Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

T-Rex was a scavenger?


  • Please log in to reply
88 replies to this topic

#31    seeking

seeking

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,678 posts
  • Joined:28 Jul 2003
  • Location:Connecticut

  • Unthinking faith would be a good question to ask the creator of the human mind.

Posted 22 October 2005 - 09:34 AM

Quote

ha, how dou you prove that t-rex mostly scavenged...you can't prove it...
Its a wild idea, but its very far-fetched....


i know you cant "prove" it, but the evidence leads to a conclusion that the trex was a scavenger as i allready have stated more than once.


Quote

I could say velociraptors killed and ate fish by swimming and diving, you would not be able to prove me wrong, but its so far-fetched, it has to be wrong.



you're right, i couldnt prove you wrong, however it is a far fetched idea, the idea that trex is a scavenger is not all that far fetched as the evidence has allready shown.


Quote

Use common sense....


i am using common sense.....large animal, very slow, poor eye sight, useless arms >> common sense would deem this creature to NOT be a hunter.....a panda bear can bite through bamboo....but you dont see them running down live animals...strong jaws mean nothing when being a hunter, to be a hunter you need the tools to be one: speed, fangs, talons, and stealth....trex has none of the above

Quote

and you haven't shot down all of his posts, you have just reversed the arguement....it doesn;t help at all


ive shot down every single point he has tried to use to try and prove the trex as being a hunter.  everything he has said i have shown to be a false statement, its not my fault hes digging his own hole.

Quote

I do not agree that T-rex was a scavanger (even though the paleontologist backing it is Jack Horner who worked on Jurassic Park), as the evidence is weak and highly imporbable.


there is more evidence proveing the trex was a scavenger than there isa hunter, what are you talking about? and for the probability...whats the probability of an animal like trex today being able to survive as a hunter....exactly

QUOTE
The sheer size, jaws, and backward facing teeth favor a hunter.


proportionally, hunting animals in nature today are NOT large at all, why would they be 65 million years ago....look at all of the other hunting dinosaurs compared to the trex...they are all small and agile, very fast, and have large talons.....trex would have gone extint far quicker than he allready has with that logic..

Posted Image
"Religion has no place in public schools the way facts have no place in organized religion."


#32    draconic chronicler

draconic chronicler

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Banned
  • 6,229 posts
  • Joined:27 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 22 October 2005 - 11:20 AM

Seeking, the only reason Horner's preposterous speculation (doesn't even deserve the title of a "theory") made it to a TV special, is that no "real" paleontologists were permitted to rebutt it on the program. Like most of Horner's "work", it is aimed at the generally "ignorant" public, rather than the scientific community that clearly doesn't take this nonsense seriously.

Nothing you said makes sense...... period.  You have not made a single point.  Using the crocodilian formula, everything you said has been disproved and you are only making yourself look like a fool by persisting with this.  I suggest you learn a little more about real animals before "inventing" a "gigantic fantasy scavenger" that has absolutely no parallel in the animal world, before or since.  This in fact is the most damning evidencee that this "super-scavenger fantasy" is nothing more than another "Horner publicity stunt" aimed at the ignorant, general public, interested in dinosaurs, but with only the barest understanding of scientific disciplines.

Edited by draconic chronicler, 22 October 2005 - 11:24 AM.


#33    frogfish

frogfish

    ஆங்கிலத்த&

  • Member
  • 11,142 posts
  • Joined:19 Sep 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Swamp

  • Flyfishing -- the Art of the Gods



Posted 22 October 2005 - 04:17 PM

Yes, Velociraptor hunting fish is a very far-fetched idea...I wanted to point that out...But making a t-rex a 90% scavenger is even more far-fetched. Jack Horner is the only one that approves....thats not very convincing.

Crocodiles, as DC has said, have poor eyesight, slow on land, and useless arms...They are called AMBUSh predators....T-Rex is an Ambush Predator.

And another thing is that T-rex was not slow....It could chase animals after the ambush for distances.....It was calculated that it could run at 35 MPH. I advise you do some research on this topic before you speculate.

Also, many hadrosaurus and Ceratopsians have been found with giant Tyrannosaur teeth embedded in them...If t-rex was a scavenger, you would find the bones of those animals, as the bones would of been scatterted and crushed.

Edited by frogfish, 22 October 2005 - 04:17 PM.

-Frogfish-
Posted Image
Researcher-Prostate Cancer Oncogene Research
University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center

The National Center for Biotech Information
My Photo Gallery: Capturing India

Fishing is a Way of Life!


#34    seeking

seeking

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,678 posts
  • Joined:28 Jul 2003
  • Location:Connecticut

  • Unthinking faith would be a good question to ask the creator of the human mind.

Posted 23 October 2005 - 05:10 AM

Quote

Seeking, the only reason Horner's preposterous speculation (doesn't even deserve the title of a "theory") made it to a TV special, is that no "real" paleontologists were permitted to rebutt it on the program. Like most of Horner's "work", it is aimed at the generally "ignorant" public, rather than the scientific community that clearly doesn't take this nonsense seriously.


this is all opinion, im still waiting for some factual information from you

Quote

Nothing you said makes sense...... period.    You have not made a single point.


point something out that doesnt make sense, ill be glad to further explain it, if you dont reply back with something that "doesnt make sense" i will assume that you were lying.

Quote

Using the crocodilian formula, everything you said has been disproved and you are only making yourself look like a fool by persisting with this.


please show me what i have said being disproved.

Quote

I suggest you learn a little more about real animals before "inventing" a "gigantic fantasy scavenger" that has absolutely no parallel in the animal world, before or since.  This in fact is the most damning evidencee that this "super-scavenger fantasy" is nothing more than another "Horner publicity stunt" aimed at the ignorant, general public, interested in dinosaurs, but with only the barest understanding of scientific disciplines.


i know what im talking about, beleive me.  It seems to me that you just cant accept the fact your child hood dino hero is nothing more than a scavenger..

Quote

Yes, Velociraptor hunting fish is a very far-fetched idea...I wanted to point that out...But making a t-rex a 90% scavenger is even more far-fetched. Jack Horner is the only one that approves....thats not very convincing.


i can recall not many people approving earth being round, or the sun being the center of our solar system as well.....majority beliefs dont make truth.

QUOTE
Crocodiles, as DC has said, have poor eyesight, slow on land, and useless arms...They are called AMBUSh predators....T-Rex is an Ambush Predator.


crocodiles hunt in the water were there speed on land is irrelevant as well as there arms being useless.  the crocodiles can hide under the water with only there eyes and nostrils exposed......t-rex doesnt have a different medium to hunt in like the crocodiles....trex cant hide his size like the crocodile can...this is why trex is not a ambush predator.

QUOTE
And another thing is that T-rex was not slow....It could chase animals after the ambush for distances.....It was calculated that it could run at 35 MPH.


you know 35mph is fast by our standards....not other animal standards, thats what really matters.  trex can run 35mph sure, but it does no good when the animals hes chasing can run faster


QUOTE
I advise you do some research on this topic before you speculate.


so far im the only one with anything worth saying, all you and DC are doing is stating the same things over again in different words....so far NOTHING you guys have brought up proves the trex to be a hunter, not ONE THING

QUOTE
Also, many hadrosaurus and Ceratopsians have been found with giant Tyrannosaur teeth embedded in them...If t-rex was a scavenger, you would find the bones of those animals, as the bones would of been scatterted and crushed.



that could have been from self defense, trying to hunt, hunting, a scavanged meal, even a diff dino, theres no way to no for certain, so no way to use that as proof


Posted Image
"Religion has no place in public schools the way facts have no place in organized religion."


