Why Dinosaurs Became Extinct - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the best online debate website. We're the only online debate website with Casual, "Persuade Me," Formalish, Traditional Formal, and Lincoln-Douglas online debate formats. Using DebateIsland's beautiful, mobile-friendly, and easy-to-use online debate website, you can debate politics, debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything in a large community of debaters. Debate online for free using DebateIsland, a globally leading online debate website that is utilizing Artificial Intelligence to transform online debating.


DebateIsland.com is the best online debate website. We're the only online debate website with Casual, "Persuade Me," Formalish, Traditional Formal, and Lincoln-Douglas online debate formats. Using DebateIsland's beautiful, mobile-friendly, and easy-to-use online debate website, you can debate politics, debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything in a large community of debaters. Debate online for free using DebateIsland, a globally leading online debate website that is utilizing Artificial Intelligence to transform online debating.

Why Dinosaurs Became Extinct

Debate Information

Well, they wouldn't have fitted into the Arc otherwise.
Debate Details +



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
33%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

    Arguments


  • AlofRIAlofRI 1037 Pts
    Agreed. It's kind' a like the old joke "What does the Buffalo stand for on a nickel"? ('Cause he doesn't have room to sit down.).

    Anyway, I've never figured out how God could flood the whole world, and the Bison, the Kangaroo, the Ocelot, the Moose, and a hundred other "not too good at swimming thousands of miles" animals survived. 

    Oh, well, lots of strange things happen in mythology.
    PlaffelvohfenScienceRules
  • dinosaur:

    large reptile, physiologic and morpholic increase in size due to earth's original level of oxygen. 
  • @JesusistheonlyGod777 ;

    Dinosaurs had more in common with birds than with reptiles, in fact we have evidence that T-rex had feathers.

    Dinosaurs of a feather meet T-Rexs fluffy cousin
    PlaffelvohfenScienceRules
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • Swolliw said:
    Well, they wouldn't have fitted into the Arc otherwise.
    Because you'd have to take the full grown ones right? Couldn't just snag some adolescents. 

    Although I don't think there were dinosaurs on the ark. I think they died out 65 million years ago, give or take. 
  • @JustinC
     I think they died out 65 million years ago, give or take. 

    Oh, you really mean, 20 minutes ago don't you?
  • @Happy_Killbot

    According to https://www.si.edu/newsdesk/factsheets/tyrannosaurus-rex by Smithsonian Institution "T. rex lived about 66–68 million years ago during the Cretaceous Period"

    Yet according to https://ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/birdfr.html

    "The paleontologist Sankar Chatterjee has recently described the fossil Protoavis, from Late Triassic deposits in Texas. Chatterjee claims that Protoavis is a true bird that is actually closer to modern birds than Archaeopteryx. If this is true, this would push the origin of birds back by about 80 million years. It would also show that the first birds lived at the same time as the earliest dinosaurs -- which could disprove or force modification of the standard hypothesis that birds are descended from the highly derived coelurosaurian dinosaurs, which are not known from the Triassic. This would require major rewriting of the evolutionary history of the birds and dinosaurs alike."

    LMAO!!!  B) 
    Happy_Killbot
      “Never argue with an id'iot They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain
  • @Neopesdom ;

    More in common with birds does not mean that dinosaurs came from birds or birds came from dinosaurs, it just means that they are closer to birds than to reptiles.

    Why are dinosaurs considered reptiles - Quora

    Plaffelvohfen
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • @Happy_Killbot

    That's a cool diagram, who can argue with facts like this! Where exactly would the Archaeoraptor fit into this timeline?
      “Never argue with an id'iot They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain
  • @Neopesdom ;
    Nowhere because it was one of those infamous Chinese forgeries.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • @Happy_Killbot

    Phylogenetic trees are hypotheses, not definitive facts. They merely represent imagined evolutionary relationships. The Archaeoraptor is also an imagined creature, it is a complete fake, it is a conglomerate of various parts from different creatures, in others words there is no real Archaeoraptor fossil or anything similar out there, this so called "missing link" has never been found.  



    The imagined Archaeoraptor would fit right into the imagined phylogenetic tree, where it would go exactly, well you might as well play pin the tail on the donkey, scientific facts are not forthcoming to make any such determination. 

    The desperation to find anything remotely resembling a "missing link" has lead largely to complete and rampant fraud. There are so many fake fossils out there these days that it's practically impossible to trust paleontological finds when it comes to fossil evidence of "missing links". Scientific America calls the problem nebulous and a perversion to this entire field of study. see https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-fake-fossils-pervert-paleontology-excerpt/
      “Never argue with an id'iot They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain
  • @Neopesdom ;
    Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

    Those who reject reality are damned to be it's prey.
    Plaffelvohfen
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • @Happy_Killbot

    >>Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

    The same could be said to those who believe that there is no evidence of God. An absence of evidence (of God’s existence) is not evidence of an absence (of God).  

