The Instigator
GarretKadeDupre
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
Truth_seeker
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

People Saw Living Dinosaurs

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 6 votes the winner is...
GarretKadeDupre
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/14/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,490 times Debate No: 61676
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (20)
Votes (6)

 

GarretKadeDupre

Pro

I will argue that people saw living dinosaurs. I am using the colloquial definition of dinosaur.

I welcome Truth_seeker to my debate. I'll post my opening arguments in round 2.
Truth_seeker

Con

I argue that it's very unlikely for people to see dinosaurs. Reasons being that we haven't been on the planet for very long. Dinosaurs existed longer than we did, billions of years before early humans. Not only did the meteorite collision wipe out many dinosaurs, other environmental factors also caused them to die off. The Earth's climate changed to the point where they could not survive with humans. No evidence that i know of shows that humans lived with dinosaurs.
Debate Round No. 1
GarretKadeDupre

Pro

Con says dinosaurs existed billions of years before early humans, but National Geographic says they only evolved 230 million years ago[1] and died out 65 million years ago. That puts me and Con in the same boat; we're both rowing against the flow of modern academia! Glad to see we've found some common ground already. We both agree the modern consensus is wrong.

Con admits that no evidence he knows of shows that humans lived with dinosaurs. That's great! Con has come to the right person! :D

Let's begin by establishing that dinosaurs must have lived within the past 10,000 years (I'm sure I don't need to establish that people lived within this period). DNA cannot survive past 10,000 years in good enough condition to be sequenced[2], yet dinosaur DNA has actually been recovered and sequenced.[3] This proves dinosaurs were around 10,000 years ago.

Besides DNA, fresh (unfossilized) T. rex bones were found. These bones had blood vessels with liquid blood in them, which actually had red blood cells.[4] I'll leave it up to the common sense of the voters' to judge whether red blood cells can really survive as long as most scientists want you to believe.

Let's look at some other kind of evidence people saw living dinosaurs.


In the Middle Ages, Ulisse Aldrovandi (known as the Father of Natural History) had a guy bring him the corpse of a 2-legged dinosaur he had killed. It's a pretty cool story, but I'll just post the painting Ulisse had done of the corpse[5] along with a modern reconstruction of a dinosaur for comparison:


NOTE: I won't be posting sources for the modern dinosaur reconstructions unless Con really wants me to. However, one can easily find my sources the same way I did. Just search the name of the dinosaur on Google images. The only alterations to the modern reconstructions which I did myself were minor, such as adjusting the hue and saturation for a better effect.

On to another dinosaurs in ancient art. This one is from ancient Rome[6], and it depicts a person riding a brachiosaurus.



Here is an ancient Chinese painting of a dragon from around 1500 B.C.[7]


Here it is with some modern reconstructions for comparison:


Here is a carving[8] from Chateaux de Cambord, France, made in the Middle Ages. It clearly depicts a sauropod dinosaur.

Here is an altar cloth[9] from a chapel in Barcelona, Spain, with a Nothosaurus for comparison:



Here is a photo of a drawing[11] on the tomb of Bishop Bell, made over 1,000 years ago:


Here is a dinosaur carved into a Cambodian temple[12] a mere 800 years ago:


Here is a jade sculpture made by the ancient Chinese:



And last, but not least, here is a painting from Pompeii[10] (which was destroyed by a volcano over 2,000 years ago):


Here it is zoomed in, clearly depicting people hunting animals that supposedly went extinct before humans even existed:



[1] http://science.nationalgeographic.com...
[2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[3] http://myweb.dal.ca...
[4] http://www.smithsonianmag.com...
[5] https://archive.org...
[6] http://terra.antiqua.free.fr...
[7] http://s8int.com...
[8] http://daysontheclaise.blogspot.com...
[9] (c) M&G Therin-Weise
[10] http://www.marine-antique.net...
[11] http://www.genesispark.com...
[12] http://public.media.smithsonianmag.com...
Truth_seeker

Con

While i do find it plausible that scientists may have found dinosaur DNA, it does not necessarily prove that humans lived with them.

You bring up interesting cases, but where's the scientific evidence to verify these claims? How did these people know that they were dinosaurs? How do we know that they are dinosaurs vs. the artist's imagination? Solid evidence is required in order to determine these answers. As far as i know, there have been no bones found which would potentially prove that dinosaurs lived with humans.

The Source "DNA sequence from Cretaceous period bone fragments" was verified to be a hoax. It was revealed to be a human Y-Chromosome after several studies (1).

What caused the extinction of the dinosaurs? Several things (2):

1. Meteorite impact and environmental changes

2. Volcanic ash and gas which suffocated many dinosaurs

3. Diseases wiping out entire populations

4. Food chain imbalances which left many dinosaurs to starve

It's highly unlikely for dinosaurs to have survived, those that did eventually evolved into birds (3).

Sources:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...

2. http://www.scholastic.com...

3. http://www.theguardian.com...
Debate Round No. 2
GarretKadeDupre

Pro

I never said dino DNA proved humans lived with them. I only said it proves that dinos were around in the past 10,000 years. That paves the way for the rest of my evidences which conclusively demonstrate that not only were dinosaurs living on earth with humans, but humans saw some of them alive.

"You bring up interesting cases, but where's the scientific evidence to verify these claims?"

Please be more specific. What, exactly, are you asking for? I've provided you accurate depictions of dinosaurs in ancient art, even people hunting a dinosaur! Is the art not enough? Must I give you a photo or video? The ancients' iPhone batteries were conveniently dead during every dino encounter, so all we've got are their murals and carvings. But I doubt that would satisfy you anyways; would you not simply accuse the evidence of being doctored?

In other words, what is the bare minimum it'd take to convince you that people saw dinosaurs alive at some point in history, short of me dumping a live dinosaur on your doorstep?

"How did these people know that they were dinosaurs?"

What relevance does this question have to the topic at hand? The word "dinosaur" was not invented until the 1800s[13]; so the artists in question could not possibly have been aware of the word, nor does it matter. Bats were called "birds" in the 7th century[14]; does that mean people didn't see live bats in the 7th century simply because they called them by a different name than we do today?

"How do we know that they are dinosaurs vs. the artist's imagination?"

Are you seriously suggesting that the powerful resemblance of the ancient art to modern reconstructions of dinosaurs is all complete coincidence? Please, speak your mind plainly, so you can hear for yourself how absurd your idea sounds.

"Solid evidence is required in order to determine these answers. As far as i know, there have been no bones found which would potentially prove that dinosaurs lived with humans."

In the late 1800s, Geologist F.S. Homes, Paleontologist and Curator of the Charleston Museum, discovered 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[15]:


    • 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"[...]


"The Source "DNA sequence from Cretaceous period bone fragments" was verified to be a hoax. It was revealed to be a human Y-Chromosome after several studies."

I think you made a mistake, because your source says nothing even close to what you are attributing to it. It was never shown to be a hoax, and I'm sure Woodword et al. would be greatly offended at this outrageous accusation.

"What caused the extinction of the dinosaurs? Several things:

1. Meteorite impact and environmental changes"

This makes no sense. Meteorites do not have a grudge against dinosaurs. Something that wipes out all dinos will also wipe out all other forms of life, like mammals, insects, etc.

"2. Volcanic ash and gas which suffocated many dinosaurs"

Now you're getting closer. The artwork depicting those little dudes hunting (or roping) that Sphenacodon, well, that's from Pompeii, and Pompeii was destroyed by Mt. Vesuvius, which indeed suffocated all life in the area under volcanic ash and gas.

"3. Diseases wiping out entire populations"

What's so special about pterosaurs, T. rex, and those little raptor things that they should all be wiped out by disease, but alligators, crocodiles, ceolocanths, snapping turtles, komodo dragons, pythons, mammals and other life forms survive relatively unscathed? This is another explanation that makes no sense, and is nothing more than wild (unfounded) speculation.

