A stupidity of Darwinism: "There was never a time when there were only two humans!"

[Stuu]

There is no way something can have deep meaning without explaining that deep meaning and it amounts to circular reasoning: Meaning is in the universe BECAUSE meaning is there, else there is none. Same with beauty or any other enjoyment. You know by more than just intuition, a sense that something with meaning made something meaningful when you eat a vanilla (or other) ice cream cone. There is no question in your mind (mind you: sight unseen ) that something happened "on purpose." Do you turn your mind off simply because you didn't see anybody make something you enjoy? I've a suspicion: You don't like "Who" but that figure is very much a 'good' being else you'd just end your life without enjoyment etc. You SHOULD become a bit more philosophical. You stop short when the REALLY important questions start being asked. A baseball bat is a quick and real reality upside the head, but without philosophy, its a bludgeon instead of equipment for something good. You lose the whole point by not asking.

I’m not really that interested in whether a sound is made when a tree falls in a forest but there is no one there clapping one hand. It doesn’t stimulate me to think more deeply or creatively, it just reminds me how much valuable lifetime others have already drawn me into wasting on this claptrap. The last occasion was a work colleague who tried out Xeno’s paradox on me. A clever thing, eh? Well the ‘paradox’ isn’t a paradox because we know that space is quantised, so there is a minimum distance you have to cover every time you try to cross the room. Does a sound get made if a tree falls in a forest but there is no one there to hear? Yes, of course one does. What a stupid question. And so on!

I am hedonist enough to enjoy ice cream just as a pure experience: the most interesting reflection I do on that is to think about what has led to the working of my brain that causes this sensation, and what evolutionary history has led to the biochemistry that provides pleasurable experience in seeking out and consuming energy-rich foods. Creationism deprives its believers of being prepped to speculate in that way, which is a shame.

While in this thread I have set a goal to present evidence for common descent, so many of the objections raised are equivocation points of the terminology of the philosophy of science. Pretty much none of the discussion is about the evidence presented. I guess people write about what they know, and ignore new things that take some effort to learn about. So in regards to me ‘becoming a bit more philosophical’, you should try reading some of the defense of scientific epistemology I have attempted. It’s the majority of my posts in this thread. I wish others posting here would become a bit more philosophically informed, then we could get to the interesting stuff, which isn’t about philosophy at all.

Sorry, shallow. There is no 'happy' in ignorance. It is my intention to tell you, you have it completely backwards. Such is the problem every atheist I've ever met. Not only no desire for imagination, but a problem with its existence. There is more than a reason (plausible, pliable, and real) for appreciations of things unseen or hard to test. Once you dissect a thing, it is dead and something of the other is lost: the life, habits, patterns, beauty. Science BETTER get with the program and not have its head in the sand else it is missing AND denying things that make life worth the effort in the first place. "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy" but also makes Jack miss life and the very meaning to it.

You write about what you know. Fair enough. You don’t know my life’s experiences though. Had you considered whether these atheists with such a paucity of curiosity might be holding back on you? I’m sorry to tell you that although I have had some pretty long and animated discussions with devoted christians face-to-face, most of them charming, articulate and intelligent, I just find it very difficult to trust them. It’s not that I would suspect them of dishonesty, just a kind of shallowness of observation. By all means trust such people to look after children for a period, or be your accountant, but don’t let them draft laws, write school curricula or do anything where many people are depending on their skills in policy analysis and criticism. Can you imagine the TV news where the editor encouraged his (it would be a him) evangelical staff to just follow their hearts? “This evening the will of god was on show as a train collided with a bus. Unfortunately no souls were reaped by heaven, and all crash victims are recovering in hospital, by his grace. We will now lead the country in prayer for Jesus to enter the hearts of the non-believers involved.’ Would you wish for that? Is it beautiful? Doesn’t it sound bizarre? Doesn’t it make you think of Thomas Jefferson as a man of supreme insight?

I don’t know you well enough to say, but meeting you for the first time and on discovering the extent of your religious dedication, my natural reaction might be to hold back and not share honestly with you in the way people might expect face-to-face. The bottom line is that I find it really hard to trust people who are committed to the ideal that there is a master mind running the universe. I just find myself wondering how much they have bothered to observe their surroundings and think about the implications of that bizarre idea, especially the ones who think they know more than biologists and geologists. Christianity is a powerful meme, I guess, and it’s likely genetic I keep trying to tell myself. As for what it’s really like not to believe all that, well I think I wouldn't be telling you. It’s too socially awkward. Maybe you could try telling me more about how impoverished my imagination is, and see if that encourages me to be more candid.

It is more than that. You are trying to reason from a shallow pool instead of appreciating the thing. I'd challenge every person I know, before they get clinical, to remember that most clinics are in the employment of extending life and quality. What for? Just to keep you preoccupied until the inevitable? Not really living, just elongating dying and watching the next television episode without realizing or asking why it is you enjoy such in the first place. In many ways, it is really just selective. You find religion to be the narrow view but really haven't looked at how narrow your own is. We gravitate where we are comfortable and should work a bit at entertaining, at least, another's thought and worldview.

You are unlikely to know the depth of my view, because I haven’t shared all of it with you. You think I am incapable of understanding your view, and perhaps I don’t entirely, but I once tried the Atkins diet so I do have some idea of what it is like to be pathologically addicted to dogma, and be evangelical about it as well. I think you could be genetically incapable of understanding my view even if I did get much more deeply into it.

How is your worldview going?

Very well thanks, in the sense that I can claim to base it on things that can reasonably be said to be true.

Happy, satisfied and complete? Why then join a theology website? Just to cement your convictions further?

Well it’s cheaper and better for one’s liver than heavy drinking.

Why do you believe many of us aren't satisfied with just the physical universe?

It’s because you don’t know enough about it.

I've had God interact in my life way too often to not know Who is doing it. The Bible talks about wheat and tares. Maybe tares cannot see the point of wheat and perhaps wheat cannot see the reason for the existence of tares, simply because they really are two different things, akin to a blind man not being able to see colors nor knowing if he/she can trust someone who says they see.

