It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by SpectreDC
Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
I'm not even going to legitimize what you said up there by quoting, because the bulk of the text is irrelevant. But really, I just need to ask you this because I'm really curious; what if the person you're replying to isn't a liberal? Because you can attack liberals all you want, and even be right, but that's irrelevant if the person agrees with you.
Basically what I'm saying is that people don't like to eat red herring much, and would appreciate it if you could stay with the topic that was at hand, which was about how elements of the republican party, the element being the god fearing and preaching, praise jesus culture preying upon sort, seem to denigrate scientific progress and yet hold an economic position that has only been made possible by that very same scientific progress.
An old evolution myth still hanging around is the notion that things that look like gill-slits, tails, etc. in developing human embryos show the embryo repeating all the stages of evolution. In 1866, Ernst Haeckel proposed his "biogenetic law" (not to be confused with the law of biogenesis that says life only comes from life). His idea was that growing vertebrate embryos went through all the forms of their supposed evolutionary ancestors ("ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny"). He published drawings comparing growing embryos of a number of animals such as the pig, cat, salamander, etc. to growing human embryos. The similarities that he said he found helped persuade people to believe the theory of evolution. Scientists eventually discovered enough about embryology to quietly discard the "biogenetic law", but it was not until a careful photographic study of growing vertebrate embryos was conducted in 1997 that Haeckel's deceit was fully revealed. They found that his drawings were so far from reality that they could not have been done from the actual embryos.31 He must have faked them.
Originally posted by VaterOrlaag
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
We don't need no goddamn facts!
Looks like you'd fit in perfectly with Paul Broun's demographic.