T-rex A Veggie?

[Guest guitar860]

One argument that i have used numerously which falsifies creationist theory is that of T-rex.

 

There is overwhelming evidence to support the "theory" that T-rex was a carnivore. It may well of perhaps scavenged or hunted actively, but this does not change the logical observation that it ate meat. This is supported by the following:

 

1) Conical, sharp teeth with some growing larger than 9 inches, which are consistent with the teeth of today's carnivores. They were ideally suited to a carnivorous diet, and remarkably unsuitable for a vegetarian diet.

 

2) There are fossils of T-rex found with remains of other animals in their stomach caviety.

 

3) T-rex's physical form suggests a predator. It's head was far from the ground, preventing it from eating low-lying plant material, it had forward facing eyes for depth perception, a long sterdy tail for balance, extremely powerful jaw muscles capable of biting 200+ kg with one bite, a stocky build and excellent all round senses.

 

We have not found a single T-rex with the physical adaptations REQUIRED to survive on a vegetarian diet, which according to creationist theory, must of happened.

As i have said, i have used this argument before, and still creationists have not provided a legimate explanation.

 

Here are the arguments used before:

 

I) Sharp teeth dont mean carnivore e.g. iguana. Sharp teeth do not always mean carnivore, as they are adaptations to various forms of vegetation. However, when the teeth are as specifically adapted for meat as T-rex's, the animal would physically starve before it would eat plants.

 

see here: http://www.aaskolnick.com/fieldmuseum/sue/trex.teeth.jpg

 

and here: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/steve.woodwar...tons)/teeth.JPG

 

 

II) Some carnivores do indeed supplement their diet with various forms of plants. However, this does not change the fact that they are carnivores - it is by no means a vegetarian diet as would of occured before the fall of man. Examples of carnivores eating some plant material is therefore not a viable argument. Nor is the example of that lion that just ate eggs and milk.

 

 

III) Another Dinosaur related to t-rex.

 

 

 

So, i would like to see some absolute evidence to suggest that T-REX was at one point a vegetarian. Also, i would like to know how creationists have divided geological strata into "pre-fall" and "post fall". Is there a division where all organisms are nice and fluffy on one half and all spiky and poisonous on the other?

 

 

Thanks.

 

Guitar.

[MRC_Hans 0]

Uhm, why should carnivores have been vegetarian before the fall? Where in Genesis does it say that?

 

Hans

[Fred Williams 0]

Uhm, why should carnivores have been vegetarian before the fall? Where in Genesis does it say that?

 

Hans

8173[/snapback]

Genesis 1:29-30.

[Fred Williams 0]

One argument that i have used numerously which falsifies creationist theory is that of T-rex.

 

There is overwhelming evidence to support the "theory" that T-rex was a carnivore.

8172[/snapback]

So?

 

It may well of perhaps scavenged or hunted actively, but this does not change the logical observation that it ate meat.

 

So? Was T-rex also a strawman?

 

Creationists do not deny that T-rex was either carnivorous, or more likely a scavenger. Do you realize that even secular scientists agree that T-rex was more likely a scavenger than a predator? Even the evolutionist-bent Denver Museum of Natural History states this about T-rex. Why? Because the depth of the teeth in the gums of T-rex apparently isn’t enough to justify it as a predator (among other evidences). But this is all beside the point anyway. Who cares if it was a predator or not, it doesn’t falsify creation!

 

So what is left of your point? Perhaps you think because T-rex has all the characteristics of a carnivore, and God created everything initially to be herbivore, that it falsifies creation? Wow! Like I’ve often said, every argument given for evolution is built off of illusion, and this one is especially easy to demonstrate as illusion, and toothless (pun intended )

 

Is this a carnivore?

 

 

Artist rendering:

 

[chance 1]

So?

So? Was T-rex also a strawman?

 

Is this a carnivore?

 

8175[/snapback]

No strawman

 

but the problem remains, the picture you posted has well developed molars for masticating (plant material) the canines need not be used for killing for food, many herbivores have enlarged canines for display and mate and territory battles, (the gorilla come to mind).

 

Compare your image with this

 

 

 

and note the lack of plant crushing teeth

[Guest 92g]

Its not necessary that the T-rex's we find fosslized existed in the original creation.

 

They could have changed between the fall, when they were herbivores, and the flood when they were fossilized.

