The Instigator
GarretKadeDupre
Pro (for)
Tied
6 Points
The Contender
TruthHurts
Con (against)
Tied
6 Points

Dinosaurs Lived With People

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/25/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,765 times Debate No: 60898
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (38)
Votes (3)

 

GarretKadeDupre

Pro

I will be arguing that live dinosaurs existed at the same time humans did.

I may use the term dinosaur interchangeably with mesosaur or pterosaur. I do not mean birds; that would be abusive use of the term. Voters should exercise their discretion when deciding if my use of the term dinosaur or human becomes abusive.

First round is for acceptance and pleasantries, if desired. I welcome TruthHurts to this debate!

I recommend giving TurthHurts conduct points simply for accepting this debate when all the others kept coming up with excuses not to.
TruthHurts

Con

I accept, and look forward to this interesting debate. Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
GarretKadeDupre

Pro

Thank you Con, I also look forward to an interesting debate between us! Here we go...

In the Book of Job, written about 4,000 years ago, we read the following:

Look at Behemoth,
which I made along with you
and which feeds on grass like an ox.
What strength it has in its loins,
what power in the muscles of its belly!
Its tail sways like a cedar;
the sinews of its thighs are close-knit.
Its bones are tubes of bronze,
its limbs like rods of iron.
It ranks first among the works of God,
yet its Maker can approach it with his sword.
The hills bring it their produce,
and all the wild animals play nearby.
Under the lotus plants it lies,
hidden among the reeds in the marsh.
The lotuses conceal it in their shadow;
the poplars by the stream surround it.
A raging river does not alarm it;
it is secure, though the Jordan should surge against its mouth.
Can anyone capture it by the eyes,
or trap it and pierce its nose?

One may object that they do not believe in God, but the fact remains that this story was written for contemporaries so that they might see a real-life example of their God's majesty. If the animal here described, which is obviously a dinosaur, was not known to the Jews, then this story would have sounded to them absolutely absurd and it would not have been passed down. If behemoth didn't really exist for the Jews to see first-hand, using him as proof of the greatest of God's works would have been utterly ineffective and made the author the laughingstock of the people.


Around 4,000 years ago, the Hongshan culture, in what is now China, carved a Montanoceratops out of jade:


This proves the Chinese saw a live Montanoceratops.

In China around 1,100 A.D., Marco Polo saw a 50-foot reptile with jaws large enough to swallow a man, and a tail so heavy it left a trail in the sand as if a heavy beam had been dragged across. Here is his eye-witness account of this dinosaur:

 Here are seen huge serpents, ten paces in length, and ten spans in the girt of the body. At the fore part, near the 
head, they have two short legs, having three claws like those of a
tiger, with eyes larger than a fourpenny loaf (pane
da quattro denari) and very glaring. The
jaws are wide enough to swallow a man, the teeth are large and sharp, and
their whole
appearance is so formidable, that neither man, nor any kind of animal, can approach them without terror.
Others are met with of a smaller size, being eight, six, or five paces long; and the follow
ing method is used for taking
them. In the day-time, by reason of the great heat, they lurk in
caverns, from whence, at night, they issue to seek the
ir food, and whatever beast they meet
with and can lay hold of, whether tiger, wolf, or any other, they devour; after
which they drag
themselves towards some lake, spring of water, or river, in order to drink. By their motion in
this way along the shore, and their vast weight, they make a deep impression, as if a heavy
beam had been drawn
along the sands.
Those whose employment it is to hunt them observe the track by which they are most frequently
accustomed to go, and fix into the ground several pieces of wood, armed with
sharp iron spikes, which they cover with
the sand in such a manner as not to be perceptible.
When therefore the animals make their way towards the places
they usually haunt, they are
wounded by these instruments, and speedily killed. The crows, as soon as they
perceive
them to be dead, set up their scream ; and this serves as a signal to the hunters, who advance to the spot,
and proceed to separate the skin from the flesh, taking care immediately
to secure the gall, which is most highly
esteemed in medicine. In cases of the bite of a mad
dog, a pennyweight of it, dissolved in wine, is administered. It is
also useful in accelerating
parturition, when the labour pains of women have come on. A small quantity of it being
applied to carbuncles, pustules, or other eruptions on the body, they are presently dispersed;
and it is efficacious in
many other complaints. The flesh also of the animal is sold at a dear
rate, being thought to have a higher flavour than
other kinds of meat, and by all persons it is
esteemed a delicacy.


Around the same time (1,100 A.D.), the following Wuerhosaurus was carved into a temple in Cambodia, proving that the Cambodians witnessed a live Wuerhosaurus:

The artist was clever enough to exaggerate the head so that it wouldn't be confused for a tail, thus avoiding the creation of what would be mistaken for a headless animal.

The lack of spines on the sculpture's tail is due either to lack of space, since the tail is cut off by the encircling design; or, the artist was simply representing a variety of spine-less, Wuerhosaurus-like dinosaur.

In the late 1500s, The Father of Natural History, Ulysses Aldrovandus, recorded the following regarding a dinosaur which he saw with his own eyes:

In the year of our salvation 1572, on the third day before the Ides of May, at the time of the election of the Supreme Pontiff, Gregory XIII, of Bologna, in that place a two-legged dragon hissing after the manner of a serpent showed itself. For it was making its lair at the estate of the Lord Petronius de Dosiis in the place known as Malavolta. But eventually after the day of the Ascension of our Redeemer of that same year, at the seventeenth hour on a public road next to a fence of the aforementioned property at a distance of one mile from the City, it was sighted by a certain farmhand named Baptista de Camaldulo. For, as he was going to the country from Bologna with his oxen drawing the carriage and he himself walking on foot behind the carriage, he noticed that the oxen came to a sudden stop. And so in frustration, he hit them hard with his boot, but they were terrified for some reason and, dropped to their knees, would not dare to go on any farther. Just then, hearing a loud hiss, the farmhand looked around and saw the astonishing figure of the Dragon. Right there, trembling with fear, he lifted his spear, struck the head of the beast, and killed the animal.

But what is amazing is that the Dragon never left from that place, but rather chose to remain, with raised head, leering at the oxen and the farmhand with its cruel eyes, possibly in order to spring at them.[...] And even though serpents are very voracious animals[...] we must not for that reason believe that this Dragon with two feet had raised up its head for the sake of food but rather it did so in order to be able to spring at the farmhand more easily.