#35    draconic chronicler

draconic chronicler

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Banned
  • 6,229 posts
  • Joined:27 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 23 October 2005 - 11:17 AM

Neither Horner nor you have provided any proof that a ground-pounding, super-scavenger could have possibly existed.  "Proof", would be showing that such animals existed in other time periods, because some creature always fills the same ecological niche, which is why we have very different, live bearing boas in the jungles of the new world, and egg laying pythons in Old World Jungles adopting the exact same niches.  This is why there are huge squid eating Shonisaurs in the Mesozoic, and almost identical sized squid eating sperm whales today.  So what other evidence is there for a giant, slow terrestrial, full-time scavenger in the entire living animal and fossil record?  There are none, because it is scientifically impossible.  The only "nearly" full-time "higher" animal scavengers are vultures and a few other kinds of birds.  Why, because they can cover 100's of miles in search of carrion in a day.  Science has pretty much proven that animal densities were very similar in the mesozoic as it is today.  It's not like there were carcasses everywhere.  We can be almost certain that some kinds of pterosaurs probably filled the same ecological niche of "scavenger" just as vultures today.

It is silly to think a T-Rex could not be an ambush predator because of his size.  As I stated, alligators and crocodiles not only ambush prey in the water, but in some cases, on dry land, far from water. This is fully documented and proves the T-Rex could have done the same thing. Consider the Komodo dragon as well, much slower than the deer which is one of its chief prey sources, but captures them through ambush.  I would even say that the Rex might have had the same septic saliva as the komodo, and after one good bite from ambush, could track a large animal until it succumbed from bite trauma, loss of blood, infection, or a combinatin of all three.

Horner's theory has just two things going for it, and neither has anything to do with science.  One, the general ignorance of other animals by the unknowing public who accepts his BS, and two, the love of the common rabble for any new "revisionist theory" no matter how absurd.  I can see how he "hooked" you into believing this nonsense.

Even a creature as large as a T-Rex can hide itself, and as I previously mentioned they can crouch belly high and have a frontal profile not much higher than a man.  I have walked only 10 feet from a hidden Indian elephant in a Sri Lankan rain forest, and only saw it after I had passed the spot and it decided to move on.




#36    TheEssenceofExcellence

TheEssenceofExcellence

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 430 posts
  • Joined:06 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Carolina

  • May the Lord bless you, your house, and all your endeavors.

Posted 23 October 2005 - 02:42 PM

First you come on here and say, like a few others have said, T-Rex was slow.  Then when someone tells you there's some evidence that T-Rex was fast you say he still wouldn't have been fast enough to catch his prey....  Most people don't believe the dinosaurs T-Rex preyed upon were very fast either, except for maybe the dinos in the same family as Triceratops.  So if T-Rex could run around 35 miles an hour, he'd catch his prey.

As far as T-Rex being slow in general....  Fossils have shown that the juvenile T-Rexes weren't as robust as the adults and that juvenile Rexes were actually probably one of the fastest animals around at that point in time.  So saying T-Rex was a scavenger because he was slow can be thrown out the window.

As far as T-Rex not being able to hide himself to ambush his prey, think again.  Just because he didn't submerge himself in water like a croc doesn't mean he couldn't hide himself.  I think your forgetting how dense the foliage was back then.  Even recent times (like the discovery of America) shows that when there's no one there to plow the trees down, they stretch from ocean to ocean.  T-Rex probably wouldn't even have to crouch down to hide himself in the midst of trees along a game trail, he could simply stand still and let his camouflage do the rest.  T-Rex could have waded through the trees slowly like a lion creeping through the tall grass lands.....or he could have stood silently in the trees like a snake in the grass waiting to strike.

Remember, T-Rex had the most powerful jaws of any predator that ever walked the earth, it only takes one good bone crushing bite to take down an unsuspecting dino who wondered into striking distance.  Plus there's the fact that, like Chronicler was saying previously, T-Rex teeth have been shown to be constructed in a way that they could hold bits of flesh (that rots over time) in them, which would give his mouth a powerful bacterial weapon.  If T-Rex didn't want to risk injury by landing a fatal blow to his prey, he could have simply nipped them and then tracked them until they died from infection.  But regardless of how he chose to kill his prey, he was capable of hiding himself along game trails so he could get a shot at them.

Ignatius to the Magnesians: "It is therefore fitting, that we should not only be called Christians, but be so.

#37    frogfish

frogfish

    ஆங்கிலத்த&

  • Member
  • 11,142 posts
  • Joined:19 Sep 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Swamp

  • Flyfishing -- the Art of the Gods



Posted 24 October 2005 - 02:06 AM

Quote

QUOTE
And another thing is that T-rex was not slow....It could chase animals after the ambush for distances.....It was calculated that it could run at 35 MPH.

you know 35mph is fast by our standards....not other animal standards, thats what really matters. trex can run 35mph sure, but it does no good when the animals hes chasing can run faster


O, yes, I certainly agree that a hadrosaur that can run 20 mph can out run a T-rex....I HOPE you notice my sarcasm. As again, you don not have any basis to state your theories on. What would be fast for animals standards again? You are just stating irrelevant ideas with no proof. T-Rex WAS FASTER than his prey. Also, T-rex have a little thing called stamina.

Quote

QUOTE
Crocodiles, as DC has said, have poor eyesight, slow on land, and useless arms...They are called AMBUSh predators....T-Rex is an Ambush Predator.


crocodiles hunt in the water were there speed on land is irrelevant as well as there arms being useless. the crocodiles can hide under the water with only there eyes and nostrils exposed......t-rex doesnt have a different medium to hunt in like the crocodiles....trex cant hide his size like the crocodile can...this is why trex is not a ambush predator.


I have wondered, have you ever heard of ambush before, because you are talking like you don't know a  thing. Ever heard of a tiger, a HUGE cat that is an ambush predator.....I'm gonna guess that you are now  going to retort that Tigers are NOT ambush predators right?
Crocodiles have Water, T-rexes have the Forest.

Quote

QUOTE
Yes, Velociraptor hunting fish is a very far-fetched idea...I wanted to point that out...But making a t-rex a 90% scavenger is even more far-fetched. Jack Horner is the only one that approves....thats not very convincing.


i can recall not many people approving earth being round, or the sun being the center of our solar system as well.....majority beliefs dont make truth.


I also recall that those inquiries had facts behind them, unlike yours. i also recall some idiotic people in the pasty proposing crazy notions, being shuned from society, and then finding out in the end that they were HORRIBLY wrong. I also remeber that the ideas of heliocentric systems and Darwinism were way ahead of there time...again unlike yours.

