The Instigator
Edlvsjd
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
missbailey8
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points

Dinosaurs existed.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 2 votes the winner is...
missbailey8
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/13/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 507 times Debate No: 93665
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (19)
Votes (2)

 

Edlvsjd

Con

Dinosaurs are a clever hoax that was taken too seriously. I no more think dinosaurs existed than fairies or unicorns. Pro must show proof beyond all doubt that dinosaurs existed. It's time that pseudoscience step aside and let creationists handle things.
missbailey8

Pro

I accept this debate. Best of luck to my opponent. May the best man win.
Debate Round No. 1
Edlvsjd

Con

The class "Dinosauria" was originally defined by "Sir" Richard Owen of the Royal Society, and Superintendent of the British Museum Natural History Department in 1842. In other words, the existence of dinosaurs was first speculatively hypothesized by a knighted museum-head "coincidentally" in the mid-19th century, during the heyday of evolutionism, before a single dinosaur fossil had ever been found. The Masonic media and mainstream press worldwide got to work hyping stories of these supposed long-lost animals, and then lo and behold, 12 years later in 1854, Ferdinand Vandiveer Hayden during his exploration of the upper Missouri River, found "proof" of Owen"s theory! A few unidentified teeth he mailed to leading paleontologist Joseph Leidy, who several years later declared them to be from an ancient extinct "Trachodon," dinosaur (which beyond ironically means "rough tooth").

Firstly, it should be needless to say that it is impossible to reconstruct an entire hypothetical ancient animal based on a few teeth! But even more importantly, it is dubious that a myriad of ancient reptile/bird and reptile/mammal transitional forms necessary for the blossoming theory of evolution, would be hypothesized and then conveniently "discovered" by teams of evolutionist archeologists purposely out looking to find such fossils! And it is even more dubious that such fossils have supposedly existed for millions of years but were never found by or known to any civilization in the history of humanity until evolutionism"s Masonic renaissance in the mid-19th century!

"Why are there no discoveries by native Americans in all the years previous when they roamed the American continents? There is no belief of dinosaurs in the Native American religion or tradition. For that matter, why were there no discoveries prior to the nineteenth century in any part of the world? According to the World Book Encyclopedia, "before the 1800"s no one ever knew that dinosaurs existed." During the late 1800"s and early 1900"s, large deposits of dinosaur remains were discovered "Why has man suddenly made all these discoveries?" -David Wozney, "Dinosaurs: Science or Science Fiction"

No tribes, cultures or countries in the world ever discovered a dinosaur bone before the mid-1800s, and then they were suddenly found all over the world in North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, Argentina, Belgium, Mongolia, Tanzania, West Germany and many other places apparently had large deposits of dinosaur fossils never before seen. All these places were inhabited and well-explored for thousands of years before this time, why had no one ever found a dinosaur fossil before?

According to the book, "The Dinosaur Project," paleontological journalist Wayne Grady claims the period following this, from around 1870 to 1880 became "a period in North America where some of the most underhanded shenanigans in the history of science were conducted." In what was known as "The Great Dinosaur Rush" or "Bone Wars," Edward Drinker Cope of the Academy of Natural Sciences and Othniel Marsh of the Peabody Museum of Natural History, began a life-long rivalry and passion for "dinosaur hunting." They started out as friends but became bitter enemies during a legendary feud involving double-crossing, slander, bribery, theft, spying, and destruction of bones by both parties. Marsh is said to have discovered over 500 different ancient species including 80 dinosaurs, while Cope discovered 56. Out of the 136 dinosaur species supposedly discovered by the two men, however, only 32 are presently considered valid; the rest have all proven to be falsifications and fabrications! None of them once claimed to find a complete skeleton either, so all their work involved reconstructions. In fact, to this day no complete skeleton has ever been found, and so all dinosaurs are reconstructions.

