(but I gotta go to bed.
If you could get away with it, then that would invalidate all history. All we have of the past is rearranged rocks, a few fabricated objects and some scribbled symbols on stone and paper. No live witnesses.
Never heard of “rewriting history”?
No joke … philosophy.
If sound is defined as something a human can hear then a tree does not make a sound if there is no human to hear it. If it is defined as something that a human is capable of hearing then a falling tree does does make a sound because if a human was there, it would be heard. But if sound is only defined in terms of human capability then a dog whistle does not make a sound. If we extend the definition of sound to include animal hearing then a falling tree makes a sound if a bird is there to hear it. Can the definition of sound be extended to include plants? The sound waves are pressure waves and they will cause a plant to vibrate. Does that mean that a plant is hearing? If it is, then a falling tree always produces a sound.*
EDIT : * Unless it is falling in a ‘dead’ environment.
I can tell you from experience… they get a little pissy if you try to qualify your response. 
{{it means that you are missing their point}}
Sure. But the greatest ‘witness’ to past events is the arrangement of matter. We draw conclusions from that about what must have happened. Possibly wrong conclusions of course.
Yeah, that’s great for the physicists, but not so much for the sociologists and religions.
…and I don’t really know why you said “possibly”… humph… 
How would sociologists and religions approach it?
If you see a tree on the ground and examine it. You will conclude that it grew from the ground and then some event took place which caused it to come down. You did not actually see it grow but you know from previous experience- that is how trees are created so you assume that is what happened. Examining the arrangement of matter of the tree and around the tree will indicate what lead to its current position. The clues may indicate somebody cut it down with a chain saw. Let’s assume that is correct. Now you may not be familiar with beavers and when you see a tree brought down by beavers you may come to the incorrect conclusion that it was cut down by a human with a special axe.
Well, to answer both questions at once;
You see the tree that appears to have been cut down. You don’t like your Christian neighbor and you know the owner of the property is Atheist. So you don’t hesitate to point out to the Atheist that it appears that his Christian neighbor finally got tired of that old tree. “But then, I know a really sneaky way to get back at him… if you want.” 
LOL. You got me. I can’t deny that it might play out that way.
When a tree falls in a forest and there is no life et al to hear it, then it makes sound waves ~ but is that the quality of sound which life-forms experience? We cant say about other life-forms, but for humans I assume that the qualia of sound is much like that of light; the brain calibrates light/sound/sensations but that is not what the senses see/hear touch etc.
Put it this way, if one could use human eyes as lenses for a video camera, what that camera records would not be anything like what we actually see. The imprint of light on the back of the eye is rearranged and calibrated by the brain, and assumedly its much the same for all the senses.
Hence; if there is no-one around to hear the sound of a tree falling, then it makes no sound - that we know as sound. The sound waves are a different things to the sound we experience, who knows what they actually sound like, or if that can readily be called ‘sound’. we hear the same sounds, so one would think that there is some correlation between the ‘sound’ emitted by a thing and the sound we hear. …but that doesn’t make them the same thing, it makes them two related things!
_