 

Maybe they ate grass with those teeth,...., I don't know, but it does not falsify creation.....

 

As far as when they were fossilzed, the T-Rex fossils with unpermineralized blood vessels, tissues, etc... testify to them being magnitudes less than 65 millions of years old.

 

Terry

[Fred Williams 0]

FYI, the picture I posted was the skull of a camel:

 

 

To claim carnivorous evidence falsifies creation is IMO as silly as it gets. I think it's a good indictment on the state of evolution! Come on guitar guy, can't you do better than that!

 

Here's further evidence that throws a wrench into this lame claim:

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i2/lion.asp

 

Fred

[Guest guitar860]

Fred, you have completely missed the point.

Whether or not T-rex was a scavenger or a predator is completley irrelevent - its still a carnivore, and therefore would of been a vegatarian before the fall of man.

 

 

 

Its not necessary that the T-rex's we find fosslized existed in the original creation.

 

They could have changed between the fall, when they were herbivores, and the flood when they were fossilized.

 

Maybe they ate grass with those teeth,...., I don't know, but it does not falsify creation.....

 

As far as when they were fossilzed, the T-Rex fossils with unpermineralized blood vessels, tissues, etc... testify to them being magnitudes less than 65 millions of years old.

 

 

It's not necessary because you will accept it anyway. You say they could of changed during the fall yet you provide no evidence to support this assumption. Even now, we have looked and looked in strata, and we do not find a single herbivore T-rex. No doubt this can be "explained" by the flood. Its just funny how other animals seem to change throughout the flood sediments.

They did not eat grass, because they were physically incapable of eating grass. Humans, even as omnivores, cannot consume grass effectively, and so a animal like T-rex would literally starve before it ate vegetation.

The remarkable preservation of the T-rex fossils is simply that. Preservation is not a constant. Some preservation is poor, while some is excellent. It does not in any way contradict a) the actual evidence any theory of a old earth or indeed evolution.

 

 

Fred, the pictures of skulls you posted, though interesting, do not support your argument. The skulls belong to omnivores, adapted to eat meat and various kinds of vegatation. Notice the fact that T-rex is not an omnivore.

 

 

 

 

 

To claim carnivorous evidence falsifies creation is IMO as silly as it gets. I think it's a good indictment on the state of evolution! Come on guitar guy, can't you do better than that! smile.gif

 

Here's further evidence that throws a wrench into this lame claim:

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i2/lion.asp

 

Fred, you obviously did not read my first message:

 

Some carnivores do indeed supplement their diet with various forms of plants. However, this does not change the fact that they are carnivores - it is by no means a vegetarian diet as would of occured before the fall of man. Examples of carnivores eating some plant material is therefore not a viable argument. NOR IS THE EXAMPLE OF THAT LION THAT JUST ATE EGGS AND MILK.

What is it about the lion that is confusing you?. It ate grains and it ate milk and eggs - both products vegans do not eat.

Might i add that the lion would not survive without human intervention. Good.

Also, its not even relevant. I'm talking about T-rex, not an animal in the zoo.

 

So T-rex not being a vegatarian still falsifies creationist theory, unless of course there is some evidence to the contary.

 

Guitar

[LightHorseman 0]

"Its not necessary that the T-rex's we find fosslized existed in the original creation.

 

They could have changed between the fall, when they were herbivores, and the flood when they were fossilized."

 

If they didn't exist in the original creation... doesn't that trather mean that some evolution was happening?

[Guest 92g]

If they didn't exist in the original creation... doesn't that trather mean that some evolution was happening?

 

I don't have any problem thinking their teeth changed a bit, if that's what you want to call evolution.

 

If you want to tell me it evolved from a worm, then I have a big problem, and so do you.

 

What supposedly did T-Rex evolve from, and where is the bullet proof evidence? That's for the Guitar man to....

 

Terry

[Guest 92g]

Whether or not T-rex was a scavenger or a predator is completley irrelevent - its still a carnivore, and therefore would of been a vegatarian before the fall of man.

Fossilzed T-rex's may appear to be carnivore's, but they were fossilzed during the flood.

 

That doesn't disprove the possiblity that they ate a vegitarian diet before the fall, and changed between that time.

 

The flood being the prmiary cause of the fossils we find is also why you would never to expect to find any of them fossilzed before they changed, if they changed.

