The Vegetarian T-Rex
Ray, you again.
“Answersingenesis.org says T- Rex was a vegetarian before the fall, which may have happened within a few days of Adam being created. Afterwards he may have been primarily a scavenger (he had shallowly rooted teeth). Big sharp teeth are found on vegetarians too.”
First of all, I just wanted you to know that, what you cannot test is not science. When scientists make claims such as “the whale may have evolved from land animals”, they have to go out there and find the evidence to back up their claims. This process is called hypothesis testing. Therefore, creationism is not a science, even though it has that cool (pseudo)scientific name Intelligent Design. For example, when creationists try to explain “bad design”, they present hypotheses, such as “God made us perfect but man sinned”, which is a hypothesis that is not testable or falsifiable. Intelligent Design works like this. 1. Find a complicated process that scientists haven’t yet explained (or just lie that scientists don’t know anything about it). 2. Jump to the conclusion that God did it. Which means that Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory!
Now, here is the actual quote from AnswersInGenesis.org, regarding the vegetarian T-rex:
Originally, before sin, all animals, including the dinosaurs, were vegetarian. Genesis 1:30 states, “And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to every thing that creeps upon the earth, which has life, I have given every green herb for food: and it was so.”
This means that even the T. rex before sin entered the world, ate only plants.
That’s nice – DID YOU SEE THAT? The conclusion was drawn STRAIGHT FROM THE FACKING BIBLE — not from evidence! Which is exactly why the website is called ANSWERS IN GENESIS in the very first place!
*sigh* . . .
“This means that even the T. rex before sin entered the world, ate only plants. Some people object to this by pointing to the big teeth that a large T. rex [A LARGE T-REX... AS OPPOSED TO A SMALL T-REX] had, insisting they must have been used for attacking animals. However, just because an animal has big, sharp teeth does not mean it eats meat. It just means it has big, sharp teeth!”
[continued] “Many animals today have sharp teeth but are basically vegetarian. The giant panda has sharp teeth like a meat-eater’s, but it eats bamboo. Perhaps the panda’s teeth were beautifully designed to eat bamboo. To explain why a giant panda has teeth like a meat-eaters today, yet eats bamboo, evolutionists have to say that the giant panda evolved as a meat eater, and then switched to bamboo.”
FUCCKKKKKK!!!!
First thing’s first, BullshitAnswersInGenesis.org is a religious website, and it has no place in a scientific debate. SECONDLY:
The Giant Panda – with its teeth adapted to chewing bamboo.
AND:
To hell with all this nonsense! Creationists, including you, are the quintessence of stupid. Prove me wrong.
Haha, well said.
I used to be told, as a Creationist, that those big teeth on the T-Rex were meant for scraping bark off trees.
I mean, what *do* you say to that. Self imposed stupidity cannot be reasoned with. Sometimes I wonder why we still try.
Once again, you and Ray are arguing from two different worldviews. You must first determine whose worldview is the correct one, and then build up from there. We once again find ourselves at the question of whether or not the concept of God is logical. Your view is that the concept of God is illogical, therefore any evidence that comes from a source that aggrees to the contrary is denied on the basis that it is illogical.
For a Christian, the Bible is pure truth. Therefore, anything the Bible says that is confirmed by science is rendered a logical conclusion. For an atheist, on the other hand, man is the measure of all things. And that means that any evidence confirming what man has said before is a logical conclusion. You must first decide who is defining truth in this argument. Man or God?
How can two people debate what is truthful if they both define truth differently? You won’t get anywhere like this. First establish who’s worldview is correct. Then the scientific part will make itself apparent very quickly.
Have a good day everybody!
@holyfire23
I really don’t want to be nasty dude, I really don’t, but that is a load of crap.
‘World view’ has nothing to do with anything scientifically. It doesn’t matter what your ‘world view’ is, wrong is wrong. There is fantasy and reality yes. The christian ‘world view’ is fantasy, science is reality.
Your comment effectively means I should give a heroin addict that is constantly fucked out of his mind dreaming up outlandish shit the same credence that I give a million scientists constantly working on how the world works. Horse, shit.
We are not trying to debtate ‘what is truthful’. The world was not created in 7 days, there was no global fload, no 600 year old man built a boat big enough for hundreds of thousands of animals and the T-Rex didn’t fucking eat plants.
You can stick your fingers in your ears and sing ‘lalalala’ all you want, you can act dumb all you like and you can continue to believe in fairy tales but that isn’t going to make your fantasies any truer.
Wake up.