Your brain, and mine, is adapted acutely to pattern-seeking. We will see a face in any round thing with dots in it. Neither of us will find it easy to ignore an unusual sound in the room. We are amazed at the occurrence of what we think are rare chance events because we see patterns but we are useless at statistics, at keeping track of all the mundane experiences. We see patterns where none really exists, because it has been safer to be cautious than to be negligent. Those who paid no attention to the rustling sound in the shrubbery of the African Savannah got eaten by a sabre-tooth, so those people’s genes don’t exist any more. The genes that exist are the ones that made their owners think that every rustle was a saber-tooth, even when it wasn’t.

And while you have immunised yourself from thinking about the world this way by adopting a complicated, illogical and evidence-denying creationist worldview, it is still true that both of our brains bear this legacy. So when you say to someone that you have special experiences and you know which agent is at work, that you know some people cannot see what you can see, just remember we all carry the sound of the sabre-tooth, rustling in the background through the hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution. It’s just that some of us have worked out how to tell the difference between the sabre-tooth and the wind.

See, this is why you SHOULD entertain ideas a bit further, like Genesis 2 coming from dirt.

We have made some progress you know. Ancient Jewish creation myths aren’t as brilliant as new stuff like digital watches and FM radio, and evolutionary theory too. If there is any consistency in Jewish culture I would have thought those ancients would have been amazed by our recent discoveries in all scientific fields and would have replaced the whole creation mythology of Genesis with a textbook of modern science straight away. Wouldn’t you, in their position?

The bible also talks about wheat and tares, sheep and goats, etc. If there is genuinely a different between us, then genetically you 'could not' change your spots nor could I. I don't think this way. The story of the wheat and tares, sheep and goats, etc all are written in the hope that spots can change. I tend toward B.F.Skinner and Pavlov in my psychology, but there is a good reason why tabula rosa is given in the same class: it forces us to consider another's point of view and it forces Sociology as the next class.

So you mean you are not necessarily stuck with a creationist viewpoint permanently? That’s the good news of Jesus in action. Didn’t he come to spare you from all that?

It shows no appreciation for 'different.' Science is about most often finding commonality/reproducibility, classifications and shared information but it is also important to see what isn't the same, what has changed, and importantly, 'why' such should be. Simply 'surviving' isn't a sufficient drive in life. "Survival of the fittest" is its own moral value and presupposes 'reason.' MANY science assumptions are carried by reason and meaning, implicit in the universe AND most often without wondering 'why.' Such minds stop short of continuing to ask the more pertinent and most important questions such as "why" and "bother?" The 'reason' why and bother is because there is a 'reason' for why and bother.

It occurs to me that maybe you think science is an entirely logical process. Logic is only one aspect of it. Empirical evidence is the other, and is the ruling half.

'Why bother' to a scientist could easily be met with something like this: there isn’t enough lifetime to try to answer all the questions I have about this situation I find myself in. Humans could be the unique thing that universe has produced that allows it to observe and think about itself. What a concept that is. Let’s get on with it, and try to cope with the reality that during our short opportunity of decades, none of us individually will never see the fullest picture that will be possible by our collective effort as a species to understand our universe and how it works. Never mind, of all the times we could have lived up to now, the present is always going to be the most intellectually satisfying time. No intelligent person should be wasting his time with Genesis these days. No one would write Genesis today.

As for why questions, I can’t think of any worth asking. Ask how, and we might be getting somewhere.

Interesting talk.

Stuart

 

[Clete]

I would have to agree. Not exactly zero chance, but it may as well be zero. This is exactly the status of evolution by natural selection too.

If you lie again, the discussion will be over. I'm not kidding. I don't think this sort of stupidity is funny.

If you could ride those photons of light you would see it differently.

Do you even notice when you've contradicted yourself within a single sentence?

You would swear you were travelling straight.

Do you know the difference between a fact and a theory?

There is a similar sort of effect in the Large Hadron Collider. From an observer’s point of view there are protons whizzing around a track of 27km circumference, something like 11,000 times a second. My understanding is at that speed there is so much dilation of spacetime that the track is about four metres long, from a proton’s point of view. The effect you are describing was a prediction of Einstein that was confirmed in 1919 by Arthur Eddington, who took photos of the sky at night and during a solar eclipse, and showed a change in the apparent position of a star due to the presence of the sun. There are similar effects visible in Hubble photographs. But the point is, this is relativity, and so you can’t only see things from one frame of reference and expect to comprehend the whole picture.

NO NO NO NO!!!! How can you not see that you are making the very error that you are accusing me of?!

Do you understand the difference between empirical fact and theoretical explanations of those facts?

I fully understand that the observed fact that light bends around massive bodies was looked for because of predictions made by Einstein's THEORIES but those facts are only evidence in support of the theory but they are not proof of it, as you should automatically agree with based on the position you are defending in this discussion. In other words, the facts stand on the basis of the fact that we can observe the phenomenon, not on the basis of a theory that predicted the phenomenon. The light was bending around the sun long before Einstein ever existed and the fact that it does so will not change whether Einstein's theories persist or not.

You wrote:

Are you sure you wish to stick with your assertion that ‘finding a four leaf clover meant you had the luck of the Irish’ is a scientific theory that was disproved?!

I never once suggested that it was at all a scientific theory. It was a belief that was disproved (i.e. proved false) by science. It serves as a perfect counter example to your completely baseless assertion that science cannot prove anything.

Are you saying that No True Scotsman would have locked up Galileo?

This is typical. When people want to discredit your unassailable argument but have no real way of doing it, they imply that you've made a logical error but fail to make any sort of argument that lends any credence to the accusation.

In short, all you've done here is make a bald assertion, the very thing you routinely accuse Judgerightly of doing.

The fact is that the bible is a widely available book that very nearly anyone can read in their native language. It teaches very specific things and it very specifically does not teach other things like the notion that the Earth is the center of the universe, for example. It very simply never teaches that anywhere at all - period. Nor does it teach anyone ought to be placed under house arrest (much less executed) for daring to teach doctrine contrary to the accepted dogma. Thus, I can factually and with totally rational certitude make the assertion that neither their actions nor their doctrine where based on the bible nor anything else that could be rightly called "Christian".

That is exactly how I would describe your god. Meantime, if you are interested in what spacetime is, I recommend reading about it.

You're such a condescending ***.

I majored in physics while in college and have been reading books about relativity since the 80s. I remember reading a book called "The Dancing Wu Li Masters". That brilliant book about physics along with another book that isn't about physics at all entitled "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" caused me realize that it was philosophy that I was actually interested in, not physics. A course change which had a disastrous effect on my college career but has allowed me to learn how to spot frauds like yourself from miles away.