 

Its also possible that they they ate a vegitarian diet. You don't know enough about T-rex's to claim much about them at all, except that they were very big, and had a nice set of teeth.

 

Even now, we have looked and looked in strata, and we do not find a single herbivore T-rex. No doubt this can be "explained" by the flood. Its just funny how other animals seem to change throughout the flood sediments.

Its also funny how we find T-rex bones than are not completely permineralized, have visible blood cells, soft/fiberos tissues, and detectable amino-acids, which place an upper limit of age of 200k years on something that's supposed to be 65 millions of years old.

 

So T-rex not being a vegatarian still falsifies creationist theory, unless of course there is some evidence to the contary. 

Its does not falisfy creation theory, not even close.

 

The fossil record is not your friend, especially T-Rex's.....

 

Terry

[LightHorseman 0]

But changing from herbivore to carnivore is more than a matter of just teeth changing! Herbivores need an entirely different sort of digestive tract, have body shape geared towards browsing and flight, senses arrayed for environmental awareness of predators, rather than stereoscopic hunting vision! Not to mention instinct shift...To put it in context, you couldn't make a wolf into a herbivore just by giving him molars! Compare the differences between, for example, a whale shark and a great white shark. Comparable size, similarity of overall shape, but the fundamental difference in their diets is clearly the driving force differentiating their inherrent body forms. Herbivorous T-Rex to carnivorous T-Rex would involve a change of AT LEAST these sorts of proportions.

 

So yes, changing from an animal like that, to T-Rex with his mouth full of daggers, hunting body systems, skull redesign... I think that would certainly qualify as evolution!

 

Now I don't think that this effects the debate about creation per ce... but to claim that any animal changes from a vegetarian to a carnivore over time, is a claim for evolution. I don't see how it could be taken any other way. Please correct me if I'm mistaken.

[Guest 92g]

Now I don't think that this effects the debate about creation per ce... but to claim that any animal changes from a vegetarian to a carnivore over time, is a claim for evolution. I don't see how it could be taken any other way. Please correct me if I'm mistaken.

 

As Fred's already stated, its not necessarily as hard for an animal to change diets as one might think.

 

Speciation is also part of Creationsim. If a T-Rex ate trees at the fall, and some(~1500 I think) years later ate meat, so be it. Same teeth, digestive tract, etc..., different teeth, digesive tracke, etc...it doesn't matter, it was a T-rex in both cases, and that does not support molecules-to-man evolution.

 

Equivocating about what evolution is a violation of the Forum Rules.

 

Equivocation, particularly regarding what "evolution" means. It is intellectually dishonest to claim that micro-evolution (something everyone agrees occurs) proves that all life originates from a common ancestor.

Forum Rules

 

Terry

[Fred Williams 0]

If they didn't exist in the original creation... doesn't that trather mean that some evolution was happening?

8213[/snapback]

It’s a pet-peeve of this forum to equate micro evolution to large-scale evolution, so much so that we made it a Forum rule (6th bullet item):

 

“Equivocation, particularly regarding what "evolution" means. It is intellectually dishonest to claim that micro-evolution (something everyone agrees occurs) proves that all life originates from a common ancestor.”

 

My guess is that you either think we are talking about some major phenotypic changes, or you are simply ignorant to the fact that creationists have long accepted micro-evolution, which includes some types of speciation (especially allopatric speciation).

 

But changing from herbivore to carnivore is more than a matter of just teeth changing! Herbivores need an entirely different sort of digestive tract, …

This is simply not true. Come on people. Even a 9 year old can understand this. Humans alone refute this premise. We do not need meat to survive! Sheesh. It reminds me when the Babylonians scoffed at Daniel when he told them he could survive on a vegetarian diet.

 

I honestly believe this is one of the lamest arguments I’ve seen in a while, so by all means keep using it with your friends that you are trying to convince for evolution! There are more potent illusions you guys use, so I’d rather have you use these flimsy ones that a 9 year old can see through. If your friend buy this one, then they are like the vast majority of evolutionists I have encountered, they *want* to believe it because it matches their worldview. It has nothing to do with evidence.

 

So yes, changing from an animal like that, to T-Rex with his mouth full of daggers, hunting body systems, skull redesign... I think that would certainly qualify as evolution!