"4. Food chain imbalances which left many dinosaurs to starve"

This is so vague and such a non-explanation that it hardly deserves a response. How is this relevant to the topic anyways? How does it prove that all dinos died before humans had a chance to see them?

"It's highly unlikely for dinosaurs to have survived, those that did eventually evolved into birds."

To have survived what?

The fact of the matter is, the only reasonable explanation for the apparent dinosaur extinction is the fact that people loved to kill them and make a name for themselves. Yes, I'm referring to the dragon slayers of old, going back all the time to the Gilgamesh Epic (where he slew a dragon) to the Medieval Ages where legends of dragon *cough*dinosaur*cough* slayers abounded.

What makes more sense: a meteorite hated dinosaurs so much, to the exclusion of all other lifeforms, that he decided to wipe them all out, or, people didn't like gigantic lizards eating their farm animals and making them scared to go outside at night, so they put on a suit of armor and stabbed those darn beasties?

What happened to the dinosaurs is the same thing that almost happened to alligators in 1960.[16] Alligators were put on the endangered species list because people loved to kill them. Can you blame them? Alligators killed 3 people in a single week in 2006, all of them in Florida![17]

There are plenty of other case studies of dangerous animals being driven to extinction by humans, like the Vietnamese Javan Rhino which was wiped off the face of the earth in 2010.[18] If it weren't for conservation efforts (which people weren't interested in during the Middle Ages), plenty of awesome beasts might also be extinct today, like the Elephant, Lion, Giraffe, and Komodo Dragon.

Let's face it: even the most ferocious T. rex was no match for the cunning and wit of its human adversaries. The brute instinct of a monster is no match for our intellect, even though it might be able to get away with eating a maiden or two, before some valiant peasant takes up a sword and sets out to make a name for himself.

I've got some more ancient artwork of animals that most scientists want you to believe went extinct before humans ever saw them. It's not as cool as dinosaurs, but would you like me to show it to you?

[13] http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu...
[14] http://bestiary.ca...
[15] https://archive.org...
[16] http://www1.american.edu...
[17] http://www.cbsnews.com...
[18] http://news.wildlife.org...

Truth_seeker

Con

Science relies on evidence which we can test (1). We would actually need the Dinosaur specimens in order to verify that they survived the extinction. If all we have are paintings, we cannot study these dinosaurs deeper and learn more about them.

"What relevance does this question have to the topic at hand? The word "dinosaur" was not invented until the 1800s[13]; so the artists in question could not possibly have been aware of the word, nor does it matter. Bats were called "birds" in the 7th century[14]; does that mean people didn't see live bats in the 7th century simply because they called them by a different name than we do today?"

What i'm saying is that we cannot know if they saw dinosaurs because we don't have the fossils or the specimens to compare the descriptions.

"Are you seriously suggesting that the powerful resemblance of the ancient art to modern reconstructions of dinosaurs is all complete coincidence? Please, speak your mind plainly, so you can hear for yourself how absurd your idea sounds."

1) Pro already presumes that the art displays actual dinosaurs without evidence and claims it's a "powerful resemblance" which is entirely subjective 2) Pro commits the fallacy of beginning the question (2) 3) He also commits the fallacy of ad hominem (3) in saying that my idea sounds absurd 4) Finally commits the fallacy of loaded question by asking if i believe it's just a coincidence (4) plus you used strawman (5). I never said it was a coincidence, i said this:

"..where's the scientific evidence to verify these claims? How did these people know that they were dinosaurs? How do we know that they are dinosaurs vs. the artist's imagination? Solid evidence is required in order to determine these answers"

"In the late 1800s, Geologist F.S. Homes, Paleontologist and Curator of the Charleston Museum, discovered 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"

In the source you gave, no mention of extinct dinosaurs.

"I think you made a mistake, because your source says nothing even close to what you are attributing to it. It was never shown to be a hoax, and I'm sure Woodword et al. would be greatly offended at this outrageous accusation. "

You appeal to ridicule. You also presume that he would be offended without evidence.

"This makes no sense. Meteorites do not have a grudge against dinosaurs. Something that wipes out all dinos will also wipe out all other forms of life, like mammals, insects, etc."

You commit the fallacy of non-sequitur meaning "it does not follow." You also commit the slippery slope fallacy in which you argue that one cause will eventually lead to another cause (6). We only have evidence that dinosaurs went extinct but not all life.

"that's from Pompeii, and Pompeii was destroyed by Mt. Vesuvius, which indeed suffocated all life in the area under volcanic ash and gas"

The Volcanic ash which suffocated the dinosaurs happened millions of years ago whereas the destruction of Pompeii happened only thousands of years ago.

"What's so special about pterosaurs, T. rex, and those little raptor things that they should all be wiped out by disease, but alligators, crocodiles, ceolocanths, snapping turtles, komodo dragons, pythons, mammals and other life forms survive relatively unscathed? "

What's special is that it's a product of natural selection (7). The species of animals which are fit to adapt to their environment survive than those don't.

"How does it prove that all dinos died before humans had a chance to see them?"

It didn't say all, i said many and i argued it's unlikely for dinosaurs to have survived not that it's impossible. The burden of proof is on you to show that dinosaurs are still alive today.

Your already assuming that dinosaurs existed and that humans killed them off which there is no strong empirical evidence for. You also bring in irrelevant facts known as the red herring fallacy (8). The burden of proof is to show that dinosaurs still exist with humans and you haven't shown that with solid evidence.

Sources:

1. http://undsci.berkeley.edu...

2. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

3. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

4. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

5. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

6. http://www.nizkor.org...

7. http://science.howstuffworks.com...

8. http://www.logicalfallacies.info...
Debate Round No. 3
GarretKadeDupre

Pro

I'd like to introduce this round with even more ancient dinosaur art[21][22][23]:


These are all pretty clear depictions of sauropod dinosaurs. Now that that's settled, let's look at something a little more uncanny in ancient art:



The Tarasque is a monster that, according to legend, terrorized a Medieval town and devoured people until it was finally slain by vengeful villagers. Over the centuries, lots of supernatural powers got attributed to this beastie, but I think if we peel away the obviously fantastical stuff, like the man's face and extra pair of legs, we can see the beast was merely an ankylosaurid dinosaur. At least, that's how I see it. I leave that to you to judge. Here's a statue of it. It's pretty creepy:


Now I'm going to deal with Con's rebuttals.

"We would actually need the Dinosaur specimens in order to verify that they survived the extinction."


We have lots of unfossilized dinosaur specimens. How do you intend on "verifying" whether or not they survived "the extinction"?

"If all we have are paintings, we cannot study these dinosaurs deeper and learn more about them."

Please don't speak in riddles. I've provided accurate artwork depicting humans seeing live dinosaurs, and I've also provided dino bones, blood, and DNA. What, exactly, is the problem with these evidences?

"What i'm saying is that we cannot know if they saw dinosaurs because we don't have the fossils or the specimens to compare the descriptions."

Yes we do have fossils. We have fossils for every single one of the dino art comparisons I've presented. How did you think the modern reconstructions were made? From fossils, of course.

"Pro already presumes that the art displays actual dinosaurs without evidence and claims it's a "powerful resemblance" which is entirely subjective"

Yes, it's subjective. I freely admit that. I could go out of my way to devise an objective, statistical test to determine the likelihood of my art depicting dinos in contrast to a different animal, but since you have not even suggested a different animal, I'm going to put my faith in the common sense of the voters to decided what the artwork was intended to represent.

"Pro commits the fallacy of beginning the question"

Please quote me doing so.

"He also commits the fallacy of ad hominem in saying that my idea sounds absurd"

That's not ad hominem. Ad hominem is attacking the person. I attacked your idea, not you.