So no scientific theory has been subsequently proved wrong ever? What happened to the theory of the Luck of the Irish?

Reading comprehension is the discipline to which you need to commit yourself!

I never said, nor implied any such thing! Quite entirely the opposite!

Newton’s physics is generally applicable to common practical situations for humans and other species, and is still the basis for most engineering and so on. But Newton’s physics would not have worked for satellite technology because satellites move fast enough that relativity becomes significant. Yes, Einstein answered new questions, but he also showed the limitations of Newton.

Utterly irrelevant to the point, except that you are now arguing my side of this debate!

That is, unless you are unwilling to admit that the limitations of Newtonian gravity has NOT been proven scientifically.

Regarding Copernicus, aren’t you confusing him with Kepler? Kepler used Brahe’s data to formulate the laws of planetary motion that describe elliptical orbits. Copernicus was heliocentrism. And isn’t a circle just a special case of an ellipse? Given the incomprehensible number of bodies in orbit around other bodies in the universe, there must be at least one that is orbiting in a circular path within the error of measurement. Or perhaps there are thousands or millions that are.

Elliptical orbits weren't actually Kepler's idea, he simply proved it. Copernicus was the guy who got the whole ball rolling down a scientific road. Indeed, many give Copernicus credit for getting the whole scientific revolution and, by extension, the enlightenment, the industrial revolution and basically our entire modern world started. Even if that is an overstatement, he was certainly one of the most important scientific pioneers in the history of mankind.

Stuu: In layperson’s terms, climate change by anthropogenic carbon emissions and evolution by natural selection (the two that you are thinking of) are proved beyond any doubt.

It looks like I picked quite accurately the two you were thinking of.

As though I was making it hard to figure out. How pompous are you?!

If you find the use of computer modelling shocking, you should stay away from scientific research facilities (Spoiler: they are used all the time to make testable predictions). Of course you are right to champion experiment and the collection of empirical evidence; evidence rules all else in science. But my point is about controversy. For example, the physics that explains the composition and behaviour of atoms comes from ideas in both quantum physics and relativity, two areas that are notoriously difficult to reconcile.

The contradictory cannot be reconciled. That's precisely the reason we know for a fact that neither of those two THEORIES are anything other than just that, theories! Just because your two favorite flavors of physics cannot be proven, doesn't mean that science is incapable of proving anything at all.

And I don't find computer modeling shocking in the least. It is a brilliant tool to use for scientific investigation but computer modeling is not science in and of itself. EVERYTHING and I mean every single solitary thing that you think you know about climate change is ENTIRELY based solely upon computer models and nothing else whatsoever - nothing! The exact same sort of computer models that can't predict the weather further out than about four days, is used to tell the world that mankind is altering the climate on the scale of decades and centuries. It's laughably ridiculous nonsense. (Well, I shouldn't say, that its based on nothing at all other than computer models! It is also based on cherry picked "evidence" and unfalsifiable (i.e. irrational) argumentation that is designed to convince (i.e. scare) the public. In fact, its based as much on that as it is on computer models.)

Have you worn a face mask lately? If so, its because politicians accept computer models as science. They tell you that rules requiring the wearing of masks to prevent the spread of corona virus is based on science when in fact it's based on someone's computer model that makes calculations based on someone's assumptions about the effectiveness of masks. The actual science makes it crystal clear that masks have no effect whatsoever on the spread of such viruses.

Electrons in the inner shell of mercury atoms move faster than in lighter atoms like hydrogen, and so their mass is greater which means the radius of their orbit is smaller which then allows the nucleus to attract the outer electrons more. This means the outer electrons are less able to be attracted to other atoms so the metallic bonding is weaker, and the melting point is lower: mercury is a liquid metal at room temperature. However, quantum physics says that the electron occupies its orbital space and doesn’t plummet into the nucleus because electrons are standing waves with a wave function that defines the space they occupy. Atoms are ‘possible’ because of this effect. Working out how the relativistic effects and the quantum effects work together has been controversial and the source of much argument for well over 100 years.

How many dozens of facts, all of which have been proven by science, did you just imply or use a logical basis for this otherwise entirely irrelevant comment?

For example...

Do we know for a fact that Hydrogen is lighter than Mercury?

Do we know for a fact that electrons exist?

Do we know for a fact that atoms exist?

Do we know for a fact that atoms have nuclei that electrons orbit around?

What is a room?

What is temperature?

Do standing waves actually exist?

If I tried hard enough, I bet I could find over 100 things that are known facts that have been proven by science that made it possible for you to have ever had that comment in your mind, never mind typed in out on one of the most sophisticated machines that have every been produced by the mind of man.

By comparison, evolution by natural selection is so simple it’s almost obviously right, although of course that’s not good enough for something to attain the status of a proper scientific theory, so it still took the genius and courage of Charles Darwin to collect evidence, formalize the theory and publish it.

Stuart

There is exactly ZERO evidence that evolution has happened - period.

Regardless of variety, finches are finches nonetheless.

 

[Clete]

Of course I repeat myself (just has you also have), since you're not listening.

A common coding system is NOT, ipso facto, evidence that ALL life descended from a SINGLE common ancestor.

It just isn't and no amount of YOUR ad nauseam fallacy will change that.

What stuu is either ignorant of or is intentionally ignoring is the fact that the existence of a common coding system (DNA) is only affirmative evidence for a single common ancestor IF one interprets it as such. In other words, stuu is begging the question. He must assume the veracity of his position in order to interpret DNA as affirmative evidence for his position. This logical error is ubiquitous throughout main stream science today. From relativity to evolution to climate change to big bang cosmology or whatever (you can almost name any discipline), those who buy into the paradigm cannot see around the colored lenses which they are wearing. Its a severe problem in modern science which is only ever exacerbated by the fact that people are more and more willing and able to isolate themselves away from dissenting voices and only interact among those who reside firmly within their own paradigmatic echo chamber. As a result, natural selection becomes evolution, clocks become time, and there's a super massive black hole behind every cosmic bush. Worse than that, most major scientific disciplines have become unfalsifiable and have more in common with pagan religions than with anything that can rightly be recognized as science.