Aldrovandus had the following painting of this creature made, revealing it was a dinosaur closely related to Tanystropheus:

One may object that Aldrovandus' dinosaur is missing it's hind limbs, but that's not too unusual. There are species of lizards and skinks today which also lack hind limbs:

At Palau de La Generalitat in Barcelona Spain, St. George’s Chapel contains a 1500s altar cloth depicting St. George slaying a Nothosaurus. The only way the artist could have illustrated a Nothosaurus so accurately is if people had seen it in real life; thus, the resolution is fulfilled.


The “Ica Stones” were carved around the 1500s in Peru and depict various dinosaurs, thus proving people saw live dinosaurs:

In the late 1800s, Geologist F.S. Homes, Paleontologist and Curator of the Charleston Museum, discovered Indian arrowheads, an axe, a human jaw bone and other human bones in the “Ashley Beds” of South Carolina, mixed together with Iguanodons, Duck-billed dinosaurs, Ichthyosauruses, and Plesiosaurs fossils.

Here is an excerpt from his book, The Phosphate Rock of South Carolina and the Great Carolina Marl Bed:

Not long after finding the above named relics of human workmanship, and engaged in our usual visits to the Ashley Bed, a bone was found projecting from the bluff, immediately in contact with the surface of the stony stratum (the Phosphate-rocks); we pulled it out, and behold a human bone! Without hesitation it was condemned as an "accidental occupant" of quarters to which it had no right - geologically - and so we threw it into the river. Alas! we have lived to regret our temerity and rashness. A year after, a lower jaw bone with teeth was taken from the same bed, and now we have it in the cabinet[...] Subsequent events and discoveries show, conclusively, that the first human bone was "in place", and that the beds of the Post-Pleiocene, not only on the Ashley, but in France Switzerland and other European countries, contain human bones associated with the remains of extinct animals and relics of human workmanship, proving most conclusively that the Carolina specimens were found " in place"[...]

Obviously, finding human fossils mixed together with dinosaur fossils, embedded in the same rock formation, proves that humans saw living dinosaurs.

I should clarify that my position of live dinosaurs being witnessed by people in the past few thousand years in no way defies science. The Ceolacanth was also thought to have gone extinct around 65 million years ago, yet it has been confirmed that they survive today. Similarly, the gigantic Wollemi Pine was once believed to have been extinct for millions of years, but we now know they grow in Australia.

I look forward to my opponent's rebuttals.

TruthHurts

Con

Thank you, Pro. I look forward to an interesting debate.

I will begin with an overview, then present one contention supporting my case, and, finally, rebut Pro's case.

Overview:

I would like to note a couple things regarding this debate:

1. Pro has the sole BOP in this round, since he is presenting a positive idea against the status quo. This means that he must prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, that homo sapiens and dinosaurs lived simultaneously. Remember, as Christopher Hitchens once articulated, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
2. I would also like to discuss the types of proof Pro is going to need in this debate. While I do not wish to get into rebuttals yet, Pro will have to demonstrate with scientific proof that dinosaurs lived with people, ruling out all other possible explanations of his evidences. This is going to be quite difficult, since all I have to do is demonstrate that there are at least other plausible explanations for Pro's evidence to win this debate.

I. Dinosaur fossils predate those of homo sapiens.

This is going to be very straightforward. Quite simply, dinosaur bones have been radiometrically dated to be from, at the latest, 65 million years ago [1]. Conversely, the oldest homo sapiens fossil ever found has been dated to be only 195,000 years old [2]. This means that there is absolutely no scientific evidence that demonstrates that the two ever lived together at the same time. Pretty simple.

Rebuttals

For the sake of clarity, Pro's arguments can be categorized into two contentions: 1) Artistic depictions, and 2) Fossil records.

1. Artistic depictions

I am not going to go through all of Pro's examples of artistic references of dinosaurs, because they are all essentially the same thing. Pro's argument can be represented as the following:

1. Human beings have drawn and/or described creatures that appear to be dinosaurs.
2. Human beings can only draw and/or describe dinosaurs if they have had either first-hand or scientific knowledge of them.
3. Early humans did not have scientific knowledge of dinosaurs.
Therefore, early humans had first-hand encounters with dinosaurs.

This argument is logically valid; that is, the conclusion follows from the premises, and is true if the premises are true. However, premise 2 is demonstrably false. What Pro is advocating is that science fiction could not exist as a genre; that is, human imagination cannot create things that may, coincidentally, look like something else ever without having first-hand evidence.

While I will discuss ancient art and literature in a moment, let's adapt this argument to the present time.

1. Human beings have drawn and/or described Wookies (from Star Wars).
2. Human beings can only draw and/or describe Wookies if they have had either first-hand or scientific knowledge of them.
3. Humans do not have scientific knowledge of Wookies.
Therefore, humans have had first-hand encounters with Wookies.

Since there is no evidence whatsoever of any human ever having had an encounter with a Wookie, or having gone to the planet Kashyyyk, yet, Star Wars exists, we can see that this "logic" is patently absurd.

Moreover, ancient art and literature is full of all sorts of things that there is no evidence for. For instance, the ancient Egyptians wrote of and drew gods that were human, but with the head of a bird [3], they had glyphs that look somewhat like airplanes and UFOs [4], and Leonardo da Vinci came up with the idea of a helicopter without ever having seen one [5]. Even the Bible contains references of flying chariots and giants.

The tl;dr of this argument is that human imagination and fiction are real things. Human beings have the unique cognitive ability to imagine and create wondrous idea that have no bearing on reality whatsoever. Pro will need to demonstrate how this uniquely does not fall under the umbrella of fiction.

Finally, some, if not all, of these depictions could also be dismissed as misidentifications. Many of these look like rhinoceroses, lizards, and other known animals, or were at least heavily based on those.

2. Fossil record

Pro here claims that, because dinosaur fossils have been found in the same layers as humankind by one guy one time 200 years ago, that the two clearly lived at the same time. Obviously, there are other possible explanations, most likely a phemonemon called fossil turbulence, whereby geologic or other natural forces can cause upheavals within the earth or underwater, causing fossil layers to appear mixed together [5]. This is often caused in areas that have been both land and sea in the past, as South Carolina was [5]. In fact, the USGS has attributed this mixing in the Ashley River beds to this phenomenon [6]. Note, of course, that no evidence has cropped up from these very accessible fossils that dates them in the same time periods.

