t.rex was a savenger,not a predator?
what you think?

Yes and no, something huge like that couldn't eat just dead things since animals killed...........maybe he was like a hihena? they chase animals away after they kill stuff.

but I think he was like this because that would be why they didn't kill humans and eat them WHILE!! they lived with humans.

This was said on another thread, but the T-Rex as scavenger is nonsense designed to give a certain exhibitionist paleontologist some publicity.
The main argument for this is that T Rex's arms were nearly useless and he wasn't very fast. Now consider the T-Rex as a "land crocodile". Crocodiles do not need front claws to be a highly succesful predator. Huge jaws are quite enough. Also consider crocs wait in ambush for animals to come to the water. T-Rex could wait along "game trails" for dinos to pass by.

There is no such thing as a pure scavening reptile today, and there probably wasn't 65 millions years ago.

Falling alien, I am not sure what you mean, but the fossil evidence quite conclusively proves humans did not coexist with dinosaurs. If they had, there would be no people today.

I think there is a lot of cultural and spiritual evidence for the creatures we know as "dragons" coexisiting with mankind, but most of these legends suggest that dragons are "controlled" by a higher authority, and therefore be prevented from wiping out mankind as giant theropod dinosaurs would have.

ok, draconic chronicler and falling angel...there are already threads for dragons in the bible and humans with dinos...not here.

T rex could of scavenged....predators are oppurtunistic feeders

I agree on all points Frog

Frogfish, believe it or not, every predator is also a "scavenger", but only a fool (or a paleontologist trying to get publicity), would make such a ridiculous claim that "T-Rex was NOT a hunter, but only a scavenger". Such a "pure scavenger" doesn't exist now, and probably never.

the whole palaeontology world has debated on this issue,polls are 60 savenger,40 predator.

I garee with Draconic Chronicler...BUT I NEVER SAID T-REX WAS A PURE SCAVENGER! If you Misunderstood....i meant T-rex was a preadtor that was an oppurtunistic feeder, so it would of ALSO scavenged...there is no such thing as a pure scavenger....well, at leats there is none with a backbone

Frogish, I was referring to Chordates of course.

DW, Paleontologists can be quite the expert in assembling bones, and noting the fine differences to denote subspecies, but many are very ignorant of living animals with similar lifestyles to the dinosaurs. EVERY chordate predator in the world is a scavenger too, but no reptile, bird or mammal ever known was only a scavenger. It is a completely ridiculous claim, and using the example of crocodilians, conclusively proves that the T-Rex could be a formidible "ambush predator" even if it was slow and had nearly useless forearms. Believe it or not, every predatory bird also has no arms and they do just fine.

T rex wouls of been an stalker and short chase predator...like a tiger...it would chase after Edmondtonosaurus.

err ya eddymontyrilyes.....WHAT?!? Of course I've been paying attention teahcer.....

T-rex was both a scavenger and a hunter, nearly all paleontologists accept this, given that modern predators today, will take the kill of another and feed on it, only if the game is sparse or the prey is bigger than that us out to predator, but some have suggested that T-Rex may have hunted in packs. there are different opinions here and that is fine, just don't make yours seem like it is the important one, they are all important.

do you have some sort of grudge against this guy? or is it just to hard for you to accept that your childhood love of the t-rex being a killing machine was false?





also the relation of size between the leg bones, i forget what the scientific names are, but the bones that make up the theigh, and the bones that make up the shin




they need them to walk though, the t-rex's arms serve no purpose




thats true, snakes are predators, i'll give you that one



and hide in what? the t-rex would be far to large to camoflage himself into the surounding trees. The t-rex would also have to be hidden while standing, and at 2 stories tall....that can be a very difficult task.



the popular belief is that birds evolved from dinosaurs.....there are A LOT of scavenger birds....



thinking with out back up is just an opinion, and opinions are nothing special




riiiiiiiiight

I can't believe some people actually think that humans lived alongside dinosaurs. Gosh!
Too many cavemen-dino movies I'd say.

