Tense…past, present. Haeckels pics WERE represented as true from the time of their publication in 1868 until 2000. Thats 132 years.
Darwin believed that Haeckel’s enthusiastic propagation of the doctrine of organic evolution was the chief factor in the success of the doctrine in Germany. Encyclopædia Britannica 11:69, 1962.
Well you’re takng an awfully long time to post anything resembling evidence.
First, learn to quote. 
Second, you have absolutely no evidence that God created the universe or instilled morality. Which is troubling, because there is much evidence that morality is instilled on us via evolution.
I wonder if you’ll ever admit when you’re wrong?
I’ve posted evidence, you ignored it because you aren’t actually interested in debating. There is no fact that can break through the thick, heavy and pulsating wall of your ignorance.
Well, maybe some sort of armor piercing fact…
Oh and Dio, on Haeckel you might also want to look at “the imaginery Monera”, “Protamoeba primitivia”, and “Pithecanthropus alalus”.
Your running aren’t you?
There is no evidence morality came via evolution, indeed it is not hard to show it did not.
There has been no evidence posted for macro evolution because none exists. There is argumentation and suggestion. That is all.
I would like to discuss the whales, it’s an excellent example of how an assumption of evolution can cloud the mind of the ‘believer’.
Then why don’t you?
Right, because you can’t. There is a lot of evidence, posted in this very thread that morality is based on evolution.
I really wish you were willing to debate. But you aren’t and instead you franticly lash out at anything that would challenge your unexamined beliefs.
Facing things that challenge your beliefs is brave. Maybe you could try it some time?
I’ve already posted evidence about Macroevolution. Which you evidentially think is abiogenisis. You really don’t understand the issue you’re talking about.
Why do you think you’re smarter than every biologist on Earth? Why are they so stupid? What are the odds that you’re smarter than 99% of the working biologists on Earth? You certainly don’t come across as especially brilliant.
No, it’s more “pretty likely” than “remotely possible”. And at any rate, “remotely possible” still makes it much, much, much more based on evidence than the outright denial of physics of the “God did it” claim.
There is “empirical evidence” in form of the nature of our universe, in the laws of physics for how it could have come about. that’s more than just “opinion”. and even a mere “opinion” that didn’t contradict known physical laws would still be more plausible than the outright denial of all we know that is the God claim.
“God” is pretty much the least plausible idea that exists. It is the nadir of the intellectual world. It’s more likely that a purple rabbit with the powers of Superman created the universe than “God” did, since the existence of such a rabbit is a less extreme claim.
You keep claiming this ‘evidence’, but it doesn’t exist. Quote the pages on which there is evidence of morality from evolution. Go on.
In the meantime, ponder this.
The proposition is that a prohibition to murder ones brother is somehow hard wired into us by evolution due to a desire to proliferate our genes.
How do we know this when we contemplate the acction? What is the mechanism by which we are aware of this fact?
1> In what way does God’s existence deny physics when God is not governed by the natural universe?
2> The form and nature of our universe says nothing to the likelihood of others. This is just presumption.
3> You don’t accept the God hypothesis because you don’t want to. It is a statement of belief.
Perhaps the comment that there is ““empirical evidence” in form of the nature of our universe, in the laws of physics for how it could have come about.” is more revealing than anything.
If you consider that the exietnce of one universe is ‘empirical evidence’ for others, yet deny the possibility of it being empirical evidence for a cause beyond the physical universe, you are demonstarting a capability to believe anything.
It’s in this thread. But you’ve already ignorantly dismissed it without reason. So pardon if I don’t go looking for it.
It’s a small symbiotic cricket that lives, typically on the left shoulder, but sometimes the right.
It’s an impulse. Like lust or hunger. It’s the feeling you get when you break something that isn’t yours. But you aren’t going to listen, because you run away when something challenges you beliefs. That’s a fact. This thread is my cite.
No they weren’t. This is false.
This is so devoid of context, I don’t even know what it’s referring to.
Oh yes, of course. ‘It’s in this thread’. Another unsubstantited claim.
Ah now wre making progress. So you suggest that the mechanism for evolutionary morality is ‘an impulse’. But what triggers this impulse? Say in the case of killing ones brother?
Dio I am losing track of the number of times you have been proven wrong.
In March 2000 the Harvard University evolutionist and paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould said that he had long been aware of this fraud. But he had preferred to remain silent, as required by the system of the Dajjal. Once the public had learned that the drawings were fraudulent, Gould stated that it was academic murder for them still to be used and said: “We 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.”
You should really try to branch out and read something besides creationist websites. You don’t have the slightest idea how uninformed you really are.
It’s a genetic neurological response to stimuli. It’s “triggered” by genes. You have been shown abundant evidence of this and a plethora of links.
What was Gould referring to dio?