T-rex jaws were extremely powerful not because he was a meat eater but because he had to chomp wood so he could make camp fires and have barbeques with triceratops and ankylosaurus
Good video. And just for the record on Jurassic Park: The T-rex was being fed goats (small mammals, like humans) and probably never saw the other dinosaurs before it got out of its enclosure.
:) great work ,.. T rex was a pretty fearsome dinosaur, and it hunted on smaller dinosaurs.But it also scavenged as most bird do today(t-rex is just an oversized bird with big daggers as teeth)and It probably was acting up as one,. when it comes to the Jurassic park scene, I bet it would act as it did,why cause it could,scientists have proven that a T-rex easy could have ripped a car to pieces if it wanted(there is a vid on yt about that)But what is interestind did it have feathers???
I have an actual broken-off tooth (about 2 inches) from of a small carnivorous dinosaur and I noticed that it has 2 fine serrated striations--one on the inside curve and the other on the outside. This looks like it would be advantageous to a meat-eater as opposed to a broccoli-eater.
It would be interesting to compare a plant-eating dino's dentition with Mr. T Rex's.
Creationists have to explain why mammals have predators and plant-eaters but dinosaurs are just plant-eaters.
Hey Biogirl, I like your utube crits of this creationist nonsense. If they are trying to show that Noah's ark (WITH DINOS???), etc. actually existed by presenting 'scientific evidence' or 'arguments', we couldn't have enough people critiquing this idiocy. Besides, I always learn something new watching any of these crits of the YECs' (YUKs) goofiness... and there seems to be no shortage of it on youtube and elsewhere. Go get em!
Oh er..I mean wow great vid you really dismantled those fallacies keep up the great work.
No but I think my point was valid, I mean it is not like are able to address the misinformation towards its target demographic.
I did not mean to imply that it should not be challenge but I fear the damage can not be undone for the young minds that are subjected to this blind denial of fact.
I say this because likely the parents would heavily censor the amount of info these kids have access to.
So you're suggesting we sit back and do nothing, or what?
Nice argument.
Biogirl is doing her part to discredit the large mass of misinformation about evolution, and you tell her it's a waste of time? What are you, a creationist in disguise, trying to dissuade us from doing our part?
Please read my follow up comments, it was a mistake what I said.
Biogirls effort is noble and I honestly hope it provides at least one misinformed child with factual information. I do not want to suggest that her challenging the claims is not justified but that I fear it will never reach those that were subjected to the fallacies on the site these vids are a responseding to about the eating habits of
t-rex.
For the record I reget my orginial post as it reflects poorly on me.
But if a single misinformed mind learns from this effort then truly it can not be said to be a waste.
So I will hope that many if not just one shelter mind happens upon your vids and vindicates both your assessment of me as an ass and the time and work that provides an excellent top quality factual information you provide with regards to the eating habits of the king of the terrible lizards.
im going to tell you why this thoery of you're is complete bull s^%& 1.how can it be a vegetarian if a fozzilied land track was found a t.rex chasing a herd of hadrosaurs? 2.if it was a scavenger scientsit found bones in fozzilied t.rex poop 3. it has serrated teeth herbivores dont have serrated teeth 4. the only dinosaur the dragon has to do with the bible are the dragons 5. there are bite marks of t.rex on the triceratops frill 4. on the skeleton there were damaged body parts 6. get a life
'And no, there haven't been any T-Rex fossils with molars, but that doesn't discredit anything.'I need proof,where are the transitional fossils. Sorry,i couldn't resist that.:)
Try harder. Why is it that every single claim you guys make, I have already heard it before like 12,000 times? Get some new material. You guys are like the Carlos Mensia's and Dane Cook's of scientific illiteracy.
I guess what your referring to is a creature with, for example, some fish traits as well as amphibian ones, constituting transitional between fish > amphibian. But aren't we all transitional forms between parents and offspring? :/
Well transitional forms are actually creatures with physical characteristics between species, families, or other major groupings.
I guess that you could argue, say, I'm a transition between my parents any my children (if I had children) but that's not what a transitional form is typically thought of as.
It really isn't hard to understand how a herbivorous T-Rex population could adapt to a meat-eating environment (without invoking the magic of evolution).
We've already discussed it about a week ago, but I guess most of the commenters didn't read mine. And if they did, they just gave it a "thumbs-down" and moved on.
Evolutionists want to converse with evolutionist, because then they know their ideas won't be called out on scientific validity. It's really sad.
Evolution is wrong, no matter how you look at it, I don't need the bible to tell me that evolution is wrong.
Evidence against evolution you ask?
Check my page. Click on my name.
It's not only evolution, it's abiogenesis, big bang, long ages, radio-isotope dating, and anything else incorrect. I could disprove gravity too, but people aren't interested in that.
Ok, if you're going to keep insulting the bible, I guess I'll ignore it, and get right into the scientific evidence against evolution.
Thera are mutations in the genome, but not a single one of the them has the ability to create a new biochemical pathway. For example, a biochemical pathway is photosynthesis. The light-dependent reaction is dependent on the products of the light-independent reaction, and vice versa.
There are no mutations known to man that actually create a biochemical pathway, other than nylonase.
Nylonase, however, is a product of a frame-shift mutation, which allows for the expression of pre-existing codons in the genome by a shift in the open reading frame.
Evolution absolutely requires that mutations have the ability to create a biochemical pathway, unless the first cell had every one encoded in it's genome, which is IMPOSSIBLE.
Abiogenesis violates the law of biogenesis, but even if you claim that "god" put the first cell there, the mechanisms of evolution fail at every turn.
The Miller-Urey experiment validates this.
The conductors of this experiment removed the biochemicals from the water, validating that intelligent life can create biomolecules.
It is impossible to know the atmospheric conditions at the time of abiogenesis.
Biogirl, I hope you don't mind that I put this on your video.
The problem that I have with BigGameHunter1 is that he deletes the comments that I put on his username page.
I figured I would take the time to actually throw some science at him, and (just as I expected) responds with nothing more than personal attacks.
I plan on getting somewhere with every one of my arguments, but it's up to the opposition to continue the argument. Unless BGH1 says anything, I won't spam your page, don't worry.
'even though most of it has been proven incorrect by secular scientists themselves.' Thats a bold statement to make but then again you are not offering any references for that claim.Abiogenesis is not a part of the theory of evolution and never has been,so arguing from that stand point makes no sense.
'I could disprove gravity too, but people aren't interested in that.' I would be very interested if you could but i don't see that happening. I have viewed your page but it shows nothing new.Favoritism to creationist videos does not amount to evidence against evolution.If you could show me how life managed to survive many asteroid impacts in the past or why we have languages pre dating the tower of babel,then it might be taken more seriously.