Yes, I would to. But this is of course a strawman argument, I didn’t see anyone make this claim. You extrapolated a great deal, didn’t you?

 

As far as I’m concerned I’m done with this thread. Like I said, if you guys want to keep making this argument to your friends and colleagues, be my guest!

 

Fred

PS to Guitar: I did not miss your point one iota – I established that 1) you cannot conclusively guarantee that carnivorous-like teeth shape proves the animal is a meat-eater, (the varying views of a Troodon also comes to mind), 2) even if it is a meat-eater, you failed to prove it would be unable to survive on a herbivorous diet (you only assumed it couldn’t), 3) you are fond of fairytales.

 

Edited: Just saw Terry's post, sorry for the bit of redundancy. As usual we were thinking alike.

[MRC_Hans 0]

Well, the arguments that humans can live on a vegetarian diet does not extrapolate to a real carnivore. Humans, like a number of other creatures are onmivores, and we are omnivores with a vegetarian origin. We can live perfectly well on a pure vegetarian diet. Instead, we will be in some trouble on a purely meat diet, although it is possible, provided in contains seafood.

 

Try, on the other hand, to raise a cat on a vegetarian diet (pure carnivores get to suffer from, ironically, lack of cholestorol. Unlike herbivores and omnivores, most carnivores don't have the ability to produce this vital substance).

 

Since we have no knowledge of how the digestive tract of the T-Rex was, we can't say what kind of diet could sustain it. I kind of assume that the change that happened to Eva and Adam at the Fall (having to work for food and procreate) also applied to all other creatures. Since Adam could walk all over Eden and name animals without this being considered work, we have to conclude that the place was of a relatively limited size. Thus, there was probably not heards of T-Rex running about, and I can easily imagine one or two T-Rexes, without the need to hunt or procreate (pr probably even grow), survive on a fruit diet.

 

Hans

[Guest 92g]

One argument that i have used numerously which falsifies creationist theory is that of T-rex.

Amazing how speculation can falsify anything....

 

1) Conical, sharp teeth with some growing larger than 9 inches, which are consistent with the teeth of today's carnivores. They were ideally suited to a carnivorous diet, and remarkably unsuitable for a vegetarian diet.

This is assuming he chewed much of anything. Throw my dog a pices of meat, and he swallows it whole.

 

2) There are fossils of T-rex found with remains of other animals in their stomach caviety.

I'd like to see these pictures. Are the remains chewed up, or were they largely swallowed?

 

3) T-rex's physical form suggests a predator. It's head was far from the ground, preventing it from eating low-lying plant material, it had forward facing eyes for depth perception, a long sterdy tail for balance, extremely powerful jaw muscles capable of biting 200+ kg with one bite, a stocky build and excellent all round senses.

So he couldn't eat from tree's, bushes, etc.. at a sufficient height, but he could bend down low enough to scavenge dead animals, and not eat anything within a foot or two from that distance.....

 

We have not found a single T-rex with the physical adaptations REQUIRED to survive on a vegetarian diet, which according to creationist theory, must of happened.

What was the precursur to the T-Rex, and where is the bullet proof evidence of what it ate, what it evolved from?

 

What is the bullet proof evidence of the charactieristics of its digestive track, i.e. what it was and was not capable of digesting?

 

As i have said, i have used this argument before, and still creationists have not provided a legimate explanation.

Your argument is full of assumptions, and does not demand a legitimate explanation.

 

Its pure speculation, and you cannot falsify something with speculation.

 

Terry

[MRC_Hans 0]

*snip*

Your argument is full of assumptions, and does not demand a legitimate explanation.

 

Its pure speculation, and you cannot falsify something with speculation.

 

Terry

8235[/snapback]

I tend to agree. While a vegetarian T-Rex is next to impossible in a Cretaceous setting, where the animals were in a fiercely competitive environment and had to procreate, fend for themselves, etc, the Eden and immidiately post-Eden setting might well allow such an animal, even with unsuited teeth and body construction to get enough energy from a vegetarian diet.

 

You can't judge the plausibility of one paradigm from the pretext of another paradigm.

 

What was the precursur to the T-Rex, and where is the bullet proof evidence of what it ate, what it evolved from?

Ahh, once the animal was widespread and dependent on procreating and surviving in a normal natural environment, we can safely assume it was a carnivore/scavenger. Herbivores that size are built for slow movements and a ruminating type lifestyle and are nearly invariably quadrupeds. The quick bipedal build of the T-Rex requires more energy than can be gained from a vegetarian diet.