The biggest question of all is, if dinosaurs have, in fact, been alive for the past 65 million years, why have palaeontologists found absolutely no dinosaur fossils dating after 65 million years ago, but plenty before? Do dinosaurs only selectively fossilize? Such a gigantic creature would surely leave more traces over the last 65 million years ago than a few pieces of art. Pro needs to give more evidence here to have a chance at meeting his BOP.

Of course, it is POSSIBLE, as Pro states, that dinosaurs lived with humans. However, there is no evidence for such an event, and Pro's BOP is to show that this DID happen, not that it could have. He has not done this, nor can he, with the available scientific evidence. His position is anathema to the accepted scientific position.

Thank you, and I look forward to reading Pro's response.

Sources:

1. http://science.howstuffworks.com...
2. http://www.sciencedaily.com...
3. http://www.ancientegypt.co.uk...
4. http://en.wikipedia.org...
5. http://arxiv.org...
6. http://pubs.usgs.gov...
Debate Round No. 2
GarretKadeDupre

Pro

Thanks Con. Let's begin by clarifying some things regarding my burden of proof.


Con said “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” and then demands that “Pro will have to demonstrate with scientific proof that dinosaurs lived with people”. But according to RationalWiki, science does not deal in proof(1), so Con's extraordinary demand that I rule out any “possible”(!) alternative explanation of my evidences is... absurd.


Similarly, when Con claimed that he only need “demonstrate that there are at least other plausible explanations for Pro's evidence” he was wrong. He needs to demonstrate other explanations that are not just plausible, but also more likely than the ones I put forth.


Con makes the following argument:

P1: The youngest radiometric date assigned to any dinosaur fossil is 65 million years.

P2: The oldest radiometric date assigned to any human fossil is 195,000 years.

C1: “This means that there is absolutely no scientific evidence that demonstrates that the two ever lived together at the same time. Pretty simple.

The first problem with this argument is that the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises.


Just because the accepted ages of dinosaur and human fossils do not intersect does not mean that all other evidence for humans living with dinosaurs magically disappears.

The second problem with Con's logic is that it can easily be reduced to absurdity with the following reductio ad absurdum argument:

P1: The youngest radiometric date assigned to any Ceolacanth fossil is 80 million years.(2) (older than the youngest dinosaur fossils!)

P2: The oldest radiometric date assigned to any human fossil is 195,000 years.

C1: “This means there is absolutely no scientific evidence that demonstrates that the two ever lived together at the same time. Pretty simple.

This cannot be true, since there are live Ceolacanths today!

Con says my arguments consist solely of “1) Artistic depictions, and 2) Fossil records”, thus completely neglecting to address my very first argument from the Book of Job which qualifies as an eye-witness account of a sauropod dinosaur.

Con infers that my arguments regarding artistic depictions rely on the following premise:

Human beings can only draw and/or describe dinosaurs if they have had either first-hand or scientific knowledge of them.

It's not too unfair a portrayal of my position, but I'd like to clarify that I'm making an inductive argument:

If human beings draw and/or describe dinosaurs, they probably have first-hand or scientific knowledge of dinosaurs, especially if the context is drawing and/or describing extant(3) animals.


Since Con seems to agree that my artists did not have scientific knowledge of dinosaurs, my dinosaur artwork satisfies my burden of proof as it contributes to scientific evidence (a.k.a. empirical evidence) that dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time.

Con's “Wookie” argument is not applicable because there is absolutely no reason to assume Wookie depictions are based on real life; they are just one of a myriad of magical Star Wars animals, so their context speaks to their fictitious nature.




The jade Montanoceratops, on the other hand, was found with a turtle, fish, and eagle:


The Wuerhosaurus carving was found with a goat, monkey, bird, and gaur:


Con says, “the ancient Egyptians wrote of and drew gods that were human, but with the head of a bird”; however, their writings of gods are not presented as eye-witness accounts, nor are their deity depictions anomalies. Just like the Wookie, the deities are drawn with a myriad of other magical creatures. And of course, Egyptian gods aren't even real, but dinosaurs are.

Con says, “they had glyphs that look somewhat like airplanes and UFOs” but Con fails to mention that the photo of glyphs claimed to depict UFOs was proven to be a coincidence resulting from one king overwriting a previous king's name with his own name; there's also the fact that the specific photo of the glyphs used to support the UFO idea was digitally edited to exaggerate the illusion and thus, a hoax.

Leonardo da Vinci came up with the idea of a helicopter without ever having seen one

So this proves humans didn't live with helicopters...?

Even the Bible contains references of flying chariots and giants.

Yes, but flying chariots were never described as something readers could verify with their own eyes. It says Elijah was drawn up to heaven in a fiery chariot and will remain until the world's end... not exactly a falsifiable hypothesis. But the dinosaur in the Book of Job would have been easily falsified by the author's contemporaries, and the author was well aware of this.

Regarding giants, I've got to inform you that they are real. Gigantism is a real condition acknowledged by mainstream academia.

The tl;dr of this argument is that human imagination and fiction are real things.

Are you suggesting all the likenesses of dinosaurs are mere coincidence? It's possible, but not plausible. Using your logic, the turtle and fish sculptures were mere coincidence, too.

Many of these look like rhinoceroses, lizards, and other known animals, or were at least heavily based on those.

I would like Con to elaborate on that.

Con argues that finding dinosaur and human fossils together doesn't necessarily indicate they lived at the same time, and blames “fossil turbulence”; apparently, he's implying that the dinosaur and human fossils got mixed together in “turbulent” waters.

However, “fossil turbulence” has absolutely nothing to do with paleontology and the term is actually defined as “the three-dimensional microstructure of temperature, humidity, or some other scalar property that is advected by the mean flow.

This means that it's simply not possible that the USGS blamed the mixture of dinosaur and human fossils on “fossil turbulence”. In fact, his source for this claim does not even include the words “fossil turbulence”. Con's last 3 sources do not support his arguments.

The “fossil” in “fossil turbulence” is not referring to the preserved remains of animals and plants. I can see how Con got mislead, but I'd like him to be more accurate when he cites stuff for his claims.

Con says that “no evidence has cropped up from these very accessible fossils that dates them in the same time periods” but this simply cannot be true, as being mixed together is evidence that they are from the same time period.

Con asks, “why have palaeontologists found absolutely no dinosaur fossils dating after 65 million years ago, but plenty before? Do dinosaurs only selectively fossilize?

I'll answer Con's questions with more questions:

Why have paleontologists found absolutely no Ceolacanth fossils dating after 80 million years ago, but plenty before? Do Ceolacanths only selectively fossilize?

Too bad Ceolacanths don't talk, else we could ask them!

Con says, “Such a gigantic creature would surely leave more traces over the last 65 million years ago than a few pieces of art.

They didn't leave only “a few pieces of art.” They left behind worldwide legends of dragons, as well as lots of fossils in the Ashley Beds.

You could also ask why the massive Wollemi Pine tree (which grows many, many times larger than virtually any dinosaur) hasn't left behind any fossils for millions of years.

Pro needs to give more evidence here to have a chance at meeting his BOP.

Con needs to actually address the artwork to have a chance of refuting my case; e.g. here is an artistic depiction of a pterosaur (Rhamphorynchus to be exact) from the 1600s:


The artist took advantage of his artistic license when he stuck it with a pair of horns, but he did the same thing to the snake, so it doesn't detract from the fact that a live Rhamphorynchus inspired him. It may even be a conglomeration of different pterosaurs; e.g. of Rhamphorynchus and a horned species (there are many). This is a common phenomena in stylized art.

For example, in Winnie the Pooh storybooks, the artist depicts the “beehive” as a mixture of a beehive with a wasp's nest. But this doesn't mean that the artist never saw real, living bees or wasps!

Of course, it is POSSIBLE, as Pro states, that dinosaurs lived with humans. However, there is no evidence

Is Con deliberately closing his eyes everytime he scrolls past the photos of dinosaur art?

Pro's BOP is to show that this DID happen[...] He has not done this, nor can he, with the available scientific evidence.

I'm amused that my opponent feels he is aware of every piece of evidence in the world to enable him to make such a audacious claim.

His position is anathema to the accepted scientific position.

So were Ceolacanths and Wollemi Pine trees. Are you seriously arguing that updating the accepted scientific position is a bad thing?

Your turn Con! I really do hope you spend more time addressing my evidences :)


(1) http://rationalwiki.org...

(2) http://vertebrates.si.edu...

(3) Extant means still living; e.g. dogs are extant.

TruthHurts

Con

Thank you, Pro. I'm going to primarily argue line-by-line this round.

First, on BOP: Pro has to provide substantive evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that dinosaurs and humans coexisted. Circumstantial evidence does not cut it, since there have been depictions of all sorts of beings in art, like Bigfoot, aliens, and other mythological creatures. Scientific evidence needs to be given, and, as I have explained previously and will do again, science can explain the strata problem (though some new evidence I will bring up questions the integrity of the excavations).

This means that all I have to do is give another plausible account. I do not need to delve into the probability, because Pro did not say that dinosaurs likely coexisted with humans, but that, positively, "Dinosaurs lived with people." This means that he must provide exhaustive evidence, and not simply probabilities (which he does not have, anyway).

I. Fossil dating differences

Firstly, it is unclear why my premises do not follow from the conclusion. Let me state this more elegantly:

P1: The youngest radiometric date assigned to any dinosaur fossil is 65 million years.
P2: The oldest radiometric date assigned to any human fossil is 195,000 years.
C1: The fossil record demonstrates that there is no evidence that dinosaurs and humans coexisted.

This is logically valid, and, if Pro has a problem with the logic, I would like him to explicate it.

"Coelacanths live today!"

Yes, but that does not mean that, before discovery of living coelacanth specimen, that the scientific community should default to their existence. If we are to follow Pro's logic, every extinct creature ever should be assumed to be alive, because a few thought-to-be-extinct species have been found. All I have to show is that there is no scientific evidence for their coexistence (that means fossil evidence), and I have done that.

I obviously cannot say that dinosaurs and humans certainly did not exist, but I can (and have) demonstrated that there is no fossil evidence for their coexistence, which is all I need to do.

II. Artistic depictions

Please note that I am including the Job account in artistic depictions, since literature is a form of art.

Since Pro has placed a surprising amount of emphasis into these depictions, I will spend more time refuting them as evidence.

1. Many of the depictions are hoaxes.

Many depictions of "dinosaurs" in ancient art have been shown to likely be hoaxes, or have at least not been authenticated, including the Ica stones and the Chinese jade pig-dragon figurine mentioned by Pro[1]. Note that Pro only gives pictures, but not authentications of these artifacts.

2. Many of the depictions are ambiguous.

I have already mentioned this earlier. Many of the depictions appear to be stylized versions of other animals, including:

1) The Book of Job account does not demonstrate a dinosaur, simply a large animal. I would like Pro to demonstrate how the Bible is both factually accurate and specifically suggestive of a dinosaur here.

2) The ancient Chinese jade stone that Pro claims to be a dinosaur is actually incredibly similar to Chinese pig-dragon, which tend to be elongated, and not at all suggestive of a dragon [1].

3) The Cambodian "dinosaur" actually appears, as I mentioned, to be a rhinoceros, as noted by the Smithsonian Institute [2].

4) The Spanish engraving looks much more like an alligator or crocodile than anything.

This directly refutes my opponent's arguments about context, since the animals shown are likely based on real animals, not dinosaurs.

3. The remaining depictions are outdated, and likely either invented or misidentified.

The line here is writing something down does not make it true. In that case, fiction would not exist

As an example, old newspapers would publish stories purporting to demonstrate the reality of ghosts [3]. Of course, this does not mean ghosts are real, just that scientific understanding has reached a point that we now have better explanations.

Moreover, there are depictions in fiction of Bigfoot. This does not mean they are real, just that the writer misidentified something, likely a bear, as a Bigfoot.

Brief line-by-line refutations:

"Egyptian gods aren't even real, but dinosaurs are."

We now know that to be true, but ancient Egyptians certainly believed that their gods were real. Pro is off-base here.

"So this proves humans didn't live with helicopters..."

No, only that humans have the ability to invent and imagine things without them actually having had existed.