I am getting really tired of the frequency of Creationist fuck ups. MylesRodgers, Evolution on the macroscopic level can be directly observed. I strongly advise you do type "speciation" into wikipedia and see just many types of speciation there is. Get your head out of your King james and start looking in Peer reviewed scientific journals, you will see that your statement is contradicted.
acanlord, mylesrodgers is right, there has never been any observation, and evolution is not fact, that is why it is called a THEORY!
really though, you think that we became human.. from rocks? that i was a fish at one point in my life? give me a break. do you realize how ridiculous that sounds. its a fairy tail, you people are just too afraid to think that there is something out there that is bigger than you. well, there is, and hopefully you find that out before its too late.
LoL at Juliannepaulx. You Don`t even know what a theory is. You fell over your post in the first sentence. The rest of it is a retarded strawman suitable only for forth graders.
it is the evolution THEORY. the big bang THEORY. the string THEORY. there is no FACT behind theory.
please, tell me, were you around when the earth was created? do you know, for fact, that this is the way it was? no. you dont. so, you're falling over every post you make saying that everyone else is wrong.
no one knows how the earth was created, and i would just like to believe the one that seems most logical.
You do not know what theori means. I am afraid it is you who is fumbling here. I suggest you Try to Study the scientific method more carefully. I shall i spell it out for you? A Theory is not a Guess, A Scientific Theory is a Explanation of a body of Fact and Phenomena When Utilizing methodological naturalism. Theory is the Highest State of Scientific Nomenclature. Clearly you have Failed to Study this as you clearly had Absolutely no Clue.
"Your Grammar could use some Touch ups" This Comment is little more then a Appeal to Ridicule and Deviates from the topic extensively. I did not Tell you that you require a science course to criticize you, i did so because you display a Abysmal level of Scientific illiteracy with your laymen use of the word Theory in place of Science. My Grammar is irrelevant, Your Lack of Understanding the scientific Method However is not. What you have done constitutes a logical fallacy.
first of all, its julianne. but, you have no right to call me by my name, so dont.
second of all, Must you Randomly choose to Capatilize Words for No Apparent reason? annoying.
thirdly, "than" and it should be "an" rather than "a" infront of "appeal" because, it starts with a vowel. come on buddy.. you learned this in grade school?
so if you can't figure out how to spell, how is anything you say at all credible?
1.a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
No, Julianne it would not be a law. It sounds to me like you have been listening to Kent hovind seminars or the works of his son. "not ridicule, just something which seems evident" At NO point during the scientific process does a theory ever become a law. That is not part of the scientific process. Using your use of term, One might say Gravitational Theory or Atomic Theory are not proven and therefor they are not confirmed observations. do you see your mistake here?
And perhaps you should be focusing on the Meaning of my words instead of employing
ridicule.
In drawing attention to a persons flaws you are debating with instead of addressing the main point you are employing the use of a Ad hominem attack. Once again, My grammar is irrelevant, We are talking about you and your Bad use of the word Theory. Theorys never become laws, That is not part of the scientific method at all. There is no "law of heliosynthesis" Or "law of Fusion".
Another thing i should point out to you, Just to let you be aware is that you are using the wrong word at the bottom of your post. Proof is not a general science term, it is a mathematical term. The word you are looking for is Confirmed. And a Theory Must be Confirmed or else it is not considered a theory, It is a hypothesis. Confirmation is a prerequisite of a theory. And a Confirmed Theory is a explanatory body which directly contains fact and explains observational reality.
actually you are dumb. because you dont know that in the field of SCIENCE, "theory" is the HIGHEST position in the rank, that is to say, the strongest belief. The beliefs that have not been proved are called "hypothesis", not theories. Second, Darwin had to say that his theory would fall apart without god because all people were religious and they threatened him, didnt you know most of the great thinkers were killed because they said their thoughts were against god???? READ!!!
if you figure out the year of the flood, then start multiplying the average birthrate and subtracting the death rate by the 8 people that were there, it give us about 6 billion people. geologists can SAY all they want, but until they can PROVE it, well, they better start looking for a new career.
Julian, it has already been confirmed. Do you know anything at all that you did not read from a retarded Creationist website? It does not appear so. Btw you should be worshiping Enki if you believe in a deluge myth, Not the desert god.
How short a time span are we talking about? If the t-rex was created in the six days,it had little time from the exit of the ark to its extinction to completely change its teeth and digestive system.Does that seem likely?
If you check out the genealogies given in the bible, you'll see that it was over 1000 years from the creation of Adam to the birth of Noah. Noah was about 500 years old when the flood occurred.
That's 1500 years to adapt to a meat-eating environment. After the flood receded, the earth began to expand from the single-continent stage.
There is some pretty solid evidence to back up the idea that the earth was once one solid continent.
Actually there's quite a catalog of evidence regarding dark matter and black holes. Not being a cosmologist, I don't possess the requisite skill set to debate dark matter. But from the articles I've read, the theory is a far cry from the blind faith it takes to accept that the earth was created and populated in a couple of "days".
I'm sorry but why are you even mentioning animal size in the past?Does it have any connection with the video? There is on prove the watchers existed either.The story is an embarrassment.
Specialization can be seen in a short time frame,true,but you are proposing a complete change from herbivore to carnivore,and that has not been observed.
I might be interested if a whole social group of animals became herbivores,but one individual would not support your claim.Did this tiger live in captivity or the wild? My bet is the former.
No, really, this video is really informative and all, and even though I haven't seen any of your other videos, I'll take a chance and subscribe to you anyway, regardless of the cookies. I'm looking forward to watching the rest of your videos. cheers!
I think you misunderstood me, or perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. I did say that the "mashing teeth" - of which I'm perfectly aware are called molars - are used to eat plants. I said the T. rex doesn't have them, therefore it's hard to say he would have successfully ate plants. I was merely pointing out the bogus comparison, those discussion points aren't mine. I'm debunking an article.
"...of which I'm perfectly aware are called molars - are used to eat plants. I said the T. rex doesn't have them...."
If I recall correctly, such teeth had to wait for mammals to evolve before they showed up in the fossil record. When it came time for the gods to pass out teeth that mesh and jaws that grind, T-rex was too busy chasing pineapples to stand in the mammal line. Judging my the ragged scars on my hands, kittens have teeth just like T-Rex did.
Furthermore, since it was brought up, I don't appreciate being discredited because of my age. I'm 18. I don't like to be arrogant, but the occasion now calls for it. I had a year of college completed by 17 and graduated 25th out of a class of 500. I'm a bio major at ISU. I don't know everything and I make mistakes, but please don't try to say I'm lesser than you because of my age. That really upsets me. Thanks.
Okay. That's fine. Sorry I jumped to conclusions as well, but I've put up with a lot of age discrimination by people in the 20's, 30's, and 40's and I'm a little defensive about it.
And that's fair, it is your birth given right to disagree with me. I welcome disagreement, disagreement is what makes the world go round. If we all believed and agreed on the same thing there wouldn't be much motivation to get anything done. All that is important is that you're always able to support what yu believe
Hahahahaha. That's hilarious. Well, then it makes me wonder, well what use is a digestive track, teeth and all other alimentary digestive organs then? LOGIC.