"Finally commits the fallacy of loaded question by asking if i believe it's just a coincidence"

Here's another loaded question: are you spouting out lists of fallacies with citations just to win yourself "most reliable sources" points?

"In the source you gave, no mention of extinct dinosaurs."

Forgive me. Here's a bigger excerpt from the same book:
  • All the remains of land animals obtained in such vast numbers are mingled[,] and this mingling of bones and teeth occurred in the Post-Pleiocene age[.]
  • It was in this Post-Pliocene age, the period when the[...] Mammoth, the Mastodon, Rhinoceros,[...] Hadrosaurus, and other gigantic quadrupeds roamed the Carolina forests[,] despositing their fecal remains, and ultimately their bones and teeth, in fact their dead bodies, in these great open [pens].
  • STONE ARROW HEADS AND A STONE HATCHET [WERE DISCOVERED] IN BEDS OF POST-PLEIOCENE AGE[,] differing so greatly in their general characteristics from those found commonly scattered all over this Continent, that we examined and studied them again and again[;] every precaution was immediately taken to satisfy ourselves fully as to the possibility of their being[...] accidental occupants of the place.
  • After a careful study of everything connected with their discovery,[...] we were satisfied that they belonged to and were deposited in the same geological age to which the bones and teeth of the Mastodon, Elephant, Rhinoceros, Horse, and [Hadrosaurus] belong,[...] which is of the Post-Pleiocene period[.]
  • Alas, for young students and their beautiful theories[!]
  • Not very long after finding the above named relics of human workmanship,[...] 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!

I now have to ask, why did you accuse my source (the one that found dinosaur DNA) of being a hoax? Where is your source for this claim?

Did you just make it up to try to dishonestly discredit my source?

"You appeal to ridicule. You also presume that he would be offended without evidence."


How am I appealing to redicule? Yes, I'm presuming that Mr. Woodward would be offended you wrongly accused him and his team of fraud without any basis. It think it's a fair presumption.

Oh well. Remember that T. rex found fresh (unfossilized) with blood vesses containing liquid blood that I told you about? Well, a Hadrosaur was also found... in better condition than that T. rex![19] So, now we've not only got a paleontologist recording the finding of human artifacts and bones in the same strata as Hadrosaurs, as well as unfossilized Hadrosaur remains complete with blood and soft tissue, we've got a Medieval tapestry from France accurately depicting a living Hadrosaur:[20]

"You commit the fallacy[...] You also commit the slippery slope fallacy[...] You also bring in irrelevant facts known as the red herring fallacy."

You're committing the fallacy-fallacy. It's when you argue as if pointing out fallacies that I (supposedly) make prove my conclusion is wrong. But the fact of the matter is, I could make a billion fallacies in one sentence, and it still wouldn't mean people never saw living dinosaurs.

"We only have evidence that dinosaurs went extinct but not all life."

Even if dinosaurs went extinct, it doesn't damage my case as long as they went extinct after some people saw them.

"The Volcanic ash which suffocated the dinosaurs happened millions of years ago whereas the destruction of Pompeii happened only thousands of years ago."

What's your argument now? Every single dinosaur got killed by a volcano? That was either a lot of volcanoes, or all the dinosaurs were having a party right underneath the same volcano that happened to erupt.

"What's special is that it's a product of natural selection. The species of animals which are fit to adapt to their environment survive than those don't."

So you're saying the dinosaurs went extinct because they weren't fit enough, right? Well, what reason do you have for calling them not fit enough besides your presupposition that they all went extinct before anybody saw them? You seem to be making a circular argument here.

"The burden of proof is on you to show that dinosaurs are still alive today."


Lol. No it's not. I only have to prove people saw living dinosaurs at any point in time. I don't have to prove dinos live today! It wouldn't surprise me if a dino or two were still alive, though. I mean, a new SIX FOOT lizard was discovered for the first time in 2010[24]! If a 6 ft. reptile can hide from modern science that long, there might be some tiny dinos hiding somewhere in the jungles of Africa or South America. But I digress.

