Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

What is the Theory of Evolution?

GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2014 8:08:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
It started out as a guess, right? A very specific guess, not a vague one?

CAN ANYONE TELL ME WHAT IT WAS?
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,130
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 9:29:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/14/2014 8:08:19 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
It started out as a guess, right? A very specific guess, not a vague one?

CAN ANYONE TELL ME WHAT IT WAS?

"Species changed over time into new species".
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 12:06:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/16/2014 9:29:24 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/14/2014 8:08:19 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
It started out as a guess, right? A very specific guess, not a vague one?

CAN ANYONE TELL ME WHAT IT WAS?

"Species changed over time into new species".

In the past tense? You sure you don't mean "change" and not "changed"?
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 12:46:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."
- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,130
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 1:06:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/16/2014 12:06:06 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/16/2014 9:29:24 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/14/2014 8:08:19 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
It started out as a guess, right? A very specific guess, not a vague one?

CAN ANYONE TELL ME WHAT IT WAS?

"Species changed over time into new species".

In the past tense? You sure you don't mean "change" and not "changed"?

Any scientific theory takes into account observations from the past since it is impossible to observe the future and makes predictions of the future. Also, my past tense (changed) matched you question (was).
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,130
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 1:08:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/16/2014 12:06:06 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/16/2014 9:29:24 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/14/2014 8:08:19 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
It started out as a guess, right? A very specific guess, not a vague one?

CAN ANYONE TELL ME WHAT IT WAS?

"Species changed over time into new species".

In the past tense? You sure you don't mean "change" and not "changed"?

Also, evolutionary theory has been defined much better since then.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 3:56:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/14/2014 8:08:19 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
It started out as a guess, right? A very specific guess, not a vague one?

CAN ANYONE TELL ME WHAT IT WAS?

The point.

Get to it.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 6:49:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/16/2014 1:08:23 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/16/2014 12:06:06 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
In the past tense? You sure you don't mean "change" and not "changed"?

Also, evolutionary theory has been defined much better since then.

Really? What is the definition? The scientific theory, not just another synonym for change.

At 1/16/2014 12:46:02 PM, Noumena wrote:
"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."
- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974

I want the Scientific Theory. That doesn't look like a scientific theory to me.

At 1/16/2014 3:56:01 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/14/2014 8:08:19 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
It started out as a guess, right? A very specific guess, not a vague one?

CAN ANYONE TELL ME WHAT IT WAS?

The point.


Get to it.

I want to argue why it's not a valid scientific theory. But you knew that. Why are you being so unhelpful? It's not as if I'm a troll. I flip-flop on the issues of Evolution, Creationism, Catholicism, Homosexuality, etc. all the time. I've done a 180 on each of these multiple times since I joined this site a year ago (which you would see were you to perform a tedious analysis of all my activity here since I joined), so don't as if I'm dishonest.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 7:16:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/16/2014 6:49:48 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/16/2014 1:08:23 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/16/2014 12:06:06 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
In the past tense? You sure you don't mean "change" and not "changed"?

Also, evolutionary theory has been defined much better since then.

Really? What is the definition? The scientific theory, not just another synonym for change.

At 1/16/2014 12:46:02 PM, Noumena wrote:
"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."
- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974

I want the Scientific Theory. That doesn't look like a scientific theory to me.

At 1/16/2014 3:56:01 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/14/2014 8:08:19 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
It started out as a guess, right? A very specific guess, not a vague one?

CAN ANYONE TELL ME WHAT IT WAS?

The point.


Get to it.

I want to argue why it's not a valid scientific theory. But you knew that. Why are you being so unhelpful? It's not as if I'm a troll. I flip-flop on the issues of Evolution, Creationism, Catholicism, Homosexuality, etc. all the time. I've done a 180 on each of these multiple times since I joined this site a year ago (which you would see were you to perform a tedious analysis of all my activity here since I joined), so don't as if I'm dishonest.

First off, a scientific theory is a conclusion based on repeated data gleaned from repeatable experiments, stating both what happens and how it happens, while predicting the same occurrence in the future, as long as this conclusion has not been disproved.

Example: The theory of gravity states that because mass warps space time, as demonstrated by general relativity, objects of mass attract one another.

A scientific law, while generally considered a misnomer (whole other conversation), is simply an observation of what happens, and a prediction that it will reoccur.

Example: the Law of gravity states that objects of mass attract one another.