Silly God. He had this all figured out... I feel so used.
have you heard of the penisaurus? it has a strong, leather, helmet shaped head. Mostly prays on clams. Tearing them inside out. time spent feeding on pray usually differed from each penisaurus. Some would finish in 30sec.s some would just hit the clam all day out of sheer pleasure. After each feast they would excrete a solid white substance from the top of the head. The penisaurus was a loner. If it was seen hanging around another penisaurus it was killed. True story look it up...
Cool. My favorite dinosaur is actually the Vagisaurus. It spends it's life hiding in a bush and when it gets excited, it secretes a light, clear liquid. It's actually kind of social, sometimes scientists have seen it on excavation sites with the Clitasaurus. Cool shit, yeah?
cool shit is right! Though I doubt scientist have ever seen a Vagisaurus. If they have they probably made it up. I heard they were scared of it's mystique powers. <--haha.... But yeah I'm looking forward to the mating rituals of the vagisaurus. It's the next big issue in my favorite magazine playboysaurus weekly. they are also going to cover the Shavedvagisaurus. they say it is a relative of the vagisaurus that actually lived outside the bush. Fascinating creatures!
Hmm thanks. Closely related genera, though, no? I think T. bataar is found in Asia?
Anyways, I'm not good at photo recognition, but thanks for pointing that out. I appreciate it. Believe it or not, I'm not a cup of overflowing genius all the time ;).
I just know the picture from a book I read as a child and remembered the name. If you google tarbosaurus you will get the picture - of course it is impossible to tell a T.rex from a T.b. on a pic. Thanks for your vids, btw!
Oh don't worry, I'd never make it that simple. Death is the easy way out. Since we're on the topic of castration, I think I have some nice, rusty hacksaws in my garage.
Haha. It reminds me of those chain letters... send to 500 people and your crushes name will appear on the screen and you'll be a millionare and get a pool overnight.
The mind of the Bible-believer is truly unfathomable to those people who have never suffered from cult indoctrination; just how can Creationists believe carnivores were *CREATED* to eat carrots but given teeth, claws, and digestive systems to process meat JUST IN CASE the need arose?! Samuel Clemens pointed out that absurdity over 100 years ago: the gods must have planned "the fall," and T-Rex is the proof.
Hehehe. So true. That whole idea is incredibly unfathomable to me. I actually grew up in a Christian church until I was 15 or 16. Crazy shit, there's a lot more to think about than what is on the "feel good" surface of religion.
I absolutely love the creation/evolution topic. I've been consumed by it since I was discussing pragmatists in my philosophy class 3 semesters ago.
The teeth of the T-Rex were most likely not created as we see most of the fossils today. After the fall, it became fairly easy for the T-Rex to adapt to a meat eating environment. The genetic information for plant-eating was lost because of this, and perfectly designed carnivores were the result.
Most of the other bipedal carnivorous dinosaurs descended from an initial T-Rex looking dinosaur. These others include almost every dinosaur in the family known as Abelisauridae.
That actually gets into my current ideas when discussing the "biblically created kinds". I believe it falls closest to the taxonomic rank of family. This is where the animals seem to differ (phenotype and genotype) from other animals.
Could you imagine if the originally created "kind" had those characteristics?
The heterozygosity of such an animal would be huge!
Today, only 6.7% of our genetic code is heterozygous, but that still would result in about 10^2017 different possible gametes.
Anywho- a few of the articles that I have on the soft-tissue topic I found by "google-ing" it. I do have others though, do you want me to send them via youtube email?
Sooo.... the T. Rex... evolved, eh? It sounds basically like an oversimplication of natural selection to me, but I would be interested as always in any information supporting that claim though - thanks!
Not evolved, adapted. Adapted to environmental niches- and because of the availability of these niches, there was rapid speciation. It wasn't new information introduced into these dinosaur's genome, it was a reshuffling of pre-existing genetic information.
For the most part, the result of this reshuffling is speciation.
I am having a difficult time seeing exactly what you are saying, and I really dislike youtube comments, so if you want to e-mail me, please do.
Further more, adaptation is evolution. Adaptation is changes made to an organism to better suit it's environment through natural selection. Microevolution. Small changes make big changes over time. Unless you're wanting to talk acclimation, which is entirely different. It's like plants not freezing to death by adjusting to a slow drop in temps.
Populations change, and that would be stupid to claim that they do not.
However, the real question is (or at least, should be):
Can the processes that we observe today result in the diversity of life that we see on the earth?
These process include:
mutations, natural selection, sexual selection, gene flow, genetic drift, adaptation, acclimation, and I'm sure that I missed a couple, those are off the top of my head.
In almost every case, the adaptations that populations undergo are nothing more than a reshuffling of pre-existing genes, and are acted upon by natural selection.
Speciation.
The emergence of a new species does not validate molecules-to-man evolution though.
After (hypothetical) abiogenesis, it is imperative that there is a constant flow on new information into the genome of this first proto-cell.
These information increasing mutations are rare, but they do occur.
The problem with these mutations is that none are known to create a biochemical pathway, such as photosynthesis (which is believed to be one of the first to evolve).
There is one- nylonase.
But it is very possible that a mutation in the stop codon created an alternative reading frame, making pre-existing genes, previously in the untranslated region, be expressed, and helped to digest nylon.
"The teeth of the T-Rex were most likely not created as we see most of the fossils today."
That is correct: they were not. They evolved from amphibian teeth. The first known bones to evolve were fish teeth long before fish had any other bones.
change in genetic information doesn't validate evolution, and if you claim that it does, that shows a complete lack of understanding.
I'm not going to argue semantics with you. By creation, I mean any part of creation.
Adaptation is not evolution. Adaptation is a population losing detrimental genetic information. For the most part, this is a result of reproductive isolation, which leads to speciation.
T-Rex teeth from amphibian teeth. You saw it I'm guessing? If not, you're speculating.
A change, any change is the beginning of the evolutionary process. The earth is not young. No magician pull every species from a magic hat. There was no ark capable of containing a pair of every type of fauna on earth. Understand that you are in love with a fairy tail and live with it. Thanks.
If my skin color compared to my father's is considered evolution, then I agree- evolution does occur.
However, skin color changes cannot account for all of the life that we see today, and you know it.
Yes, evolution isn't only skin color changes, but it's silly to classify every change as evolution.
In order to go from a single cell to every living thing on earth- requires a constant increase of information in the genome, which can create and maintain everything.
I think you should definitely make a video explaining how soft tissue could possibly be preserved if the T-Rex died out 65 million years ago.
Considering how much tissue we find on an egyptian mummy (preserved a few thousand years ago), it seems impossible for tissue to be preserved for 65 million years.
Yes, I have heard about this discovery, and I think it is extremely thought provoking and ground breaking. I would enjoy making a video discussing this topic only I don't know much about the whole issue, if you could provide me with some links about it that would be fantastic.