    The slogan sounds like a cautionary tale – a healthy dose of scepticism to ward off the pox of hasty inferences drawn from a paucity of evidence. But trouble brews when cautionary tales get deployed as indisputable methodological principles.  - https://theconversation.com/you-look-but-do-not-find-why-the-absence-of-evidence-can-be-a-useful-thing-114988

    I honestly think atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method. What I mean by that is, what is atheism? It’s a statement, a categorical statement that expresses belief in nonbelief. “I don’t believe even though I have no evidence for or against, simply I don’t believe.” Period. It’s a declaration. But in science we don’t really do declarations. We say, “Okay, you can have a hypothesis, you have to have some evidence against or for that.” And so an agnostic would say, look, I have no evidence for God or any kind of god (What god, first of all? The Maori gods, or the Jewish or Christian or Muslim God? Which god is that?) But on the other hand, an agnostic would acknowledge no right to make a final statement about something he or she doesn’t know about. “The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,” and all that. This positions me very much against all of the “New Atheist” guys  -Templeton Prize winner, the US-based physicist Marcelo Gleiser, Professor of Physics, Dartmouth College

    >>Those who reject reality are damned to be it's prey.

    Indeed
      “Never argue with an id'iot They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain
  • @Neopesdom ;
    I honestly think atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method
    That's because you don't understand what atheism is, judging by the rest of your response. If you think atheism is: "a categorical statement that expresses belief in nonbelief" then you don't know.

    A lack of belief is not a belief that something isn't true. I hate to get semantic here, but what you are describing would be a "Gnostic atheist" which most atheists do not identify as. There are also "agnostic atheists" which make up the bulk majority of atheists including myself. There are also agnostic theists and gnostic theists, (not to be confused with Gnostic Christians). These positions (theist/atheist and gnostic/agnostic) are not mutually exclusive, meaning you can be any two of them.

    Gnostic means "possessing assumed knowledge of" and thus Agnostic means "without assumed knowledge of". From these four words we can derive 4 specific positions:

    gnostic theist: Someone who has assumed knowledge of the existence of god, gods, or other mythical beings
    agnostic theist: Someone who does not assume the existence of god, gods, or other mythical beings but adheres to the scripture (sometimes called "cultural Christians/Muslims/Jews")
    gnostic atheist: Someone who has assumed knowledge of the non-existence of god, gods, or other mythical beings
    agnostic atheist: Someone who does not assume the non-existence of god, gods, or other mythical beings. (the bulk majority of irreligious persons and the single largest religious category in the US and Europe)

    Hopefully this clears up some of your misconceptions about atheism.
    PlaffelvohfenScienceRules
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • @Happy_Killbot


    >>That's because you don't understand what atheism is

       Just because you don't like someone's definition of a word doesn't mean they don't understand, they just have a different take on the subject. Atheism is a polysemous word, meaning it can have a number of different definitions in various contexts. Sometimes it can be defined in terms of a rebuttal to theism, hence, ""a"-theism", a propositional stand against the belief that God exists, in that case it not a lack of belief or absence of belief, it is a belief that there are no gods/God. The atheist claim is a metaphysical one. Given the untenable position of atheism which has to assume absolute knowledge or as you call it gnostic atheism, there is no one that can truly represent this position. Since no one has absolute knowledge the only tenable stand one could take is that of not knowing, a position of ignorance, hence the agnostic. This word was formulated by T.H. Huxley. He said that he originally invented the word “Agnostic” to denote people who, like [himself], confess themselves to be hopelessly ignorant concerning a variety of matters, about which metaphysicians and theologians, both orthodox and heterodox, dogmatise with the utmost confidence. His definition hinged more towards evidentialism. 

    The agnostic insinuates that neither theism nor atheism is knowable. How they have come to this grand conclusion is somewhat of a mystery. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity, or as you put it "assume the non-existence of god", and are agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact. As for gnostic knowledge of God, other than Scripture, this not part of Christianity, a gnostic is a heretic, such people or groups (that which emphasises personal spiritual knowledge) who claim to "talk to god", or have been given additional knowledge from dreams or ritual practices, apostolic traditions, assumed positions of power (papal infallibility, magisteriums) etc, i.e. things not found in Scripture. This alleged type of special knowledge only invites fraud, which is quite rampant throughout human history.

    In any case there are many perspectives or ways to look at things, whatever qualifying words you choose to use narrows the scope of the definition to something both debating parties can agree to, since no such agreement has been made your "clears up some of your misconceptions about atheism" statement really falls short in this discussion. If you want to get into semantics there is also, global and local atheism, strong and weak atheism, negative and positive atheism, implicit and explicit atheism, etymological vs psychological definitions of atheism, pragmatic atheism, practical atheism, etc.... What does Joe Biden say, "Come on man!" 
    Happy_Killbot
      “Never argue with an id'iot They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain
  • @Neopesdom ;
    It's like you just totally disregarded everything I just said, or made no effort to understand it.

    I have a personal moratorium on arguing semantics specifically because it is an argument that no one can ever win. There is no such thing as an objective definition, because all words are purely representational.

    Just because you define atheism in a certain way does not mean that all people who call themselves atheists agree with your definition and follow what you think an atheist is exactly. By your definitions, I would be agnostic but that is nonsense because so would everyone else, even someone who was 100% sure that god existed.

    All I'm trying to do here is show why atheism is in fact consistent with science, because it is based on the definitions I used in the case of an agnostic-atheist, who make up the bulk majority of people who would call themselves atheists. The only reason you don't except this is because you define atheist in a way that makes it so that they technically can't exist.

    Almost no one holds a positive belief that there are no gods, and I most certainly don't. A lack of belief is not a belief in a lack of, for the same reason that off is not a TV channel. In this way (and to get back on topic) my atheistic stance is not incompatible with science.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch