Re: T-Rex was a vegitarian

All-seeing-I wrote:
On Sep 25, 7:51 am, William Hughes <wpihug...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 25, 5:20 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:





John Harshman wrote:
Matt wrote:
On Sep 24, 8:59 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 24, 6:14 am, TomS <TomS_mem...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 19:25:13 -0700 (PDT), in article
<e4a3c497-2e97-40f3-9d97-3185714bd...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
All-seeing-I
stated..."
T-Rex Was a Veggy Eater. Yep
It has been proven by the Creation Evidence Museum that the T-Rex was
not a meat eater. They proved it in two ways:
* The roots of T-Rex were only 2 inches deep. Had he bit into the hide
of another dinosaur, he would have lost some teeth
* They cut a tooth in half of a unearthed T-Rex, and found it deeply
impureated with chlorophyll. Chlorophyll is the main substance found
in plants.
Why is this relevant? When God first created everything, all the
animals were vegetarians. No animal attacked or harmed another. Man
lived safely with all the kinds of animals.
If no animals were flesh-eaters, then why did animals have defenses?
For example, the bombardier beetle, why did it have that complex
defense mechanism? What about the armor of animals?
Why did birds fly? Why were there eyes? Aren't talons and beaks
"intelligently designed" for predation? (Or did those features only
evolve after the creation week?)
What about the fossils of animals captured in the act of swallowing
other animals? And the bones of animals found in fossilized
excrement?
Why did Adam name a particular animal an "anteater"?
--
---Tom S.
the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail;
it is due to
the currant jelly.
Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2- Hide
quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Adam named the Animals in the garden. He did not name the other
animals.
The predatory animals evolved their features AFTER the fall and AFTER
the earth was placed under a curse. The defensive features the same
Now of course the curse is actually a transformation from the way
things were originally designed to what we see today.
So then why does T. rex necessarily have to be a vegetarian?
Yes, this is very odd. It was my understanding that fossils were
deposited by the flood. Since this would be after the fall, T. rex, a
fossil, should be from after the fall, and thus could easily be a meat
eater. So why are creationists trying to make it a vegetarian? One
answer is that some creationists think all animals were vegetarians
until after the flood. But, oddly, Mr. I doesn't seem to be in that
group. He is just hopelessly confused.
I think it is actually worse than that. Finding a vegetarian T-Rex would
be no problem whatsoever for the ToE of course. But it would falsify the
biblical account. The only way you can find a fossilised vegetarian
T-Rex, who as you said must be from before the fall,
Nope. A pre-fall T-Rex must be vegetarian. A post-fall T-Rex,
may be vegetarian. If the post-fall T-Rex remained vegetarian
you could get a fossil vegetarian T-Rex. This
has nothing to do with creationism vs. evolution, both explain
a vegetarian T-Rex equally well (badly). [If you insist that all
pre-*flood* animals were vegetarians, then T-Rex must
have been a vegetarian. You get problems when the bratty
kid asks, "Why the big pointy teeth?" Thus made-up evidence
about root depth.]

- William Hughes- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There was much time after the fall and before the flood for Trex to
evolve meat eating features and desires.

As for fossil evidence, there are teeth with shallow roots and
chlorophyll in the teeth

Out of curiosity, have you ever actually looked at any T. rex skulls? Can't speak to the chlorophyll thing, but only about the last third of the tooth is exposed in the jaw. Now, T. rex had continuous tooth replacement, like most tetrapods, and the old tooth's root would be eaten away by its replacement tooth, so at some point there would be a two-inch root if it didn't fall out first, but that's hardly the average.

On the other hand, have you ever looked at the teeth of any mammalian vegetarians? They tend to have very deep roots to deal with the strong forces of chewing and gnawing tough plant materials. Vegetarians really need to process their food. T. rex couldn't have chewed. The other main processing method among vegetarians is to use gizzard stones. But if T. rex had had those, we would have found them, as with sauropods, therizinosaurs, and oviraptorosaurs.

I know this goes way beyond anything you have ever thought about, but try reasoning for a change. You might find it useful.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: T-Rex was a vegitarian
    ... It has been proven by the Creation Evidence Museum that the T-Rex was ... The roots of T-Rex were only 2 inches deep. ... lived safely with all the kinds of animals. ... So why are creationists trying to make it a vegetarian? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: T-Rex was a vegitarian
    ... It has been proven by the Creation Evidence Museum that the T-Rex was ... The roots of T-Rex were only 2 inches deep. ... lived safely with all the kinds of animals. ... So why are creationists trying to make it a vegetarian? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: T-Rex was a vegitarian
    ... It has been proven by the Creation Evidence Museum that the T-Rex was ... The roots of T-Rex were only 2 inches deep. ... lived safely with all the kinds of animals. ... Finding a vegetarian T-Rex would be no problem whatsoever for the ToE of course. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: T-Rex was a vegitarian
    ... It has been proven by the Creation Evidence Museum that the T-Rex was ... The roots of T-Rex were only 2 inches deep. ... lived safely with all the kinds of animals. ... So why are creationists trying to make it a vegetarian? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: T-Rex was a vegitarian
    ... It has been proven by the Creation Evidence Museum that the T-Rex ... lived safely with all the kinds of animals. ... deposited by the flood. ...
    (talk.origins)