With these definitions in mind, onto evolution.

First, evolution is a scientific law. It is established, observed, documented, proven, and confirmed. To say that it does not occur is as absurd as saying that fire is cold. We see it before our very eyes, and it applies to all living organisms.

The law of evolution states that populations of living organisms adapt to their environment over passage of time and generations.

The theory of evolution states that this occurs through genetic mutations and natural selection.

The hypothesis of abiogenesis states that all life originated from one singular cell.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 7:22:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/16/2014 6:49:48 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/16/2014 1:08:23 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/16/2014 12:06:06 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
In the past tense? You sure you don't mean "change" and not "changed"?

Also, evolutionary theory has been defined much better since then.

Really? What is the definition? The scientific theory, not just another synonym for change.

At 1/16/2014 12:46:02 PM, Noumena wrote:
"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."
- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974

I want the Scientific Theory. That doesn't look like a scientific theory to me.

At 1/16/2014 3:56:01 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/14/2014 8:08:19 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
It started out as a guess, right? A very specific guess, not a vague one?

CAN ANYONE TELL ME WHAT IT WAS?

The point.


Get to it.

: I want to argue why it's not a valid scientific theory.

Are you a scientist, or at least a current science major in college? If not, then you have neither the knowledge nor the authority to challenge any scientific theory. The equivalent is me, the science guy who doesn't know jack about cars, challenging my mechanic about which battery terminal to attach jumper cables to. It is a simple thing that isn't that hard to understand, but I still don't have the basis upon which to challenge him.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,130
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 7:30:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/16/2014 6:49:48 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/16/2014 1:08:23 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/16/2014 12:06:06 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
In the past tense? You sure you don't mean "change" and not "changed"?

Also, evolutionary theory has been defined much better since then.

Really? What is the definition? The scientific theory, not just another synonym for change.

At 1/16/2014 12:46:02 PM, Noumena wrote:
"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."
- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974

I want the Scientific Theory. That doesn't look like a scientific theory to me.

At 1/16/2014 3:56:01 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/14/2014 8:08:19 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
It started out as a guess, right? A very specific guess, not a vague one?

CAN ANYONE TELL ME WHAT IT WAS?

The point.


Get to it.

I want to argue why it's not a valid scientific theory. But you knew that. Why are you being so unhelpful? It's not as if I'm a troll. I flip-flop on the issues of Evolution, Creationism, Catholicism, Homosexuality, etc. all the time. I've done a 180 on each of these multiple times since I joined this site a year ago (which you would see were you to perform a tedious analysis of all my activity here since I joined), so don't as if I'm dishonest.

You didn't ask for the scientific theory. You asked for the specific guess that evolution started with. I answered your question, and PBG answered your next question. Are we good here?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 7:34:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The theory of evolution states that this occurs through genetic mutations and natural selection.

Ok, I have no qualms with this. If evolution is defined this way, I agree with it.

At 1/16/2014 7:22:31 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 1/16/2014 6:49:48 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
: I want to argue why it's not a valid scientific theory.

Are you a scientist, or at least a current science major in college? If not, then you have neither the knowledge nor the authority to challenge any scientific theory. The equivalent is me, the science guy who doesn't know jack about cars, challenging my mechanic about which battery terminal to attach jumper cables to. It is a simple thing that isn't that hard to understand, but I still don't have the basis upon which to challenge him.

Lol this rustled my jimmies. So I can't challenge the establishment because I'm not part of it? That's the best you can come up with it?
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 7:35:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/16/2014 7:30:26 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/16/2014 6:49:48 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/16/2014 1:08:23 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/16/2014 12:06:06 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
In the past tense? You sure you don't mean "change" and not "changed"?

Also, evolutionary theory has been defined much better since then.

Really? What is the definition? The scientific theory, not just another synonym for change.

At 1/16/2014 12:46:02 PM, Noumena wrote:
"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."
- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974

I want the Scientific Theory. That doesn't look like a scientific theory to me.

At 1/16/2014 3:56:01 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/14/2014 8:08:19 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
It started out as a guess, right? A very specific guess, not a vague one?

CAN ANYONE TELL ME WHAT IT WAS?

The point.


Get to it.

I want to argue why it's not a valid scientific theory. But you knew that. Why are you being so unhelpful? It's not as if I'm a troll. I flip-flop on the issues of Evolution, Creationism, Catholicism, Homosexuality, etc. all the time. I've done a 180 on each of these multiple times since I joined this site a year ago (which you would see were you to perform a tedious analysis of all my activity here since I joined), so don't as if I'm dishonest.