 

Hans

[LightHorseman 0]

A vegetarian T-Rex would not be a T-Rex though! Because it would have different bone structure and teeth, and organs and all. So I don't think we are talking about micro-evolution are we?

 

I'm sorry if this bothers anyone or is seen as a violation of "the rules", but let me ask just this once, how much of a phenotype change does there have to be before you will accept it as an eample of macrotypical evolution? I certainly don't think going from Great White Shark to Whale shark is in the same league as moths changing colour, which is the classic example of "micro-evolution". I mean, we are talking MAJOR speciation difference here!

 

As for evidence, created or evolved, carnoivores are structurally different to herbivores. Aside from anything else, carnivores don't have a caecum. OMNIVORES, like humans, can go either way, but only with adeuate dietary knowledge. There are a LOT of vegetarians out there who suffer protein deficiency and iron deficiency. Now, you can get these minerals from vegies, sure, but you have to eat a LOT of the right sort. Its not a good idea to just go vegie and not think of how you are going to stay healthy.

[LightHorseman 0]

oh, and going the other way doesn't work either. Put the most gorgeous, King Island rump steak, drenched in R+Rs pepper sauce (I am SO hungry) infront of a sheep, and it won't know what to do with it. Its going to take huge changes, both physiologically and instinctively to get that sheep bringing down deer on the hoof, right? I think that is the sort of change we would have to be talking about

[Guest guitar860]

I don't have any problem thinking their teeth changed a bit, if that's what you want to call evolution.

If you want to tell me it evolved from a worm, then I have a big problem, and so do you.

 

What supposedly did T-Rex evolve from, and where is the bullet proof evidence? That's for the Guitar man to....

 

See here: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?....DTL&type=science

 

T-rex evolved from carnivorous therapods, though we dont know its complete evolutionary past, due to the rariety of fossil evidence.

 

 

 

 

Fossilzed T-rex's may appear to be carnivore's, but they were fossilzed during the flood.

 

That doesn't disprove the possiblity that they ate a vegitarian diet before the fall, and changed between that time.

 

The flood being the prmiary cause of the fossils we find is also why you would never to expect to find any of them fossilzed before they changed, if they changed.

 

Its also possible that they they ate a vegitarian diet. You don't know enough about T-rex's to claim much about them at all, except that they were very big, and had a nice set of teeth.

It doesnt disprove the possibilty, the lack of any evidence does that perfectly well.

If you can show me a T-rex from before the fall, then obviously i would be ignorant to ignore it.

 

I know that T-rex was a carnivore, and was not able to consume vegetation. SEE HERE:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrannosaurus...ding_strategies

 

Claiming they were ever vegetarian is based on nothing.

 

 

 

 

As Fred's already stated, its not necessarily as hard for an animal to change diets as one might think.

 

Speciation is also part of Creationsim. If a T-Rex ate trees at the fall, and some(~1500 I think) years later ate meat, so be it. Same teeth, digestive tract, etc..., different teeth, digesive tracke, etc...it doesn't matter, it was a T-rex in both cases, and that does not support molecules-to-man evolution.

 

Equivocating about what evolution is a violation of the Forum Rules.

It is hard too completely change your morphology to adapt to new a food source, especially when you , supposedly, previously had a mouth full of herbivore teeth and the other adaptations of a herbivore.

 

If T-rex ate trees.

 

So, there T-rex is, just walking around the garden, and he just bites a big branch off a nondiscript tree. Nevermind his teeth physically breaking from his jaw. You dont think perhaps the sharp twigs and splinters stabbing him in his mouth and the branch tearing his throat would persuade him to spit it out? What about the branch putting a hole in his stomach. I'm pretty sure his complete digestive system would be destroyed.

But of course, i'm sure you've thought of these and have answers readily avaliable?

 

There we go again. It doesnt matter because whatever the evidence you will insist that iam wrong.

 

Definition of EVOLUTION: Change in heritable traits in a population over time, determined by changes in the frequency of Alleles.

