Dragons Are Real

"I'm arguing it's plausible that a smoke-breathing dinosaur shared the earth with people at any point in human history. .. When Con says it's impossible for dinosaurs to have ever lived with people, he's not making a scientific claim, but a religious one. He's putting undue faith in a tentative explanation. " 1) As shown in my previous argument, by definition, a dinosaur is a creature that lived in the Mesozoic era. The Mesozoic era NEVER intersects with human history. 2) It is not religion. It is knowing and using the definition of words. "Plant matter can smoke at this temperature. " My opponent has provided no evidence or science for this claim. It will take much more heat than 100 C to make plant matter smoke. Think about it, you're not applying an open fire to the plant. The temperature has to be so high that the plant material literally ignites from the pressure created by the extremely high temperatures. The animal's body would not be able to withstand such a temperature, let alone create it. "Considering that the Bombardier Beetle can achieve this temperature, it is obviously plausible that some dinosaur which lived with humans did too. " 1) As I have proved, dinosaurs did not co-exist with humans. 2) The Bombardier Beetle is a one of a kind insect that has an unbelievable combination of traits that allow the beetle to perform such feats. My opponent is comparing an insect to dinosaurs. That is like saying that since there is an insect (pea aphid) that can successfully use photosynthesis, then it is plausible that some dinosaurs could also use photosynthesis for energy. . http://ipm.ncsu.edu... "This doesn't have to be a problem, as any fire-eater can attest. " 1) The fire-eater uses an external source of heat, and does not make inside his body. 2) Heat travels upward (it is less dense than the cold air) and because of this, the fire-eater is not hurt. Notice how in the picture my opponent provided (or any other image of a fire eater) the eater is leaning back in a way that the flames are not touching his mouth, but only the stick? That is so the heat does not seriously damage his mouth. An animal would not be able to do this because even if the creature lifted its head/neck upward, then as the flame/heat travel, it would still destroy the nostrils, throat etc. . http://mentalfloss.com... "Actually, smooth stones can produce sparks. " A baseless claim. If the stone is smooth, then friction is decreased significantly, making it very difficult to produce a spark. "If the gizzard-like dragon organ were close up front in the mouth, it could be exposed to air and dried. It's not like all bodily cavities have to be moist, anyways. " That means that every time this "dragon" wanted to make smoke/fire, he would have to do the following: 1) Open mouth for several minutes to dry gizzard stones. 2) After they're dried, start knocking them together to try to make a spark. 3) Somehow, simultaneously burp methane at the same time the spark is produced. This would not be beneficial to the animal in any way, and there is no reason evolution would create such a thing. The Bombardier Beetle can very effectively use its ability as defense (even then, it's not fatal. It only causes irritation to skin), but producing smoke would not benefit the animal in any way, especially if it took such a long, complicated process. "Neither is the author of that article. He's a journalist, not a scientist, as evidenced by the fact he earned his degree from a reporting program. " That is true, but he is gathering info and quoting scientists. He didn't get all that information himself, he interviewed scientists (Mr. Witmer and Ryan Ridgley) on the subject. . http://news.nationalgeographic.com... "I didn't ignore it, and the source of the article explains that 'there are severe limits on what inferences can be made, because we lack critical information on central neural connectivity as well as peripheral responses and sensitivities. '" It does not say that on either page of the article. . http://news.nationalgeographic.com... "So my hypothesis is still plausible, especially considering the source literally marked one of the cavities with a "? " because they weren't sure what it was. " Using the "Find" tool on my computer, I discovered that there is not a single question mark in the entire article. For some reason, my opponent provides a different source for the above claim. Not the original National Geographic article. . http://news.nationalgeographic.com... "This is completely consistent with fire-breathing catalyzing the cooling process, since it expels heat from the dinosaur's body. " Fire-breathing would not cool the animal in any way. Not only would it take physical energy for the animal to do this (which produces heat energy) but if the animal has to produce heat (a lot of it) to catalyze a reaction, which also heats the animal. I find my opponent's claim illogical. I do not see any way that fire-breathing would help cool the animal. Fire-breathing would not expel heat from the dinosaur. It greatly increases the body temperature of the dinosaur. "No, apparently Con ignored my quote from Animal Planet which stated that dragon stories exist in virtually every country worldwide, in cultures that had no contact with each other. Is Con really suggesting that Australian dragon stories share an origin with the Iceland stories, or Central American stories, or Asian ones? " There is nothing said about "Australian dragons". The quote does not say that they were on every continent. Also, I don't know what this "Animal Planet" program is, but here is a website dedicated to Inuit culture and it says nothing of dragons. . http://www.native-languages.org... It can also be noted that just because myths of them are in different cultures does not mean they existed. For example, in almost all cultures, light/Sun is regarded as a positive, life-bringing force, while darkness/Night is regarded as a negative, death-bringing force. Does this mean that the Sun is good and the Moon is bad? No, it's just the way people perceive things. Dragons are the quintessence of evil and horror in many cultures (although in the Chinese culture, they are a good thing), and probably come from the fact that humans fear/hate snakes. "I already explained that I'm not arguing for that type of dragon, because that type would have 6 limbs and I have doubts about it's plausibility. " Yes, I am fully aware of that, but the quote also includes "fire-breathing", which the expert concluded biologically impossible. "people that suck blood" I am not aware of any people that suck blood. There are cannibals, but as far as I am concerned, there are no people that kill other solely to suck out the blood. "My resolution doesn't require winged dragons, and fire-breathing may not be recognized form fossils alone. " Yes, but the quotes my opponent provided include both, fire-breathing and wings. If he wishes to use those quotes as a valid source, then he must accept the fact that dragons had both characteristics. In that case, my argument stands firm. There are no skeletons/remains of such "winged serpents". I will now address the situation about my opponent's sources. 1) The very first quote that he provides is from a religious text, which cannot be considered valid in a scientific debate. 2) Four more quotes have no source whatsoever. (The 2nd, 3rd, 5th and 6th quote) 3) My opponent quotes a book called "British Dragons" but gives a link to a different book called "The Flying Serpent". In fact, "British Dragons" cannot be considered as a valid source either. Here is the provided description of the book: "Jacqueline Simpson gathers and examines the material to be found in folk tales in England, Scotland and Wales, together with folk customs using the dragon. In addition there is a brief general history of dragons. This book brings together the various mythic forms of the dragon as treasure guardian, voracious beast to be killed, the luck-giving snake and many others. " The book is a "compilation" of legends, myths and folklore. . http://www.amazon.com... 4) Finally my opponent provides a web-source which is a long is of accounts. Even then, I did not manage to find very much "dragon-related" information. I will also note that this does not look like a very credible source, considering that it does not reveal the author, nor the original writings/texts from which these accounts were extracted. . http://www.britannia.com... As a result of the above, I can ignore ALL of my opponent's quotes/accounts as invalid. In conclusion, I believe that it is not plausible that smoke/fire-emitting dinosaurs have ever existed.