-1 for "No" at title line. Why so insistent?

@elliotsvensson "no" is the answer.

@elliotsvensson it's literally the direct answer

+1 for the No. It's a yes/no question!

@elliotsvensson This seems like a clear-cut answer to me, what additional evidence would you need to warrant Sklivvz being this insistent?

@LordFarquaad, I'm -1ing for the epistemological stance: "Evidence A shows X went extinct before Y came into being. Therefore evidence B is implausible and may be dismissed summarily." Where's the skepticism in that? "Going extinct" is a negative assertion: "there weren't any X after a certain time." But this is not something you actually have evidence for!

@elliotsvensson from a purely epistemological stance, there's not enough evidence to conclusively prove any assertion beyond your own existence (See Descarte's evil demon)). However, as a species, we acknowledge no progress could be made if we required absolute certainty for every observation. As such, we've commonly agreed that a high enough level of confidence is adequate to declare something definitively true, like the fact that I've written a comment here. The evidence in this answer surpasses that threshold, so a strict "no" is correct.

@LordFarquaad, that's not "pure epistemology", that's radical skepticism- a standpoint that has been diminished lately, from what I can tell. The thing that "no" requires to be definitively true in the present case: that thing is "there are no X after a certain point in pre-history." But this is an assertion that cannot be verified, only falsified.

There is no evidence of dinosaurs existing after 65 ma ago. The OP agrees with this. There is positive scientific evidence of when homo speciated (i.e. we know when it happened). Anything else needs to explain this evidence too. E.g apparent footprints of homo with dinosaurs do not explain why we measure speciacion...

@elliotsvensson any more and we should chat, but the reason I asked "what additional evidence would you need..." is because your position is that this question can never be answered. Regardless of the evidence we gather, one could always claim "well maybe there's more evidence that proves this wrong." That's why I brought up Descarte's demon: because someone could make that argument about anything, but at some point we're certain enough about something to take that stance off the table, and we're certain enough about this.

The existence of mammalian megafauna is best explained by the extinction of non-avian dinosaurs: newscientist.com/article/…

@elliotsvensson Radical skepticism is requiring direct proof before considering something either true or false, which is the basis for both the Flat Earth Society ("have you personally seen the Earth from orbit...?") and the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster ("how can you disprove His Noodly existence...?). Normal skepticism is accepting the best evidence currently available, when it is well-supported, whilst acknowledging that further evidence may change this. Sklivvz has followed normal skepticism ("The fossils we found so far..."), hasn't he?

@Graham, he has stated on the outset that the determination that the creatures were extinct makes the putative evidence implausible. I would say that normal skepticism would allow that the absence of such dinosaurs at this or that moment in human history - something we can all agree is "a negative" (as in, "you can't prove a negative") - could be controverted by evidence.

"The fossils we found so far are incompatible with non-avian dinosaurs not being extinct out of that time frame." Can this be worded with less negatives? I'm really not sure, because I can't tell if I even understand it correctly.

@elliotsvensson If I asked the question "Did giant octopuses take fossils to fool humans into believing that dinosaurs went extinct ?" I would have to accept a no as an answer even though there's no evidence to prove it didn't happen. There simply isn't a good argument for the other side.

@xyious, of course that's true! (I thought you were going to mention the Kraken fossil arrangement, though, FWIW.) But "there simply isn't a good argument" is a matter of taste. Why aren't rock paintings a good argument?

Because there aren't any. They would be good enough as proof if there were paintings that accurately reflect dinosaurs made by humanoids.

Let's ask a different question here: Assuming humanoids and dinosaurs existed at the same time, what caused one of them to go extinct and not the other (we all do agree that they're extinct now, right ?). At the same time we have a complete lack of fossils from less than 65M years ago. So they went extinct without a trace after living without a trace for millions of years ? How ?