"Discoveries and excavations seem not to be made by disinterested people, such as farmers, ranchers, hikers, outdoor recreationists, building construction industry basement excavators, pipeline trench diggers, and mining industry personnel but rather by people with vested interests, such as paleontologists, scientists, university professors, and museum organization personnel who were intentionally looking for dinosaur bones or who have studied dinosaurs previously. The finds are often made during special dinosaur-bone hunting trips and expeditions by these people to far-away regions already inhabited and explored. This seems highly implausible. More believable is the case of the discovery of the first original Dead Sea scrolls in 1947, which were unintentionally discovered by a child, and which were all published by 1955. In some cases of a discovery of dinosaur bones by a disinterested person, it was suggested to them by some "professional" in the field to look or dig in a certain area. Also very interesting to note are special areas set aside and designated as dinosaur parks for which amateur dinosaur hunters are required to first obtain a dinosaur hunting license." -David Wozney, "Dinosaurs: Science or Science Fiction"

Whatever destination these establishment-funded archeologists and paleontologists set, it seemed they found incredible numbers of fossils in tiny areas. In one of the largest dinosaur excavation sites, called the Ruth Mason Quarry, over 2,000 fossils were allegedly discovered. Casts and original skeletons assembled from these bones are currently on display in over 60 museums world-wide. Florentino Ameghino, head of paleontology at La Plata Museum is amazingly responsible for 6,000 fossil species supposedly discovered throughout his career all in Argentina. Dinosaur hunter Earl Douglass sent 350 tons of excavated "dinosaur" bones to the Carnegie Museum of Natural History throughout his career, all coming from the "Dinosaur National Monument" in Utah. During an expedition to Patagonia, Dr. Luis Chiappe and Dr. Lowell Dingus supposedly discovered thousands of dinosaur eggs at a site of only a few hundred square yards. Many experts have mentioned how such finds of huge quantities of fossils in one area, by just a few highly-invested individuals, goes against the laws of natural probability and lends credence to the likelihood of forgeries or concentrated planting efforts.

""Dinosaur" bones sell for a lot of money at auctions. It is a profitable business. There is pressure for academics to publish papers. Museums are in the business of producing displays that are popular and appealing. Movie producers and the media need to produce material to sell to stay in business. The mainstream media loves to hype alleged dinosaurs finds. Much is to be gained by converting a bland non-dinosaur discovery, of a bone of modern origin, into an impressive dinosaur find, and letting artists' interpretations and imaginations take the spotlight, rather than the basic boring real find. There are people who desire and crave prestige, fame and attention. There is the bandwagon effect and crowd behaviour. And then there are people and entities pursuing political and religious agendas. Highly rewarding financial and economic benefits to museums, educational and research organizations, university departments of paleontology, discoverers and owners of dinosaur bones, and the book, television, movie, and media industries may cause sufficient motivations for ridiculing of open questioning and for suppression of honest investigation." -David Wozney, "Dinosaurs: Science or Science Fiction"

Again, BOP is on pro, I await this proof.
missbailey8

Pro

I'd like to thank my opponent for his arguments. However, I'd like to point something out to voters.

PLAGIARISM

He stole all of his content from this article without giving any credit.
http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com...

Nice try. I pity those who go against you in the future. Take care.
Debate Round No. 2
Edlvsjd

Con

Admitted plagiarism, which isn't against the rules of this particular debate, since the BOP was on pro, and he didn't offer any evidence to prove his case, I was giving him something to go off of. Voters may disregard the round, if pro offers any evidence to counter.
missbailey8

Pro

I do admire the fact that my opponent didn't deny his blatant plagiarism, but I'm going to pick apart about everything else he said last round.

Firstly, he claimed that I have the burden of proof. While it's implied from the subject that we were debating, he never explicitly says it until the second round.

Secondly, let's just take a look at this quote. (Fixed as needed with the pronouns.)

"...[she] didn't offer any evidence to prove [her] case, I was giving [her] something to go off of."

I don't need to provide a case after you plagiarized your arguments. While it wasn't against the rules, it's common courtesy that you don't disrespect the original creators of the content you're trying to pass off as your own. Even if you were trying to give me something to go off of, you could've had the decency to credit the article. It couldn't have taken long to provide a link sense you obviously copied and pasted your entire argument. A few extra seconds and I wouldn't have to scold you on plagiarism. Though it's pretty scummy behavior to copy and paste an entire argument from a different site, at least crediting it is a lot better than trying to make it your own. (Forgive me for the mafia reference.)