 

Definition of MACROEVOLUTION: Macroevolution refers to evolution that occurs above the level of species, over long periods of time, that leads to speciation, in supposed contrast to microevolution, which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population

 

Lets review what you said previously. If T-rex did indeed eat non-descript trees and had a different digestive system etc, then it would of been a entirely different species- that is according to the actual definition of macroevolution - not the creationist one or indeed the forum "rules"

 

Would you think an entire refurbishment of an animal's digestive system, and by extension its exterior morphology is a small evolutionary change? Could the two "versions" breed and produce fertile offspring? Again, you have answers i'm sure.

 

 

 

 

This is simply not true. Come on people. Even a 9 year old can understand this. Humans alone refute this premise. We do not need meat to survive! Sheesh. It reminds me when the Babylonians scoffed at Daniel when he told them he could survive on a vegetarian diet.

Okay, this is obviously not getting through to you Fred.

Look at these:

 

http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview...98364_skull.jpg

 

http://www.baystatereplicas.com/images/din...l_rightside.jpg

 

http://www.dinostoreus.com/t-rex-skeleton-lg.jpg

 

http://www.armstrongmedical.com/ami/itm_img/ACF2423.jpg

 

Are you seriously contending that both are equally adapted as each other to the diet of an omnivore? It's obvious that there is no argument in the world that can convince you otherwise.

 

 

 

 

I honestly believe this is one of the lamest arguments I’ve seen in a while, so by all means keep using it with your friends that you are trying to convince for evolution! There are more potent illusions you guys use, so I’d rather have you use these flimsy ones that a 9 year old can see through. If your friend buy this one, then they are like the vast majority of evolutionists I have encountered, they *want* to believe it because it matches their worldview. It has nothing to do with evidence.

Whow! Slow down. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I'm simply pointing out flaws in creationist theory. The observation that your argument consists entirely of misconceptions of evolution and " even a nine year old knows this, so evolutionists must be stupid", make it painfully clear that you have no defense - no answers - and ultimately no explanation.

It has everything to do with evidence, and thats why you dont like it.

 

 

 

 

Fred

PS to Guitar: I did not miss your point one iota – I established that 1) you cannot conclusively guarantee that carnivorous-like teeth shape proves the animal is a meat-eater, (the varying views of a Troodon also comes to mind), 2) even if it is a meat-eater, you failed to prove it would be unable to survive on a herbivorous diet (you only assumed it couldn’t), 3) you are fond of fairytales

So you think T-rex could just delicately nibble some bark like a deer dont you? Perhaps he could pick select leaves out of the leaf litter with his little hands. Maybe just spent every waking moment licking them up. Who knows, he could of just wacked a tree and eaten a mouth full of fruit. See with a little imagination, i've nearly got T-rex using a knife and fork. Fred, science doesnt work like that. You dont go into it with a presuppisition, based on imagination, a book, a picture or a dream. All the evidence points to the fact that T-rex, as a distinct species, has always been a carnivore. And until a fossil of a clearly vegetarian T-rex is found, the evidence is staggeringly against genesis.

 

 

 

 

Amazing how speculation can falsify anything....

Yes its a bit like a flood actually.

 

 

 

 

This is assuming he chewed much of anything. Throw my dog a pices of meat, and he swallows it whole.

The concensous is that it generally ripped meat off its victim (bones included) and swallowed it pretty much whole.

 

 

 

 

I'd like to see these pictures. Are the remains chewed up, or were they largely swallowed?

Here:http://www.bhigr.com/pages/info/info_sue_3.htm

 

There are no pictures as such. Its a journal. There are other sites too.

It says the bones had a dissolved texture, but were largely swallowed whole.

 

 

 

 

So he couldn't eat from tree's, bushes, etc.. at a sufficient height, but he could bend down low enough to scavenge dead animals, and not eat anything within a foot or two from that distance.....

Well thats an argument against scavenging i my opinion. I dont think an animal of T-rex's size would bend down frequently, due to its rather elongated shape and small for-arms. Were are forgetting that it has a extremely large head, and so would not need to get to ground level as its prey is also fairly large. Im not saying its completely incapable of reaching all vegetation, just that it would not eat it.

 

 

 

 

What was the precursur to the T-Rex, and where is the bullet proof evidence of what it ate, what it evolved from?

 

What is the bullet proof evidence of the charactieristics of its digestive track, i.e. what it was and was not capable of digesting?

At present we do not know the exact evolutionary lineage of T-rex. Current work in China on the therapods is promising however. There is a wealth of possibilities.