Although the image of human cave dwellers hunting dinosaurs is well established in fiction, it is far from accurate. People didn't evolve until about 65 million years after the dinosaurs' extinction. Except for the birds, who are the sole surviving descendants of the dinosaurs, the dinosaurs and people are well separated in terms of geologic time.

Just as frogfish said, I believe T-Rex was an opportunistic feeder. I believe, it also scavenged a lot. It is peoples' fascination for T-Rex that makes it hard for them to accept this fact.

I said from the beginning that "all carnivores scavenge", but the exhibitionist trying to get his name in print made the sweeping claim that T Rex was an exclusive scavenger too slow and unable to catch prey, which is simply a stupid, unsustanitiated statement calculated to get publicity.

Believe it or not, all predatory birds lack arms completely and do perfectly fine. So why couldn't a predatory T-Rex? Vultures will commonly hunt any small animal they can catch if carrion is not available.

As for T-Rex being an amubush predator, believe it or not, they can crouch down until their bellies drag, giving themselves an only 7 foot high or so profile that could be easily concealed in brush. Even alligators are known to "stake out" game trails some distance from water to catch deer and dogs that frenquent these places. T-Rex probably adopted a similar hunting strategy.

The only reason vultures are a succesful scavenger is that by flying they can cover hundreds of miles a day in search for carrion. An (exclusive scavenger" T-Rex would not have this advantage, and would have to consume far more carrion. Pterosaurs, like vultures, were probably the true scavengers of the mesozoic, but like vultures probably hunted small animals as well, and some of course, were specialist fish eaters.

The "T-Rex as pure scavenger" proposal has only one thing going for it -
and that is the gullibility of the generally ignorant public to accept any new and outrageous "Revisionist Theory".

both..it would very easy for t-rex to scavenge when other small predator made a kill and big bad t-rex just scared little ones off. on the other side its huge jaws can make quick kill with one bite( bite contains bacteria) its estimated that the Tyrannosaurus was able to bite with a force of 3,000 pounds. its most likely prey' slow moving dinosaurs.

True but they have also proven that t-rexes have a hard time to get back up once he falls.



What about Komoto Dragons? Their toxin they carry in their saliva alone can kill a human, due to all the bacteria from feeding on decaying flesh.

Why would toxic saliva make the komodo dragon a pure scavenger? Like every predator they will scavenge a meal if they find uneaten carrion, but are fearsome hunters as well, attacking water buffalo and even humans. The T-Rex argument was responding to the the statement that they were entirely scavengers and could not hunt. This is what I said was nonsense.

i agree entirely with DC

T-Rex probably did scavenge, something as big as it was could easily steal another predators kill. But there's no way it was only a scavenger. There are simple facts that show T-Rex was a hunter...

Fact 1: IT WAS BIG. Something that survived (or evolved) to be a scavenger wouldn't need to evolve to be the largest predator around. Any small animal can easily scavenge off other dead animals, there's no reason to be large if your a scavenger.

Fact 2: T-Rex had one of the, if not THE, strongest bite a theropod dino ever had. You don't need a strong bite to scavenge things, you need a strong bite to kill things. This alone proves T-Rex had to be a hunter. If he wasn't, why would he need a strong bite???

Fact 3: T-Rex had a brain the same size of a gorillas' brain. T-Rex was smart and cunning. You don't have to be a genius to be a scavenger, but you do have to be smart if your a hunter. The fact that their lifestyles required them to be smart tells us they either needed to be smart so they could hunt successfully on their own, or that they needed to be smart so they could coordinate their hunts with the rest of their family pack.

The only reason people started coming up with this dumb idea of T-Rex being a scavenger was because their machines showed T-Rex couldn't run very fast.....which might mean he couldn't chase and catch prey. But what do their machines know??? Scientist used to say sauropods must have spent all their time in water because they couldn't support their weight on land, but we know that's not true because they spent all their time eating off the high limbs of trees or eating the ferns on the forest floors (not to mention they migrated all over).

