Dinosaurs Lived With People

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 depictionsWe 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 evidencePro has given three arguments here: 1) The Ashley BedsFirstly, 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 existencePro 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 dinosaursPro's own source dismisses this idea, so I do not need to further debunk it. ConclusionPro 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...