Quote

QUOTE
Also, many hadrosaurus and Ceratopsians have been found with giant Tyrannosaur teeth embedded in them...If t-rex was a scavenger, you would find the bones of those animals, as the bones would of been scatterted and crushed.



that could have been from self defense, trying to hunt, hunting, a scavanged meal, even a diff dino, theres no way to no for certain, so no way to use that as proof


please read my post, as I clearly stated that it was TYRANNOSAUR teeth and it was not scavenged. It is reasons like this that no-one accepts your notions. first, they are provided in such a poor manner, devoid of any facts. Second, all your posts consist of saying how good your "posts" are compared to everyones elses. Third, your ideas are totally unreasonable. they are not ahead of their time, they are backwards. This debates has already been solved in OUR (mine and DC's) favor. In your next post, please use FACTS, if any, to back up your crazy notions, and don't lie by saying that you have shot down every post in this thread, because you have not.

Quote

QUOTE
I advise you do some research on this topic before you speculate.


so far im the only one with anything worth saying, all you and DC are doing is stating the same things over again in different words....so far NOTHING you guys have brought up proves the trex to be a hunter, not ONE THING


LOOK ABOVE





-Frogfish-
Posted Image
Researcher-Prostate Cancer Oncogene Research
University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center

The National Center for Biotech Information
My Photo Gallery: Capturing India

Fishing is a Way of Life!


#38    seeking

seeking

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,678 posts
  • Joined:28 Jul 2003
  • Location:Connecticut

  • Unthinking faith would be a good question to ask the creator of the human mind.

Posted 24 October 2005 - 07:38 AM

Quote

Neither Horner nor you have provided any proof that a ground-pounding, super-scavenger could have possibly existed.  "Proof", would be showing that such animals existed in other time periods, because some creature always fills the same ecological niche, which is why we have very different, live bearing boas in the jungles of the new world, and egg laying pythons in Old World Jungles adopting the exact same niches.  This is why there are huge squid eating Shonisaurs in the Mesozoic, and almost identical sized squid eating sperm whales today.  So what other evidence is there for a giant, slow terrestrial, full-time scavenger in the entire living animal and fossil record?  There are none, because it is scientifically impossible.


the animals you are using as comparisons all have speed, trex has none, what animals today are very large and slow that hunt? just answer me that one question.

Quote


The only "nearly" full-time "higher" animal scavengers are vultures and a few other kinds of birds.  Why, because they can cover 100's of miles in search of carrion in a day.  Science has pretty much proven that animal densities were very similar in the mesozoic as it is today.  It's not like there were carcasses everywhere.  We can be almost certain that some kinds of pterosaurs probably filled the same ecological niche of "scavenger" just as vultures today.


i beleive that pterosaurs were scavengers as well, but trex could very easily scare away a real predator after it made a kill and scavange what the predator had left, you dont need to have dead carcasses in order to be a scavenger.


Quote

It is silly to think a T-Rex could not be an ambush predator because of his size.  As I stated, alligators and crocodiles not only ambush prey in the water, but in some cases, on dry land, far from water. This is fully documented and proves the T-Rex could have done the same thing.


no it doesnt, the alligator can hide, he is not very tall, what is a trex going to hide behind a tree?

Quote


Consider the Komodo dragon as well, much slower than the deer which is one of its chief prey sources, but captures them through ambush.  I would even say that the Rex might have had the same septic saliva as the komodo, and after one good bite from ambush, could track a large animal until it succumbed from bite trauma, loss of blood, infection, or a combinatin of all three.


the komodo is a scavenger as well as a hunter, i dont beleive the trex never hunted, but i do believe he was primarily a scavenger, also, again, the komodo can hide in tall grass, a trex could not hide behind anything, and i find it highly unlikely an animal is gonig to casually approach a trex standing still in an open field.


Quote

Horner's theory has just two things going for it, and neither has anything to do with science.  One, the general ignorance of other animals by the unknowing public who accepts his BS, and two, the love of the common rabble for any new "revisionist theory" no matter how absurd.  I can see how he "hooked" you into believing this nonsense.


its funny you say that he hooked me into this "nonsense", i believed the trex couldnt be a hunter since i was about 7 years old, but thats besides the point, ive allready said numerous times how horner's points are valid.

QUOTE
Even a creature as large as a T-Rex can hide itself, and as I previously mentioned they can crouch belly high and have a frontal profile not much higher than a man.  


yes but his length is far greater than that of a man, trex would be spotted very easily even crouched like that...also croucing like that puts a lot of stress on ones legs..given the trex would be very powerul, how long would a trex be able to hold that stance off?

QUOTE

I have walked only 10 feet from a hidden Indian elephant in a Sri Lankan rain forest, and only saw it after I had passed the spot and it decided to move on.


an elephant is still far smaller than a trex, and an elephant also is not a hunter, also you dont have the senses of other animals that can smell the elephant etc etc

Edited by seeking, 24 October 2005 - 07:58 AM.

Posted Image
"Religion has no place in public schools the way facts have no place in organized religion."


#39    seeking

seeking

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,678 posts
  • Joined:28 Jul 2003
  • Location:Connecticut

  • Unthinking faith would be a good question to ask the creator of the human mind.

Posted 24 October 2005 - 07:56 AM

Quote

O, yes, I certainly agree that a hadrosaur that can run 20 mph can out run a T-rex....I HOPE you notice my sarcasm. As again, you don not have any basis to state your theories on. What would be fast for animals standards again? You are just stating irrelevant ideas with no proof. T-Rex WAS FASTER than his prey. Also, T-rex have a little thing called stamina.


and im the one with no basis for my theories? how do you know he had a little thing called stamina? how do you know trex was even brave enough to chase after hardrosaurs? its all sepeculation, what sets different ideas apart from others though, is when ideas make sense with what we've seen in nature as fact.


Quote

I have wondered, have you ever heard of ambush before, because you are talking like you don't know a  thing. Ever heard of a tiger, a HUGE cat that is an ambush predator.....I'm gonna guess that you are now  going to retort that Tigers are NOT ambush predators right?
Crocodiles have Water, T-rexes have the Forest.


let me teach you something, look at the characteristics of predators...

tiger: camoflague + eye sight + speed + strength + claws + fangs + stealth = predator
crocodile: camoflague + speed + strength + stealth = predator
snake: camoflague + venom + speed + strength + heat sensors = predator
eagle: eyesight + speed + talons + flight advantage = predator


t-rex: strength + poor eye sight + vast sense of smell + bone crushing jaws = predator? i dont think so


Quote

I also recall that those inquiries had facts behind them, unlike yours.


show me

Quote

i also recall some idiotic people in the pasty proposing crazy notions, being shuned from society, and then finding out in the end that they were HORRIBLY wrong. I also remeber that the ideas of heliocentric systems and Darwinism were way ahead of there time...again unlike yours.


that made no sense, unlike mine what?


Quote

please read my post, as I clearly stated that it was TYRANNOSAUR teeth and it was not scavenged.


you know what, my brothers snake had a feeder mouse tooth stuck in his skin, that we didnt noticed untill the snake shed...would you say that mouse was hunting the snake?

QUOTE
It is reasons like this that no-one accepts your notions.


people do accept my notions, it may not be popular belief, but popular belief doenst make fact....the majority of the world believes in god....is that fact?


QUOTE
first, they are provided in such a poor manner, devoid of any facts.


show me how what i have said is wrong

QUOTE

Second, all your posts consist of saying how good your "posts" are compared to everyones elses.


because this is how its been going


you guys: trex was a predator because he had big teeth and a strong bite
me:         big teeth and a strong bite only work when accompanied by either speed or stealth which the trex does not have
you guys: trex could hide, hes an ambush predator
me:   trex is too big to hide himself
you guys: he had big teeth and  a strong bite....

circles and circles, try showing me how his tiny arms, poor eyesight, large body, and slow speed makes him a predator rather than telling me how "thinking" hes a scavenger is just wrong plain and simple.