In my opinion nothing can really be learned by the test machines that are supposed to simulate the weight and strength of large animals. (mostly because we can only speculate their weight and strength). Scientists seem to think that because something was really big and was very heavy it must have been slow. But that makes no sense. These animals' bodies were all proportioned to their size and weight, so if they weighed 10 tons their legs were conditioned to hold 10 tons. If they were a predator and needed to run faster than their prey, there's no doubt their legs were strong enough to carry them that fast.

When you lay down all we know thus far about T-Rex, the evidence for the T-Rex Hunter Theory vastly out weighs the T-Rex Scavenger Theory.

T-Rex was probably fast for its' size, we know it had large teeth and a strong bite, we also know it was smart. T-Rex probably stayed in a family pack until they reached maturity, then they were probably kicked out and made to live out on their own. Once on their own they would probably find a mate and start their own family pack. Their packs either consisted of a dominate male and female, or one dominate female; which would leave all adult males as loners who wondered all over with no established territory. We don't know for sure, but all evidence points to them being hunters......we still don't have concrete evidence of their parenting and social tendencies, we just have to keep studying and looking for fossils. But they were hunters.

that and those same simulaters once said that Tyranosuarus Rex could go as fast as 40 mph, which is as fast as some cars and most bicyclists(road bikes), so he could actually catch his prey fairly easily, and in groups would be incredibly effective, much like the Grey Wolf, or a pride of lions.

[quote]Fact 1: IT WAS BIG. Something that survived (or evolved) to be a scavenger wouldn't need to evolve to be the largest predator around. Any small animal can easily scavenge off other dead animals, there's no reason to be large if your a scavenger.[/quote]

Strike 1: The worlds best hunters have always been small and agile, a scavenging animal would indeed evolve to be large as the large size garentees a scavanged meal more easily...

[quote]Fact 2: T-Rex had one of the, if not THE, strongest bite a theropod dino ever had. You don't need a strong bite to scavenge things, you need a strong bite to kill things. This alone proves T-Rex had to be a hunter. If he wasn't, why would he need a strong bite???[/quote]

Strike 2: You dont need a strong bite to be a hunter, to be a hunter you need a combonation of these attributes: a bite that can peirce and severe main veins and ateries (all thats needed is fangs), claws/talons to slice the prey, and/or speed. All the hunters of today either have fangs, claws, speed, or all of the above, the T-Rex has none of these things. As for the strong bite, a scavenger would need the extra strength in order to break apart the bones of the left over meal - to get all he could from the find...

[quote]Fact 3: T-Rex had a brain the same size of a gorillas' brain. T-Rex was smart and cunning. You don't have to be a genius to be a scavenger, but you do have to be smart if your a hunter. The fact that their lifestyles required them to be smart tells us they either needed to be smart so they could hunt successfully on their own, or that they needed to be smart so they could coordinate their hunts with the rest of their family pack.[/quote]

a the size of your brain is only important when compared to the body mass of the creature owning that brain, the body mass of the T-Rex is far to excessive for the gorrilla sized brain to be "intelligent". Its possible that with that size brain a creature can develop the skills to hunt, but not absolute proof. As for the being smart to coordinate thier packs or to hunt on thier own, that remark holds no weight as there is no proof that the T-Rex was indeed intelligent.

[quote]The only reason people started coming up with this dumb idea of T-Rex being a scavenger was because their machines showed T-Rex couldn't run very fast.....which might mean he couldn't chase and catch prey. But what do their machines know??? [/quote]

the machines may have done the calculations but the equations have been found through human discovery, the bone length ratio holds true to all living animals, and machines dont know anything, but the poeople using them sure do.

