Don’t let your friend trap you into thinking you have to become an expert geologist, bioloigist, chemist, and physcist to “prove” evolution since all those fields come into play when we’re talking about how we know what happened in the distant past wrt life on earth. A little reading on the subject in a place like TalkOrigins should be enough to convince someone who doesn’t have a closed mind.
The key thing to remember is that the Bible is not a history text and it’s not a science text. When your child gets sick, you take her to a doctor, you don’t consult the Bible. (At least I hope you don’t consult the Bible!) When we sent a man to the moon, we didn’t use the Bible to figure out how to do that. So why would we consult the Bible to determine what happened 10K years ago or 100K years ago or 100M years ago?
A Leslie matrix population model supported by carbon-14 dating of early occupation layers lacking moa remains suggests that human hunting and habitat destruction drove the 11 species of moa to extinction less than 100 years after Polynesian settlement of New Zealand. The rapid extinction contrasts with models that envisage several centuries of exploitation. *
Habitat preferences of moa in central Otago, A.D. 1000-1500, according to palaeobotanical and archaeological evidence.
Anderson, AJ
Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand [J. R. SOC. N.Z.]. Vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 321-336. 1982.
*The habitat preferences of moa have to be inferred from indirect sources of information. Palaeobotanical data (historical records, fossil logs, charcoal, pollen and soil and precipitation patterns) are sused to infer the probable distribution of forest and shrublands in central Otago between approximately A.D. 1000-1500. The results are compared with the locational characteristics of contemporaneous moa hunting sites in the same region. Given the assumption that the hunting sites were located in areas where moa population densities were highest, it is concluded that preferred moa habitats lay in shady situations along watercourses, mainly in the lower hill country and gorges of eastern central Otago, where dense, mixed shrub association were the predominant vegetation type.
*
No doubt, early man hunted and thus lived with dinosaurs. True-all of the evidence only points to dinosaurs of the class Aves (birds), and not everyone agrees that Aves are Dinosaurs- but that’s currently the consensus.
But what is a dinosaur to our OP? Just Ornithischia (bird-hipped) and Saurischia (lizard-hipped) dinos? (Tyrannosaur and Triceratops for example)? Or does he include other prehistoric reptiles, such as the pelycosaur Dimetrodon, the winged pterosaurs and the aquatic ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs and mosasaurs?
Ok, then- here it is pretty much- other than Birds (if we assume them as a form of dinos): the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event, which occurred about65 million years ago at the end of the Cretaceous period, caused the extinction of all dinosaurs, including other prehistoric reptiles, such as the pelycosaur Dimetrodon, the winged pterosaurs and the aquatic ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs and mosasaurs. All gone.
Well, maybe. There is some small evidence that a few dinos did survive. Discounting stories of Nessie and the Sea serpent, we have:
“Dinosaurs that did not die: Evidence for Paleocene dinosaurs in the Ojo Alamo Sandstone, San Juan Basin, New Mexico”
Note that only gives the possibilty that not every “non-avian dinosaur” completely died off exactly at 65 Million years ago- perhaps a few lingered on for a few million years. Sure, why not?
However, since the first Homo sp showed up around 2 million years ago, that leaves us a gap of 60 million years in which there is no fossil evidence of any non-avian donos at all. None. But sure, a couple could have lingered on, like the Wrangel is Mammoth which “lingered on” for some 10000 years after their last mainland cousin died off. I am very dubious- 10,000 years I can see, a couple million, I can see- but 60 Million?!? :dubious:
It is thus not completely impossible that one of our very early ancestors could have come upon one of the last few “real” dinosaurs. But that’s highly doubful. :dubious:
So, if by “dinosaurs lived at the same time as men”, your friend meant Avian dinosaurs, then sure ya, yabetcha, you can still see them now. I had one for lunch yesterday, fried. If by “dinosaurs lived at the same time as men” he means some tiny lost remnant population, like the fabled Mokèlé-mbèmbé Mokele-mbembe - Wikipedia - then he’s not crazy, just credulous. And that’s OK. We certainly don’t know everything, and if we can find coelacanths and megamouths, who knows what might be out there?
But if he means man lived with everyday classic dinos, like on the Flintstones or “1,000,000 BC” then he’s a loon.
Then you are asserting a negative, which will be difficult to prove. If your friend disbelieves evolutionary theory, there is not much you can do.
Perhaps you should change your assertion to “There exists no evidence such as would be sufficient to prove dinosaurs and humans lived alongside one another.”
Not true. I used to be a die-hard Creationist, and now I am a filthy heathen atheist… there is hope for your friend
Forget dinosaurs and humans, go simpler. Debate evidence for Noah’s Flood. That is the crux of the Creationist argument anyway. Shatter that delusion and you will be well on your way to having your friend realize how science actually works, what evidence really is, what evidence actually exists and what the bible really is.
