Horses and cows have teeth more like mine. They eat grass. but cows and cats have deep-rooted teeth.
Apparently the TR does not, from what I've heard. And the TR's are more like a razor blade. According to the dentist Martin, they are sharp and shaped perfectly for stripping leaves from trees, or cutting through very broad-leaved plant membranes.
Maybe they are just good for cutting off and swallowing flowers! (smile).
If someone told me: Prove those teeth were only good for what these paleontologists claim, only a predator (live flesh, limbs, tough), or a scavenger (rotted flesh, soft, mushy), both carnivores -- I wouldn't be able to do it with what I now know. I couldn't even say authoritatively that TRs are not herbivores, as the Bible claims all the first moving creatures were--fish, too, like carp, I suppose.
Scripturally, no death to start. Capisce?
This, to me, is a specious argument - sounds good, but how does that compare to the teeth of what we used to call a brontosaurus that was 100% herbivore? Another thing that I think is a great comparator is body mass and shape.
It would seem to me that a herbivore would require a rather sizeable 'digestion' engine for all those 'leaves' - big stomach, large intestinal tract, etc. I can see this in the erstwhile Brontosaur, but I fail to see it in a T-Rex. Likewise, I don't see the long neck and tree-top reach, nor do I see the same forefeet to support the massive "digestion" system. Instead, two little vestigial arms with claws that are, at best, usable in manipulating a kill in preparation for eating.
Sorry, but I just don't buy the sharp toothed herbivore argument at all.