Creationists are jumping on this like it proves their side or something. The fact of the matter is that researchers are expecting to find similar tissues in the bones of current exhibits. The only problem is that they don't want to cut up their displays in order to find out. Considering the fact that the femur is the densest bone in a large biped like the T-Rex, it is reasoned that water could not penetrate the bone to replace the tissue with mineral.
Not all creationists say that T-Rex (and other dinosaurs for that matter) were always herbivores. That would be silly.
Everything in the garden of eden was initially created to consume only plants. Because of the T-Rex's size, it was much easier for him (or her) to eat animals, so, after the fall... he did!
This also includes all of the carnivorous animals that we see today, including lions and tigers. There are accounts of a few herbivorous tigers- completely refuse to eat meat.
It wasn't only the T-Rex's size that allowed him to eat meat, it was also the environment.
Animals adapt to their environment, that's obvious. The T-Rex population adapted to eating meat. Because they began to eat meat, their body produces less protein (and other nutrients that come from meat). This new population of T-Rex completely relied on meat for nutrients, so they were forced to eat meat, or die.
Yes, not all creationists think that, but I was specifically debunking this particular article.
My thoughts are, if everything was initally created to eat plants in Eden, wouldn't it make more sense for the designer to design the teeth of an animal like T. Rex to be more suitable to eating plants in the first place? Or did God already know that the "fall" was going to happen and he had a back up plan?
I enjoy this topic. Lots of interesting things to think about, aren't there?
Ah yes, thanks. A very good comparison. Hmm...I think I'll bring Mr. Crocodile now when I'm talking about Spinosaurus and how "defenseless" he was in P2 :P. They have extremey similar teeth structures. Thanks for watching :D!
this is not proven by the law thisi s made by some spino fan this guy is a spino faker fan
PHDcsfan 1 year ago
T-rex jaws were extremely powerful not because he was a meat eater but because he had to chomp wood so he could make camp fires and have barbeques with triceratops and ankylosaurus
EtaCarinaez 1 year ago
I purpose someone here take photoshop and Alter a Image of a T-Rex with a mouth full of molars!
AcanLord 2 years ago
i love this vid. thanks for pointing this shit out. it pisses me off when bible dumbasses say this stuff
Epic0Studios 2 years ago
Give the woman a break, it's obviously a joke and I found it funny.
DanDood11 2 years ago
You can't tell me those backward pointed and serrated teeth weren't for killing and eating stuggling pineapples! *LALALA*
HailCthulhu 2 years ago
First of all, Dr. Giraffenstein looks like he's flipping you off.
Second, dinosaurs didn't even GO on the freaking ark. They were dead.
UberFlippy 2 years ago
Why do people even believe this shit
MysteriousMapMarvels 2 years ago
Good video. And just for the record on Jurassic Park: The T-rex was being fed goats (small mammals, like humans) and probably never saw the other dinosaurs before it got out of its enclosure.
beyondbedandbathisme 2 years ago
Serrated teeth=Herbivore
T-Rex Teeth=Not Serrated
Not Serrated=Carnivore
IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND MY MESSAGE PREPARE TO DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
GhostRaptor0 2 years ago 3
Don't forget the lack of molars.
udaho456 2 years ago
EXACTLY MY POINT!!!!!!!!
GhostRaptor0 2 years ago
some carnivores have serrated teeth for stripping flesh
Kingcobrasaurus 2 years ago
LAWL. This is the most retarded thing i've ever seen since "Charlie the Unicorn"
DanDood11 2 years ago
PSSSH they couldn't even get a Human Creationist Scientist. Giraffenstein doesn't even have a PhD!
TristanPEJ 2 years ago
A mouth full of 6 inch steak knives and the most powerful set of jaws EVER seen on earth... herbivore?
lowcomedy 2 years ago
Critical thinking makes baby jesus cry.
lowcomedy 2 years ago 7
LOL. Just smiling and nodding is much more pleasant.
Biogirl52 2 years ago
:) great work ,.. T rex was a pretty fearsome dinosaur, and it hunted on smaller dinosaurs.But it also scavenged as most bird do today(t-rex is just an oversized bird with big daggers as teeth)and It probably was acting up as one,. when it comes to the Jurassic park scene, I bet it would act as it did,why cause it could,scientists have proven that a T-rex easy could have ripped a car to pieces if it wanted(there is a vid on yt about that)But what is interestind did it have feathers???
filathor 3 years ago
'To Shred Plants?'
Give me a Break, Creationists!
Bowmaj21 3 years ago
I have an actual broken-off tooth (about 2 inches) from of a small carnivorous dinosaur and I noticed that it has 2 fine serrated striations--one on the inside curve and the other on the outside. This looks like it would be advantageous to a meat-eater as opposed to a broccoli-eater.
It would be interesting to compare a plant-eating dino's dentition with Mr. T Rex's.
Creationists have to explain why mammals have predators and plant-eaters but dinosaurs are just plant-eaters.
crocaduck 3 years ago
Hey Biogirl, I like your utube crits of this creationist nonsense. If they are trying to show that Noah's ark (WITH DINOS???), etc. actually existed by presenting 'scientific evidence' or 'arguments', we couldn't have enough people critiquing this idiocy. Besides, I always learn something new watching any of these crits of the YECs' (YUKs) goofiness... and there seems to be no shortage of it on youtube and elsewhere. Go get em!
crocaduck 3 years ago
It is almost a waste of effort to discredit this level of sophistry.
Why bother biogirl?
mtheoryrules 3 years ago
Because it's fun.
And thanks a lot. I'm glad to feel encouraged, you ass.
Biogirl52 3 years ago
Oh er..I mean wow great vid you really dismantled those fallacies keep up the great work.
No but I think my point was valid, I mean it is not like are able to address the misinformation towards its target demographic.
I did not mean to imply that it should not be challenge but I fear the damage can not be undone for the young minds that are subjected to this blind denial of fact.
I say this because likely the parents would heavily censor the amount of info these kids have access to.
mtheoryrules 3 years ago
So you're suggesting we sit back and do nothing, or what?
Nice argument.
Biogirl is doing her part to discredit the large mass of misinformation about evolution, and you tell her it's a waste of time? What are you, a creationist in disguise, trying to dissuade us from doing our part?
Whatever you are...Stop. You are wrong.
HeadoftheHydra 3 years ago
Please read my follow up comments, it was a mistake what I said.
Biogirls effort is noble and I honestly hope it provides at least one misinformed child with factual information. I do not want to suggest that her challenging the claims is not justified but that I fear it will never reach those that were subjected to the fallacies on the site these vids are a responseding to about the eating habits of
t-rex.
For the record I reget my orginial post as it reflects poorly on me.
mtheoryrules 3 years ago
So I am sorry I did not make that point at all with my first blanket statement.
Once again not to indicate that your effort is not in anyway justified only that it will not likely reach the intended audience.
Which is actually very depressing and I am sorry I mentioned it.
If I had my druthers this vid would be made available to the audience that the web sight your refuting targets.
