Dinosaurs Lived With People

Con says circumstantial evidence isn't enough for my case. According to Webster(4), circumstantial evidence is defined as: “evidence that tends to prove a fact by proving other events or circumstances which afford a basis for a reasonable inference of the occurrence of the fact at issue” This means that, in effect, Con is saying evidence that affords a basis for the reasonable inference that dinosaurs and people coexisted is not sufficient. This is clearly absurd. Then, Con goes on to say that scientific evidence needs to be given. I'm not amused by Con's relentless demand for scientific evidence in the face of all the scientific evidence I've given him. Apparently, he does not understand that “scientific evidence” is defined as “empirical evidence” which is essentially “stuff you can see with your own eyes” or “things that you can confirm for yourself.” Now, Con has never explicitly challenged my evidences, but since he has suggested he'd like to see sources for them, I'll be happy to oblige: Hongshan Montanoceratops: http://www.icr.org... Cambodian Wuerhosaurus: http://www.bible.ca... Aldrovandus' Dinosaur: http://www.genesispark.com... St. George's Nothosaurus: http://www.genesispark.com... Ica Stones: http://advindicate.com... Samlesbury Pterosaur: http://skepticism.org... I fully expect a baseless accusation from Con that sources 1,2,3 or 5 fabricated the evidence, but I'll be more understanding if he questions the authenticity of the Ica Stones since their origin is genuinely controversial. Con says science can explain the strata “problem”, but it isn't a problem at all for those who acknowledge that the explanation of the dinosaur wipeout event being a complete and total extinction is tentative and liable to be updated in the face of new evidence, just like all of science is. Con repeats his false, self-serving assertion that any other, plausible explanation for my evidences, even if less plausible than my explanation (!) will win him this debate. Then he goes so far as to claim I must provide exhaustive evidence, as if it's physically possible for me to present all the world's evidence for dinosaur/human interaction within the confines of this debate! For Con to win, he must provide a better explanation than I do, plain and simple. Amusingly, Con modified the conclusion in his fossil record argument and then acted as if it was “unclear” why it didn't follow from the premises. That's bordering on disingenuous, since it appears that he updated the argument to escape my refutation of it, all the while pretending that it was the same argument. More amusingly still, his new conclusion, “The fossil record demonstrates that there is no evidence that dinosaurs and humans coexisted” doesn't logically follow either. No matter what the fossil record shows, it simply can't erase all non-fossil evidence of dinosaur/human interaction, anymore than fossil evidence can erase modern Ceolacanth/human interaction. Con's next argument is just abusive semantics. He redefines “scientific evidence” as “fossil evidence” so he can point to a lack of fossil evidence for my case and pretend the case is closed. I'm not even kidding; read what he said: “All I have to show is that there is no scientific evidence for their coexistence (that means fossil evidence)” The implication of Con's slyness is huge, because it virtually defines my chance of winning as 0.1%. Since “scientific evidence” is synonymous with “empirical evidence”, and all my art and literature evidences are empirical, they would be defined out of existence! Con says, “I can (and have) demonstrated that there is no fossil evidence for their coexistence, which is all I need to do.” I'd like to introduce Con to the Ceolacanth, who would be very offended at that statement. Sure, you and I can easily confirm there are live Ceolacanths, and we might not be able to do the same for dinosaurs, but it just goes to show the fallacy that lies behind many, if not most, of Con's arguments. Con says the jade Montanoceratops is a hoax or not authenticated, implying it's modern and not 4,000 years old. Amusingly, the source(5) of his source admits the following: “The most charitable explanation is that even if the artefacts [sic] presented are really just modern reproductions of non-Hongshan figurines this still implies that there are some old dragon figurines somewhere that look like dinosaurs, and isn’t that a problem?” So even if it were a modern hoax, it would still be based on a genuinely ancient Montanoceratops sculpture, so Con's accusation of fraud refutes itself! The Behemoth is described as a tranquil herbivore, capable of standing secure against a raging river and bearing a tail