The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Dinosaurs: Recent (Pro) or Ancient (Con)?

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/17/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 361 times Debate No: 76644
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




In light of the release of the movie Jurassic World in theaters nationwide, I thought it would be interesting to debate the antiquity of dinosaurs in general. I am a biblical creationist who believes there is plenty of available evidence demonstrating the veracity of the Genesis account of Earth history.

Based on scripture, I believe dinosaurs were created on the same day as man and in the same week as the Earth. When I look into the record of natural history, in a forensic science manner, I find strong evidence consistent with the biblical account and very poor evidence supporting the conventional secular history of dinosaurs.

This is not a debate of science versus the Bible, rather a debate of model vs model, with the Pro side arguing for the biblical model and the Con side for the secular/naturalistic model. While I believe there is evidence to support the whole of Genesis, for the purposes of this debate I will only be defending the recent existence of dinosaurs less than 10,000 years ago. Con will be arguing for the ancient existence of dinosaurs greater than 10,000 years ago.

This debate is not about creation or evolution, nor is it about the age of the Earth, nor is it about the existence of God. While evidences involving such topics are certainly allowed, it should be understood that to win this debate, the opposing sides should provide evidence consistent with their proposed model of dinosaur antiquity despite what implications or axioms may be involved.

Hypotheses, while necessary, are not evidence. Axioms, while allowable, are not evidence. Philosophies, such as theism or naturalism, while presumed, are not evidence. The evidence which should determine the winner is that which is rooted in observation and that which can be tested against known processes and scientific laws.

The nature of an historical scientific debate such as this does not allow us to say "this is the age of dinosaurs" as a matter of fact, rather we are limited to arguing for the model which is most likely to be true based on the available evidence. This is due to the fact that we cannot observe history directly but only second-hand as a crime scene investigator gathers as much data as possible to determine what may have took place. Certainly it is possible for the evidence to be so overwhelming that it is beyond reasonable doubt to deny a given scenario, but we still are not able to claim certainty in the same way we can with the laws of nature for example.

If you have any questions or concerns, please comment before accepting the debate. Also, please hash out definitions, if desired, before accepting the debate.

Resolution: Dinosaurs existed less than 10,000 years ago.



"any chiefly terrestrial, herbivorous or carnivorous reptile of the extinct orders Saurischia and Ornithischia. . ." (


"the state or fact of existing; being; continuance in being or life; life" (

Debate Rules:

Round 1 - Acceptance

Round 2 - Opening Arguments (No Rebuttals)

Round 3 - Rebuttals and Defense of Arguments (No New Arguments)

Round 4 - Rebuttals and Defense of Arguments (No New Arguments)

Round 5 - Defense of Arguments Only (No New Arguments or Rebuttals)

***Videos are allowed as part of the argument given that every minute shall equate to 100 characters rounding up. For example, a 4:01 or 4:59 minute long video will both count as 500 characters and therefore the typed portion of your debate would only be up to 9,500 characters despite your ability to type 10,000. But. . .BUT, a maximum of 10 minutes of video, the equivalent of 1,000 characters, may be used. Failure to follow these rules should result in the loss of conduct points at minimum.***

NO RED HERRINGS! I propose that the presence of any red herring claims, statements or arguments within any round result in the loss of all points for the guilty party. Despair about the foolishness of creation or evolution in the comment section, not the debate!

Red Herring Definition: "This is the most general fallacy of irrelevance. Any argument in which the premises are logically unrelated to the conclusion commits this fallacy" (

Agreement to the above is assumed upon Con's acceptance of the debate.

Let's have some fun :)


First of all, nice to see you! Amazing I get to debate with someone from my comments section. Second of all, let me introduce myself and my views.
Dinosaurs were large animals that were the links between birds and reptiles, so I do believe in evolution. That doesn't mean that I don't believe in creation though, as it seems you are christian from your views. I am christian aswell, but since the bible is created by men and men lie, I believe there are some empty spaces that are filled in the fogged minds.

But I do accept.
Debate Round No. 1



As a biblical creationist and Christian, I expect God's created universe to be consistent with His word. When I survey the available evidence, I find that the world around us is indeed consistent with the Bible. I will be providing evidence for the recent existence of dinosaurs from archaeology, paleobiology, and radioisotope dating.

Evidence from Archaeology

Inca Burial Stones (

Ta Prohm Temple Carving (

Carlisle Cathedral Tomb Engraving (

Evidence from Paleobiology

The presence of soft tissues places upper limits on the age of fossils found with such preserved tissues. Many tissues have been found to date ranging from osteocytes to hemoglobin and even to histones (! This evidence places an upper limit for these fossils well below millions of years.

Evidence from Radioisotope Dating

C-14 has a half life of 5,730 years. Even a lump of C-14 the size of the Earth would decay away in less than 1 million years at this rate, thus the presence of even trace amounts of C-14 within fossilized bone would indicate the relative youth of the specimen. Such specimens have indeed been discovered placing the upper limit of their age well below millions of years (


Given the evidence I have provided, it seems the biblical model of the age of the existence of dinosaurs is more likely. The prediction of the standard secular model is that no dinosaurs should exist certainly less than a million years ago, and yet evidence indicates their recent existence consistent with the biblical prediction of less than 10,000 years. I will expand and defend my arguments in the next round. I look forward to Con's opening argument.


PieMoose forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


creationtruth forfeited this round.


PieMoose forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


creationtruth forfeited this round.


PieMoose forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


Well, I'm assuming Con did not understand that this was a speed debate with only 3 hours to respond. I forgot to mention it in round 1, although he is made aware of the debate setup before accepting. In any case, I ask that no one vote on this debate. I will reinstate this debate soon! :)


PieMoose forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by creationtruth 1 year ago
*PieMoose lol
Posted by creationtruth 1 year ago
Go ahead and post ProMoose, we still have equal rounds! :)
Posted by creationtruth 1 year ago
Forgot to mention this is a speed debate, I hope Con understood this before accepting.
Posted by BurningCriticism 1 year ago
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro has the only arguments in the debate.