"Your already assuming that dinosaurs existed and[...]"


Given all the remains of dead dinosaurs we have, don't you think it's a fair assumption?

"The burden of proof is to show that dinosaurs still exist with humans[...]"

No, that's not my burden. Re-read the title of my debate to see what my burden is. Then re-read my arguments to see why I've successfully proved it already.

Good luck in your next round.

[19] http://phys.org...

[20] http://www.genesispark.com...

[21] http://palaeo-electronica.org...

[22] https://www.youtube.com...

[23] http://www.icr.org...

[24] http://news.discovery.com...

Truth_seeker

Con

You brought more artwork, but no scientific evidence that we can test and validate your claims.

"We have lots of unfossilized dinosaur specimens"

You never gave me living specimens or the most recent fossil remains which would put dinosaurs at the same time period as humans.

"I've provided accurate artwork depicting humans seeing live dinosaurs, and I've also provided dino bones, blood, and DNA. What, exactly, is the problem with these evidences?"

They haven't been verified or they've been proven to be hoaxes.

"Yes we do have fossils. We have fossils for every single one of the dino art comparisons I've presented. How did you think the modern reconstructions were made? From fossils, of course"

You are assuming they came from fossils without evidence.

You commit the fallacy of begging the question because you already assumed that they saw dinosaurs without scientific data.

"Where is your source for this claim?"

It's on Wikipedia when i posted it earlier.

"Oh well. Remember that T. rex found fresh (unfossilized) with blood vesses containing liquid blood that I told you about? Well, a Hadrosaur was also found... in better condition than that T. rex"

This doesn't prove that dinosaurs lived with humans or that a Medieval tapestry actually saw a Hadrosaur.

" the fact of the matter is, I could make a billion fallacies in one sentence, and it still wouldn't mean people never saw living dinosaurs"

Your right, but you haven't presented scientific evidence that we can test.

"Even if dinosaurs went extinct, it doesn't damage my case as long as they went extinct after some people saw them"

You would have to show that humans were alive millions of years ago.

"What's your argument now? Every single dinosaur got killed by a volcano? "

I never said that, i said that's one reason.

"you're saying the dinosaurs went extinct because they weren't fit enough, right? Well, what reason do you have for calling them not fit enough besides your presupposition that they all went extinct before anybody saw them?"

They couldn't adapt to the changes of the meteorite impact.

Like i said, you haven't proven that people could see dinosaurs vs. pure imagination.
Debate Round No. 4
GarretKadeDupre

Pro

Let's recap.

Con's rebuttals amount to attributing every single piece of artwork to pure coincidence.

Even though I proved that dinosaurs like T. rex and hadrosaurs lived within the past 10,000 years with my DNA argument, Con keeps stubbornly insisting that every single dinosaur died millions of years ago. Con's sole rebuttal to the DNA evidence was a baseless accusation of fraud, a claim that he failed to backup, instead citing a source that had literally nothing to say about the claim he was making. He also blamed the DNA on contamination by human DNA, another baseless assertion not supported by a single one of his sources. My secular, peer-reviewed study was performed in 1994; if it were really a hoax, like Con wants you to think, you'd think he could find a single source in the past 20 years to substantiate that argument.

Even though the DNA argument was sufficient scientific evidence to prove that the aforementioned dinosaurs walked the earth in the past 10,000 years, I also made another argument with the T. rex and hadrosaur blood. I appealed to the intuition and common sense of the voters when I left it up to them to decide whether or not the presence of unfossilized, T. rex and hadrosaur bones complete with soft tissue and liquid blood proves that they walked the earth in the same time period as humans.

Thus, when Con says,

"You never gave me[...] the most recent fossil remains which would put dinosaurs at the same time period as humans[, and] you haven't presented scientific evidence that we can test."

...he is stating a falsehood, something this debate demonstrates he has grown accustomed to.

