To my knowledge, I have not brushed any direct evidence aside. I do, however, remove from my subscription lists and stop posting in threads that turn from legitimate discussions into conclusory bash-fests.
As of today? Because the evidence I have for accepting common ancestry is that many scientists believe it, and the evidence I have for rejecting common ancestry is that sources I trust more than those scientists reject it.
Hence, my desire to seek out more direct evidence.
Avalon:
When I read that you were a creationist, I thought you were joking.
You are, aren't you?
Evolution to be taught to primary school kids? Why? Sure some basic science - I remember mucking about with water and objects to experiment with why and what things float, mixing colours together, using levers to lift stuff, but evolution seems a tad heavy going for a little kid.
Anyone here ever used The Blind Watchmaker?
I remember it being boring when I was young, and now I want to try it again.
Used?
What as a doorstop or a paperweight?
-
Anyone here ever used The Blind Watchmaker?
It's useful for calming god-botherers down. Apply to the back of the head with maximum available force.
How does one make blind watches, anyway?
Braille numbers, no faceplate.
Braille numbers, no faceplate.
Should this read "basic science to be taught in UK schools"?
I'm a creationist. I don't believe in common ancestry. I don't want the school teaching it until the kids are older.
ETA: Further explanation. The more controversial a topic, the more I think teachers should leave it to parents when the kids are still in the "memorize-and-regurgitate" stage of schooling. The school should wait and address controversial topics when the kids are old enough to tackle those topics critically.
Evolution to be taught to primary school kids? Why? Sure some basic science - I remember mucking about with water and objects to experiment with why and what things float, mixing colours together, using levers to lift stuff, but evolution seems a tad heavy going for a little kid.