It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: peter vlar
originally posted by: wisvol
Louis Pasteur, an actual scientist, disproved Darwin, a theologian,'s most basic assumptions in real time by disproving what the Darwinians called "spontaneous generation".
He also went ahead and proved that living cells aren't as simple as rancid soup.
How exactly did "Darwinians" promote spontaneous generation when Pasteur disproved it BEFORE 'On the Origin of Species' was published? And how do you figure it's associated with Darwins Theories when Spontaneous Generation was first formulated by Aristotle? You must be using new math to make these nonexistent connections work in your mind.
For the record, Darwin put forth the idea of descent with modification. He had absolutely nothing to do with spontaneous generation nor did it ever figure into evolutionary theory.
And since, scores of actual scientists have continued to gently show that the origin of species isn't other species.
Preventively I say spontaneous generation isn't *the same* as speciation but is widely understood even today by the state religion's priests including Dawkins to be a prerequisite, thus Pasteur got the root of the chimera.
So you can support this rubbish with citations and names of your alleged "scores of scientists" then correct? If there are scores of them it should be no problem for you to cite some papers.
But the monkey business went on with the likes of Charles Lyell who published
"The Geological Evidences of the Antiquity of Man, with remarks on theories of the origin of species by variation1”
Explaining that there are no monkey-men simply because they died millions of years ago.
Millions of years after the dragons, whose bones abound, but no monkey-man skeleton was found and not proven to be a gross forgery or a human skeleton, or an ape skeleton.
Ohhhhh... I get it, you're working on material for a comedy routine! Sorry for the confusion earlier.
For perspective, here is a cranium of an adolescent chimp:
photo
Now of course, human skulls vary in shape and size, and necromancy isn't my strong suit but check out Monsanto's "agent orange" campaign in Asia to see what genetic mutations do to people and their skull shapes.
No context and no obvious point. Maybe I'm just slow though. Feel free to explain what exactly you're trying to get at. You can do so monosyllabicly if necessary.
Oh and hint: not one spiderman or monkeyman or even Piltdown man.
And finally we get to a truthful statement. About damned time.
originally posted by: rebelv
a reply to: secretboss
Wow, I'm glad someone finally asked what I've been wondering for decades.
Rebel 5
originally posted by: wheresthebody
a reply to: DeathSlayer
The only things that have come from monkeys are other monkeys
This vid is all about our chromosomes and common ancestry, it's pretty freakin' cool!
Watch until the end, I think you'll appreciate the last comment, it's about him believing in god still.
originally posted by: peter vlar
1.How exactly did "Darwinians" promote spontaneous generation when Pasteur disproved it BEFORE 'On the Origin of Species' was published? And how do you figure it's associated with Darwins Theories when Spontaneous Generation was first formulated by Aristotle?
2. You must be using new math to make these nonexistent connections work in your mind.
3. For the record, Darwin put forth the idea of descent with modification. He had absolutely nothing to do with spontaneous generation nor did it ever figure into evolutionary theory.
4. So you can support this rubbish with citations and names of your alleged "scores of scientists" then correct? If there are scores of them it should be no problem for you to cite some papers.
Ohhhhh... I get it, you're working on material for a comedy routine! Sorry for the confusion earlier.
No context and no obvious point. Maybe I'm just slow though. Feel free to explain what exactly you're trying to get at. You can do so monosyllabicly if necessary.
And finally we get to a truthful statement. About damned time.
Maybe I'm just slow though.
originally posted by: NarcolepticBuddha
If we devolved from God, why is there still no God around?
originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Barcs
a reply to: wisvol [quoted: Millions of years after the dragons, whose bones abound, but no monkey-man skeleton was found and not proven to be a gross forgery or a human skeleton, or an ape skeleton.]
Liar, liar pants on fire!
That's not what liar means.
I'll take the bait: show us a monkeyman.
originally posted by: secretboss
originally posted by: georgeglass
a reply to: secretboss
I think we are alien to this planet!
Well, I fully agree with Richard Dawkins theory that extraterrestrials may have seeded life on earth, and that life on earth may contain the signature of an intelligent designer.
But if evolution were true why are there still monkeys still swinging from trees?
When you make false claims suggesting the fossils have not been found for all those numerous species is a flat out lie, just like claiming dragons bones are all over the place. define: monkeyman
originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Barcs
When you make false claims suggesting the fossils have not been found for all those numerous species is a flat out lie, just like claiming dragons bones are all over the place. define: monkeyman
Yea thanks for the straw buddy.
The false claim quoted is yours: fossils have been found of numerous species.
Resembling species (such as monkey and man or cat and dog) aren't determined through necromancy because dead things don't breed.
I have a hard time following your post because of the unfortunate sentence fragment. Are you saying the statement "fossils have been found of numerous species" is false? What?