When I first started posting on these boards back in January I thought I had fallen in with a group that was of the thinking that different equipment i.e. amplifiers, cables etc. had differing sonic signatures. After some “hate mail” (via PM’s) I quickly found out I was mistaken, and almost left. One member convinced me to stay, and while I did find some other members who shared my views, many did not. Scientific measure was the rule, any perceptions outside of this realm were imagined and subject to skepticism and even some ridicule. This thread seems to parallel the same ideas.
What I find to be interesting is the idea that if it can’t be detected/measured scientifically, it can’t exist. So many people demand proof, they are unwilling to believe in something that for others is very true. My question then to all of you then is this; why can’t both camps co-exist? This debate about creation vs. evolution has been going on far longer than any of us have been around, and when this thread finally makes its way to the pages of past threads, the debate will remain. Debate is good – it allows people to at the very least consider other view points while presenting theirs. But, arguing for the sake of argument is pointless.
If you find that you are the kind of person who vehemently feels they need quantifiable, verifiable, scientifically measured proof of something, it’s likely this thread will not change your mind. Likewise if you are sure and secure in your “beliefs”, whatever they may be. On the occasions I accompany my wife & kids to church, there is a part in the mass where the priest sings “Let us proclaim the mystery of faith”. I would say that for the believers, faith is a mystery, but one they are more than willing to seek clues about all their lives. Being a believer does not make one bad or wrong, just a believer. I have no disdain for those whose views are opposed to mine, and I hope this is universal.
