People Saw Living Dinosaurs

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] [23] http://www.icr.org... [24] http://news.discovery.com...