"Flying chariots were never described as something readers could verify...but dinosaurs [were]..."

This is a pure assertion. Why would a flying chariot not be depicted as something real, but dinosaurs were? Where is the line, and what is the standard? Pro needs to give a better response here.

"Are you suggesting all the likenesses of dinosaurs are mere coincidence?"

Not exactly, but these likenesses are either imagined, not actually based on dinosaurs, or are hoaxes.

III. Evidence from fossil strata

Pro does not understand my evidence regarding fossil turbulence. Fossil turbulence deals with the idea that objects that should be patterned in a certain way, be that current flow, galaxies, or, yes, fossils, can be affected by geologic and hydrological processes. The USGS document I mentioned uses this idea, but different terminology, with regards to the Ashley fossil beds. See earlier sources for confirmation of this.

Moreover, if you take a look at this source [4], you will see that the archaic methods used by those involved with the excavation team, combined with the unique geology of this bed and similar forms, that the mixing is not actually reflective of their strata.

The important note is that the fossils from the Ashley beds have not been radiometrically dated to be within the same age range, which is interesting, since such a discovery would transform science in a meaningful way.

Now, to the line-by-line:

"Why have palaeontologists found absolutely no Coelacanth fossils dating after 80 millions years ago, but plenty before? Do coelacanths only selectively fossilize?"

First, again refer to my earlier argument that we should not default to assuming something exists without some evidence.

Second, a more important issue needs to be raised here: my opponent has suggested that fairly recent and wide-ranging cultures worldwide have encountered dinosaurs. Yet, we only have found a few depictions, and no other evidence. This claim is markedly different than those of the Wollemi Pine and coelacanth, which have a small range. If dinosaurs existed worldwide, some evidence that meets scrutiny would have been found.

"Worldwide legends of dragons, as well as lots of fossils in the Ashley Beds."

Sure, myths do often have some modicum of truth that inspires them. The Smithsonian has compiled a list of suspects, including fossils, reptiles, and, yes, imagination [5].

Secondly, the Ashley Beds are literally one place. This mixing would surely have been found in many more fossil beds, and not just one place. Why, then, do dinosaur fossils almost universally fit into strata reflecting their age, and are consistently dated to more than 65 million years ago?

Thirdly, I have debunked the notion that this mixing is reflective of coexistence, as have the sources I have given.

IV. Other refutation

"Here is an artistic depiction of a pterosaur..."

Judges, you can rule on this, but the two pictures given by Pro do not look similar enough to rule them as the same thing.

Also, as has been the norm, this picture is given without source, meaning that, like the earlier depictions, it could very well be a hoax, a misidentification, or any number of other things.

"Is Con deliberately closing his eyes ever time he scrolls past the photos of dinosaur art?

No. Rather, Pro is ignoring any possible alternate explanations, because he is looking for evidence of dinosaurs. This is a classic case of confirmation bias.

"Are you seriously arguing that updating the accepted scientific position is a bad thing?"

Absolutely not. However, what caused science to accept the idea of living coelacanths and Wollemi Pines were living specimens, not just happenstance and speculation. Evidence is needed for such a huge reversal of the scientific status quo, evidence that Pro has not provided.

As the Smithsonian said:

"Either way, the temple carving can in no way be used as evidence that humans and non-avian dinosaurs coexisted. Fossils have inspired some myths (see Adrienne Mayor's excellent book The First Fossil Hunters), but close scrutiny of geological layers, reliable radiometric dating techniques, the lack of dinosaur fossils in strata younger than the Cretaceous, and other lines of evidence all confirm that non-avian dinosaurs became extinct tens of millions of years before there was any type of culture that could have recorded what they looked like. As scientist Carl Sagan said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", and in the case of modern dinosaurs the evidence just isn't there." [2].


1. http://paleo.cc...
2. http://www.smithsonianmag.com...
3. http://library.sc.edu...
4.http://books.google.com...
5.http://www.smithsonianmag.com...
Debate Round No. 3
GarretKadeDupre

Pro


Con says circumstantial evidence isn't enough for my case. According to Webster(4), circumstantial evidence is defined as:



evidence that tends to prove a fact by proving other events or circumstances which afford a basis for a reasonable inference of the occurrence of the fact at issue”



This means that, in effect, Con is saying evidence that affords a basis for the reasonable inference that dinosaurs and people coexisted is not sufficient. This is clearly absurd.



Then, Con goes on to say that scientific evidence needs to be given. I'm not amused by Con's relentless demand for scientific evidence in the face of all the scientific evidence I've given him. Apparently, he does not understand that “scientific evidence” is defined as “empirical evidence” which is essentially “stuff you can see with your own eyes” or “things that you can confirm for yourself.” Now, Con has never explicitly challenged my evidences, but since he has suggested he'd like to see sources for them, I'll be happy to oblige:



Hongshan Montanoceratops: http://www.icr.org...


Cambodian Wuerhosaurus: http://www.bible.ca...


Aldrovandus' Dinosaur: http://www.genesispark.com...


St. George's Nothosaurus: http://www.genesispark.com...


Ica Stones: http://advindicate.com...


Samlesbury Pterosaur: http://skepticism.org...



I fully expect a baseless accusation from Con that sources 1,2,3 or 5 fabricated the evidence, but I'll be more understanding if he questions the authenticity of the Ica Stones since their origin is genuinely controversial.



Con says science can explain the strata “problem”, but it isn't a problem at all for those who acknowledge that the explanation of the dinosaur wipeout event being a complete and total extinction is tentative and liable to be updated in the face of new evidence, just like all of science is.



Con repeats his false, self-serving assertion that any other, plausible explanation for my evidences, even if less plausible than my explanation (!) will win him this debate. Then he goes so far as to claim I must provide exhaustive evidence, as if it's physically possible for me to present all the world's evidence for dinosaur/human interaction within the confines of this debate!



For Con to win, he must provide a better explanation than I do, plain and simple.



Amusingly, Con modified the conclusion in his fossil record argument and then acted as if it was “unclear” why it didn't follow from the premises. That's bordering on disingenuous, since it appears that he updated the argument to escape my refutation of it, all the while pretending that it was the same argument.