You didn't ask for the scientific theory. You asked for the specific guess that evolution started with. I answered your question, and PBG answered your next question. Are we good here?

Yea, we're good. I made a different thread that was less ambiguous for that other topic.

Thanks for responding.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 7:42:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/16/2014 7:34:26 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
The theory of evolution states that this occurs through genetic mutations and natural selection.

Ok, I have no qualms with this. If evolution is defined this way, I agree with it.

At 1/16/2014 7:22:31 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 1/16/2014 6:49:48 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
: I want to argue why it's not a valid scientific theory.

Are you a scientist, or at least a current science major in college? If not, then you have neither the knowledge nor the authority to challenge any scientific theory. The equivalent is me, the science guy who doesn't know jack about cars, challenging my mechanic about which battery terminal to attach jumper cables to. It is a simple thing that isn't that hard to understand, but I still don't have the basis upon which to challenge him.

Lol this rustled my jimmies. So I can't challenge the establishment because I'm not part of it? That's the best you can come up with it?

You misinterpret. If the establishment to which you refer is the scientific community, the I say you cannot challenge without the knowledge and background necessary to understand what is going on. This is illustrated by the fact that you are so thoroughly confused by the scientific method. You don't even know enough about biology to grasp the building block of all science, yet you wish to challenge the cornerstone of biological science.

Analogy: you don't debate a subject studied in calc three with a mathematician while you have not even taken college algebra. You need to build up your understanding of the subject before you deem to challenge it.

The statements about method and evolutionary theory clearly show that you just have not thoroughly learned the concept yet. It is not something you can learn by reading things on the internet, it is like mathematics, it requires devoted study to actually understand.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 7:45:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/16/2014 7:42:57 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
[...]

So basically what you're telling me is to stop debating about Evolution?

You know that isn't going to happen, right? So why are you wasting your time?
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 7:50:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/16/2014 7:45:16 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/16/2014 7:42:57 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
[...]

So basically what you're telling me is to stop debating about Evolution?

You know that isn't going to happen, right? So why are you wasting your time?

No, I am telling you that if you wish to debate science, go learn what it is first.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 7:52:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/16/2014 7:50:01 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 1/16/2014 7:45:16 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/16/2014 7:42:57 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
[...]

So basically what you're telling me is to stop debating about Evolution?

You know that isn't going to happen, right? So why are you wasting your time?

No, I am telling you that if you wish to debate science, go learn what it is first.

Yea, I'm not going to waste my time debating with you on my what I should and shouldn't do. Unless you have some constructive criticism that doesn't involve ad hominem attacks, I'm not replying to you anymore.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 7:56:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/16/2014 7:52:14 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/16/2014 7:50:01 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 1/16/2014 7:45:16 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/16/2014 7:42:57 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
[...]

So basically what you're telling me is to stop debating about Evolution?

You know that isn't going to happen, right? So why are you wasting your time?

No, I am telling you that if you wish to debate science, go learn what it is first.

Yea, I'm not going to waste my time debating with you on my what I should and shouldn't do. Unless you have some constructive criticism that doesn't involve ad hominem attacks, I'm not replying to you anymore.

I did. Please refer to post #9.

If you would like to switch gears and get into the science, I am more than happy to. I would like to point out that reading back over my posts, I realize that I have come off as condescending and snobbish. I sincerely apologize, I had not intention of belittling you or offending you.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 8:01:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/16/2014 7:56:55 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 1/16/2014 7:52:14 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/16/2014 7:50:01 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 1/16/2014 7:45:16 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/16/2014 7:42:57 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
[...]

So basically what you're telling me is to stop debating about Evolution?

You know that isn't going to happen, right? So why are you wasting your time?

No, I am telling you that if you wish to debate science, go learn what it is first.

Yea, I'm not going to waste my time debating with you on my what I should and shouldn't do. Unless you have some constructive criticism that doesn't involve ad hominem attacks, I'm not replying to you anymore.

I did. Please refer to post #9.

If you would like to switch gears and get into the science, I am more than happy to. I would like to point out that reading back over my posts, I realize that I have come off as condescending and snobbish. I sincerely apologize, I had not intention of belittling you or offending you.

no problem, I have a different thread similar to this one that i'd rather stick to.

this one has run its course for me
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...