Happy Darwin's birthday....
People are telling me that the French and UK versions of Google are highlighted today with the image above, a picture of Charles Darwin's tangled bank, but that the US has snubbed the man. I think they're wrong; I just looked, and google.com does have the above image. I can think of a few explanations: google just updated the logo a little later for our time zone, users may have been seeing a cached version of a frequently used page, or the explanation I prefer, I'm special and google takes care to present me with a special personal version of the page so that I don't get mad at them. Admittedly, the last possibility is a tiny bit unlikely, but hey, if I'm not going to believe in a deity, maybe I can believe in a loving, omnipotent search engine. Just as long as it doesn't start dictating what I'm allowed to do with my genitals…
<Now you're lying>
No, I am not.
<I never pushed creationism as you claimed.>
I didn't say you did, though in fact you do. What I said was that you push the same line of FUD that they do.
<Repeating your incorrect statement does not make it true...>
It isn't incorrect. And of course repeating it doesn't make it true. What makes it true is its correspondence with reality.
--You believe in evolution with a blind religious insistence.
Oh bullshit. He believes in the facts and evidence as presented by science. He, like all truly intelligent people, doesn't believe in the tooth fairy, the Easter bunny, god, Jesus, the flying spaghetti monster, Odin, Zeus, and all the other made-up voodoo-magic crap you dumb-asses believe in.
Ask a scientist if god exists and he will honestly tell you "I don't know; there's no evidence to prove he/she/it does but there is also no evidence to prove he/she/it doesn't. Only the biggest fucking idiots base huge-ass, mind-controlling, cult-like religions around something so totally absent of proof.
<...you TOTALLY misrepresented what I have said.>
No, I did not.
<I correctly pointed out Darwin's notion is definitely not settled. Again: That things change is known, the mechanism for change is not known.>
It is settled, and well known. And so simple that it can be easily explained in plain English, and has been, by innumerable authors. Darwin himself didn't know the precise mechanism of inheritance in detail, of course; the structure of DNA was not explicated until the middle of the 20th century. But once known, it not only did not contradict anything in Darwin, it led to a gigantic expansion of the corpus of evidence favoring evolution. We knew that we must be closely related to the great apes; we didn't know just how closely until the technique of DNA sequencing was perfected. It turns out that our DNA is 96% identical to that of chimpanzees.
The most amazing part of this clip from Expelled starts around 3:20. Dawkins admits ID might be real. But it has to be a Martian or something, nothing anyone calls God. Stein does simply allow this pompous man to destroy himself just by asking a few simple question to him. One should always question and test beliefs. Whether in something called "God" or in a manufactured certainty that no God exists. It is what a true scientist would do, But it is not done. That is Expelled. A fun movie in Stein style and good to consider.
h t t p : / / www.y o u tube.com/watch?v=BtV22JPjmsk
<Link to post you misread?>
Read back over this thread.
Evolution is considered the cornerstone of the science of biology, as I said. You claim it's "unsettled", which is simply not the case, but it's exactly the line that Creationists push, in some pretty unscrupulous ways. You seem to have swallowed it whole.
Everyone should watch the movie Expelled to understand the situation better. No matter what side you sit on it is fascinating to see and consider. Much evidence of what he discusses right on this board each day.
<<Well you were, good to see you get on board.>
No, I was explaining how things really are in science. You were pushing the Creationist FUD that scientists disagree with each other about Darwin.