[quote]Scientist used to say sauropods must have spent all their time in water because they couldn't support their weight on land, but we know that's not true because they spent all their time eating off the high limbs of trees or eating the ferns on the forest floors (not to mention they migrated all over).[/quote]

and how long ago was this theory? we had a theory that at the time made sense, as our understanding grew our view point changed...just how at one point scientist thought t-rex was a hunter based on size alone....now we know better.

[quote]In my opinion nothing can really be learned by the test machines that are supposed to simulate the weight and strength of large animals. (mostly because we can only speculate their weight and strength). Scientists seem to think that because something was really big and was very heavy it must have been slow. But that makes no sense. These animals' bodies were all proportioned to their size and weight, so if they weighed 10 tons their legs were conditioned to hold 10 tons. [/quote]

so T-Rex's arms are in proportion with the rest of his body?

Exactly.


[quote]If they were a predator and needed to run faster than their prey, there's no doubt their legs were strong enough to carry them that fast.[/quote]

IF, and thats a big IF, the were predators

[quote]
When you lay down all we know thus far about T-Rex, the evidence for the T-Rex Hunter Theory vastly out weighs the T-Rex Scavenger Theory.[/quote]

so far you've given no conclusive evidence that the T-Rex was a hunter, so im going to have to go ahead and disagree with that statement


[quote]T-Rex was probably fast for its' size[/quote]

fast for its size doesnt mean its fast...

[quote]
, we know it had large teeth and a strong bite
[/quote]

True.

[quote]we also know it was smart[/quote]

False.

[quote]T-Rex probably stayed in a family pack until they reached maturity, then they were probably kicked out and made to live out on their own. Once on their own they would probably find a mate and start their own family pack. Their packs either consisted of a dominate male and female, or one dominate female; which would leave all adult males as loners who wondered all over with no established territory. [/quote]

Speculation holds no weight in a debate.

[quote] We don't know for sure, but all evidence points to them being hunters[/quote]

Again, no evidence thus far points to them being hunters.

[quote]
.....we still don't have concrete evidence of their parenting and social tendencies, we just have to keep studying and looking for fossils. [/quote]

And thats what will happen.

[quote]
But they were hunters.[/quote]

Sorry to dissapoint you, but no they were not....










edit: my quote tags are correct but for some reason not working, strange

You do not have to use computers and machines to figure this out. Every point that the "pro-scavengers" use is negated by observation and comparision with similar animals in similar ecological niches. Even if we accept the "latest" simulations that suggest T Rex was slow, and its arms were useless in securing prey these two factors do not make other living animals today automatic, full-time scavengers. Such a creature doesn't even exist.

Dinosaurs and crocodilians are both archosaurs and share many characteristics. Crocodiles, like the "new" T Rex do not have to run down their prey to be superb predators. They let the prey come to them. This is a trait of "ambush predators". Likewise Crocs and T-Rex have some of the world's most powerful jaws, and we know crocs are predators. And finally, crocodiles do not need to use front arms in hunting (nor do any predatory birds), so saying T Rex must, to be a hunter is completely unsubstantiated.

As stated before, there are absolutely no other chordates that can be classed as a pure scavenger, and it is pure fantasy to say T-Rex was one. We have living animals today unmistakable T-Rex physical attributes (strong jawsed, slow predators), that contradict every point made by the pro-scavenger clique. Just because somebody gets a wild revisionist article published, and they make a TV show about it, doesn't mean it is real.

It is very reasonable to assume that T-Rex excercised at least as much parental care as crocodilians and possibly more. This is a trait of all archosaurs, and really has not bearing on being predator or scavenger. The same can be said of them living in social groups like the other living archosaurs, crocs and birds. To say they actually hunted in mammalian packs cannot be substantiated however. Just because we see trackways of what may be several theropods following the same prey item, may be no different than several herons chasing the same frog or several crocs diving into the river to catch the same monkey that fell from a tree. Its fun to give dinos these distinctly mammalian characteristics, but unfortunately, we see no evidence of this in the other living archosaurs of today.

