>>Please name one<<
I just did some spot checking - The Critical Analysis of fossils Prentice was the one that made post a suggestion to be carefuol using that site. The use of terms like macroevolution show a lack of familiarity with science while senctences like
“Their fossil “evidence” gets destroyed by facts every so often, but they never question their assumptions, they just string together a new set of bones and call it a “series of intermediaries” until it gets disproven as well.”
shows a desire not to educate but inspire blind disdain for science.
The section on transitional versus “composite” is poor attempt to say that students should ignore transitional fossil evidence and then they leave out the reinforcing DNA evidence.
Maybe the rest of the site is better but the part i checked out led me to suggest caution.
>> I just did some spot checking - The Critical Analysis of fossils Prentice was the one that made post a suggestion to be carefuol using that site. The use of terms like macroevolution show a lack of familiarity with science while senctences like
“Their fossil “evidence” gets destroyed by facts every so often, but they never question their assumptions, they just string together a new set of bones and call it a “series of intermediaries” until it gets disproven as well.”
shows a desire not to educate but inspire blind disdain for science. <<
So you’re not talking about *facts* but *tone*.