This is what I meant by being a vain effort.
Not that this vain effort amounts to poor quality.
mtheoryrules 3 years ago
But if a single misinformed mind learns from this effort then truly it can not be said to be a waste.
So I will hope that many if not just one shelter mind happens upon your vids and vindicates both your assessment of me as an ass and the time and work that provides an excellent top quality factual information you provide with regards to the eating habits of the king of the terrible lizards.
mtheoryrules 3 years ago
im going to tell you why this thoery of you're is complete bull s^%& 1.how can it be a vegetarian if a fozzilied land track was found a t.rex chasing a herd of hadrosaurs? 2.if it was a scavenger scientsit found bones in fozzilied t.rex poop 3. it has serrated teeth herbivores dont have serrated teeth 4. the only dinosaur the dragon has to do with the bible are the dragons 5. there are bite marks of t.rex on the triceratops frill 4. on the skeleton there were damaged body parts 6. get a life
PHDcsfan 1 year ago
I hear that the arm of T-Rex could lift nearly 400 lbs. This may or may not be true.
Angelflesh 3 years ago
I was going to say about the second claim that maybe it was a scavenger.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Biogirl's loonie bin
A compilation of other's work (not her's) of basic tripe.
AtheistRcults 3 years ago
Well done, Courtney!
rowsdowersavesus 3 years ago
Ok.
The biblical genealogies:
There's a link on my username page.
"ctrl+c"
"ctrl+v"
delete the space
"enter"
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
speciation?
Adaptations?
environmental niches?
Any biology text book. Ask biogirl, she'll vouch for me, right biogirl?
Speciation can occur quickly if there is an environmental niche to exploit.
Dark matter- my astronomy text book.
"An Essential Cosmic Perspective"
(masteringastronomy(dot)com)
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
And abiogenesis.
I'll send you the link to a couple pages via youtube mail.
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
Don't bother,it has no bearing on the subject in hand.
jesuslives57 3 years ago
It is yourself who are engaging in conversation with others so why are you pleading to the poster for backup?
jesuslives57 3 years ago
Have any fossil remains of the T-rex been found with molars? no.End of discussion.
jesuslives57 3 years ago
dagda825 was interested in the links concerning abiogenesis.
And no, there haven't been any T-Rex fossils with molars, but that doesn't discredit anything.
You mentioned "the subject at hand". What would that subject be?
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
'And no, there haven't been any T-Rex fossils with molars, but that doesn't discredit anything.'I need proof,where are the transitional fossils. Sorry,i couldn't resist that.:)
jesuslives57 3 years ago
According to evolutionists, every living organism is a transitional form.
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
BZZZZZT! Wrong again!
Try harder. Why is it that every single claim you guys make, I have already heard it before like 12,000 times? Get some new material. You guys are like the Carlos Mensia's and Dane Cook's of scientific illiteracy.
HeadoftheHydra 3 years ago
Don't BZZZZZT me unless you actually say something useful.
According to evolutionary theory, every organism (and it's population) are constantly undergoing evolution.
This would make every living organism a transitional form to the next higher up.
So, BZZZZT! You're wrong.
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
Yes, we're all constantly evolving, but that DOESN'T mean we're all transitional forms. Look up the definition of "transitional form", genius.
Back yo Hovind's site with ye!
HeadoftheHydra 3 years ago
I guess what your referring to is a creature with, for example, some fish traits as well as amphibian ones, constituting transitional between fish > amphibian. But aren't we all transitional forms between parents and offspring? :/
sighuponsigh 3 years ago
I will not argue semantics with you HeadoftheHydra.
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
Look at this video.
watch?v=Qfoje7jVJpU
In this very pro-evolution video, he states that every organism alive today is a transitional form.
Are you going to argue with him too? or are you assuming that I must be an idiot because of my viewpoint?
Assuming ignorance and stupidity of your opponent is quite possibly the worst rhetorical strategy.
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
Well transitional forms are actually creatures with physical characteristics between species, families, or other major groupings.
I guess that you could argue, say, I'm a transition between my parents any my children (if I had children) but that's not what a transitional form is typically thought of as.
Hooya2 3 years ago
My point was that according to evolutionary theory, our population is evolving, making every member a transition to the next evolutionary outcome.
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
Not higher up,more next along.Evolution does not necessarily mean better but more adapted to the current environment.
jesuslives57 3 years ago
You seriously need to look at the skulls again.If you can not tell the differences between them,then it is no wonder you believe what you do.
jesuslives57 3 years ago
Very interesting video!
porolita22 3 years ago
It really isn't hard to understand how a herbivorous T-Rex population could adapt to a meat-eating environment (without invoking the magic of evolution).
We've already discussed it about a week ago, but I guess most of the commenters didn't read mine. And if they did, they just gave it a "thumbs-down" and moved on.
Evolutionists want to converse with evolutionist, because then they know their ideas won't be called out on scientific validity. It's really sad.
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
"know their ideas won't be called out on scientific validity"
Science is science the stupid rubbish you get from your story book, is proven wrong.
My big invisable sky daddy did it then planted the fake evidence for evolution doesnt hold up.
TheBigGameHunter1 3 years ago
How about we actually discuss science, and leave your mockery of the bible out of it.
There is no scientific evidence for evolution, and what is scientific, doesn't validate evolution.
Evolution is a philosophical bias that secular scientists use to interpret the evidence.
Biology, geology, paleontology, chemistry, and archeology all contradict evolution (not to mention common sense).
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
"How about we actually discuss science, and leave your mockery of the bible out of it."
Thats where you get your non science from and pretend science is wrong because of it.
"There is no scientific evidence for evolution, and what is scientific, doesn't validate evolution."
What wrong and ignorant comment would we expect from a creationist.
So how many nobel prizes will you be winning this year for proving evolution wrong? I wont be holding my breath.
Ark proven wrong!
TheBigGameHunter1 3 years ago
Science isn't wrong all the time.
Evolution is wrong, no matter how you look at it, I don't need the bible to tell me that evolution is wrong.
Evidence against evolution you ask?
Check my page. Click on my name.
It's not only evolution, it's abiogenesis, big bang, long ages, radio-isotope dating, and anything else incorrect. I could disprove gravity too, but people aren't interested in that.
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
"Evolution is wrong"
No its not, just because your ignorant and like to believe your story book doesnt make the evidence dissapear.
So you will be winning many nobel prizes this year since you can prove all those theories wrong. LOL
TheBigGameHunter1 3 years ago
Ok, if you're going to keep insulting the bible, I guess I'll ignore it, and get right into the scientific evidence against evolution.
Thera are mutations in the genome, but not a single one of the them has the ability to create a new biochemical pathway. For example, a biochemical pathway is photosynthesis. The light-dependent reaction is dependent on the products of the light-independent reaction, and vice versa.
It's irreducibly complex.
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
"It's irreducibly complex."
Yes sure its real like the Noahs ark story LOL and the 6000 year old earth.