“For a Christian, the Bible is pure truth. Therefore, anything the Bible says that is confirmed by science is rendered a logical conclusion. For an atheist, on the other hand, man is the measure of all things. And that means that any evidence confirming what man has said before is a logical conclusion. You must first decide who is defining truth in this argument. Man or God?”
Man or God? or Zeus or Vishnu ????? Thanks for playing.
@onefuriousllama
Ah, but worldview has everything to do with it. Every conclusion you make is based upon your views of the world and what you already believe. It is impossible to make any conclusions without being influenced by your worldview. Your statement that Christianity is a fantasy is a statement of your worldview.
You said, “It doesn’t matter what your ‘worldview’ is, wrong is wrong.”…that is a statment of your worldview. I actually aggree with you. However, if you hold the belief that some things that are absolutely wrong, then you must provide absolute proof. Science cannot provide that, therefore, you cannot use it as a backing for absolute statements such as “Christianity is a fantasy.”. In order to use science as evidence for the statement, “Christianity is a fantasy.”, you must first accept the statment, “Science is a source of absolute truth.”. Now, do you assume that science can provide absolute truths?
@ Tim Cooley
Lol. Tim, we have talked about this already. I told you why God is the most logical of all the gods, and why Yahweh is the only one with evidence to back His existence. The evidence is in the life of Jesus Christ. Am I to assume that you wish to re-open that discussion. Otherwise, I don’t have to answer your question.
I hope both of you guys are in good health!
Nicholas,
“Every conclusion you make is based upon your views of the world and what you already believe.”
Nick, maybe you never knew this before, but scientific conclusions are drawn from evidence. Creationism bases itself on faith, not evidence, therefore, from whichever worldview, it is not a scientific alternative to evolution as Ray would like to think. Also, who has ever read a scientific report on lightning, saying “Zeus commanded the electrons to do this and that”?
Ridiculous.
“I told you why God is the most logical of all the gods”
Yes, and you thought that the Buddha was a god. I mean, seriously. You have not studied any other religions in detail and I feel you are not qualified to make this statement. After all, there are hundreds or thousands of gods to choose from, and so “God is the most logical of all the gods” is simply an argument from ignorance.
Out of interest, what is your strongest evidence for Yahweh’s existence?
@holyfire23
No, it is a statement of your lack of evidence and the mountain of evidence for all things scientific. It is, a statement of fact.
Er, no, it has nothing to do with a world view. 1+1=2, always, regardless of your ‘world view’. The ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle is ALWAYS 3.14159265358979323846… regardless of how ridiculously skewed your ‘world view’ happens to be. The Earth ALWAYS orbits the sun, regardless of the number of people your ‘world view’ tortured in the 2000 years of it’s existence.
Er, no again. Since you and your ‘world view’ is making evidence-less claims, it is up to you to provide the proof. Science has provided a mountain of evidence for things like evolution and the fact that a T-Rex didn’t eat plants, ever. I am not required to provide evidence for the lack of existence of anything since you made the claim and provided no evidence to back it up.
The problem with christians and religions in general, is that you people have to come up with crap like your ‘world view’ theory because you have no evidence to back up your claims. You have to invent issues where there are none to detract from this and to make yourselves feel better about your ‘beliefs’. You know your ‘world view’ is patently ridiculous but for some reason cannot bring yourself to admit this.
The scientific method IS about evidence and peer review ensures that the evidence is interpreted properly. ‘World view’ has fuck, all, to do with what is true and what isn’t.
@ Tim
I’m sorry if I offended you by calling Buddah a god. It was a minor slip up. However, if you choose to fallaciously deny anything I say because of that comment then I cannot stop you.
I gave you solid evidence for Jesus, therefore God. Instead of debating it, you blocked the issue and said you didn’t wish to debate about Jesus. That’s fine with me, but don’t ask me for evidence and then say you don’t want to talk about it when I actually come up with some. You’re a cool kid Tim, I’m not trying to insult you, but you’re not being logical here.
@onfuriousllama
If the statement “Christianity is a fantasy” is a statement of fact, that means it has observable evidence behind it’s claims. Yet, you provide no observable evidence. Until you do, you can’t logically call that statement a fact and your statement is reduced to an opinion.
You falied to answer some of my questions. Do you believe that man can attain perfect truth through science and other methods? Is man the measure of all things?
There is evidence for my God. Read my article called “Jesus: How History Tells It”. It gives evidence for the life of Jesus, the miracles He performed, and His resurrection from the dead. If these things are true, nobody can deny that God exists, not even by way of science.
God Bless you guys!
You cannot prove a negative. By your reasoning, there is an invisible pink unicorn in my garage, fairies at the bottom of my garden an leprechauns with big pots of gold at the end of the rainbow.
It is up to you to prove your assertion that your invisible friend exists. Until you do, he doesn’t exist. That is not opinion.
Yet another irrelevant diversion, but ok: science will eventually give people understanding of how things (everything) work and how things happens and why things happen. ‘Perfect truth’ is another weak attempt creating an issue where there is none. Man is not the measure of anything, and that is an atheist point. You believe yourself to be more important than you are, living in a 94 billion light year wide universe made just for your amusement.
You misunderstand what ‘evidence’ means. The bible is not evidence, it is a collection of bronze age fairy tales. ‘Comfort’ is not somebody you should be quoting to back up your theory. The bible is not accurate. If you want to make that assertion, you should provide some fucking evidence. The bible is not a book of history. We do not try to explain jesus’s works by anything, since there is no evidence that he performed any of the feats in the fairy tales, assuming he even existed in the first place. The life of jesus is not an amazing story, it is a plagiarised story and so are vast tracts of the bible. And, you are a idiot if you literally interpret the bible and even more of an idiot if you don’t, because then you play ‘holy interpreter’ and choose which parts work for you.
Anyway, this is turning into a post, perhaps it will.
My the noodly appendage of the FSM rest on you always.
RAmen.
@onefuriousllama
First you say the statement “Christianity is a fantasy” is a factual statement. Then I ask you to provide proof, since you called it a fact. Then you say, you can’t prove a negative. If it can’t be proven then it isn’t a fact then–it’s an opinion. You say there is no evidence for God. I think you’re wrong. Have you ever thought that maybe you just don’t care what evidence I come up with, you will just refute it? Forgive me if I am wrong, but you seem more eager to make me look like an idiot than actually hear what I have to say.
Denying my evidence because of where it came from is a fallacy. You are refusing to examine the evidence because of where it came from. Just because it came from a book by Ray Comfort or the Bible doesn’t automatically mean it is false. The life of Jesus has been extensively documented and cross referenced just like the life of Julius Ceasar, Immanuel Kant, and even Chuck Darwin himself. You can choose not accept it. I’m fine with that. But you are doing so based off of illogical reasoning. When you are ready to examine and discuss my evidence, please come find me. I will answer any questions you have. But since you are unwilling to even listen to what I have to say, I see no reason to keep talking.
I hope you are in good health.
Not defending or endorsing Answers in Genesis here. Just stating something. Answers in Genesis does not claim to not hold to the Bible when coming to conclusions. In states that in your thinking, you must have a worldview. Science (which is awesome) is nothing apart from a wordview. You look through science through a worldview. You must start with a conclusion that there is only the natural or say that there is more than natural.
OK OK GUYS. FINE YOU GUYS WIN, THE T-REX WAS A VEGETARIAN, BECAUSE WE HAVE DIFFERENT WORLDVIEWS. NEXT.
Tim I regret that the photos you send just come up as an ‘x’ on my email, so I don’t know what you are sending. But I was just saying the teeth could be used for vegetation also.
“But I was just saying the teeth could be used for vegetation also.”
And I’m saying, what a load of tosh.
I didn’t send you any email. Did you subscribe?
Also it should be said that t-rex and other creatures had the genetic variability to adapt to carnivory, which is what you are saying, that his teeth are adapted to chewing meat (you would say it took longer to adapt).
I am simply responding to AiG’s claim:
Which is simply nonsense.
Was the T-rex a vegetarian? The evidence speaks for itself. Click here:
http://www.debate.org/debates/Tyrannosaurus-Rex-Was-a-Vegetarian/1/
LOL! I found this after wondering how exactly a t-rex could be possibly confused with a panda, or if this was just some sort of weird joke.
Anyway! I think this quote is rather worthwhile, even though it was written in 415 AD by St. Augustine:
although there were a great many such giant carnivores over the course of the age of the dinosaurs, there are surprisingly few bite marks in the fossil record when compared to the age of mammals.
http://www.livescience.com/5609-charge-rex-chicken-baby-killer.html
This appears to be a scientific website and I found this after just a short time of looking. No bite marks. They came to the conclusion that the large carnivours ate only small dinosaurs bones and all. Thus it’s not a creationist site. They probably haven’t even thought to consider a creationist viewpoint so they can only conclude they ate small dinosaurs and the bones as well. Maybe they ate just plants. If a dinosaur can swallow another dinosaur it can surely devour fruit. Humans didn’t eat grass or leaves like a herbivore. They ate fruit. Meet is tougher than fruit so if dinosaurs can chew flesh with their sharp teeth (though they probably swallowed it whole) they can chew fruit (though they probably swallowed it whole also)