Clete

 

[Lon]

I’m not really that interested in whether a sound is made when a tree falls in a forest but there is no one there clapping one hand. It doesn’t stimulate me to think more deeply or creatively, it just reminds me how much valuable lifetime others have already drawn me into wasting on this claptrap.

1) Yet you still habit TOL 2) You've gone for the more absurd. Science alone answers whether a tree makes noise. It doesn't ask or answer 'meaning.' 3) YOU are expressing 'meaning' so are ignoring/ignorant of the importance WHILE displaying it!

The last occasion was a work colleague who tried out Xeno’s paradox on me. A clever thing, eh? Well the ‘paradox’ isn’t a paradox because we know that space is quantised, so there is a minimum distance you have to cover every time you try to cross the room. Does a sound get made if a tree falls in a forest but there is no one there to hear? Yes, of course one does. What a stupid question. And so on!

Again, the simpler of questions and paradox aren't that captivating. I'm not really interested in trees or bears activity that supposedly may change when I'm not there. However, I am interested in trees, have done some work, and I am interested in bears.

I am hedonist enough to enjoy ice cream just as a pure experience: the most interesting reflection I do on that is to think about what has led to the working of my brain that causes this sensation, and what evolutionary history has led to the biochemistry that provides pleasurable experience in seeking out and consuming energy-rich foods. Creationism deprives its believers of being prepped to speculate in that way, which is a shame.

No. Your foolishness is just as foolish as the next guy's you just don't see it and are making a 'value' statement chocked full of 'meaning' that isn't supposed to be there, if we are undirected entities. You simply do not have a desire to wonder at the where's and why's. It will even affect your science and your experience will always be shallower for it. You simply must (necessity) ask more, not less, of actual/pertinent questions. Ignoring them or likening them to the more base questions? It is either a coping mechanism or you truly don't think deeply as is fitting the most sentient of beings on this planet.

While in this thread I have set a goal to present evidence for common descent, so many of the objections raised are equivocation points of the terminology of the philosophy of science. Pretty much none of the discussion is about the evidence presented. I guess people write about what they know, and ignore new things that take some effort to learn about. So in regards to me ‘becoming a bit more philosophical’, you should try reading some of the defense of scientific epistemology I have attempted. It’s the majority of my posts in this thread. I wish others posting here would become a bit more philosophically informed, then we could get to the interesting stuff, which isn’t about philosophy at all.

Let me entertain your position for a moment: If it were ever proved that birds came from dinosaurs without feathers, I'm fairly convinced DNA would make them both 'kinds.' The Bible presentation doesn't go far into what is meant by words, but Hebrew was a very basic language and the vocabulary was limited. A good many of the Hebrew words would have been pulling double-duty and triple. We do have a bit of that in English and context drives meaning. "Kind" is driven by theology understanding but I could augment my understanding based on what is given. We either do that, or, as is evidence on TOL even, continue arguing for a flat earth. Much of discussion on TOL over these aren't that earth-shaking and don't hinder either science or theology from moving along. Such discussion is good as far as challenging notions as compared to observation.

You write about what you know. Fair enough. You don’t know my life’s experiences though. Had you considered whether these atheists with such a paucity of curiosity might be holding back on you? I’m sorry to tell you that although I have had some pretty long and animated discussions with devoted christians face-to-face, most of them charming, articulate and intelligent, I just find it very difficult to trust them. It’s not that I would suspect them of dishonesty, just a kind of shallowness of observation. By all means trust such people to look after children for a period, or be your accountant, but don’t let them draft laws, write school curricula or do anything where many people are depending on their skills in policy analysis and criticism. Can you imagine the TV news where the editor encouraged his (it would be a him) evangelical staff to just follow their hearts? “This evening the will of god was on show as a train collided with a bus. Unfortunately no souls were reaped by heaven, and all crash victims are recovering in hospital, by his grace. We will now lead the country in prayer for Jesus to enter the hearts of the non-believers involved.’ Would you wish for that? Is it beautiful? Doesn’t it sound bizarre? Doesn’t it make you think of Thomas Jefferson as a man of supreme insight?

No, not really an option on my side. While atheists have 'tried' to explain these interactions away, they are very inadequate and contrived. They just don't listen. There is no possibility of coincidence by precision and frequency. Going on then, to your televangelist, I'm equally distanced as you are, and in a similar manner as I qualify mechanics: Some just aren't that good and over a barrel, will take people for their money. Such doesn't make me distrust all mechanics. Some actually are very good at what they do and are capable of delivering. The key then, is not to trust any theologian, but know which is which.

I don’t know you well enough to say, but meeting you for the first time and on discovering the extent of your religious dedication, my natural reaction might be to hold back and not share honestly with you in the way people might expect face-to-face. The bottom line is that I find it really hard to trust people who are committed to the ideal that there is a master mind running the universe.

I've seen that through the years you've been on TOL. I also appreciate reservation. I'm not sure divulge-nce is necessary on TOL. The information is the important substance and I believe there is meaning enough here.

I just find myself wondering how much they have bothered to observe their surroundings and think about the implications of that bizarre idea, especially the ones who think they know more than biologists and geologists. Christianity is a powerful meme, I guess, and it’s likely genetic I keep trying to tell myself. As for what it’s really like not to believe all that, well I think I wouldn't be telling you. It’s too socially awkward. Maybe you could try telling me more about how impoverished my imagination is, and see if that encourages me to be more candid.

Sure, you can take a slight for it, if that is your only take-away, but that wasn't the intent. It was to get you to ask questions you are not asking. Think of it like a dirty face: you can take offense or simply go wash. I'm not thinking this is a permanent part of your character, nor that you are anywise stuck with it. If I made fun of the insufficiency, I'd think you'd have grounds for offense, but why take one when the answer is simply: ask these questions?

You are unlikely to know the depth of my view, because I haven’t shared all of it with you. You think I am incapable of understanding your view, and perhaps I don’t entirely, but I once tried the Atkins diet so I do have some idea of what it is like to be pathologically addicted to dogma, and be evangelical about it as well. I think you could be genetically incapable of understanding my view even if I did get much more deeply into it.

We've talked a little about this already. If tares and wheat are in the same company (with minds by analogy), the one doesn't comprehend the other. In short, that there would be agreement on the difference, or at least can be, both theologically and scientifically. It means I don't disagree with you. There is precedence, strong in both circles.