It is painfully obvious from this debate that nothing short of a live dinosaur will convince Con that dinosaurs were ever seen by humans. That might be something I'd be expected to deliver if I were trying to prove that dinosaurs live today, but that's simply not what I'm arguing. I'm only arguing that dinosaurs were seen by people at some point in history.

Con's meteorite and volcano arguments are incoherent, and he fails to provide a convincing reason for why these vague events would rule out the possibility of a few dinosaurs surviving.

Thanks for reading, and have fun voting!
Truth_seeker

Con

"Con's rebuttals amount to attributing every single piece of artwork to pure coincidence."

You argue that it's not a coincidence, but you never demonstrate that with solid scientific evidence which increases the probability of humans seeing living dinosaurs true.

"Even though the DNA argument was sufficient scientific evidence to prove that the aforementioned dinosaurs walked the earth in the past 10,000 years, I also made another argument with the T. rex and hadrosaur blood. I appealed to the intuition and common sense of the voters when I left it up to them to decide whether or not the presence of unfossilized, T. rex and hadrosaur bones complete with soft tissue and liquid blood proves that they walked the earth in the same time period as humans."

I will explain why using Pro's own source that red blood cells were not confirmed in the Dinosaur tissue.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com...

It says:

It was big news indeed last year when Schweitzer announced she had discovered blood vessels and structures that looked like whole cells inside that T. rex bone

"It was big news indeed last year when Schweitzer announced she had discovered blood vessels and structures that looked like whole cells inside that T. rex bone"

Then it says:

"Schweitzer showed the slide to Horner. "When she first found the red-blood-cell-looking structures, I said, Yep, that"s what they look like," her mentor recalls. He thought it was possible they were red blood cells, but he gave her some advice: "Now see if you can find some evidence to show that that"s not what they are."

It hasn't even been proven that scientists did indeed find red blood cells, thus Pro cannot use this as evidence to say that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.

I rest my case.
Debate Round No. 5
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 2 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
Jellon, it's true that my opponent put up a weak fight and let me rule the debate, but I find it rude that you are debating in his place in the comment section while voting is still going on. Voting is supposed to be about who was a better debater, not who was right.

Regarding your comment about my modern reconstructions suspiciously sharing the same colors as the ancient art, I explicitly said in the debate that I took the liberty of adjusting the hue and saturation of the modern reconstructions which I found on Google images. So I don't appreciate the insinuation of dishonesty.
Posted by Jellon 2 years ago
Jellon
Pro claimed that the resemblance between the dinosaurs and the art is uncanny. The thing I find most uncanny about it is the ones that have color have the same color as modern artists. In general, we don't know what color dinosaurs were; although according to Discovery, genetic analysis has provided evidence for colors of some, especially the ones with feathers. The uncanny relationship between the colors chosen by those who allegedly saw the dinosaurs and those who guessed indicates to me that something is going on, especially when you have dinosaurs with a red streak down their back as opposed to a solid color.
Posted by Jellon 2 years ago
Jellon
My second source actually presents some of the same exact depictions that Pro gave.
And oh by the way, the dates on animals is often changing based on new discoveries. Under the theory of evolution, which I know you believe, the lack of fossils doesn't show the non-existence of a species at a given time. Missing links are easily dismissed for this reason. Also, the dates for different species are often changed by new discoveries. As one of the sources I gave points out, even if dinosaur fossils were found from this century, it would not cast doubt on the theory of evolution.
If you looked into some of the claims Pro gave, you'd find that there is no evidence that the dinosaur depicted in the art ever existed anywhere near the location of the art.
Although the art may look like a certain dinosaur, it doesn't mean it is a dinosaur. One of the dinosaur depictions Pro gave looks like a modern lizard.
It could also look like a non-dinosaur species. In some cases, mythical things are added to creatures that make one look like a dinosaur. For example, the stegosaurus looks like a rhino with spikes. The spikes happened to appear on all kinds of animals found in art in the same location as the stegosaurus given by Pro. This gives us strong reason to believe that one in particular was coincidence.
There are a host of other reasons. You didn't give any of them.
Posted by Jellon 2 years ago
Jellon
Come on TS; you could easily make a stronger argument against dinosaur art. Obviously, Con didn't provide evidence that the art indicated the existence of dinosaurs, but you can provide evidence against it via expert analysis. My very first Google search produced several good hits. I didn't look into the credibility of these authors, but two of the three have long lists of sources that can be looked into. The second (paleo.cc) is probably the best, and gives great reasons why dinosaur art shouldn't be considered evidence. You should have won this debate, but your lack of research killed you.
http://www.livescience.com...
http://paleo.cc...
http://rationalwiki.org...
Posted by theConspiracy 2 years ago
theConspiracy
http://www.history.com...