Ask him how Biblical archaeological sites are dated. If he accepts those dates, which are derived at using radiometric dating, ask him why the same methodology is not valid for dating dinosaur bones and other fossils. The process either works, or it doesn’t.
But archaeological sites are dated in a completely different manner to fossils. True, the basic principles of radioactive decay remain the same but it seems perfectly consistent to me to believe that one is accurate and that the other is not.
Completely differently? I think not. While there may be methods used within archaeology (e.g., dendrochonology, luminescence dating, obsidian hydration,etc.) that aren’t as useful (or at all) for paleontology, radiometric dating is still a major component. Whether one uses carbon or potassium or uranium, the process is the same. And the fact that radiometric dates will likely agree with those obtained by other methods makes it more difficult to dismiss dates obtained by radiometric means.
That doesn’t help in this argument at all, but it’s really, really interesting! For those who didn’t click the link, it’s a a news story about (legitimate) scientists who found a small portion of a dinosaur bone that had been preserved but NOT petrified: the soft tissues were still a little soft. Of course, it was protected by the outer bone thathad petrified, so it’s age isn’t in doubt.
Huh? So which was it? A footprint or a sandal? And how does one distinguish a sandal print of that age from the imprint of any roughly foot-shaped plant/animal material? And why were air-breathing humans running around in the ocean, stomping on aquatic trilobites who could easily flee?
Okay, so I’m being flip. I’m just curious if they offer any explanations of such things or just declare them to be so.
That’s just trying to prove another negative, isn’t it? Besides,her friend will come up with a cite saying someone or other had “found” Noah’s Ark. These stories seem to pop up every five years or so - Noah must have had a fleet of Arks!
voodoonirvana, if your friend doesn’t have any evidence, he doesn’t have an argument. It’s as simple as that. If he believes he has actual evidence, share it here and the experts will tear it apart. You’re trying to prove a negative and it can’t be done. The burden of proof is on him.
A few years back my uncle made the same assertion. Yeesh. Makes you wonder about American school systems.
This is not an argument you can win because it will eventually boil down to an argument by authority for both of you.
He accepts creationism in much the same way as you accept evolution. If you point out a contradition, he’ll find a site which explains it in a way that makes sense to him. Invariably, his site won’t make sense to you or you’ll find a site which contradicts his site. If you make a claim, he’ll counter that your claim is bogus (i.e., radioactive dating doesn’t work) or he’ll simply dismiss it (look at what Bible Man did with the claim about the sun).
Unless both of you are going to become experts in every -ology and -ics out there, the argument (debate?) will simply boil down to which one of you can find the better sites. Look at the thread in GD starring Bible Man and you’ll get a glimpse of what you’re up against.
It always boggles my mind how some people can perfectly accept that the same process that is responsible for so many of the intricate and complex things in our lives is completely broken when it comes to evolution. If he wants to claim radiometric dating is bogus, leave it to him to prove why. If he can, he will likely get a Nobel Prize.
Except Latimeria (the currently extant coelacanth) is not the same species of actinistid fish as are found as fossils. Morphologically conservative, sure. But “coelacanth” represents (in Linnaean terms) a whole Order of critters, not a single species. Latimeria itself is unlikely to be more than a few million years old, at most.
This would have been my advice, but if I felt like tackling any of the Creationists I know I would start with the age of the Earth. There is a mountain of evidence that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old. If he can accept that, you can introduce evidence for the existance of early life forms.
And, the fact that we were surprised as shit shows that it was unlikely. But I did say “not completely impossible”.
There is also a HUGE difference from some remnant species found hidden in an odd corner of the world, and “living cheek by jowl” with said creatures on a daily basis. And even if we found an extant non-avian dinosaur*, it very likely (as **Darwin’s Finch ** pointed out with the coelacanth) would not be an identical species from one 65 MYA. But even if we found a Brontosaur (I know I know, but I’m on a roll, so ) alive today, that wouldn’t put any ammo into the Creationists views- which is basicly that Species are unchanged. :dubious:
*one of the reasons I hate the cladistic definition of “dinosaur” to include Aves is having to use that clumsy construction= “non-avian dinosaur”. :mad:
If you want an even easier version of the argument, try to prove that dinosaurs and humans aren’t walking in the same tracks NOW instead of trying to take on millions of years of history all at once. There are a lot of people that believe that Nessie of the Loch Ness fame is a dinosaur. Likewise, there are some tribes deep in the jungles of Africa that claim that something like a brontosaurus is still in there. There are scattered pieces of evidence like little statues and some blurry photos that suggest this may be true.
I need you to prove that this is not happening and maybe other Dopers can help. Even better would be if your friend pitches in and helps us prove that there aren’t a few dinosaurs scattered around the world.
If by “dinosaurs lived at the same time as men” he means some tiny lost remnant population, like the fabled Mokèlé-mbèmbé
) alive today, that wouldn’t put any ammo into the Creationists views- which is basicly that Species are unchanged. :dubious: