since your just going to lie about it i will post an article on Ernst Haeckel's 1874 embryo drawings
here is a simple article for anyone to read.
ERNST HAECKEL EMBRYO DRAWING A FRAUD– STILL USED IN TEXTBOOKS
https://www.evolutionisamyth.com/biological/ernst-haeckel-embryo-drawing-a-fraud-still-used-in-textbooks/

You probably understand that a link to a site called "evolutionisamyth" might be a bit biased when they call someone like Haeckel a fraud right?

None of it is used in ANY educational textbook by the way and nothing he did was fraudulent either.
He was a well respected, very well educated teacher and professor and also a theorist. He had his own interesting views.
Some held up until today, some didnt. That is how science works and evolves.

I suggest you to go out of your way and educate yourself on unbiased ground. Wikipedia would be a good start.

This post was edited by Modulok2405 on Sep 13 2023 02:05am

ill just do the lifting for you

Lessons Learned from Haeckel and His Drawings: We Shouldn’t Always Believe What the “Leading Experts” Tell Us about Evolution
https://evolutionnews.org/2007/06/lessons_learned_from_haeckel_a/

Revisiting Those Pesky Embryo Drawings | Evolution News
evolutionnews.org › Science › Evolution
Jun 17, 2010 - ... century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks! Gould ...
excerpt
"do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks!"
-Stephen Jay Gould

wikipedia are known for being shills for hire
Astroturf and manipulation of media messages | Sharyl Attkisson | TEDxUniversityofNevada
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bYAQ-ZZtEU
@03:55 and then there is wikipedia.

Wikipedia is a far more accurate source than "evolutionisamyth", be sure about it.
Its a source that is neutral and not opinionized in one direction or another. Wikipedia is a collection of facts and openly shows all its sources. Always.
In fact it is necessary to name sources, if you write anything for wikipedia.

Also, your quoted dudes talk trash anyways.
Haeckel's embryos arent part of any educational textbooks. At least not here in europe.
If its different for your country, then thats of course concerning.
Not because Haeckel was a fraud, but because his work is 150 years old. Science is moving forward instead of standing still and stationary, its not religion.

Also, you should definitely move on from this. Even if Haeckel was a fraud, which he wasnt, this wouldnt be of any importance for the subject.

This post was edited by Modulok2405 on Sep 13 2023 03:22am

I can safely say you've never been to College/University. If you did and tried to use Wikipedia as a reference then all the teachers and students would laugh at you the same way you claim all the Christians are laughing at TiStuff.

Have you ever seen the edit button on any Wikipedia page? Which means ANYBODY can edit that page at any given moment.



Some advice for you, use many different sites for reference but do not solely rely on Wikipedia to support whatever argument you bring up. It won't get you very far.

1. No you cant edit a wikipedia page as easy as you think. Go on and try it, press the edit button.

2. I said to him, like you also pointed out, "wikipedia would be a good start". The dude has no idea about unbiased sources, thats why I said that.

Wikipedia is definitely a good start for almost everything new you wanna educate yourself at.
Its never as deep as it could be, but you definitely learn a lot if you start from scratch or wanna see things from a different, mostly unbiased neutral angle.
And thats what TiStuff needs. Desperately.

A little bit about me:

I have indeed been to university quite a while ago and studied biological science for 3 terms before I changed subject and finished in sports science.
Thats also why I am very confident about Haeckel not being mentioned in textbooks.
I never even heard his name before this conversation today although I was studying right in his field for some time.

And let me also tell you what I told the other dude twice now: Haeckel is not of importance for the subject. "Does god exist" is not a question that has ANYTHING to do with Haeckel and his intentions.

This post was edited by Modulok2405 on Sep 13 2023 04:05am

You use wiki yourself lmao. The moment your feelings get hurt by facts you cry like a baby that wiki isn't reliable. A wiki user who condemns others for using wiki is fucking rich. Back to your hole you go hypocrite

This post was edited by addone on Sep 13 2023 04:28am

lets do this again since you like to keep misrepresenting what I say
"1. 'evolutionary fraud. i would start the story with Ernst Haeckel's 1874 embryo drawings" its just were the 'athesit fraud story starts. (quote #4322 page 433)
see see see see its just the start. you like to play it off that its my sole argument.................. rather dishonest



yes of course once again playing your games
looklooklook
wikipedia are known for being shills for hire
Astroturf and manipulation of media messages | Sharyl Attkisson | TEDxUniversityofNevada
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bYAQ-ZZtEU
@03:55 and then there is wikipedia.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

so there you have it the first fraud with the rise of atheism and 'evolution........ chuckles drawings. next time we will talk about piltdown man.

This post was edited by TiStuff on Sep 13 2023 05:13am

1. Which story does it start? I dont know of any story he started. What are you talking about? do you think his work started evolutionary research? It didnt. Do you think it started atheism? It didnt. He wasnt even an atheist himself.

2. Wikipedia is not known for being shills for hire, sry to disappoint you.

This post was edited by Modulok2405 on Sep 13 2023 05:14am

atheist main tool is constant denial
and their best argument is they dont need to have a argument

1. the story of the rise of 'atheism and 'evolution and the fraud and chit science brought with them

2. wikipedia are known for being shills for hire
Astroturf and manipulation of media messages | Sharyl Attkisson | TEDxUniversityofNevada
@03:55 and then there is wikipedia.


This post was edited by TiStuff on Sep 13 2023 05:18am