QUOTE

Third, your ideas are totally unreasonable. they are not ahead of their time, they are backwards. This debates has already been solved in OUR (mine and DC's) favor. In your next post, please use FACTS, if any, to back up your crazy notions, and don't lie by saying that you have shot down every post in this thread, because you have not.
LOOK ABOVE


my ideas make more sense than yours, they dont need to be ahead of my time, and it doesnt matter if they go backwards, the debate is not solved, and wont be solved until someone can show how an animal like trex can be an ambush predator or any kind of predator for that matter.  Its not a lie that i have shot down all of your points...every single point you have, i have an answer to that makes more logical sense...dont beleive me, make a list and ill show you.

Posted Image
"Religion has no place in public schools the way facts have no place in organized religion."


#40    darkknight

darkknight

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,335 posts
  • Joined:10 Oct 2005

Posted 24 October 2005 - 10:44 AM

one of hotly debated topics in palaeontology world today.

predator.one of most powerful bite,bite contains Bactria,movement sensing eyesight,hunted in pair (unknown) speed upto 30mph. most likely prey:slow moving dinosaurs,sick,old,young or injured.

scavenger. poor eye sight, couldn't maintain speed or would have chased(unknown)lack of arm size to grasp,tall easily seen,has powerful sense of smell to track down dead dinosaurs and big powerful enough to scare the smaller predator off their kill.

Edited by darkknight, 24 October 2005 - 03:24 PM.


#41    TheEssenceofExcellence

TheEssenceofExcellence

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 430 posts
  • Joined:06 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Carolina

  • May the Lord bless you, your house, and all your endeavors.

Posted 24 October 2005 - 05:15 PM

saying T-Rex would be spotted easily in an open field is a stupid way to say he couldn't ambush things, of course he would be spotted in an open field.  But he wouldn't be spotted in thick foliage if he stood still to blend in.

And why are you pointing out snakes have speed?  When have you ever seen a snake chase down its' prey?  You haven't, because they don't.  So speed doesn't even matter with snakes, they have a quick bite, but T-Rex probably did too.  On the other hand, snakes don't usually bite fast enough to even nip all of those crazy zoologists on animal planet......so using snakes as a reason T-Rex couldn't be a hunter doesn't make sense.

But now that we're on the topic of snakes.....haven't you ever seen a mouse or rat walk right up to a python not registering a single bit of danger?  What makes you think dinos would be that much different?

As far as T-Rex being a scavenger, the entire idea around that is flawed.  It is based on the fact that T-Rex weighed so much, that it'd take to much energy in his leg muscles to carry him very fast.  But there are a few other Theropod dinosaurs that weighed MORE than T-Rex; if T-Rex couldn't go fast then they must have been moving at snail's speed.......they must have been scavengers too.  So why isn't somebody saying all big theropod dinos were scavengers?  Because they know they're not and they know T-Rex wasn't either.  People are just using that line as a way to get more funding for research and digs.  If you tell universities we know just about everything about T-Rex except for a few things your not going to get much money, but if you convince them you don't know much yet, they'll give you a lot of money to find the answeres.

The fact is, if T-Rex was a scavenger, so was Gigantosaurus, so was Spinosaurus, so was every big theropod. But the general opinion is that they were predators; why?  Because they did hunt and kill things, each predator does it in its' own way and T-Rex was no different.  There's no way T-Rex wasn't a predator.

There's one simple fact on planet earth, where there is prey there will be a predator that can take them down.  It's called population control.  Some of the dinosaurs around North America at that time were almost as big as T-Rex; there wasn't any other thing out there that could take them down successfully on a regular basis, or take them down at all for that matter.  Which is why T-Rex was there; he was designed for population control.  Every place where there is big prey produces a big predator; and in this case it was T-Rex.  There's no enviornment on the planet that supports life above the microscopic level that doesn't have an Alpha Predator; and in North America T-Rex was the Alpha Predator it's that simple.

Ignatius to the Magnesians: "It is therefore fitting, that we should not only be called Christians, but be so.

#42    frogfish

frogfish

    ஆங்கிலத்த&

  • Member
  • 11,142 posts
  • Joined:19 Sep 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Swamp

  • Flyfishing -- the Art of the Gods



Posted 25 October 2005 - 01:53 AM

QUOTE
O, yes, I certainly agree that a hadrosaur that can run 20 mph can out run a T-rex....I HOPE you notice my sarcasm. As again, you don not have any basis to state your theories on. What would be fast for animals standards again? You are just stating irrelevant ideas with no proof. T-Rex WAS FASTER than his prey. Also, T-rex have a little thing called stamina.


and im the one with no basis for my theories? how do you know he had a little thing called stamina? how do you know trex was even brave enough to chase after hardrosaurs? its all sepeculation, what sets different ideas apart from others though, is when ideas make sense with what we've seen in nature as fact.

OH YES, YOU ARE TOTALLY CORRECT...TIGERS COWER IN FEAR OF LITTLE SITKAS....WHAT THE HELL IS YOUR LOGIC? T-REX ARE SCARED OF HADROSAURUS....C'MON, HAVE SOME COMMON SENSE. T-REX TRACKS HAVE BEEN SHOWED TO FOLLOW HERDS OF DINOSAURS FOR DAYS...YES, THAT IS CALLED A FACT...AND THAT IS WHAT YOU NEED IF YOU ARE GOING TO CHANGE MY POSITION...EVEN THE SLIGHTST
ALSO, I HAVE NOTICED THAT WHENEVER WE PROVE YOU WRONG, YOU SAY WE SPECULATE AND THAT YOUR IDIOTIC NONSENSE IS FACT...JUST AN OBSERVATION original.gif

Quote

QUOTE
I have wondered, have you ever heard of ambush before, because you are talking like you don't know a thing. Ever heard of a tiger, a HUGE cat that is an ambush predator.....I'm gonna guess that you are now going to retort that Tigers are NOT ambush predators right?
Crocodiles have Water, T-rexes have the Forest.


let me teach you something, look at the characteristics of predators...

tiger: camoflague + eye sight + speed + strength + claws + fangs + stealth = predator
crocodile: camoflague + speed + strength + stealth = predator
snake: camoflague + venom + speed + strength + heat sensors = predator
eagle: eyesight + speed + talons + flight advantage = predator


t-rex: strength + poor eye sight + vast sense of smell + bone crushing jaws = predator? i dont think so


AND LET ME POINT OUT SOME OF YOUR OBIOUS MISTAKES THAT ANYONE COULD OF FOUND...T-REX HAS SPEED, WHICH FOR SOME DUMB REASON, YOU DENY....CAN YOU EVEN PROVE T-REX HAS POOR EYESIGHT....NO! T-REX HAS MORE FORWARD-FACING EYES THAN MOST OTHER DINOS....ITS CALLED STEREOSCOPIC VISION....WHICH IS USED FOR HUNTING. A SCAVENGER DOESN'T NEED TO JUDGE THE DISTANCE OF A CARCASS. T-REX HAVE LARGE "STEAK-KNIFE" LIKE TEETH THAT ARE USED FOR SLICING THROUGH MEAT. I DONT THINK THOSE WOULD BE USED TO CRUSH BONES. T-REX ALSO HAVE CAMOFLAGUE, THEY STAND DOWN-WIND, IN A THICKET OR SOME SORT OF COVERING, AND WITH THEIR SPPED, THE BURST OUT AND ATTACK A LAGGING INDUVIDUAL OF THE HERD...MANY OTHER CARNOSAURUS DO THAT TOO....

QUOTE
i also recall some idiotic people in the pasty proposing crazy notions, being shuned from society, and then finding out in the end that they were HORRIBLY wrong. I also remeber that the ideas of heliocentric systems and Darwinism were way ahead of there time...again unlike yours.


that made no sense, unlike mine what?

YOUR IDEAS ARE NOT AHEAD OF OUR TIME....THEY HAVE ALREADY BEEN DISPROVED...WHILE GEOCENTRIC SYSTEMS WERE NEVER PROVED AND JUST A PRODUCT OF THE CHURCH AND SOCIETY.

Quote

QUOTE
please read my post, as I clearly stated that it was TYRANNOSAUR teeth and it was not scavenged.


you know what, my brothers snake had a feeder mouse tooth stuck in his skin, that we didnt noticed untill the snake shed...would you say that mouse was hunting the snake?


OH YES, A SCAVENGING T-REX WOULD DEFEND ITSELF FROM AN ATTACKING DEAD CARCASS...I HOPE YOU NOTE MY SARCASM....ALSO, I DONT RECALL EVER HADROSAURS FEEDING ON T-REX....AND THAT T-REX HAD TO DEFEND THEMSELVES FROM THE DUCK-BILLED MENANCES...

Quote

QUOTE
It is reasons like this that no-one accepts your notions.


people do accept my notions, it may not be popular belief, but popular belief doenst make fact....the majority of the world believes in god....is that fact?


AGAIN, LOOK AT WHAT I SAID ABOVE ABOUT GEOCENTRIC SYSTEMS.

QUOTE

Second, all your posts consist of saying how good your "posts" are compared to everyones elses.


because this is how its been going


you guys: trex was a predator because he had big teeth and a strong bite
me: big teeth and a strong bite only work when accompanied by either speed or stealth which the trex does not have
you guys: trex could hide, hes an ambush predator
me: trex is too big to hide himself
you guys: he had big teeth and a strong bite....

circles and circles, try showing me how his tiny arms, poor eyesight, large body, and slow speed makes him a predator rather than telling me how "thinking" hes a scavenger is just wrong plain and simple.

WOW, THERE WE GO AGAIN...CALL THAT IRONIC.....

QUOTE

Third, your ideas are totally unreasonable. they are not ahead of their time, they are backwards. This debates has already been solved in OUR (mine and DC's) favor. In your next post, please use FACTS, if any, to back up your crazy notions, and don't lie by saying that you have shot down every post in this thread, because you have not.
LOOK ABOVE



my ideas make more sense than yours, they dont need to be ahead of my time, and it doesnt matter if they go backwards, the debate is not solved, and wont be solved until someone can show how an animal like trex can be an ambush predator or any kind of predator for that matter. Its not a lie that i have shot down all of your points...every single point you have, i have an answer to that makes more logical sense...dont beleive me, make a list and ill show you.


LOOK ABOVE...
SO AUTOMATICALLY YOU ARE RIGHT?
ITS AMAZING HOW NAIVE PEOPLE CAN BE...THERE ARE MORE FACTS PROVEN THAT SUPPORT T-REX BEING A PREDATOR...MUCH MORE THAT ALL THE "NOTIONS" OF SCAVENGING TYRANNOSAURS.
YES, WILD SPECULATION IS MUCH MORE LOGICAL THAN COLD, HARD FACTS....SARCASM AGAIN.

FACE IT, YOU DO NOT HAVE FACTS TO BACK YOU UP. YOU CANNOT PROVE T-REX HAD BAD EYESIGHT....BY ANATOMY OF THE EYES AND THE PLACE OMN ITS HEAD, THEY ARE SUPERIOR TO OTHER DINO EYES...YOU CANNOT PROVE T-REX COULD NOT HIDE....YOU FORGET ABOUT WIND AND FORESTS...YOU ALSO DENY T-REX'S SPEED, WHICH HAS BEEN PROVEN AT 35 MPH, FAST FOR DINO STANDARDS.

-Frogfish-
Posted Image
Researcher-Prostate Cancer Oncogene Research
University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center

The National Center for Biotech Information
My Photo Gallery: Capturing India

Fishing is a Way of Life!


#43    seeking

seeking

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,678 posts
  • Joined:28 Jul 2003
  • Location:Connecticut

  • Unthinking faith would be a good question to ask the creator of the human mind.

Posted 25 October 2005 - 05:24 AM

Quote

saying T-Rex would be spotted easily in an open field is a stupid way to say he couldn't ambush things, of course he would be spotted in an open field.  But he wouldn't be spotted in thick foliage if he stood still to blend in.

look, to be an ambush predator you need more than just strength, you need speed, stealth, and camoflague.....why dont you people understand the trex is just far too big to hide himself.  2 stories of dinosaur does not easily blend in with trees or what have you.


Quote

And why are you pointing out snakes have speed?


um...because they do


Quote

When have you ever seen a snake chase down its' prey?  You haven't, because they don't.  So speed doesn't even matter with snakes, they have a quick bite,

thats the speed im talking about, they have a fast bite

Quote

but T-Rex probably did too.  

you think that the t-rex could snap at prey with proportional speeds to that of a snake?


Quote

On the other hand, snakes don't usually bite fast enough to even nip all of those crazy zoologists on animal planet......so using snakes as a reason T-Rex couldn't be a hunter doesn't make sense.

are you serious...you cant be, your going to say you can dodge a snake bite?

those snaps on animal planet are not hunting strikes, they are warning strikes, theres no way you wuold be able to dodge a snake like that, and if you can, you are of a rare kind.

Quote

But now that we're on the topic of snakes.....haven't you ever seen a mouse or rat walk right up to a python not registering a single bit of danger?  What makes you think dinos would be that much different?

you know i have seen mice do that, however thats because the snake is camoflaged, also the mouse does not recognize the snake as being dangerous becasue they are bred with no worries....in the wild its a different story.


Quote

As far as T-Rex being a scavenger, the entire idea around that is flawed.  It is based on the fact that T-Rex weighed so much, that it'd take to much energy in his leg muscles to carry him very fast.  But there are a few other Theropod dinosaurs that weighed MORE than T-Rex; if T-Rex couldn't go fast then they must have been moving at snail's speed.......they must have been scavengers too.

those other dinos had working arms, better vision, etc etc

Quote

So why isn't somebody saying all big theropod dinos were scavengers?  Because they know they're not and they know T-Rex wasn't either.  

just explained it.

Quote

People are just using that line as a way to get more funding for research and digs.  If you tell universities we know just about everything about T-Rex except for a few things your not going to get much money, but if you convince them you don't know much yet, they'll give you a lot of money to find the answeres.

no doubt about that, that is something that is being done, but we honestly dont know the answers of wether or not trex is a scavenger or not....im not claiming that trex cant be a hunter, but so far as the facts stand, he is more scavenger.