that sways like a cedar tree. This description is compatible with a dinosaur only, probably Argentinosaurus: I don't have to prove the entire Bible to be accurate, contrary to Con's expectations. I only need to show that Behemoth was used as a verifiable example of God's majesty, and I did that earlier. Con says the Wuerhosaurus appears to be a rhino. Since Con doesn't know what a rhino is, as rhinos do not have plates or serrated backs, here's a photo for his viewing pleasure: Con says the Nothosaurus altar cloth looks like “an alligator or crocodile than anything.” I'll just give the judges these pictures for comparison and let them decide: Con says there are depictions of Bigfoot in fiction. But there are also depictions of humans in fiction. Are humans fictitious? Con's logic is fallacious. Con asked, “Why would a flying chariot not be depicted as something real, but dinosaurs were? Where is the line, and what is the standard?” I already explained what the line was. The flying chariot wasn't portrayed as something to be verified. Behemoth was. Plain and simple. I asked Con if he thought the strong resemblance of dinosaurs in ancient art was mere coincidence. He replied, “Not exactly, but these likenesses are either imagined[...]” Saying the likenesses were imagined is the same exact thing as saying they were mere coincidence. I'll take Con's answer as a “yes”: he wants to blame pure coincidence to explain away all the artwork. Con said the US Geological Survey blamed the Ashley Beds dinosaur and human fossils on “fossil turbulence.” He's going to have to quote me a line saying this because I simply do not believe him. Con cites a book saying fossils from the Ashley Beds had poor stratigraphic control because they were sometimes “dredged from the bottom of the Ashley River”. However, the paleontologist I quoted makes it clear that the human bones were found “in place”, and that subsequent findings confirmed this, and that they weren't “dredged from the bottom of the Ashley River.” Con's source doesn't even mention human bones or artifacts (!), so it can' be considered as having addressed my fossil evidence at all. Con says “The important note is that the fossils from the Ashley beds have not been radiometrically dated to be within the same age range” but this is completely irrelevant. They are found in the same strata, so they are the same age. This is the principle upon which the concept of “index fossils” is based. Does Con want to throw out the science of index fossils? Con says “If dinosaurs existed worldwide, some evidence that meets scrutiny would have been found.” I never argued dinosaurs existed worldwide. That's an unnecessary burden to shove on me in this debate. When I said dinosaurs left worldwide legends, I meant the legends spread throughout the whole world. “Yet, we only have found a few depictions, and no other evidence.” Ok Con, keep ignoring the Ashley Beds' fossil evidence if it makes you feel better. “Why, then, do dinosaur fossils almost universally fit into strata reflecting their age, and are consistently dated to more than 65 million years ago?” They “almost” fit in strata reflecting their age? You're implying they sometimes fit in strata that doesn't reflect their true age, which is a No True Scotsman Fallacy: P1: The age of dinosaur fossils is determined by their strata as being 65 million years old. P2: Sometimes, a different age is determined when they are found with human fossils. Fallacious Conclusion: Well, their true age is determined as being 65 million years old. The depiction of the Samlesbury pterosaur is not a hoax.(6)(7) “Pro is ignoring any possible alternate explanations” No I'm not, I'm well aware there are possible alternatives e.g. maybe ancient aliens did it! But my explanation is most reasonable since it doesn't require a ton of ad hoc arguments. “Evidence is needed for such a huge reversal of the scientific status quo, evidence that Pro has not provided.” I love how Con defines “evidence” as “that which Pro has not provided.” Here's more evidence that dinosaurs lived with people. DNA was successfully extracted and sequenced from a dinosaur egg(8) and also found in a dinosaur bone.(9) Since even under optimal conditions, DNA degrades so much that it can't be sequenced after 10,000 years(10), it logically follows that dinosaurs lived at the same time as people (unless Con wants to argue that people didn't exist 10,000 years ago lol). Back to Con! (4) http://www.merriam-webster.com... (5) http://eyeonicr.wordpress.com... (6) http://www.reddit.com... (7) http://www.quora.com... (8) http://myweb.dal.ca... (9) http://www.thebonejournal.com... (10) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...