More amusingly still, his new conclusion, “The fossil record demonstrates that there is no evidence that dinosaurs and humans coexisted” doesn't logically follow either. No matter what the fossil record shows, it simply can't erase all non-fossil evidence of dinosaur/human interaction, anymore than fossil evidence can erase modern Ceolacanth/human interaction.



Con's next argument is just abusive semantics. He redefines “scientific evidence” as “fossil evidence” so he can point to a lack of fossil evidence for my case and pretend the case is closed. I'm not even kidding; read what he said:



All I have to show is that there is no scientific evidence for their coexistence (that means fossil evidence)



The implication of Con's slyness is huge, because it virtually defines my chance of winning as 0.1%. Since “scientific evidence” is synonymous with “empirical evidence”, and all my art and literature evidences are empirical, they would be defined out of existence!



Con says, “I can (and have) demonstrated that there is no fossil evidence for their coexistence, which is all I need to do.



I'd like to introduce Con to the Ceolacanth, who would be very offended at that statement. Sure, you and I can easily confirm there are live Ceolacanths, and we might not be able to do the same for dinosaurs, but it just goes to show the fallacy that lies behind many, if not most, of Con's arguments.



Con says the jade Montanoceratops is a hoax or not authenticated, implying it's modern and not 4,000 years old. Amusingly, the source(5) of his source admits the following:



The most charitable explanation is that even if the artefacts [sic] presented are really just modern reproductions of non-Hongshan figurines this still implies that there are some old dragon figurines somewhere that look like dinosaurs, and isn’t that a problem?”



So even if it were a modern hoax, it would still be based on a genuinely ancient Montanoceratops sculpture, so Con's accusation of fraud refutes itself!



The Behemoth is described as a tranquil herbivore, capable of standing secure against a raging river and bearing a tail that sways like a cedar tree. This description is compatible with a dinosaur only, probably Argentinosaurus:





I don't have to prove the entire Bible to be accurate, contrary to Con's expectations. I only need to show that Behemoth was used as a verifiable example of God's majesty, and I did that earlier.



Con says the Wuerhosaurus appears to be a rhino. Since Con doesn't know what a rhino is, as rhinos do not have plates or serrated backs, here's a photo for his viewing pleasure:





Con says the Nothosaurus altar cloth looks like “an alligator or crocodile than anything.” I'll just give the judges these pictures for comparison and let them decide:





Con says there are depictions of Bigfoot in fiction. But there are also depictions of humans in fiction. Are humans fictitious? Con's logic is fallacious.



Con asked, “Why would a flying chariot not be depicted as something real, but dinosaurs were? Where is the line, and what is the standard?



I already explained what the line was. The flying chariot wasn't portrayed as something to be verified. Behemoth was. Plain and simple.



I asked Con if he thought the strong resemblance of dinosaurs in ancient art was mere coincidence. He replied, “Not exactly, but these likenesses are either imagined[...]



Saying the likenesses were imagined is the same exact thing as saying they were mere coincidence. I'll take Con's answer as a “yes”: he wants to blame pure coincidence to explain away all the artwork.



Con said the US Geological Survey blamed the Ashley Beds dinosaur and human fossils on “fossil turbulence.” He's going to have to quote me a line saying this because I simply do not believe him.



Con cites a book saying fossils from the Ashley Beds had poor stratigraphic control because they were sometimes “dredged from the bottom of the Ashley River”. However, the paleontologist I quoted makes it clear that the human bones were found “in place”, and that subsequent findings confirmed this, and that they weren't “dredged from the bottom of the Ashley River.” Con's source doesn't even mention human bones or artifacts (!), so it can' be considered as having addressed my fossil evidence at all.



Con says “The important note is that the fossils from the Ashley beds have not been radiometrically dated to be within the same age range” but this is completely irrelevant. They are found in the same strata, so they are the same age. This is the principle upon which the concept of “index fossils” is based. Does Con want to throw out the science of index fossils?



Con says “If dinosaurs existed worldwide, some evidence that meets scrutiny would have been found.” I never argued dinosaurs existed worldwide. That's an unnecessary burden to shove on me in this debate. When I said dinosaurs left worldwide legends, I meant the legends spread throughout the whole world.



Yet, we only have found a few depictions, and no other evidence.



Ok Con, keep ignoring the Ashley Beds' fossil evidence if it makes you feel better.



Why, then, do dinosaur fossils almost universally fit into strata reflecting their age, and are consistently dated to more than 65 million years ago?



They “almost” fit in strata reflecting their age? You're implying they sometimes fit in strata that doesn't reflect their true age, which is a No True Scotsman Fallacy:



P1: The age of dinosaur fossils is determined by their strata as being 65 million years old.


P2: Sometimes, a different age is determined when they are found with human fossils.


Fallacious Conclusion: Well, their true age is determined as being 65 million years old.



The depiction of the Samlesbury pterosaur is not a hoax.(6)(7)



Pro is ignoring any possible alternate explanations



No I'm not, I'm well aware there are possible alternatives e.g. maybe ancient aliens did it! But my explanation is most reasonable since it doesn't require a ton of ad hoc arguments.



Evidence is needed for such a huge reversal of the scientific status quo, evidence that Pro has not provided.



I love how Con defines “evidence” as “that which Pro has not provided.



Here's more evidence that dinosaurs lived with people. DNA was successfully extracted and sequenced from a dinosaur egg(8) and also found in a dinosaur bone.(9) Since even under optimal conditions, DNA degrades so much that it can't be sequenced after 10,000 years(10), it logically follows that dinosaurs lived at the same time as people (unless Con wants to argue that people didn't exist 10,000 years ago lol).



Back to Con!




(4) http://www.merriam-webster.com...


(5) http://eyeonicr.wordpress.com...


(6) http://www.reddit.com...


(7) http://www.quora.com...


(8) http://myweb.dal.ca...


(9) http://www.thebonejournal.com...


(10) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...


TruthHurts

Con

TruthHurts forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
GarretKadeDupre

Pro


SUMMARY



The Book of Job correctly describes the size, anatomy, capabilities, and habits of the Argentinosaurus:





The Ancient Chinese (Hongshan) correctly depicted a Montanoceratops:





Marco Polo records witnessing a Chinese dinosaur.