It's digestive system comes from an extrapolation of the things it ate. We know it consumed large quantities of meat, and so must of had an extremely well adapted digestive system and a stomach capable of breaking tough protein. This means that enzymes (endo+exo peptidiases, proteases) played an absolutely huge part in its digestion. It would be unlikely to invest in costly ruminent characteristics (mutulism with cellulose digesting bacteria for example or several stomachs), to consume food poor in energy when food rich in energy is abundent as it was. An animal like T-rex would need to consume absolutlely huge quantities of foliage everyday, even for the most mundane biological processes. But do we see smaller animals to compensate? No. Look at cows. They hardly move all day as a result of the restrictions of their diet. So we can learn alot about its digestion if we accept what it did and did not eat.

 

 

 

 

Your argument is full of assumptions, and does not demand a legitimate explanation.

How is the observation that T-rex ate Meat and not plants an assumption. There is nothing but a passage in the bible to convince me otherwise. Dont you see my problem?

 

 

 

 

I tend to agree. While a vegetarian T-Rex is next to impossible in a Cretaceous setting, where the animals were in a fiercely competitive environment and had to procreate, fend for themselves, etc, the Eden and immidiately post-Eden setting might well allow such an animal, even with unsuited teeth and body construction to get enough energy from a vegetarian diet.

 

You can't judge the plausibility of one paradigm from the pretext of another paradigm.

Well that's what this is about. Up to now, there is no evidence in support of

I) T-rex having two versions. One pre-fall - a vegatarian (convienently destroyed by the flood), the other Post-fall, an active predator or a scavenger.

 

II) One Version of T-rex, that is equally adapted to the diet of a Carnivore, Herbivore or Omnivore.

[Guest 92g]

T-rex evolved from carnivorous therapods, though we dont know its complete evolutionary past, due to the rariety of fossil evidence.

Supposedly.....

 

It doesnt disprove the possibilty, the lack of any evidence does that perfectly well.

If you can show me a T-rex from before the fall, then obviously i would be ignorant to ignore it.

Then you should agree that the lack of fossils before the cambrian exlposian falifies evolution.

 

I know that T-rex was a carnivore, and was not able to consume vegetation. SEE HERE:

You don't know that. That' as assumption based on limited observations.

 

Claiming they were ever vegetarian is based on nothing.

Its based on the Word of God which is everything.

 

So, there T-rex is, just walking around the garden, and he just bites a big branch off a nondiscript tree. Nevermind his teeth physically breaking from his jaw. You dont think perhaps the sharp twigs and splinters stabbing him in his mouth and the branch tearing his throat would persuade him to spit it out? What about the branch putting a hole in his stomach. I'm pretty sure his complete digestive system would be destroyed.

Maybe there were fruit for him to eat, e.g. bannanas.

 

 

There we go again. It doesnt matter because whatever the evidence you will insist that iam wrong.

You are wrong....

 

 

Whow! Slow down. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I'm simply pointing out flaws in creationist theory.

An obvious self-contradictory statement.

 

It has everything to do with evidence, and thats why you dont like it.

There is no evidence, only speculation, from a certain perspective.

 

The concensous is that it generally ripped meat off its victim (bones included) and swallowed it pretty much whole.

Well then, if it swalled things whole, then the type of teeth it had aren'y necessarily a problem, only a food source that could have been swallowed whole.

 

I think the bananna work pretty well.

 

It says the bones had a dissolved texture, but were largely swallowed whole.

Supports the idea that its teeth weren't that important for eathing soft fruit from trees.

 

At present we do not know the exact evolutionary lineage of T-rex. Current work in China on the therapods is promising however. There is a wealth of possibilities.

Translated: you don't know anything, you are only speculating. The other possiblity that you eroneously leave out is that it did not evolve from anything at all....

 

It's digestive system comes from an extrapolation of the things it ate. We know it consumed large quantities of meat, and so must of had an extremely well adapted digestive system and a stomach capable of breaking tough protein.

Everything that exists is well adpated, but there is never anything that is not well adapted along the way...

 

Keep the faith.....

 

Terry

[Guest guitar860]

I notice that you selectively respond to my comments.

 

 

Then you should agree that the lack of fossils before the cambrian exlposian falifies evolution.