That is a link to a story on how and when dinosaurs died out. If you fully read this you will realize that Truth_Seeker is correct.
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 2 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
How many fallacies did Con accuse me of? I lost count!
Posted by Burncastle 2 years ago
Burncastle
I thank Pro for specifying that he is refering to the colloquial definition of dinosaurs, because technically speaking birds ARE dinosaurs.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
And in the bible it talks about behemoth with a tail like a cedar tree. That could not describe a hippo, or an elephant, or a rhino. They all have small tails. But it would describe any number of dinosaurs.Just a thought.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
And I would really like you to explain how trees were found through several layers of sediment. Maybe you are smarter than me. I can only conclude it to happen only by a real deluge of biblical proportions. What say you.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
Garret: All I did was make a comment. Every word was a comment.I commented on his argument.Maybe I added some facts. I did not know that facts were not appropriate in the comment section.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by beanall 2 years ago
beanall
GarretKadeDupreTruth_seekerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: I feel like Con was acting as though he didn't have the common sense to disprove the pictures. I believe that it was his burden to find evidence that the pictures were hoaxes or to show that it wasn't evidence enough. He refused to do this. Pro easily won this argument.
Vote Placed by Paleophyte 2 years ago
Paleophyte
GarretKadeDupreTruth_seekerTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: The resolution was that people saw living dinosaurs. Pro only demonstrated that people made images that looked vaguely like large reptiles. Con refuted by stating that there's no scientific evidence and artwork counts as anecdotal evidence of the worst sort.
Vote Placed by Emilrose 2 years ago
Emilrose
GarretKadeDupreTruth_seekerTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro presented a very well-structured argument but the evidences were limited scientifically--artistic works themselves don't prove that dinosaurs lived among human beings. Con outlined that there is no testable evidence to support Pro's argument, and that it is widely upheld within the scientific community that dinosaurs became extinct prior to human existence.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
GarretKadeDupreTruth_seekerTied
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: The fact that cultures all over the world drew pictures of dinosaurs is strong enough evidence.
Vote Placed by Jellon 2 years ago
Jellon
GarretKadeDupreTruth_seekerTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's evidence from painting is decent, but questionable. Con requested evidence which wasn't given. Although not specifically stated, evidence could have included expert opinion on the paintings, as opposed to the opinion of Pro. Con's main argument rests on the fossil record, but Pro never gave a reason for the disappearance of dinosaur fossils all around the same time as presented by Con. Con did manage to resolve the DNA argument by giving several sources that give me reason to believe that under ideal conditions, DNA can survive longer than Pro's source claims it can under normative conditions. Both debaters presented strong uncontested arguments.
Vote Placed by ShadowKingStudios 2 years ago
ShadowKingStudios
GarretKadeDupreTruth_seekerTied
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's resolution: People saw living dinosaurs. Pro's reiterates resolution: " I'm only arguing that dinosaurs were seen by people at some point in history." Pro stated "Alligators were put on the endangered species list because people loved to kill them." Are alligators & crocodiles descendants of dinosaurs? Maybe. They resemble a compatible species. Pro upheld his resolution to present the MCA with evidence that people saw something that resembled the traditional descriptions of dinosaurs.