Very well thanks, in the sense that I can claim to base it on things that can reasonably be said to be true.


Well it’s cheaper and better for one’s liver than heavy drinking.


It’s because you don’t know enough about it.

Perhaps. I'm from a family of scientists. One is a paleontologist, a bit heavy on the 'anti' of theist. I'm sad for him because he's not been able or apt to talk about the issues with me. He simply prefers to walk the other way instead of talk about them. One of his largest issues is regarding homosexuality and the God who is, to the best of his knowledge sampling of the Christian community, against it. His anger about it and a few other issues leaves him in avoidance. He doesn't see the willful ignorance and 'hurt' that causes him to retract instead of investigate. The rest of the science members in my family are Christians.

Your brain, and mine, is adapted acutely to pattern-seeking. We will see a face in any round thing with dots in it. Neither of us will find it easy to ignore an unusual sound in the room. We are amazed at the occurrence of what we think are rare chance events because we see patterns but we are useless at statistics, at keeping track of all the mundane experiences. We see patterns where none really exists, because it has been safer to be cautious than to be negligent. Those who paid no attention to the rustling sound in the shrubbery of the African Savannah got eaten by a sabre-tooth, so those people’s genes don’t exist any more. The genes that exist are the ones that made their owners think that every rustle was a saber-tooth, even when it wasn’t.

:nono: There really are patterns in nature. Some of them have later been found to be works of art by earlier men.

And while you have immunised yourself from thinking about the world this way by adopting a complicated, illogical and evidence-denying creationist worldview, it is still true that both of our brains bear this legacy. So when you say to someone that you have special experiences and you know which agent is at work, that you know some people cannot see what you can see, just remember we all carry the sound of the sabre-tooth, rustling in the background through the hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution. It’s just that some of us have worked out how to tell the difference between the sabre-tooth and the wind.

I'm fairly sure sabretooth was just the product of a mother and father who were brother and sister. There is no real help, but hindrance for it but your point is not lost. My neighbor shined a light in his backyard and is convince he saw the eyes of a cougar. We are in the city, but I've seen deer, a coyote, and bear droppings (and we had a bear captured 20 years ago). There isn't a reason to doubt him, just investigate or be concerned and keep my dog in the house for awhile. Point: It is all what YOU do with information. You are just telling me the reason why you are ignoring it. I don't ignore the science community, just realize when there is speculation that is being passed on as if it were uncontested or for some reason 'shouldn't be.' All science should always be questioned and requestioned. It is why have different energy sources and different medicines and treatments. Its always a good thing to question science and its good for theology to question our first interpretations.

We have made some progress you know. Ancient Jewish creation myths aren’t as brilliant as new stuff like digital watches and FM radio, and evolutionary theory too. If there is any consistency in Jewish culture I would have thought those ancients would have been amazed by our recent discoveries in all scientific fields and would have replaced the whole creation mythology of Genesis with a textbook of modern science straight away. Wouldn’t you, in their position?

In both science and theology we have old textbooks. The issue isn't age, but how any of it is meaningful to our here and now.

So you mean you are not necessarily stuck with a creationist viewpoint permanently? That’s the good news of Jesus in action. Didn’t he come to spare you from all that?

Else there isn't much point to our conversation. The hope is that we both listen a bit, and open up a bit. The vulnerability isn't really that vulnerable, it is just open to whatever really exists.

It occurs to me that maybe you think science is an entirely logical process. Logic is only one aspect of it. Empirical evidence is the other, and is the ruling half.

Sure, but as with above, science needs to always move beyond 'the way we've always done it' or it isn't science as much as maintenance.

'Why bother' to a scientist could easily be met with something like this: there isn’t enough lifetime to try to answer all the questions I have about this situation I find myself in. Humans could be the unique thing that universe has produced that allows it to observe and think about itself. What a concept that is. Let’s get on with it, and try to cope with the reality that during our short opportunity of decades, none of us individually will never see the fullest picture that will be possible by our collective effort as a species to understand our universe and how it works. Never mind, of all the times we could have lived up to now, the present is always going to be the most intellectually satisfying time. No intelligent person should be wasting his time with Genesis these days. No one would write Genesis today.

I'm about 2/3 through this life and have been asking these questions. It isn't good to dismiss what is important (very in many) to another because it causes wars instead of understanding. Conversation is what draws us together. One-sided argument just has us yelling at one another through a brick wall.

As for why questions, I can’t think of any worth asking. Ask how, and we might be getting somewhere.

Interesting talk.

Stuart

How, however, never gets to "why" and "bother." For me, the big picture is imperative for the 'how' to even matter. There is no point without answering 'why.'

 

[Right Divider]

Let's translate so your claim is fully in English:

So helpful.

That is true, but it's not a very good argument.

It's a perfectly good argument.

The fact that all life shares a common coding system does NOT, in ANY way, prove that ALL life shares a SINGLE common ancestor.

The fact of all life sharing the same, inter-readable molecular system of heredity is indeed a fact. And because it is a fact, it is therefore evidence.

So, what is it evidence for? What can we say is consistent with that fact?

1. A creator god that uses the same system in all its created species? Yes, it's evidence for that.

2. Common descent, so that the same system was inherited from common ancestors? Yes, it's evidence for that.

3... some other possbility

You are confusing the concept of matching evidence to models with the concept of making a conclusion, ipso facto, about the origins of species, for example, concluding which is the best explanation choosing from possibilities 1-3...

Ipso facto, you cannot make a conclusion. To make a conclusion you require corroborating evidence for one that disproves the others.

Stuart

It's so cute when you try to show us how "smart" you are.

YOU are the one trying to force a conclusion without the evidence... the common coding system does NOT provide the required evidence to support your conclusion. Period.

 

[Stuu]

If you lie again, the discussion will be over. I'm not kidding. I don't think this sort of stupidity is funny.

Well, that’s me warned.

Do you know the difference between a fact and a theory?

In science, a fact is a piece of evidence, and a theory is an explanation for it.

Do you understand the difference between empirical fact and theoretical explanations of those facts?

You should read the last few pages of this thread and see if I can.