So how many nobels prizes have you applied for? Im sure you will several for proving Evolution wrong.
TheBigGameHunter1 3 years ago
There are no mutations known to man that actually create a biochemical pathway, other than nylonase.
Nylonase, however, is a product of a frame-shift mutation, which allows for the expression of pre-existing codons in the genome by a shift in the open reading frame.
Evolution absolutely requires that mutations have the ability to create a biochemical pathway, unless the first cell had every one encoded in it's genome, which is IMPOSSIBLE.
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
Abiogenesis violates the law of biogenesis, but even if you claim that "god" put the first cell there, the mechanisms of evolution fail at every turn.
The Miller-Urey experiment validates this.
The conductors of this experiment removed the biochemicals from the water, validating that intelligent life can create biomolecules.
It is impossible to know the atmospheric conditions at the time of abiogenesis.
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
"Yes sure its real like the Noahs ark story LOL and the 6000 year old earth.
So how many nobels prizes have you applied for? Im sure you will several for proving Evolution wrong"
Are you going to keep making sarcastic comments about the bible, or are you going to actually make scientific arguments?
You blindly accept what your textbooks tell you, even though most of it has been proven incorrect by secular scientists themselves.
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
Click on my name- and go to my profile.
On the left I have listed many (and of course not all) of the views that I hold.
These have been through over a year of youtube (and other forums), school discussions, personal research and face-to-face discussions with professors.
Also, many of the points that I make come right from my biology text book, which (in the evolution chapter) directly go against scientific discovery.
(ex. Haekel's comparative anatomy)
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
Gentlemen, if you two enjoy russling and tussling in an endless circles please don't do it on my video unless you plan on getting somewhere.
Take it to your username pages. Thanks.
Biogirl52 3 years ago
Biogirl, I hope you don't mind that I put this on your video.
The problem that I have with BigGameHunter1 is that he deletes the comments that I put on his username page.
I figured I would take the time to actually throw some science at him, and (just as I expected) responds with nothing more than personal attacks.
I plan on getting somewhere with every one of my arguments, but it's up to the opposition to continue the argument. Unless BGH1 says anything, I won't spam your page, don't worry.
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
'even though most of it has been proven incorrect by secular scientists themselves.' Thats a bold statement to make but then again you are not offering any references for that claim.Abiogenesis is not a part of the theory of evolution and never has been,so arguing from that stand point makes no sense.
jesuslives57 3 years ago
'I could disprove gravity too, but people aren't interested in that.' I would be very interested if you could but i don't see that happening. I have viewed your page but it shows nothing new.Favoritism to creationist videos does not amount to evidence against evolution.If you could show me how life managed to survive many asteroid impacts in the past or why we have languages pre dating the tower of babel,then it might be taken more seriously.
jesuslives57 3 years ago
The bible has ZERO proof! Look at it this way. Evolution has been proven!
Vampirosaurusrex 2 years ago
wrong.
macroevolution has NEVER been observed, there is NO fact about evolution.
science confirms the bible.
MylesRodgers 2 years ago
Then you obviously live in a different time, look at the facts.....ever heard of Tiktaalik?
Vampirosaurusrex 2 years ago
I am getting really tired of the frequency of Creationist fuck ups. MylesRodgers, Evolution on the macroscopic level can be directly observed. I strongly advise you do type "speciation" into wikipedia and see just many types of speciation there is. Get your head out of your King james and start looking in Peer reviewed scientific journals, you will see that your statement is contradicted.
AcanLord 2 years ago
acanlord, mylesrodgers is right, there has never been any observation, and evolution is not fact, that is why it is called a THEORY!
really though, you think that we became human.. from rocks? that i was a fish at one point in my life? give me a break. do you realize how ridiculous that sounds. its a fairy tail, you people are just too afraid to think that there is something out there that is bigger than you. well, there is, and hopefully you find that out before its too late.
juliannepaulx 2 years ago
No one said we came from rocks, we came from organic chemicals, the same ones you are made of today.
gregrutz 2 years ago
LoL at Juliannepaulx. You Don`t even know what a theory is. You fell over your post in the first sentence. The rest of it is a retarded strawman suitable only for forth graders.
AcanLord 2 years ago
no, love.
it is the evolution THEORY. the big bang THEORY. the string THEORY. there is no FACT behind theory.
please, tell me, were you around when the earth was created? do you know, for fact, that this is the way it was? no. you dont. so, you're falling over every post you make saying that everyone else is wrong.
no one knows how the earth was created, and i would just like to believe the one that seems most logical.
juliannepaulx 2 years ago
Looks to me like You require a Remedial Science Course. Because you made at least five different mistakes in your post.
AcanLord 2 years ago
and "btw", sweets, even charles darwin said that without a God, his THEORY (theres that word again, ironic, isn't it?) would fall apart.
oh, and if i should take a remedial science course, maybe you should look into some english courses, your grammar could use some touch ups.
and it hasn't been confirmed, otherwise there wouldn't be a need to call it a theory.
goodness, you people are dumb.
juliannepaulx 2 years ago
No Julian
as i have said.
You do not know what theori means. I am afraid it is you who is fumbling here. I suggest you Try to Study the scientific method more carefully. I shall i spell it out for you? A Theory is not a Guess, A Scientific Theory is a Explanation of a body of Fact and Phenomena When Utilizing methodological naturalism. Theory is the Highest State of Scientific Nomenclature. Clearly you have Failed to Study this as you clearly had Absolutely no Clue.
AcanLord 2 years ago
*Edit "or shall i"
AcanLord 2 years ago
"Your Grammar could use some Touch ups" This Comment is little more then a Appeal to Ridicule and Deviates from the topic extensively. I did not Tell you that you require a science course to criticize you, i did so because you display a Abysmal level of Scientific illiteracy with your laymen use of the word Theory in place of Science. My Grammar is irrelevant, Your Lack of Understanding the scientific Method However is not. What you have done constitutes a logical fallacy.
AcanLord 2 years ago
first of all, its julianne. but, you have no right to call me by my name, so dont.
second of all, Must you Randomly choose to Capatilize Words for No Apparent reason? annoying.
thirdly, "than" and it should be "an" rather than "a" infront of "appeal" because, it starts with a vowel. come on buddy.. you learned this in grade school?
so if you can't figure out how to spell, how is anything you say at all credible?
juliannepaulx 2 years ago
You are continuing to utilize ridicule. Typical creationist.
AcanLord 2 years ago
theory:
1.a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
4.guess or conjecture.
if it was proven, it would be a law.
juliannepaulx 2 years ago
No, Julianne it would not be a law. It sounds to me like you have been listening to Kent hovind seminars or the works of his son. "not ridicule, just something which seems evident" At NO point during the scientific process does a theory ever become a law. That is not part of the scientific process. Using your use of term, One might say Gravitational Theory or Atomic Theory are not proven and therefor they are not confirmed observations. do you see your mistake here?