Quote

The fact is, if T-Rex was a scavenger, so was Gigantosaurus, so was Spinosaurus, so was every big theropod. But the general opinion is that they were predators; why?  Because they did hunt and kill things, each predator does it in its' own way and T-Rex was no different.  There's no way T-Rex wasn't a predator.

gigantosaurus was most likely a scavenger as well, only hes not a hot topic, spinosaurus had things going for him like arms that can actually do things, and the sail on his back, but i dont know much about those 2 so im not going to say much about them.


Quote

There's one simple fact on planet earth, where there is prey there will be a predator that can take them down.  It's called population control.  Some of the dinosaurs around North America at that time were almost as big as T-Rex; there wasn't any other thing out there that could take them down successfully on a regular basis, or take them down at all for that matter.  Which is why T-Rex was there; he was designed for population control.  Every place where there is big prey produces a big predator; and in this case it was T-Rex.  There's no enviornment on the planet that supports life above the microscopic level that doesn't have an Alpha Predator; and in North America T-Rex was the Alpha Predator it's that simple.

assuming of coarse trex is a predator, however, there are many other dinosaurs that can take apex status away from trex and nothing would go awry in the dino era.




Posted Image
"Religion has no place in public schools the way facts have no place in organized religion."


#44    seeking

seeking

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,678 posts
  • Joined:28 Jul 2003
  • Location:Connecticut

  • Unthinking faith would be a good question to ask the creator of the human mind.

Posted 25 October 2005 - 05:51 AM

[quote]OH YES, YOU ARE TOTALLY CORRECT...TIGERS COWER IN FEAR OF LITTLE SITKAS....WHAT THE HELL IS YOUR LOGIC? T-REX ARE SCARED OF HADROSAURUS....C'MON, HAVE SOME COMMON SENSE. [/quote]

i never said tigers are scared of prey, and i have a good idea that trex wasnt scared of other dinosaurs either, that was just me showing how your assuming a lot of things to be fact.


[quote]T-REX TRACKS HAVE BEEN SHOWED TO FOLLOW HERDS OF DINOSAURS FOR DAYS...YES, THAT IS CALLED A FACT...AND THAT IS WHAT YOU NEED IF YOU ARE GOING TO CHANGE MY POSITION...EVEN THE SLIGHTST [/quote]

awesome because heyinas also follows packs of animals, esspecially when they can smell an injured one....interesting

[quote]ALSO, I HAVE NOTICED THAT WHENEVER WE PROVE YOU WRONG, YOU SAY WE SPECULATE AND THAT YOUR IDIOTIC NONSENSE IS FACT...JUST AN OBSERVATION original.gif[/quote]

you havent proved me wrong, though...still waiting actually.

[quote]AND LET ME POINT OUT SOME OF YOUR OBIOUS MISTAKES THAT ANYONE COULD OF FOUND...T-REX HAS SPEED, WHICH FOR SOME DUMB REASON, YOU DENY....[/quote]

35mph is not very fast by animal standards...even today


[quote]CAN YOU EVEN PROVE T-REX HAS POOR EYESIGHT....NO! [/quote]

YES!  check out the area of trex's brain were the eye sight would be....thank you come again.

[quote]T-REX HAS MORE FORWARD-FACING EYES THAN MOST OTHER DINOS....ITS CALLED STEREOSCOPIC VISION....WHICH IS USED FOR HUNTING. [/quote]

you can have a million eyes, but if your brain cant work them, they are useless.


[quote]A SCAVENGER DOESN'T NEED TO JUDGE THE DISTANCE OF A CARCASS. [/quote]

which is why his smelling section of his brain is so large


[quote]T-REX HAVE LARGE "STEAK-KNIFE" LIKE TEETH THAT ARE USED FOR SLICING THROUGH MEAT. I DONT THINK THOSE WOULD BE USED TO CRUSH BONES.[/quote]

his teeth were used mainly for slicing, trex most likely waited for an animal to make a kill and then scared them off, but just incase he got there too late, he had the power to chew any bones that may get caught up.


[quote]T-REX ALSO HAVE CAMOFLAGUE, [/quote]

how did he camoflague himself?

[quote]THEY STAND DOWN-WIND, IN A THICKET OR SOME SORT OF COVERING, [/quote]

down wind would work...if they were smart enough for that, and do you think there really would be a covering large enough to hide this massive dinosaur with out him being identified?


[quote]AND WITH THEIR SPPED, THE BURST OUT AND ATTACK A LAGGING INDUVIDUAL OF THE HERD...MANY OTHER CARNOSAURUS DO THAT TOO....[/quote]

if trex had the agility then yes, sadly he is too bulky and large for that type of manuever

[quote]YOUR IDEAS ARE NOT AHEAD OF OUR TIME....THEY HAVE ALREADY BEEN DISPROVED...[/quote]

then why cant you disprove them to me? you both keep saying the same things over and over again, and quite frankly im getting bored giving the same answers.

[quote]WHILE GEOCENTRIC SYSTEMS WERE NEVER PROVED AND JUST A PRODUCT OF THE CHURCH AND SOCIETY.
OH YES, A SCAVENGING T-REX WOULD DEFEND ITSELF FROM AN ATTACKING DEAD CARCASS...I HOPE YOU NOTE MY SARCASM....[/quote]

um....what about the dinosaurs attacking the trex...ever think of that? of did you think the trex was some kind of invincible creature?


[quote]ALSO, I DONT RECALL EVER HADROSAURS FEEDING ON T-REX....AND THAT T-REX HAD TO DEFEND THEMSELVES FROM THE DUCK-BILLED MENANCES...
AGAIN, LOOK AT WHAT I SAID ABOVE ABOUT GEOCENTRIC SYSTEMS.[/quote]

theres no doubt that trex would have hunted when he had the chance, those findings are inconclusive, they could have been from being attacked, or they could have been from being oprotunistic hunting.


[quote]WOW, THERE WE GO AGAIN...CALL THAT IRONIC.....[/quote]

agian you couldnt say anything.

[quote]LOOK ABOVE...
SO AUTOMATICALLY YOU ARE RIGHT?[/quote]
im not claiming to be right or wrong, im just showing all of you as of right now, todays knowledge of trex leads the findings to be that of a scavenger....also i asked you to make a list of points that prove me wrong, you said look above....look above your self, i have once again showed the error of thier ways.

[quote]ITS AMAZING HOW NAIVE PEOPLE CAN BE...THERE ARE MORE FACTS PROVEN THAT SUPPORT T-REX BEING A PREDATOR...MUCH MORE THAT ALL THE "NOTIONS" OF SCAVENGING TYRANNOSAURS.[/quote]

so far there is nothing you said that i couldnt show you how it works towards the scavenger debate

[quote]YES, WILD SPECULATION IS MUCH MORE LOGICAL THAN COLD, HARD FACTS....SARCASM AGAIN.[/quote]

everything is specualtion at this point, however the facts you claim to be cold hard, are not facts at all, they are assumptions, and poor ones at that, with no type of proof showing them to be correct.  I base my ideas on how nature works today, you base yours on what? your child hood dream of trex being the big boss in town?

[quote]FACE IT, YOU DO NOT HAVE FACTS TO BACK YOU UP. [/quote]

again, neither of us have "facts" the only way would be to go back in time and check, however my assuptions are based on eduacted guesses based on our current world

[quote]
YOU CANNOT PROVE T-REX HAD BAD EYESIGHT....[/quote]

you need a brain for your eyes to work, ive allready explained that above.