Just watched a doco on this very topic and about T-Rex in general.

They had palaeontologists arguing both sides and the conclusion was its a predator that would not pass up the opportunity to scavenge. They had evidence to back up there conclusion such as damage to prey dinos, that T-Rex was the only living species at the time capable of inflicting these bites, and they knew the prey was alive and lived after the attack as the bones showed signs of repairing.

As for speed they calculate at least 11 kms an hour from fossilized footprints found.

The jury is still out on the parental care aspect though.


I should add they compared it to a cross between a Crocodile and an Emu

Look, the fact is... If anybody believes something as large as T-Rex was only a scavenger they're just being stupid. Something that big requires HUGE amounts of energy to exist, which means they need to constantly have the ability to replenish their body. Anybody who thinks nature would design a creature, that needed that much food, to only be able to stumble upon meals to survive is dumb. There's no way it would have survived for a few million years by just stumbling upon its' meals all the time; something that large would have to hunt to keep its' body nurished at all times.

All the evidence does show that T-Rex was a hunter rather than a scavenger. The only evidence at all that says T-Rex was a scavenger was that he might have been slow. But like Dragonic Chronicler said before T-Rex could have just waited and ambushed its' prey like a croc.

As far as predators being fast and agile..... Your thinking about Earth today, not Earth of before. The prey of today is a lot faster, so the predators of today need to be faster and more athletic. Back then the prey was gigantic, so predators had to be big so they could kill it. T-Rex being big doesn't mean he was a scavenger at all, like I stated before it points to the fact that he wasn't a scavenger. Besides, there are many big predators in this day and age that aren't scavengers. You have Great Whites, Killer Whales, Giant Squids, Bears, and even Siberian Tigers. Although you may note lions and big cats as being smaller, fast, and agile predators.....they are still bigger than a lot of their prey.

Just think about it, what scavenger you've ever known about makes you shake with fear? None of them; T-Rex does, it's not a scavenger.

As far as you saying T-Rex wasn't smart, your crazy. Like I talked about before on a different forum, scientists who say all Dino's weren't smart because of their brain size compared to their body size don't know what they're talking about. Brain size in comparison to body size doesn't tell you anything about somethings intelligence. All it tells you is that it was a big animal. Lets face it, dinos were big, very big, comparing the size of their brain to their body is a ridiculas way to tell how smart they were. Just look at how big the brain was in comparison to other life forms, that's how you can tell if something was smart or not. A chimp's brain is almost as big as ours is, but at the same time their bodies are a lot smaller, which would make their brain to body ratio pretty high. Does that mean they're smarter than us? No it doesn't. Body size in comparison to brain size doesn't tell us anything. Dinos grew big to survive, their size was their weapon, it formed their life styles......but growing bigger doesn't mean you have to get smarter.....that's the trade off. Dinos got bigger and didn't focus as much on itelligence, meaning they didn't need to be as smart as they were big, but that doesn't mean those with big brains weren't smart because the brain itself wasn't as huge as the rest of their body. The fact is T-Rex had a larger brain than most of the dinos it preyed upon; it wouldn't need to be smarter than herbivores if it didn't have to hunt them.

As far as T-Rex's small arms. Like people have said already most birds of prey and crocs don't use their arms to kill their prey, but they still kill them. T-Rex had small arms so he could balance his huge head and walk on two legs. The main focus of a Rex is on its' head. The reason being is because the T-Rex focused on having a devastating bite to kill its' prey. Anybody who knows anything knows that Rex jaws were designed to kill. A scavenger doesn't need to kill. i.e. the Rex was a predator. He was a hunter.

As you said...



Now that's refuting!

^i see you noticed my sarcasm

--



makes sense huh?



no scavenger will ever be completly classified as a scavenger, all scavengers will try to attack animals if provoked, etc...as a mater of fact those bite marks found on fossils that are thought to be from a trex could have infact been left through self defense...no way to tell, thus no way to use that as proof




but a croc hides underwater.....were did the 2 story tall t-rex hide....especially when its known fact that once a trex is down on the ground getting up would be very difficult...



crocodiles dont need front arms becuase they have the speed and stealth to make up for it, trex does not have anything to make up for his lack of arms besides his bite, and a big bite with no way of getting to you is useless. As for birds, again they have other things to make up for the lack of arms, such as flieght, speed, eye sight, and talons...trex again has none of those advanteges.



i agree that no animal will ever be soley a scavenger, however i do believe trex to be mostly scavenger and only attack when provoked or as a last resort.



name me some of these animals that live today that have a very large size, no holding arms, no speed, no stealth, and poor eyesight that are hunters.....





doesnt mean its false either.



i dont have an opinion on the family characteristics of the trex, but what bothers me most is, in that whole post you didnt really say much of anything, all of your points i have shot down, and in this thread, i have shot them down again.....it is impossible for you to shoot my points down as they make most sense with the knowledge we have today, thus far you've only helped me prove that trex's are less likely to be predators...

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

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.

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

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.





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.




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



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.



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



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..

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.

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.

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



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.



please show me what i have said being disproved.



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..



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.



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.



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




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




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

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.

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.

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.



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.



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.



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.



LOOK ABOVE

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.



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.




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



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.




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.



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?



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

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.




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




show me



that made no sense, unlike mine what?




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?



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?




show me how what i have said is wrong



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.



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.

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.

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.

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



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.



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...



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.

[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.


[quote]And why are you pointing out snakes have speed? [/quote]

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,[/quote]

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

[quote] but T-Rex probably did too. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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?[/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.


[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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.
[/quote]

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.

[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 [/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

"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 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

[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

[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

[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

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

[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

[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........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

[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

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

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

[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
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

[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....

[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.




GO AND FIND ENLIGHTENMENT FRIEND, IT HAS BEEN MY PLEASURE TO HELP YOU STRAIGHTEN OUT

GOOD LUCK!

Seeking, you are only making yourself look like an ass, and believe me i do it alot, but you take the cake.
DC, Essence, and Frogfish, have shot down what you said because accepted scientific evidence show Tyranosaurus Rex, as being a Hunter, not a Scavenger, though he may have done that if he was injured, sick, or other wise unable to hunt, just like predators will do in our time.
T-Rex could hide, especially since it has been shown that rex fossils have been found around what once were forested areas, that the fossil record has shown to be very thick in th amount of flora available, easy hiding place, just like tigers do.
Besides why have a powerful bite if you are going to eat carrion only, all you need are sharp teeth, not powerful jaws with sharp teeth.

[quote]"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]

[/quote]
that quote is comparing the trex's running speed against the "preys" running speed, trex needs the speed to strike as well as the coordination to strike to be an ambush predator.


[quote][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.[/quote]

HAPPENS IN THE WILD TOO...[/quote]


nope, sorry, all wild animals are born with the natural instincts to detect potential dangers, feeder mice are domesticated

[quote][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]


theres no difference between a warning strike and a real strike? are you out of your mind? were are you getting your information from? your own imagination?


[quote][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 ITS FUN REPEATING THESE SAME BASIC FACTS TO YOU OVER AND OVER....[/quote]

ok lets assume that the trex was fast enough to run down prey....he still doesnt have the eye sight or the agility to do anything to the animal. Assuming trex is an ambush predator, he still doesnt have the quickness to attack


[quote]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]

assuming that the prey were slower, again the trex still didnt have the agility to do anything, the downwind argument would work, sure its possible for a trex to charge, but why then do no predators of today use this tactic? its not a predator tactic


[quote]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 [/quote]

ive never personally seen a hyena, but the hyenas attacking prey in herds would be an oprotunistic predation....just what i was saying....the trex is mainly scavenger but will attack if the oprotunity arose.