Firstly we have fossils from before the cambrian explosion, and secondly, the said fossils provide great evidence for common descent. The fossils, though extremley basic forms of life, diversified for many possible reasons, and accounted for the explosion of life after the snowball earth scenario. It's funny the way vegetarian

T-rex's are not found in the same sediments. I mean they are some of the oldest on the planet, if they are not pre-fall then which are?

 

 

 

 

You don't know that. That' as assumption based on limited observations.

Its a sound assumption based on EVERY observation of EVERY single T-rex. What your saying is no different from "so far every T-rex is a carnivore, but i'm still confident that one with false teeth will be found" That is no different from what you are saying. They are both based on no evidence. Don't you understand?

 

 

 

 

Its based on the Word of God which is everything.

There you go. You illustrate my point excellently. You are presented with a challenge to which you cannot provide a explanation - evidence that directly contradicts the bible, and so you revert to the age old creationist argument:

 

"IT HAPPENED BECAUSE GOD SAID SO!"

 

That, my friend, is the sole motivation, direction and ultimatum behind creationist theory. Its not about our origins. If everyone just accepted things like you, YEC's would never look at the world again. It wouldnt need looking at, because god said it and thats that.

And that attitude should over-rule science and free thinking?

It's scary how closeminded you are. I tell you what - Even I, a proud atheist and evolutionist, do not feel so convinced of my theories. If a legimate theory came along tommorow, i would drop evolution like a hot iron. Doesnt that scare you at all?

 

 

 

 

Maybe there were fruit for him to eat, e.g. bannanas.

I tell you what, lets just list every possible fruit/vegetable/plant/tree now shall we

to save time? You have unashamably stated, based on zlitch evidence or any research, a popular food item as the only diet for T-rex. And your a scientist? Because you've said it, does that change any fossil evidence? You know what: Strawberries.

 

 

 

 

You are wrong....

What because you just said T-rex ate bannanas i'm wrong? It's pathetic. Is that the absolute BEST argument you have?

 

 

 

 

An obvious self-contradictory statement.

Not really. I'm airing opinion.

 

 

 

 

There is no evidence, only speculation, from a certain perspective.

 

...That coming from the person who is CONVINCED that T-rex ate bananas, or potatoes, or leek, or onion, or mango, or watermelon, or carrot, or apple, or celery, or ferns or............. Sorry you were saying something about speculation?

 

You dont think a large leg bone inside a stomach cavity qualifies as evidence?

 

 

 

 

Well then, if it swalled things whole, then the type of teeth it had aren'y necessarily a problem, only a food source that could have been swallowed whole.

I think the bananna work pretty well.

 

Actually it wasnt strawberries. What was it? Oh yeah: SOIL.

T-rex could of certainly swallowed bananas whole, if he could swallow humans whole. Does that make your argument somehow more valid?

 

 

 

 

Supports the idea that its teeth weren't that important for eathing soft fruit from trees.

It also supports the idea that T-rex was a carnivore. So now your saying because fruits could be digested in acid, that logically means he was a vegatarian. Metal dissolves in acid. Did he eat chunks of metal now too? Or is it because fruit can pass through gaps in his teeth? Well metal can do that too. See the problem?

 

 

 

 

Translated: you don't know anything, you are only speculating. The other possiblity that you eroneously leave out is that it did not evolve from anything at all....

See thats the difference between scientists and creationists. We admit when there are gaps in our knowledge. I have not in any way said that we know everything about the evolution of T-rex - on the contary there are still large gaps. Does that somehow mean that T-rex didnt evolve? We dont know how the big bang started either - guess that didnt happen too.

 

 

 

 

Everything that exists is well adpated, but there is never anything that is not well adapted along the way...

Yes its called natural selection. There is a selection pressure on those individuals who have "normal" or a full compliment of genes (e.g. a person with all limbs) as opposed to those with "alternative" genes ( e.g a person severly deformed resulting from a dramatic change on DNA). The person with all limbs, adapted to their environment, will live on and produce children, also with all limbs, and also adapted to their environment. The Population becomes optimately adapted.

The individual with deformity, unadapted, is unlikely to produce offspring and so its genes are removed from the population.

[Guest 92g]

Erecting strawman arguments, and beating them to death is not in the spirit of the Forum rules. This is obviously not going to make any further progress.

 

As I think both sides have aired their opinion, I'm going to close the thread.

 

Terry