AcanLord 2 years ago
And perhaps you should be focusing on the Meaning of my words instead of employing
ridicule.
In drawing attention to a persons flaws you are debating with instead of addressing the main point you are employing the use of a Ad hominem attack. Once again, My grammar is irrelevant, We are talking about you and your Bad use of the word Theory. Theorys never become laws, That is not part of the scientific method at all. There is no "law of heliosynthesis" Or "law of Fusion".
AcanLord 2 years ago
Another thing i should point out to you, Just to let you be aware is that you are using the wrong word at the bottom of your post. Proof is not a general science term, it is a mathematical term. The word you are looking for is Confirmed. And a Theory Must be Confirmed or else it is not considered a theory, It is a hypothesis. Confirmation is a prerequisite of a theory. And a Confirmed Theory is a explanatory body which directly contains fact and explains observational reality.
AcanLord 2 years ago
actually you are dumb. because you dont know that in the field of SCIENCE, "theory" is the HIGHEST position in the rank, that is to say, the strongest belief. The beliefs that have not been proved are called "hypothesis", not theories. Second, Darwin had to say that his theory would fall apart without god because all people were religious and they threatened him, didnt you know most of the great thinkers were killed because they said their thoughts were against god???? READ!!!
jjeessssiiccaaxx 2 years ago 3
Geologist say there NEVER was a global flood and the earth is 4,566 million years old, =or- 2 million years.
gregrutz 2 years ago
if you figure out the year of the flood, then start multiplying the average birthrate and subtracting the death rate by the 8 people that were there, it give us about 6 billion people. geologists can SAY all they want, but until they can PROVE it, well, they better start looking for a new career.
juliannepaulx 2 years ago
Geologist all ready proved the earth is old and there was no global flood.
Evolution happened, there is a theory to explain how it happened.
gregrutz 2 years ago
Julian, it has already been confirmed. Do you know anything at all that you did not read from a retarded Creationist website? It does not appear so. Btw you should be worshiping Enki if you believe in a deluge myth, Not the desert god.
AcanLord 2 years ago
That's interesting, how do these diverse fields contradict evolution?
dagda825 3 years ago
How short a time span are we talking about? If the t-rex was created in the six days,it had little time from the exit of the ark to its extinction to completely change its teeth and digestive system.Does that seem likely?
jesuslives57 3 years ago
No, that doesn't seem likely at all.
If you check out the genealogies given in the bible, you'll see that it was over 1000 years from the creation of Adam to the birth of Noah. Noah was about 500 years old when the flood occurred.
That's 1500 years to adapt to a meat-eating environment. After the flood receded, the earth began to expand from the single-continent stage.
There is some pretty solid evidence to back up the idea that the earth was once one solid continent.
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
I have a link to a video concerning this very subject, if you're interested.
Anyway, due to the original size of the earth, dinosaurs (as well as many other animals) could grow to very large sizes.
The bible also mentions this in Genesis 6:4- "There were giants (nephilim) in those days".
Snapple Fact # 123. "Beavers used to be the size of bears"
Abiogenesis, while having very little to do with evolution, does contradict naturalism.
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
Basic gravity isn't likely to be invalidates anytime soon, because it's pretty friggin' good.
Even planetary gravity (including planetary motion) is a very solid theory.
However, galactic gravity is where it seems to be problematic. 90% of every galaxy is made out of "dark matter".
Dark matter is a hypothetical substance that is completely unobservable.
It's accepted on faith.
There's as much evidence for dark matter as there is for God holding the milkyway together.
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
Actually there's quite a catalog of evidence regarding dark matter and black holes. Not being a cosmologist, I don't possess the requisite skill set to debate dark matter. But from the articles I've read, the theory is a far cry from the blind faith it takes to accept that the earth was created and populated in a couple of "days".
dagda825 3 years ago
I'm sorry but why are you even mentioning animal size in the past?Does it have any connection with the video? There is on prove the watchers existed either.The story is an embarrassment.
jesuslives57 3 years ago
Not at all. When you have something of value to say, we'll respond. Until then, piss off.
dagda825 3 years ago
What exactly do you disagree with?
The biblical genealogies?
It's not incorrect.
1500 years to adapt?
Because speciation can happen quickly, depending on the available environmental niches.
Remember, genetic drift can increase variation quickly if the initial population is small.
Don't disagree with snapple facts. They're all correct. (lol)
Dark matter?
I'm not wrong about that either.
Abiogenesis does contradict naturalism.
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
State your references. I would love to learn.
dagda825 3 years ago
Specialization can be seen in a short time frame,true,but you are proposing a complete change from herbivore to carnivore,and that has not been observed.
jesuslives57 3 years ago
That's correct, there aren't any animals that were herbivores and then became carnivores (that I know of).
However, if every animal was an omnivore, each could survive on an herbivore diet.
Then, some animals began to eat meat.
Over time, the animals adapted to a meat eating environment.
There are actually still examples of carnivores unwilling to eat meat. It was a tiger, and if you'd like, I can send you the link.
I have to find it again, so tell me if you're interested.
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
I might be interested if a whole social group of animals became herbivores,but one individual would not support your claim.Did this tiger live in captivity or the wild? My bet is the former.
jesuslives57 3 years ago
I subscribed.. where is Colbert with my cookies :p
Good video. :)
Brianswers 3 years ago
Yay, awesome!
No, really, this video is really informative and all, and even though I haven't seen any of your other videos, I'll take a chance and subscribe to you anyway, regardless of the cookies. I'm looking forward to watching the rest of your videos. cheers!
DeusMortemEst 3 years ago
How old are you?
I am an Aethiest, but I mean, the evidence is right there.
If you look at the teeth, it's made to cut through hides.
If you look at our teeth, since the human race is a herbavore, we have both forms of teeth, some are sharp, mostly at the front.
People on the internet lie, you're one of them.
The "molars" or you call them "mashing teeth", those aren't used to chomp meat, however they're used to mash plants. Look at other dinosaurs, please.
~ Saustin
petrock6 3 years ago
I think you misunderstood me, or perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. I did say that the "mashing teeth" - of which I'm perfectly aware are called molars - are used to eat plants. I said the T. rex doesn't have them, therefore it's hard to say he would have successfully ate plants. I was merely pointing out the bogus comparison, those discussion points aren't mine. I'm debunking an article.
Biogirl52 3 years ago
"...of which I'm perfectly aware are called molars - are used to eat plants. I said the T. rex doesn't have them...."
If I recall correctly, such teeth had to wait for mammals to evolve before they showed up in the fossil record. When it came time for the gods to pass out teeth that mesh and jaws that grind, T-rex was too busy chasing pineapples to stand in the mammal line. Judging my the ragged scars on my hands, kittens have teeth just like T-Rex did.
Desertphile 3 years ago
Ahhahahahahaha. And on that note, pineapple is such a thorny fruit of spite from God for us humans.
