Posted on 07/31/2013 1:34:41 AM PDT by imardmd1
Was Tyrannosaurus rex a predator or scavenger? The question has been a point of controversy in the scientific community for more than a century.
"You see 'Jurassic Park,' and you see T. rex as this massive hunter and killer, as incredibly vicious. But scientists have argued for 100 years that he was too big and too slow to hunt prey and that he was probably a scavenger, an animal that feeds only on dead things," University of Kansas paleontologist David Burnham said.
Burnham and researcher Robert DePalma got what Burnham described as his "lucky break" when they found the fossil of a duckbill dinosaur's tail with a tooth in it.
"The features of the tooth are like fingerprints, and we were able to identify it as T. rex," he said.
They took the fossil to be analyzed at the University of Kansas and for a CT scan at the local hospital, where the doctor told them, "It's too late for your patient."
But Burnham was thrilled at what the fossilized bones told him about the life of the duckbill.
"We were giddy like schoolkids," he said. "This now returns T. rex as a predator. So the monsters that we see in dinosaurs are real. They did go chasing after things, kill them and eat them. They actively pursued live prey."
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Please stop with the religion stuff. It has nothing to do with the arguments I presented. You never even said one word about the other reasons I thought the theory was BS. I’m not going to get into some theological diversion because you’re obstinate.
Carrying that further to claim it a predator is the faith leap into untestable theory. We have no more T. Rexes ... yet, that is.
You are nuts. One TR loses a tooth and you condemn the whole species to eating leaves because a dentist says so.
Testable or not, your unexplainable forays into this question’s relationship to religion is wholly unfounded.
You really aren’t capable of arguing a cogent point.
Oh. You're a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist? You may say my proposition is not suitable to you, but this sounds like ad hominem argumentation to me.
One TR loses a tooth and you condemn the whole species to eating leaves because a dentist says so.
Sounds like carrying what I said in gross exaggeration beyond the point made, that indeed the paleontologists' opinion is conjecture delivered as incontrovertible fact. Truly, you are painting my conjecture black as me saying that there are no other admissible points that "have been debated for a hundred years". You need to reserve your paintbrush for the paleontologists who, through an unwarranted leap of faith in their own confidence extend a solid fact into a shaky theory presented as undebatable, and other views must be dismissed.
Testable or not, your unexplainable forays into this question’s relationship to religion is wholly unfounded.
True scientific procedure always involves observability, reproducibility, testability, and falsification. That which is not leaves the theory open to question. These paleontologists are taking one anecdotal point and expanding it beyond probability and conjecture into "scientific fact" without applying the hurdles above. But also in this case, the topic in question is an area in which there is an overlap of paleontology with creation science. Dr. Martin's relevant research into how scientific fact plays into the Biblical account is an alternate view of the explanation. This is a quite valid point to bring out. You say this has no relevance. I say with equal force that your opinion is wrong, and that Martin's work and my bringing it to attention here does bring a greater illumination.
You really aren’t capable of arguing a cogent point.
I think you mean that I do not see things the same way you do, and therefore must be not only wrong, but incoherent. In my discussion, I have applied conjecture without demanding more than acceptance of its credibility as an alternative. Personally, I don't think you are capable of making a cogent point, let alone defending one without name-calling and adumbration. So let's leave this type of rock-throwing response alone for a while, eh?
One track...over and over and over. Meh....
What’s that have to do with him waltzing with ewes under a tree? sounds shady to me! He must be some kind of scalawag.
Ah, I think I got just a little too smart (again), and said the wrong thing (only guessing at the Down-under slang from my old camp days when we sang this song, 60 years ago).
He still has some work yet to do with my soul. Haven't had a chance until just now to catch up on this issue.
Dentition can tell us much about an animal’s eating habits but not everything. If most of the teeth resemble molars it is pretty obvious the animal was a herbivore. If they resemble canines they ate mostly meat. The black bear is a good example of an omnivore, it has the teeth of a carnivore but also eats berries, honey, apples etc. as well as meat.
I think much of the controversy has to do with the amount of reputation the experts have invested in their theories. Only their pet theories are correct. I noticed the same thing in psychology 101.
No problem at all. I’m just playing with the various verses of Waltzing Matilda which is one of my all time favorite songs.
It was featured very well in the movie ‘On the Beach’ and I really appreciated how rich it is when played with various musical interpretations.
I just added a few of my own ‘interpretations’, that’s all.
For what it’s worth, I was born and raised in Chicago and I have lived stateside all my life other than a short trip to Jamaica.
Check out considertheprobabilities.com and let me know what you think about it.
If you are an evolutionist would you mind going to considertheprobabilities.com and try to answer the questions in section 3? I have not had one evolutionist proffer any answers thus far.
Give your bic a few billion years...it could happen! /s
That whole exchange, quite a while ago in fact, was about an obscure and idiotic contention with the other participant about some dentist’s claim about what the T-Rex ate or not. My point was ONE sample of bones and teeth did not a fact make.
There are parts to creationism I believe, and there are parts of evolution as a phenomenon that I believe. To me they are not mutually exclusive and I don’t need to go answer some other proponents’ test questions to help me decide.
Actually, I am more than a little worried about that cheap green retractable pen I picked up last week. Its got a hole half way down and I think it might be trying to develop it into an eye.
Run for you life!!!
Dr. Martin is not only a dental surgeon, but also a teacher of dentists, and a thorough researcher of thee creation vs evolutionary debate. He has been at this for at least 20 years to my knowledge, and has given sensible arguments throughout the biological range of suppositions, and published them. That is why I give his work as one reference. Contradict at your risk.
If dinosaurs are cold blooded then they would eat very often. Or move very much for that matter.
I don’t really care who he is....one fossil does not fact make. I’m really tired of arguing you people.... I don’t really care about that weight you place on whatever...
I did skim your page, and will not discuss it here. But I will say, in a Yoda-like fashion about this issue:
Biblical creation either is, or it is not.
There is no "probablility."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.