[quote]BY ANATOMY OF THE EYES AND THE PLACE OMN ITS HEAD, THEY ARE SUPERIOR TO OTHER DINO EYES..[/quote].

again, with out the brain you can have a millino eyes, and tehy would serve no help/

[quote]YOU CANNOT PROVE T-REX COULD NOT HIDE....YOU FORGET ABOUT WIND AND FORESTS...[/quote]

ive done this many times, he is far to large to hide behind some trees, too long, too tall, not agile enough to attack from a crouched position, etc etc etc etc

[quote]YOU ALSO DENY T-REX'S SPEED, WHICH HAS BEEN PROVEN AT 35 MPH, FAST FOR DINO STANDARDS.[/quote]

http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2002...h6/t-rex-a.html



sleepy.gif

Posted Image
"Religion has no place in public schools the way facts have no place in organized religion."


#45    frogfish

frogfish

    ஆங்கிலத்த&

  • Member
  • 11,142 posts
  • Joined:19 Sep 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Swamp

  • Flyfishing -- the Art of the Gods



Posted 25 October 2005 - 11:52 PM

"This doesn't mean T. rex was too slow to prey on large herbivores such as horn-faced Triceratops or duck-billed Edmontosaurus. All were elephant-sized, and all were likely poor runners. Remains indicate T. rex ate those animals, but whether it killed or scavenged them is still a mystery."
FROM THAT LINK OF YOURS.
http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/trex/gracile.htm
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/.../Trexdiet.shtml
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2004/trexqa.shtml


[quote]But now that we're on the topic of snakes.....haven't you ever seen a mouse or rat walk right up to a python not registering a single bit of danger? What makes you think dinos would be that much different?[/quote]

you know i have seen mice do that, however thats because the snake is camoflaged, also the mouse does not recognize the snake as being dangerous becasue they are bred with no worries....in the wild its a different story.

HAPPENS IN THE WILD TOO...

[quote]those snaps on animal planet are not hunting strikes, they are warning strikes, theres no way you wuold be able to dodge a snake like that, and if you can, you are of a rare kind.[/quote]

THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE

[quote]the animals you are using as comparisons all have speed, trex has none, what animals today are very large and slow that hunt? just answer me that one question.[/quote]

bUT, T-REX DID HAVE SPEED, AND IT WAS FASTER THAN ITS PREY original.gif ITS FUN REPEATING THESE SAME BASIC FACTS TO YOU OVER AND OVER....


[quote]saying T-Rex would be spotted easily in an open field is a stupid way to say he couldn't ambush things, of course he would be spotted in an open field. But he wouldn't be spotted in thick foliage if he stood still to blend in.[/quote]

look, to be an ambush predator you need more than just strength, you need speed, stealth, and camoflague.....why dont you people understand the trex is just far too big to hide himself. 2 stories of dinosaur does not easily blend in with trees or what have you.

3 THINGS, T REX WAS FASTER THAN ALL OF ITS PREY ITEMS, SECOND, T-REX WOULD OF STAYED DOWNWIND. THIRD, THEY WOULD STAND CLOSE ENOUGH THAT THEY WOULDN'T ENCITE PANIC, AND THEN CHARGE (A CHARGE FOR A DINOSAUR, BECAUSE YOU SEEM TO COMPARE DINOSAURUS TO CHEETAHS)




[quote][quote]OH YES, YOU ARE TOTALLY CORRECT...TIGERS COWER IN FEAR OF LITTLE SITKAS....WHAT THE HELL IS YOUR LOGIC? T-REX ARE SCARED OF HADROSAURUS....C'MON, HAVE SOME COMMON SENSE. [/quote]

i never said tigers are scared of prey, and i have a good idea that trex wasnt scared of other dinosaurs either, that was just me showing how your assuming a lot of things to be fact.[/quote]

YOU DIDNT MAKE ANY SENSE AT ALL...

[quote]T-REX TRACKS HAVE BEEN SHOWED TO FOLLOW HERDS OF DINOSAURS FOR DAYS...YES, THAT IS CALLED A FACT...AND THAT IS WHAT YOU NEED IF YOU ARE GOING TO CHANGE MY POSITION...EVEN THE SLIGHTST [/quote]

awesome because heyinas also follows packs of animals, esspecially when they can smell an injured one....interesting

HMMMMM, I WONDER IF YOU HAVE EVER SEEN A HYENA, OR DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT HYENAS ARE? IF YOU DO,  THEN YOU WOULD KNOW THAT HYENAS ATTACK PREY WHEN THEY FOLLOW HERDS...INTRESTING original.gif

[quote][quote]ALSO, I HAVE NOTICED THAT WHENEVER WE PROVE YOU WRONG, YOU SAY WE SPECULATE AND THAT YOUR IDIOTIC NONSENSE IS FACT...JUST AN OBSERVATION [/quote]

you havent proved me wrong, though...still waiting actually[/quote]
^
IRONIC, ISN'T IT?

[quote][quote]AND LET ME POINT OUT SOME OF YOUR OBIOUS MISTAKES THAT ANYONE COULD OF FOUND...T-REX HAS SPEED, WHICH FOR SOME DUMB REASON, YOU DENY....[/quote]

35mph is not very fast by animal standards...even today[/quote]

IT WAS FOR DINOSAURUS, AND IS STILL TRUE TODAY...I SAY THAT YOU GO AND DO SOME RESEARCH FOR AWHILE, THEN COME BACK AFTER A FEW DAYS, BECAUSE YOU ARE JUST MAKING A FOOL OF YOURSELF original.gif

[quote][quote]CAN YOU EVEN PROVE T-REX HAS POOR EYESIGHT....NO! [/quote]

YES! check out the area of trex's brain were the eye sight would be....thank you come again.[/quote]

I DID, AND IT'S EYESIGHT WAS PRETTY GOOD...NO, THANK YOU original.gif

[quote]T-REX HAVE LARGE "STEAK-KNIFE" LIKE TEETH THAT ARE USED FOR SLICING THROUGH MEAT. I DONT THINK THOSE WOULD BE USED TO CRUSH BONES.[/quote]

his teeth were used mainly for slicing, trex most likely waited for an animal to make a kill and then scared them off, but just incase he got there too late, he had the power to chew any bones that may get caught up.

OK, LET ME MAKE AN ANALOGY HERE...A HYDRAULIC PUMP HAS THE POWER TO CRUSH STONE, THINK OF THAT AS A T-REX SKULL...NOW, ADD PIECES OF LEAD AS TEETH, AND TELL IT TO CRUSH STONE...JUST LIKE REAL T-REX TEETH WOULD, THE LEAD WOULD BEND AND BREAK...WHICH WOULD NOT BE VERY PLEASANT FOR A SCAVENGING T-REX...ONE REASON IT WAS A PREADATOR.

[quote]T-REX ALSO HAVE CAMOFLAGUE, [/quote]

how did he camoflague himself?

DOWN WIND OF HIS PREY.

[quote]THEY STAND DOWN-WIND, IN A THICKET OR SOME SORT OF COVERING, [/quote]

down wind would work...if they were smart enough for that, and do you think there really would be a covering large enough to hide this massive dinosaur with out him being identified?