I fully understand that the observed fact that light bends around massive bodies was looked for because of predictions made by Einstein's THEORIES but those facts are only evidence in support of the theory but they are not proof of it, as you should automatically agree with based on the position you are defending in this discussion. In other words, the facts stand on the basis of the fact that we can observe the phenomenon, not on the basis of a theory that predicted the phenomenon. The light was bending around the sun long before Einstein ever existed and the fact that it does so will not change whether Einstein's theories persist or not.

I’ve not claimed anything is proof, or proved, except when I have tried to explain in layperson’s terms the nature of climate science and evolution by natural selection. They are essentially proved, even though the philosophy of science would never use those terms because theories are always provisional on new evidence, even, indeed, spontaneous generation of matter in the case of maggots. I’ve granted you a virtual zero chance on that one yet you rave still.

Stuu: Are you saying that No True Scotsman would have locked up Galileo?

This is typical. When people want to discredit your unassailable argument but have no real way of doing it, they imply that you've made a logical error but fail to make any sort of argument that lends any credence to the accusation.

Let me spell it out then. I suggested that, despite your (actually irrelevant) point that christians were responsible for heliocentrism, there were christians who had worked to supress it and persecute one of the most significant scientists in astronomy. What was your answer? Catholics aren’t christians. That, as hopefully you are aware, is a form of the No True Scotsman fallacy, because indeed Catholics would identify as christians.

The fact is that the bible is a widely available book that very nearly anyone can read in their native language. It teaches very specific things and it very specifically does not teach other things like the notion that the Earth is the center of the universe, for example. It very simply never teaches that anywhere at all - period. Nor does it teach anyone ought to be placed under house arrest (much less executed) for daring to teach doctrine contrary to the accepted dogma. Thus, I can factually and with totally rational certitude make the assertion that neither their actions nor their doctrine where based on the bible nor anything else that could be rightly called "Christian".

This was the verse that was interpreted as geocentrism, used to justify the persecution of Galileo:

Ecclesiastes 1:5 The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.

Perhaps you would call Psalms 19 allegorical (but then you should say how you don’t consider all of Genesis allegorical too):

Psalms 19:4 Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,
5 Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.
6 His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.

Psalm 93: 1 The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.

Having signed promises not to promoted heliocentrism, Galileo is said to have whispered ‘And yet it moves’.

Psalm 104:5 Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.

You're such a condescending ***.

Charming.

I majored in physics while in college and have been reading books about relativity since the 80s. I remember reading a book called "The Dancing Wu Li Masters". That brilliant book about physics along with another book that isn't about physics at all entitled "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" caused me realize that it was philosophy that I was actually interested in, not physics.

Did you read any ordinary textbooks about modern physics?

That is, unless you are unwilling to admit that the limitations of Newtonian gravity has NOT been proven scientifically.

So you claim to have studied both physics and philosophy and yet you are making mistakes with both. Have you ever read, or heard of, Karl Popper?

Stuu: Regarding Copernicus, aren’t you confusing him with Kepler?

Elliptical orbits weren't actually Kepler's idea, he simply proved it. Copernicus was the guy who got the whole ball rolling down a scientific road. Indeed, many give Copernicus credit for getting the whole scientific revolution and, by extension, the enlightenment, the industrial revolution and basically our entire modern world started. Even if that is an overstatement, he was certainly one of the most important scientific pioneers in the history of mankind.

So what you are saying is, yes, I got that wrong.

The contradictory cannot be reconciled. That's precisely the reason we know for a fact that neither of those two THEORIES are anything other than just that, theories! Just because your two favorite flavors of physics cannot be proven, doesn't mean that science is incapable of proving anything at all.

Read Popper. Learn about the significance of the words theory and proved. Otherwise you will be stuck in a groundhog day of equivocation. I guess that’s what happens to you when you give up physics and take up philosophy.

And I don't find computer modeling shocking in the least. It is a brilliant tool to use for scientific investigation but computer modeling is not science in and of itself. EVERYTHING and I mean every single solitary thing that you think you know about climate change is ENTIRELY based solely upon computer models and nothing else whatsoever - nothing! The exact same sort of computer models that can't predict the weather further out than about four days, is used to tell the world that mankind is altering the climate on the scale of decades and centuries. It's laughably ridiculous nonsense. (Well, I shouldn't say, that its based on nothing at all other than computer models! It is also based on cherry picked "evidence" and unfalsifiable (i.e. irrational) argumentation that is designed to convince (i.e. scare) the public. In fact, its based as much on that as it is on computer models.)

Don’t forget about the thermometers.
And the increasing incidence of extreme weather events.
And the melting of the ice sheets.
And the infrared absorption spectrum of carbon dioxide.
I could go on…
…and you know I could.

Have you worn a face mask lately? If so, its because politicians accept computer models as science. They tell you that rules requiring the wearing of masks to prevent the spread of corona virus is based on science when in fact it's based on someone's computer model that makes calculations based on someone's assumptions about the effectiveness of masks. The actual science makes it crystal clear that masks have no effect whatsoever on the spread of such viruses.

Please cite published peer-reviewed studies that support your claim.

There is exactly ZERO evidence that evolution has happened – period. Regardless of variety, finches are finches nonetheless.

Were they finches when they were theropod dinosaurs?

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Science alone answers whether a tree makes noise. It doesn't ask or answer 'meaning.'

I wouldn’t be so sure. Meaning is a product of your brain, and the functioning of your brain is a scientific question. Obviously neuroscience is still in its infancy, so I’m not going to make grand claims for it yet. But watch that space for an eventual biochemical description of meaning.

Again, the simpler of questions and paradox aren't that captivating. I'm not really interested in trees or bears activity that supposedly may change when I'm not there. However, I am interested in trees, have done some work, and I am interested in bears.

Not what bears do in forests, presumably.

No. Your foolishness is just as foolish as the next guy's you just don't see it and are making a 'value' statement chocked full of 'meaning' that isn't supposed to be there, if we are undirected entities.

Are you a ‘directed entity’? What of free will? (I don’t care at all about that synthetic concept, so please treat them as rhetorical questions!)

You simply do not have a desire to wonder at the where's and why's. It will even affect your science and your experience will always be shallower for it. You simply must (necessity) ask more, not less, of actual/pertinent questions. Ignoring them or likening them to the more base questions? It is either a coping mechanism or you truly don't think deeply as is fitting the most sentient of beings on this planet.