The Cambodians of the Medieval Ages carved a Wuerhosaurus into a temple wall:





The Father of Natural History, Ulysses Aldrovandus, had a water color painting made of a 2-limbed variety of dinosaur that he saw with his own eyes a mere 500 years ago:





A Spanish altar cloth correctly depicts St. George slaying a Nothosaurus down to minute details:



(12)



The ancient Peruvians depicted a triceratops:





A 1600s artist depicted a stylized pterosaur to represent evil:





And last, but not least, Paleontologist and Curator of the Charleston Museum F.S. Homes confirms multiple human artifacts and bones in the same strata as dinosaurs.



All this proves the ancients witnessed live dinosaurs.No, the ancients were not capable of reconstructing skeletal dinosaur remains. As recent as the late 1800s, this is what happened when we tried to reconstruct Megalosaurus(11):





LOL! Compare that to what Megalosaurus really looks like:





If we couldn't get it right 150 years ago, there's no reason to expect people did a better job 4,000 years in the past.



I'm disappointed Con forfeited his last turn, but I enjoyed this debate nevertheless!



(11) http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk...


(12) Nothosaur eating fish by Peter Minister


TruthHurts

Con

Thank you so much to Pro for being understanding, and for an interesting debate. For this final round, I will go line by line in refutation of Pro's arguments from Rounds 4 and 5, and then crystallize on why you should vote Con.

Rebuttals:

First, a clarification on evidence:

What I have been asking Pro for is scientific evidence of his claim, since, I feel, it is obvious that more than paintings and literature are needed to prove the existence of something. Otherwise, things like angels, Bigfoot, UFOs, etc. would already be accepted facts. By this scientific evidence, I mean ways that the scientific community would come to accept the survival of a creature, by means of recently dated fossils, prints, perhaps photos, etc.

Pro has not done this sufficiently, and I will demonstrate how this, combined with the weakness of his artistic evidence, amounts to Pro's inability to meet the BOP.

Secondly, Pro claims: "Con has never explicitly challenged my evidence..."

This is clearly not true. The entire round I have been stating that the artistic evidence were either 1) hoaxes, 2) ambiguous, or 3) based of off already-explained myths.

Here is the important tidbit about the source material Pro has now provided for the artistic evidence: they are all from creationist sites, except for the last one, and, perhaps more importantly, the source for the Ica Stones says they are likely illegitimate, and literally states that those who claim dinosaurs and humans coexisted must provide extraordinary evidence. This is the bar I, and, now, Pro's evidence, have asked him to meet.

So what I am asking the floor to do is weigh the scientific rebuttals to the artistic evidence I have given from numerous scholars, including the Smithsonian Institution, against the heavily biased sources we get from Pro. I feel that this clearly indicates that my side is stronger.

Finally, with regards to evidence, I have stated that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; that is, Pro must provide a very compelling account that confirms that dinosaurs MUST HAVE coexisted with humans, not simply that it is plausible. This is how making a completely positive claim works; Pro stated "Dinosaurs coexisted with humans," not that they likely did, and, thus, must meet the complete BOP, not a probabilistic one.

"Con modified the conclusion in his fossil record argument..."

The judges can decide here, but this was simply a clearer delineation of what I have been saying the entire round, since science is not convinced by paintings, but, rather, by hard fossil evidence.

Let's note that "scientific" means: "done in an organized way that agrees with the methods and principles of science" [1]. Art is not a method, literature is not a principle of science; this sort of evidence must be uncovered through a strict process, which fossil evidence is. I really do not think Pro has substantiated his claim that scientific = empirical.

"I'd like to introduce Con to the Ceolacanth..."

Pro has made this claim repeatedly, and my rebuttal is really important: we do not assume a creature exists without good evidence. The only reason science now accepts the ceolacanth is because, well, we found a living one. Otherwise, Pro would just have you assume every extinct creature ever is still living. This is a key logic error by Pro, and one that gets repeated frequently.

"The source admits the following..."

Here, Pro claims to have used my source doubting the authenticity of the jade pig-dragon. However, read my source, judges. It literally does not say that. Pro uses a different source to claim my source said something, and that source is a creationist site. This is accidental at best, dishonest at worst, and should be ignored.

Pro then gives random arguments about why his depictions must be dinosaurs; however, they are not convincing, and I will not go one one. I think it is clear, based on the sources provided and just looking at the photos or passages, that they could easily have been misidentifications or a real creature.

"The flying chariot wasn't portrayed as something to be verified."

According to who? Pro just asserts this without argument, and assertions can be dismissed without evidence. It seems odd that one portion of the Bible would be strictly realistic, while others would not. Again, where is the line? Pro just arbitrarily decides the line, and it should be disregarded. I have shown the Bible portrays objects that do not exist, and that should be enough to disprove his Behemoth evidence.

On fossil turbulence:

"It is probable that these deposits were in part laid down during Edisto time, but that they were subsequently worked over by river action and were increased in thickness by the erosion and concentra- tion of the land deposits. " [see earlier source 6]

There you have it. The lack of stratigraphic control has been attributed to fossil turbulence; that is, river action that eroded and concentrated various deposits mixed up the strata, just like my other sources have said. This singlehandedly discredits the Ashley Beds evidence, and, if you would like more, just read the source.

"The palaeontologist I quoted makes it clear that human bones were found 'in place'..."

So we can compare one dude from the 1880s, or the USGS, a modern study that discredits him, and the totality of the profession of palaeontology. I think it is clear that one scientist's opinion from antiquity is not sufficient to overrule the entirety of the fossil record, as I have argued and sourced earlier.

"They are found in the same strata, so they are the same age...index fossils..."

No. That's not how this works. In an area like the Ashley Beds were the strata have been disrupted, this is insufficient. Again, if they truly were the same age, they would have been radiometrically dated to be in the same range. Yet, they have not been, as surely they would have if they were in fact the same age.

Moreover, index fossils can still be valid because in the vast, vast majority of cases, strata remain intact, thus preserving their integrity.

"No True Scotsman Fallacy"

The age of dinosaur fossils is both by strata and by radiometric dating. Sometimes, strata can be disrupted through fossil turbulence, as I have demonstrated. Thus, we default to radiometric dating when this is the case.

"DNA was successfully extracted and sequenced from a dinosaur egg...and...bone...DNA degrades so much that it can't be sequenced after 10,000 years..."

