Dinosaurs Lived With People

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.