This is like the mendacious Kayleigh McEnany responding to furious and quite probing questioning from White House journalists with accusations that journalists have lacked curiosity.

I think the case is actually that I do not have a desire to wonder at the wheres and whys about which you wonder. Don’t mistake my belief there are some questions that just aren’t worth asking for a lack of curiosity.

Let me entertain your position for a moment: If it were ever proved that birds came from dinosaurs without feathers,

… they came from dinosaurs with feathers…

I'm fairly convinced DNA would make them both 'kinds.' The Bible presentation doesn't go far into what is meant by words, but Hebrew was a very basic language and the vocabulary was limited. A good many of the Hebrew words would have been pulling double-duty and triple. We do have a bit of that in English and context drives meaning. "Kind" is driven by theology understanding but I could augment my understanding based on what is given. We either do that, or, as is evidence on TOL even, continue arguing for a flat earth. Much of discussion on TOL over these aren't that earth-shaking and don't hinder either science or theology from moving along.

You understate the case magnificently!

No, not really an option on my side. While atheists have 'tried' to explain these interactions away, they are very inadequate and contrived. They just don't listen.

I would suggest that you owe it to yourself to consider the possibility that the experiences you attribute to supernatural causes could be effects from the history of human evolution. Without getting too meta about it, I know for a fact my brain makes up stuff just so it can cope with the constant data input from the senses. My understanding is that there is as much information coming from other parts of the brain into the visual cortex as there is information coming from the eyes. The brain models the world, then tests the model against data from the eyes. Then it models again, then checks again, and so on. I know I’m naturally bad at statistics, and I find coincidences surprising, but I’ve learned enough about maths to know to be surprised if I was never surprised (if you see what I mean).

It was to get you to ask questions you are not asking. Think of it like a dirty face: you can take offense or simply go wash. I'm not thinking this is a permanent part of your character, nor that you are anywise stuck with it. If I made fun of the insufficiency, I'd think you'd have grounds for offense, but why take one when the answer is simply: ask these questions?

But the questions aren’t interesting, and I think I’ve probably already considered them in rejecting them.

Perhaps. I'm from a family of scientists. One is a paleontologist, a bit heavy on the 'anti' of theist. I'm sad for him because he's not been able or apt to talk about the issues with me. He simply prefers to walk the other way instead of talk about them. One of his largest issues is regarding homosexuality and the God who is, to the best of his knowledge sampling of the Christian community, against it. His anger about it and a few other issues leaves him in avoidance. He doesn't see the willful ignorance and 'hurt' that causes him to retract instead of investigate. The rest of the science members in my family are Christians.

The Prime Minister that my country has just re-elected was a member of the Mormon church about 15 years ago, but she turned her back on them and now calls herself agnostic because she could not reconcile her continuing membership with the mindless prejudice that church held against her gay friends and flatmates. I hope I would have the same courage in that situation.

My neighbor shined a light in his backyard and is convince he saw the eyes of a cougar. We are in the city, but I've seen deer, a coyote, and bear droppings (and we had a bear captured 20 years ago). There isn't a reason to doubt him, just investigate or be concerned and keep my dog in the house for awhile. Point: It is all what YOU do with information. You are just telling me the reason why you are ignoring it.

I think I would have done the same as you. We don’t have snakes in my country, so whenever I have gone camping overseas I have always zipped up my tent very tightly, even when pitching it in a holiday camp. I’m not sure how this metaphor applies to belief in the supernatural…

In both science and theology we have old textbooks. The issue isn't age, but how any of it is meaningful to our here and now.

I find it darky comical that christianity manages to invent problems for itself that don’t exist in practice. The so-called problem of evil doesn’t exist for atheists. It’s just a problem that arises from assuming there is an omnipotent, omniscient being capable of stopping ‘evil’ and so then having to invent excuses by describing the kind of games the omnipotent being is playing by allowing evil to happen. No gods, no problem of evil. Same with the Catholic obsession with so-called original sin: It’s not true that there was a time of only one human, or two, so it’s not true that a unique ancestor of all humans committed an act of rebellion for which we all bear responsibility through the doctrine of original sin. Why would everyone’s favourite evil empire, the Roman Catholic church, be motivated to maintain such a nasty dogma, especially knowing that they accept evolution by natural selection? Has to be self-interest and psychological control. There’s little else in it.

Science throws out its old textbooks, except perhaps the ones with significance in the history of science. Science is the most widely respected epistemological method. How is it that theology hasn’t thrown away its old textbooks too?

I'm about 2/3 through this life and have been asking these questions. It isn't good to dismiss what is important (very in many) to another because it causes wars instead of understanding. Conversation is what draws us together. One-sided argument just has us yelling at one another through a brick wall.

Yes. To keep the library relevant, books kept for traditional reasons should justify their places. I think Genesis doesn’t, except as an historical reference to how ancient Jews thought about the world. Then, it should be placed alongside all the other creation myths that have cultural meaning but contain no legitimate means to bring solidarity to humanity. That is something that science is in a unique position to achieve because its criteria are universal.

How, however, never gets to "why" and "bother." For me, the big picture is imperative for the 'how' to even matter. There is no point without answering 'why.'

I note you have not demonstrated me wrong by proposing an example of a ‘why’ question that is worth asking!

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

The fact that all life shares a common coding system does NOT, in ANY way, prove that ALL life shares a SINGLE common ancestor.

How many times did you go to see the movie Groundhog Day?

YOU are the one trying to force a conclusion without the evidence... the common coding system does NOT provide the required evidence to support your conclusion. Period.

Isn’t that exactly what I wrote??

Ipso facto, you cannot make a conclusion. To make a conclusion you require corroborating evidence for one that disproves the others.

Stuart

 

[Clete]

Since you have conceded that science not only can but has in fact proven things, will you commit to not ever saying that it doesn't again or will you persist, as you did in this last post to say differing things out of opposite sides of your mouth, depending on what suits your needs at the moment?

Do not answer that. I know the answer.

Don’t forget about the thermometers.
And the increasing incidence of extreme weather events.
And the melting of the ice sheets.
And the infrared absorption spectrum of carbon dioxide.
I could go on…
…and you know I could.

Most of which data is cherry picked, contradictory and begs the question. Anything but scientific! And that portion of it that isn't so compromised, doesn't speak a syllable toward the issue of any sort of climate change being caused by human activity.