YES, A T-REX STANDING THERE WOULD BE MUCH OF A MENANCE BECAUSE THEY WOULD SEE LOUNGING PREDATORS EVERYDAY

[quote]AND WITH THEIR SPPED, THE BURST OUT AND ATTACK A LAGGING INDUVIDUAL OF THE HERD...MANY OTHER CARNOSAURUS DO THAT TOO....[/quote]

if trex had the agility then yes, sadly he is too bulky and large for that type of manuever

original.gif HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF ELEPHANST CHARGING, I GUESS NOT BECAUSE OF YOUR NAIVE COMMENTS original.gif

[quote]YOUR IDEAS ARE NOT AHEAD OF OUR TIME....THEY HAVE ALREADY BEEN DISPROVED...[/quote]

then why cant you disprove them to me? you both keep saying the same things over and over again, and quite frankly im getting bored giving the same answers.

i ADVISE TAKING A READING CLASS, AND READ OUR POSTS, INSTEAD OF RANDOMLY DISMISSING THEM AND STATING NONSENSE MADE UP ON THE SPOT original.gif

[quote]WHILE GEOCENTRIC SYSTEMS WERE NEVER PROVED AND JUST A PRODUCT OF THE CHURCH AND SOCIETY.
OH YES, A SCAVENGING T-REX WOULD DEFEND ITSELF FROM AN ATTACKING DEAD CARCASS...I HOPE YOU NOTE MY SARCASM....[/quote]

um....what about the dinosaurs attacking the trex...ever think of that? of did you think the trex was some kind of invincible creature?

O SORRY, I FORGOT ABOUT THE MASS KILLING SPREES CARCASSES WENT ON.....grin2.gif...ONLY IN SELF DEFENSE, YOU WOULD REALLY THINK A HADRSAUR WOULD GO OUT AND CHALLENGE A T-REX? I THINK YOU SHOULD AQUIRE A LITTLE SOMETHING CALLED KNOWLEDGE grin2.gif

[quote]ALSO, I DONT RECALL EVER HADROSAURS FEEDING ON T-REX....AND THAT T-REX HAD TO DEFEND THEMSELVES FROM THE DUCK-BILLED MENANCES...
AGAIN, LOOK AT WHAT I SAID ABOVE ABOUT GEOCENTRIC SYSTEMS.[/quote]

theres no doubt that trex would have hunted when he had the chance, those findings are inconclusive, they could have been from being attacked, or they could have been from being oprotunistic hunting.

AND ALL YOUR NONSENSE COULD BE FROM OPPORTUNISTIC SCAVENGING...I HOPE YOU REALISED THAT THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS OPPURTUNISTIC HUNTING, ONLY OPPURTUNISTIC SCAVENGING, BUT SADLY NOT YET sad.gif

[quote][quote]WOW, THERE WE GO AGAIN...CALL THAT IRONIC.....[/quote]

agian you couldnt say anything.[/quote]
DOUBLE IRONY grin2.gif

[quote]LOOK ABOVE...
SO AUTOMATICALLY YOU ARE RIGHT?[/quote]
im not claiming to be right or wrong, im just showing all of you as of right now, todays knowledge of trex leads the findings to be that of a scavenger....also i asked you to make a list of points that prove me wrong, you said look above....look above your self, i have once again showed the error of thier ways.

DO YOU NOT KNOW ALMOST 90 PERCENT OF FACTS ABOUT T-REX PROVE THAT IT IS A HUNTER, OR DO YOU JUST LIKE BASKING IN BLISSFUL IGNORANCE?


[quote]ITS AMAZING HOW NAIVE PEOPLE CAN BE...THERE ARE MORE FACTS PROVEN THAT SUPPORT T-REX BEING A PREDATOR...MUCH MORE THAT ALL THE "NOTIONS" OF SCAVENGING TYRANNOSAURS.[/quote]

so far there is nothing you said that i couldnt show you how it works towards the scavenger debate

ALL THIS BLUFFING IS GONNA BACKFIRE ON YOU grin2.gif
OK, T-REX'S "STEAK-KNIFE" TEETH...

[quote]YES, WILD SPECULATION IS MUCH MORE LOGICAL THAN COLD, HARD FACTS....SARCASM AGAIN.[/quote]

everything is specualtion at this point, however the facts you claim to be cold hard, are not facts at all, they are assumptions, and poor ones at that, with no type of proof showing them to be correct. I base my ideas on how nature works today, you base yours on what? your child hood dream of trex being the big boss in town?

QUITE FRANKLY, ITS THE OTHER WAY AROUND, EVER HEARD OF THE WORD PALEONTOLOGISTS? EVER HEARD OF HOW MANY FACTS THEY HAVE PROVEN TO YOUR SILLY NOTIONS THAT T-REX IS A PREDATOR. AGAIN , DO SOME RESEARCH FOR A FEW DAYS, THEN COME BACK ENLIGHTENED FELLOW FRIEND original.gif

[quote]FACE IT, YOU DO NOT HAVE FACTS TO BACK YOU UP. [/quote]

again, neither of us have "facts" the only way would be to go back in time and check, however my assuptions are based on eduacted guesses based on our current world

OF COURSE, WHO EVER WOULD OF THOUGHT THE TIGER WAS A SCAVENGER, NOT A PREDATOR...GO TO WWW.DICTIONARY.COM, AND LOOK UO EDUCATED GUESS....SEE IF IT MATCHES YOUR DEFINITION. I DON'T THINK WELL-STATED STAMENTS ARE THE SAME AS WILD FANTASIES...

[quote]
YOU CANNOT PROVE T-REX HAD BAD EYESIGHT....[/quote]

you need a brain for your eyes to work, ive allready explained that above.

LET US USE ANOTHER ANALOGY! A DRAGOONFLY HAS A BRAIN THE SIZE OF A PINHEAD, YET IT HAS HIGHLY USEFUL EYES THAT MAKE IT A POWERFUL AND DANGEROUS PREDATOR....AND YOU SAID BEFORE...:ITS NOT THE BRAIN -TO BODY MASS RATIO, ITS THE OVERALL SIZE....original.gif

[quote]BY ANATOMY OF THE EYES AND THE PLACE OMN ITS HEAD, THEY ARE SUPERIOR TO OTHER DINO EYES..[/quote].

again, with out the brain you can have a millino eyes, and tehy would serve no help/

YES, I FORGOT T-REXES DO NOT HAVE BRAINS...

[quote]YOU CANNOT PROVE T-REX COULD NOT HIDE....YOU FORGET ABOUT WIND AND FORESTS...[/quote]

ive done this many times, he is far to large to hide behind some trees, too long, too tall, not agile enough to attack from a crouched position, etc etc etc etc

IT IS TRULY FUN TO POINT OUT YOUR IGNORANCE...I WOULD ADVISE YOU TO COMPARE T-REX TO ITS PREY ITEMS, AND SEE HOW MUCH FASTER AND ACCUTE T REX IS.




thumbsup.gif  GO AND FIND ENLIGHTENMENT FRIEND, IT HAS BEEN MY PLEASURE TO HELP YOU STRAIGHTEN OUT happy.gif  yes.gif  wink2.gif

GOOD LUCK! rolleyes.gif

-Frogfish-
Posted Image
Researcher-Prostate Cancer Oncogene Research
University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center

The National Center for Biotech Information
My Photo Gallery: Capturing India

Fishing is a Way of Life!





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users