From Pro's own source for the dinosaur bone sequencing: "DNA isolated from these bone fragments and the resulting gene sequences demonstrate that small sequences of DNA may survive in bone for millions of years."

Points of Crystallization:

I. Artistic depictions

We have two possible outcomes here: the depictions are dinosaurs, or they are not, for whatever reason. I can win in both of these scenarios:

1) If they are dinosaurs, my Smithsonian Institute evidence gives an explanation for how ancient people could have stumbled upon dinosaur fossils and then drawn them. There are also myriad other possible inspirations for these myths.

Even if you do not buy that, we do not accept something as true because it has been painted or depicted, because fiction is real. I have stated this all round, and this idea that people can make things up casts enough doubt on these depictions as to negate their importance.

2) More likely, they are not dinosaurs. They are hoaxes, misidentifications, and ornamentations of real animals, as the evidence I have given attests to. This means that the artistic evidence is for naught, and has no bearing in the round.

I win either way.

II. Fossil evidence

Pro has given three arguments here:

1) The Ashley Beds

Firstly, I have given enough evidence against the lack of strata control being indicative of coexistence that Pro's claims fall flat. Fossil turbulence is real, and paleontological methods from the 1880s are not up to snuff.

Moreover, two questions: 1) If scientists truly thought coexistence to be tenable, the fossils would have been dated radiometrically. Yet, they were not, which means that scientists found alternate explanations. 2) Why has this lack of strata control not been found anywhere else since the 1880s? This lack of evidence speaks volumes.

2) Lack of fossil evidence does not preclude existence

Pro here mentions the ceolacanth repeatedly. While I agree, lack of fossil evidence does not preclude existence, this does not mean that we should default to existence. Rather, when we encounter actual evidence (e.g. a living ceolacanth), we revise the scientific account. Lack of evidence is not evidence for dinosaurs. Plain and simple.

This is where the fact that, as I argued and sourced earlier, no dinosaur fossils have been dated past 65 million years comes in. The fact that no fossil is younger indicates, at the minimum, that no fossil evidence exists for this sort of coexistence.

3) DNA cannot survive longer than ~10,000 years, yet we have DNA from dinosaurs

Pro's own source dismisses this idea, so I do not need to further debunk it.

Conclusion

Pro has not met the BOP that his own source and I have demanded: extraordinary evidence. Instead, Pro appeals to speculations about artistic intent and nebulous fossil excavations from the 1880s, which is not sufficient. I have given arguments that at least cast a significant doubt upon Pro's claims, if not refuted them altogether .

Again, if dinosaurs existed to the extent that strata become disrupted and depictions become common, there should be more artistic and scientific evidence. Yet, there is not. This silence speaks louder than any argument I could possibly make.

With this in mind, I urge a Con ballot. Thank you Pro for such an interesting debate.

Sources:

1. http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Debate Round No. 5
38 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
People still live with Dinosaurs.
When Dinosaurs ruled the Earth, 65 million years ago, humans ancestors were little shrew like insectivores.

Now that Humans dominate the planet, Dinosaurs are little Birds.

Though the Pelican is the nearest cousin to the T-Rex we know of, while Ostriches are cousins to the velociraptors.
So humans still live with Dinosaurs, as the complete Dinosaur DNA exists in birds.
Scientists are trying to devolve Ostriches back into velociraptors.

They believe that within 50 years it may happen.
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 2 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
Yep, there can be no debate that, if indeed they are genuine, people lived with dinosaurs.
Posted by LogicalLunatic 2 years ago
LogicalLunatic
WHOA! If those artifacts are for real, then there's really no questioning that those ancient people knew about dinosaurs!
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 2 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
9spaceking is that really the best RFD you can do?
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 2 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
thanks for voting iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 2 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
so ATTN: voters Im explicitly asking TruthHurts to take advantage of all the space in his last round to make any arguments and present any evidence he likes
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 2 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
TruthHurts no no it's fine, you can go ahead and make as many arguments as you like! I really want you to because if you don't, I'll feel as if I won unfairly and I'll have to do this debate again -.-

If any voters dock you points for doing this, I'll message them myself and ask them to give you conduct points

I already did in the first round anyways xD
Posted by TruthHurts 2 years ago
TruthHurts
I am very sorry I had to forfeit last round. I had a personal situation come up that prevented me from posting any serious round. I will post a summary of my points, but I will not make any new arguments of make any new responses. Again, really sorry about that, this was an interesting debate.
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 2 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
I wish "TheTruthHurts" hadn't forfeited. It's very ironic, considering his name. I guess the truth hurt him so bad he never came back?
Posted by michael90000 2 years ago
michael90000
Well, the idea of dragons would have derived from the time where dinosaurs co-existed with people. It's like a telephone game; people, as history continues, tend to change the stories a bit. But the idea of dragons hints out that there is a high chance that people may have co-existed with dragons.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Ajabi 2 years ago
Ajabi
GarretKadeDupreTruthHurtsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF. Also I feel that Pro did show probably O when he argued for these sculptures, and while it is a rather weak point in itself, Con never called him out on it properly. I think that Con should, have with the argument, also shown how it applies to this particular species. If we can imagine such objects, why did we imagine such similar objects, et cetera. These are questions which should have been addressed. I think the radiometric was a good argument, but it was not carried to its full potential, on this tier I tie the debate. So ultimately I felt that Pro showed a preponderance of evidence, and even if he had the BoP, so long as Con did not actively engage I vote Pro. Also Con forfeited which looses a great deal argument points as well. Happy to clarify.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
GarretKadeDupreTruthHurtsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: ff, but con's contentions were hardly rebutted, especially the ones about radiometric dating.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 2 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
GarretKadeDupreTruthHurtsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Despite Pros appeal to give Cons conduct points I am unable as Con did forfeit a round of the debate. As such I give Pro conduct points. The argument points have to go to Con, as Pros argument stuttered under scrutiny. The example of the Egyptian Gods really stuck with me and essentially enforced Cons argument. Here Pro was basically conceding that artists draw from their imagination. To win the debate Con had to show how he knows what is and what is not real. This Pro failed to do and so Con gets ahead on arguments. Cons radiometric example was never satisfactorily dealt with by Pro. As such the logical conclusion of co-existence never can be verified. Lastly the whole pettiness about BOP was uncalled for and a waste of space. Long read this debate but a fun one.