Please cite published peer-reviewed studies that support your claim.

Look them up yourself. You wouldn't permit them to change your mind anyway.
Studies that prove masks are ineffective at stopping the spread of respirator virus infections aren't hard to find. They've been doing them for decades. There are several on the CDC's own website! Dr. Foucci himself was telling people that they don't help when this covid thing first hit. It wasn't until he got on board with the political power of masks that he changed his tune.

The reason masks don't help is because of secondary causes. They block significant amounts of the doplets that are produced when people talk but not sufficient to prevent the spread of the disease because the mask's ability to block these droplets becomes less and less effective the longer you wear the mask (Ask a doctor how often he's been trained to toss one mask and switch to a new one.) Additionally, the droplets become concentrated in the cloth masks which not only increases your own exposure to the virus but increases your exposure to all the other bugs that you exhale with every breath. Further, the increased virus contamination (not to mention the loads of bacteria) on the mask itself makes it all but impossible to prevent contamination of your hands if you touch your mask, which people constantly do. Masks, also cause people to have their hands around their face much more than they would otherwise. The mask itself, because it is in contact with the bridge of your nose, will cause an increase in nasal discharge, which the mask does not catch and that people wouldn't simply allow the mask to catch if it could. Instead they not only grab the front of their mask with their hands but they then wipe their nose with that same, now contaminated hand. So, not only do masks not prevent the spread of the virus respiratorially but they increase the spread of the virus (and God know what all else) in other ways. The net effect on virus spread is negligible in most studies. The mask basically has no effect on the spread of the specific disease being studied.

The point here, however, is that you believe it does have an effect because you've seen graphs produced by computer models and because computer modeling is real science then of course everyone should wear masks.

Were they finches when they were theropod dinosaurs?

Stuart

:rotfl:

You really need to look up what it means to beg the question.

You're a veritable textbook on how to think poorly.

 

[Right Divider]

How many times did you go to see the movie Groundhog Day?

Is there a point?

Isn’t that exactly what I wrote??

Good... then you finally understand that your original claim was invalid.

 

[Stuu]

The first piece of evidence for common descent presented was the fact that all living species use the same system to store and transmit their genetic code, and the molecular machinery of any one species can read the DNA of any other species.

The second was that the phylogenetic tree of life made from comparisons of the physiology of fossil species and modern species matches very closely the phylogenetic tree of life made from comparing the DNA sequence or amino acid sequences for the same proteins in different species.

The third is this: new species have emerged and old species have gone extinct throughout geological history, the timescale of which has been calibrated by isochron radioisotope dating.

This could be evidence for:

1. Multiple creation events throughout billions of years, of species that then go to extinction
2. Common descent with modification from common ancestors

If you have two quite different species descending from a common ancestor, then different changes will have happened in each of the lines of descent leading to speciation and leaving behind different fossil remains at different times. That could also involve, from the same line of descent, different species in changing geographical locations over time.

This piece of evidence is that referred to in the famous statement of JB Haldane when asked how evolution could be disproved: Bunny rabbits in the Precambrian!.

Stuart

 

[Right Divider]

None of this is evidence that ALL life has descended from a SINGLE common ancestor.

But thanks for repeatedly begging the question and proving to us all that you only know fallacy and nothing else.

 

[7djengo7]

By your phrase--"the whole population of hominins that were in the process of acquiring traits that you might call human"--to which are you referring? To humans or to non-humans?

Neither, obviously.

If, by your phrase, you are referring to something, then, necessarily, you're referring either to humans or to non-humans. If you're referring neither to humans nor to non-humans by your phrase, then, necessarily, you're not referring to anything, whatsoever, by your phrase. So, here, by saying that you mean neither humans nor non-humans by your phrase, you are admitting that your phrase--"the whole population of hominins that were in the process of acquiring traits that you might call human"--is meaningless, a nonsense phrase.

 

[Stuu]

None of this is evidence that ALL life has descended from a SINGLE common ancestor.

You have only asserted that, you haven't given any argument as to how it isn't. Actually it is all evidence for common descent, but if there are other models for which this is also evidence, they would need to be excluded before you can draw that conclusion. Do you have any other models that are consistent with this evidence that you think should be taken into account?

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

If, by your phrase, you are referring to something, then, necessarily, you're referring either to humans or to non-humans. If you're referring neither to humans nor to non-humans by your phrase, then, necessarily, you're not referring to anything, whatsoever, by your phrase. So, here, by saying that you mean neither humans nor non-humans by your phrase, you are admitting that your phrase--"the whole population of hominins that were in the process of acquiring traits that you might call human"[/SIZE]--is meaningless, a nonsense phrase.

That would be a false dilemma fallacy you are promoting.

Stuart

 

[7djengo7]

That would be a false dilemma fallacy you are promoting.

Stuart

Oh....please do try to explain what (if anything) you imagine you mean by this. I'm all ears.

Why do you call the law of the excluded middle "a false dilemma fallacy"?

 

[7djengo7]

....

 

[Right Divider]

You have only asserted that, you haven't given any argument as to how it isn't. Actually it is all evidence for common descent, but if there are other models for which this is also evidence, they would need to be excluded before you can draw that conclusion. Do you have any other models that are consistent with this evidence that you think should be taken into account?

Stuart

Oh joy! I just love it when you play dumb.

YOU are the one that needs to prove something. YOU asserted that a COMMON CODING SYSTEM is evidence that ALL life shares a SINGLE common ancestor. Therefore, it is YOU that needs to support YOUR assertion.

Again, you really haven't the slightest clue what "evidence" means.

 

[Stuu]

Oh....please do try to explain what (if anything) you imagine you mean by this. I'm all ears. Why do you call the law of the excluded middle "a false dilemma fallacy"?

You've excluded the middle group that were, to use a pretty crude description, 'partly human'.

Let me know what you think a human is, and I'll see if I can work out which parts arose when.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Oh joy! I just love it when you play dumb. YOU are the one that needs to prove something. YOU asserted that a COMMON CODING SYSTEM is evidence that ALL life shares a SINGLE common ancestor. Therefore, it is YOU that needs to support YOUR assertion. Again, you really haven't the slightest clue what "evidence" means.

Still no justification for your denial? Another afternoon at the movies watching the only movie that's on. Groundhog Day.

Stuart