Dinosaurs Lived With People

I will begin with an overview, then present one contention supporting my case, and, finally, rebut Pro's case. Overview:I would like to note a couple things regarding this debate: 1. Pro has the sole BOP in this round, since he is presenting a positive idea against the status quo. This means that he must prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, that homo sapiens and dinosaurs lived simultaneously. Remember, as Christopher Hitchens once articulated, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. " 2. I would also like to discuss the types of proof Pro is going to need in this debate. While I do not wish to get into rebuttals yet, Pro will have to demonstrate with scientific proof that dinosaurs lived with people, ruling out all other possible explanations of his evidences. This is going to be quite difficult, since all I have to do is demonstrate that there are at least other plausible explanations for Pro's evidence to win this debate. I. Dinosaur fossils predate those of homo sapiens. This is going to be very straightforward. Quite simply, dinosaur bones have been radiometrically dated to be from, at the latest, 65 million years ago [1]. Conversely, the oldest homo sapiens fossil ever found has been dated to be only 195,000 years old [2]. This means that there is absolutely no scientific evidence that demonstrates that the two ever lived together at the same time. Pretty simple. RebuttalsFor the sake of clarity, Pro's arguments can be categorized into two contentions: 1) Artistic depictions, and 2) Fossil records. 1. Artistic depictionsI am not going to go through all of Pro's examples of artistic references of dinosaurs, because they are all essentially the same thing. Pro's argument can be represented as the following: 1. Human beings have drawn and/or described creatures that appear to be dinosaurs. 2. Human beings can only draw and/or describe dinosaurs if they have had either first-hand or scientific knowledge of them. 3. Early humans did not have scientific knowledge of dinosaurs. Therefore, early humans had first-hand encounters with dinosaurs. This argument is logically valid; that is, the conclusion follows from the premises, and is true if the premises are true. However, premise 2 is demonstrably false. What Pro is advocating is that science fiction could not exist as a genre; that is, human imagination cannot create things that may, coincidentally, look like something else ever without having first-hand evidence. While I will discuss ancient art and literature in a moment, let's adapt this argument to the present time. 1. Human beings have drawn and/or described Wookies (from Star Wars). 2. Human beings can only draw and/or describe Wookies if they have had either first-hand or scientific knowledge of them. 3. Humans do not have scientific knowledge of Wookies. Therefore, humans have had first-hand encounters with Wookies. Since there is no evidence whatsoever of any human ever having had an encounter with a Wookie, or having gone to the planet Kashyyyk, yet, Star Wars exists, we can see that this "logic" is patently absurd. Moreover, ancient art and literature is full of all sorts of things that there is no evidence for. For instance, the ancient Egyptians wrote of and drew gods that were human, but with the head of a bird [3], they had glyphs that look somewhat like airplanes and UFOs [4], and Leonardo da Vinci came up with the idea of a helicopter without ever having seen one [5]. Even the Bible contains references of flying chariots and giants. The tl;dr of this argument is that human imagination and fiction are real things. Human beings have the unique cognitive ability to imagine and create wondrous idea that have no bearing on reality whatsoever. Pro will need to demonstrate how this uniquely does not fall under the umbrella of fiction. Finally, some, if not all, of these depictions could also be dismissed as misidentifications. Many of these look like rhinoceroses, lizards, and other known animals, or were at least heavily based on those. 2. Fossil recordPro here claims that, because dinosaur fossils have been found in the same layers as humankind by one guy one time 200 years ago, that the two clearly lived at the same time. Obviously, there are other possible explanations, most likely a phemonemon called fossil turbulence, whereby geologic or other natural forces can cause upheavals within the earth or underwater, causing fossil layers to appear mixed together [5]. This is often caused in areas that have been both land and sea in the past, as South Carolina was [5]. In fact, the USGS has attributed this mixing in the Ashley River beds to this phenomenon [6]. Note, of course, that no evidence has cropped up from these very accessible fossils that dates them in the same time periods. The biggest question of all is, if dinosaurs have, in fact, been alive for the past 65 million years, why have palaeontologists found absolutely no dinosaur fossils dating after 65 million years ago, but plenty before? Do dinosaurs only selectively fossilize? Such a gigantic creature would surely leave more traces over the last 65 million years ago than a few pieces of art. Pro needs to give more evidence here to have a chance at meeting his BOP. Of course, it is POSSIBLE, as Pro states, that dinosaurs lived with humans. However, there is no evidence for such an event, and Pro's BOP is to show that this DID happen, not that it could have. He has not done this, nor can he, with the available scientific evidence. His position is anathema to the accepted scientific position. Thank you, and I look forward to reading Pro's response. Sources:1. . http://science.howstuffworks.com...2. . http://www.sciencedaily.com...3. . http://www.ancientegypt.co.uk...4. . http://en.wikipedia.org...5. . http://arxiv.org...6. . http://pubs.usgs.gov...