[quote][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]

still waiting.

[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 [/quote]





[quote]I DID, AND IT'S EYESIGHT WAS PRETTY GOOD...NO, THANK YOU [/quote]


[quote]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]

hes not soley eating bones, but if a bone was to get in the way,then it would not prevent him from eating what he could, no animal would just eat bones all day


[quote]how did he camoflague himself?

DOWN WIND OF HIS PREY.[/quote]

thats not camoflague

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

you honestly think that trex's prey items would not be alarmed of a trex just lounging around?

[quote]HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF ELEPHANST CHARGING, I GUESS NOT BECAUSE OF YOUR NAIVE COMMENTS [/quote]

an elephant isnt a predator though, no predators of today charge at thier prey, no predators of today are even to the same proportions as trex to his "prey"

[quote]i ADVISE TAKING A READING CLASS, AND READ OUR POSTS, INSTEAD OF RANDOMLY DISMISSING THEM AND STATING NONSENSE MADE UP ON THE SPOT [/quote]

oh im not randonmy dismissing them, you have good points, the down wind arguement, and the hunting in packs, but thats all you got

[quote]O SORRY, I FORGOT ABOUT THE MASS KILLING SPREES CARCASSES WENT ON........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 [/quote]

on the rare occasion that a trex did attack a living dinosaur, im sure they would fight back, as all animals of today do

[quote]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 [/quote]


what are you talkinga bout... no such thing as oprotunistic hunting? jeez....


[quote]
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]

show me them then, man o man, im not one of those people who believe something and stick with it no matter what, if you can show me how trex is a predator than i will change my stance, its as easy as that, show me the proof and i will accept it, i have no problem in admiting being wrong, all im saying is based on what i know, and have seen/read/etc it shows that trex is a scavenger.

[quote]ALL THIS BLUFFING IS GONNA BACKFIRE ON YOU
OK, T-REX'S "STEAK-KNIFE" TEETH...[/quote]

to eat the remaining flesh of the carcass.

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


[quote]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 [/quote]

im not speaking on this subject with lack of knowledge like you seem to be thinking, i have the luxury of seeing both sides of the story, my mind has not been finitely made on the topic.


[quote]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....[/quote]

ok, not sure if you have any background on neurology, but a brain alone is not responsible for eyesight, you have specific parts that are used for different things, in the case of the trex, he has a large smelling sectino and very small vision section, and as for the dragon fly, hes an insect wich is comparing apples to oranges

[quote]YES, I FORGOT T-REXES DO NOT HAVE BRAINS...[/quote]

they may have brains, but not an adequete visual cortex.


[quote]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.[/quote]

all of the other animals are more proportionate with body mass, size, weight, even eye sight and smell, if anything they are on the same level, you need an edge to be a succesful predator

[quote] GO AND FIND ENLIGHTENMENT FRIEND, IT HAS BEEN MY PLEASURE TO HELP YOU STRAIGHTEN OUT

GOOD LUCK! [/quote]

you havent showed me anything yet! honestly i can see the anger in your posts, you should relax, its just a debate, but seriously if you got something proving to you that trex is a predator, show me

Seeking, it is not even a debate. You simply cannot accept common sense. You are so dead set in your beliefs, you are not open-minded to anything, exactly like a fundamentalist Christain who insists the world was created in 6 24 hour days and that all the worlds lifeforms coinhabited the earth together. You cannot reason with them, nor can anyone reason with you. BTW, do you pray to your one true God, Horner every night, or just attend the Church of Horner on Sundays? Sorry to burst your bubble, but the "T-Rex as scavenger theory" was nothing more that yet another "Horner Publicity stunt" with not an ounce of scientific evidence.

i dont like what just said! do not bring that topic into this debate.

yes please keep christianity out of it...they have a reason....just like you and dragons...BUT I AGREE ON WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT HORNER