That's all I have to say for now. Who knows, maybe next round I'll give another long lecture to really hammer that point in harder. Thank you. So long and goodnight.
Debate Round No. 3
Edlvsjd

Con

Although my opponent is correct in saying that plagiarism is poor behavior in any debate, and that it isn't against the rules of this particular debate, he is incoincorrect in saying that the BOP was not mentioned until round 3. If he would've only read the first two rounds instead of pointing out something that wasn't in the rules, he would see that in the opening round this was stated:

"Pro must show proof beyond all doubt that dinosaurs existed."

and again in round 2:

"Again, BOP is on pro, I await this proof"

and yet again in round 3

Since no such proof has been offered, and I have broken no rules, again, which my opponent agrees to, and this is the last round, I urge a vote for con. Perhaps my opponent would wish to debate this topic again, this time with some sort of argument, and an added rule against plagiarism. :)
missbailey8

Pro

Even though I don't expect a response from my opponent, why would you plagiarize if you knew that it was bad behavior? That really baffles me. There's also no way that I'm going to debate this topic or Amy other topic with you again. I refuse to debate with a plagiarist and that's final.

Before we go, I'd like to remind you that I'm not a man, as I clearly stated in the last round. Just wanted to point that out.

I hope to never debate you again. Goodbye.
Debate Round No. 4
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 7 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: dsjpk5// Mod action: NOT Removed<

6 points to Pro (Conduct, Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Pro as Con plagiarized his entire round two argument. I will provide a link in the comments section. Arguments to Pro because Pro was the only one to offer original arguments throughout the entire debate. Sources to Pro because Pro provided the plagiarized source.

[*Reason for non-removal*] When it comes to awarding points on the basis of plagiarism occurring within the debate, the voter is allowed extensive discretion. So long as it is clear what was plagiarized and why the voter is awarding points based on that plagiarism, the vote is sufficient. With regards to the report, since the voter is clearly awarding points on the basis of the plagiarism and not on the basis of any argument or source presented by Pro, it is still sufficient.
************************************************************************
Posted by dsjpk5 7 months ago
dsjpk5
I don't think you have a choice this time, Con. I got this rfd pre-approved.
Posted by Edlvsjd 7 months ago
Edlvsjd
conduct points I'll take, but there was no argument, and no sources.
Posted by dsjpk5 7 months ago
dsjpk5
Here is the website Con plagiarized his entire second round argument from:

http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com...
Posted by whiteflame 7 months ago
whiteflame
I went through over 50 vote reports this morning, sorry if some of the removals were posted twice.
Posted by dsjpk5 7 months ago
dsjpk5
Why was my vote removed twice?
Posted by whiteflame 7 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: ThinkBig// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: Plagiarism

[*Reason for removal*] While the voter is allowed to award points based on plagiarism, they are still required to explain the conduct point allocation by actually explaining where the plagiarism happened.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 7 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: migmag// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: science absolutely proves the existence of dinosaurs, and so did Pro prove it

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter fails to explain conduct, S&G, or sources. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter views this as a clear cut issue and apparently votes at least partially on that basis. If Pro did prove it, the voter has to show how and not just state that he did.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 7 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: dsjpk5// Mod action: Removed<

6 points to Pro (Conduct, Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Plagiarism.

[*Reason for removal*] While the voter is allowed to award points based on plagiarism, they are still required to explain each point allocation individually. In addition, if the voter sees an issue with plagiarism in the debate, they are required to specifically reference it in the RFD.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 7 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: dsjpk5// Mod action: Removed<

6 points to Pro (Conduct, Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Plagiarism.

[*Reason for removal*] While the voter is allowed to award points based on plagiarism, they are still required to explain each point allocation individually. In addition, if the voter sees an issue with plagiarism in the debate, they are required to specifically reference it in the RFD.
************************************************************************
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 7 months ago
dsjpk5
Edlvsjdmissbailey8Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Pro as Con plagiarized his entire round two argument. I will provide a link in the comments section. Arguments to Pro because Pro was the only one to offer original arguments throughout the entire debate. Sources to Pro because Pro provided the plagiarized source.
Vote Placed by ThinkBig 7 months ago
ThinkBig
Edlvsjdmissbailey8Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Con admitted to plagiarism in round 3. This is poor conduct as it steals from the original author. Pro is debating you, not your plagiarized source