Ah. But can your kittens eat a pineapple? :P
Biogirl52 3 years ago
Furthermore, since it was brought up, I don't appreciate being discredited because of my age. I'm 18. I don't like to be arrogant, but the occasion now calls for it. I had a year of college completed by 17 and graduated 25th out of a class of 500. I'm a bio major at ISU. I don't know everything and I make mistakes, but please don't try to say I'm lesser than you because of my age. That really upsets me. Thanks.
Biogirl52 3 years ago
I didn't discriminate your age.
It was a honest question.
If you're 18, that's fine by me.
I'm just a 13 year old.
I just don't belive any of that stuff in the video is correct.
petrock6 3 years ago
Okay. That's fine. Sorry I jumped to conclusions as well, but I've put up with a lot of age discrimination by people in the 20's, 30's, and 40's and I'm a little defensive about it.
And that's fair, it is your birth given right to disagree with me. I welcome disagreement, disagreement is what makes the world go round. If we all believed and agreed on the same thing there wouldn't be much motivation to get anything done. All that is important is that you're always able to support what yu believe
Biogirl52 3 years ago
I think petrock was actually agreeing with you, he just didnt realise it. lol :p
Brianswers 3 years ago
"How old are you?"
How is that any concern of yours?
"People on the internet lie, you're one of them."
I viewed all of Biogirl52's videos and I failed to find any lies: please GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE of one of her "lies." Thank you in advance.
Desertphile 3 years ago
Desertphile, reread petrocks post, I think he thought she was defending the video, not debunking it. he actually agrees with her, and us.
Brianswers 3 years ago
No, dinosaurs and humans did not eat. Even vegetarians are evil because they cause the death of plants.
Genesis says there was no death. So obviously, no one ate plants.
Weaseldog2001 3 years ago
Hahahahaha. That's hilarious. Well, then it makes me wonder, well what use is a digestive track, teeth and all other alimentary digestive organs then? LOGIC.
Silly God. He had this all figured out... I feel so used.
Biogirl52 3 years ago
Obviously, Satan put all of those in while God was sleeping. Duh! :)
Weaseldog2001 3 years ago
That sneaky little Satan. Curses!
Biogirl52 3 years ago
have you heard of the penisaurus? it has a strong, leather, helmet shaped head. Mostly prays on clams. Tearing them inside out. time spent feeding on pray usually differed from each penisaurus. Some would finish in 30sec.s some would just hit the clam all day out of sheer pleasure. After each feast they would excrete a solid white substance from the top of the head. The penisaurus was a loner. If it was seen hanging around another penisaurus it was killed. True story look it up...
Thomas2488 3 years ago
Cool. My favorite dinosaur is actually the Vagisaurus. It spends it's life hiding in a bush and when it gets excited, it secretes a light, clear liquid. It's actually kind of social, sometimes scientists have seen it on excavation sites with the Clitasaurus. Cool shit, yeah?
Biogirl52 3 years ago
cool shit is right! Though I doubt scientist have ever seen a Vagisaurus. If they have they probably made it up. I heard they were scared of it's mystique powers. <--haha.... But yeah I'm looking forward to the mating rituals of the vagisaurus. It's the next big issue in my favorite magazine playboysaurus weekly. they are also going to cover the Shavedvagisaurus. they say it is a relative of the vagisaurus that actually lived outside the bush. Fascinating creatures!
Thomas2488 3 years ago
I think this one pic at 5:00 was a tarbosaurus batar...
Johannes9126 3 years ago
Hmm thanks. Closely related genera, though, no? I think T. bataar is found in Asia?
Anyways, I'm not good at photo recognition, but thanks for pointing that out. I appreciate it. Believe it or not, I'm not a cup of overflowing genius all the time ;).
Biogirl52 3 years ago
I just know the picture from a book I read as a child and remembered the name. If you google tarbosaurus you will get the picture - of course it is impossible to tell a T.rex from a T.b. on a pic. Thanks for your vids, btw!
Johannes9126 3 years ago
lol! that's great. Ahhhhh.
Danmill23 3 years ago
Ha-ha, I subscribed before you told me to, and I'm not sure I liked the reference to castration made early on in the video.
tribidemp 3 years ago
:P. I guess I'm female so I can't fully understand, but it expresses the anger I felt about that argument!
Biogirl52 3 years ago
"I guess I'm female so I can't fully understand"
Oh, you're doing great. For a woman...
Please don't kill me.
deBeuk 3 years ago
Oh don't worry, I'd never make it that simple. Death is the easy way out. Since we're on the topic of castration, I think I have some nice, rusty hacksaws in my garage.
Biogirl52 3 years ago
no genie appeared, i got no wishes OR cookies. i want the 1/19 of a calorie it took to click that thing BACK!
prozacjunkie112 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Haha. It reminds me of those chain letters... send to 500 people and your crushes name will appear on the screen and you'll be a millionare and get a pool overnight.
I'm a godless heathen, I need no more apology! ;)
Biogirl52 3 years ago
I love this video. You got yourself a subscriber.
CapeandCowl 3 years ago
i subscribed about 1 week ago:P wheres my cookies??xD
Erech01 3 years ago
P.S. a guy is trying to say that t-rex's ate fruit & veg on yahoo-answersxD i decided to debunk him:P fel free to join inxD
Erech01 3 years ago
Hehehe. Oh the things the internet has done for creationism.
Sorry :( I think Stephen Colbert got lost in the mail.
Biogirl52 3 years ago
like giving a teenager an arsenal of nukes ponted at every major capital in the world:P
Erech01 3 years ago
P.S. I just bloody *LOVE* the Creationist Butterfly Voice!
Desertphile 3 years ago 3
The mind of the Bible-believer is truly unfathomable to those people who have never suffered from cult indoctrination; just how can Creationists believe carnivores were *CREATED* to eat carrots but given teeth, claws, and digestive systems to process meat JUST IN CASE the need arose?! Samuel Clemens pointed out that absurdity over 100 years ago: the gods must have planned "the fall," and T-Rex is the proof.
Desertphile 3 years ago 3
Hehehe. So true. That whole idea is incredibly unfathomable to me. I actually grew up in a Christian church until I was 15 or 16. Crazy shit, there's a lot more to think about than what is on the "feel good" surface of religion.
Biogirl52 3 years ago
lol! great video
I saw that site before its great
mrmikeperson 3 years ago
I absolutely love the creation/evolution topic. I've been consumed by it since I was discussing pragmatists in my philosophy class 3 semesters ago.
The teeth of the T-Rex were most likely not created as we see most of the fossils today. After the fall, it became fairly easy for the T-Rex to adapt to a meat eating environment. The genetic information for plant-eating was lost because of this, and perfectly designed carnivores were the result.
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
Most of the other bipedal carnivorous dinosaurs descended from an initial T-Rex looking dinosaur. These others include almost every dinosaur in the family known as Abelisauridae.
That actually gets into my current ideas when discussing the "biblically created kinds". I believe it falls closest to the taxonomic rank of family. This is where the animals seem to differ (phenotype and genotype) from other animals.
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
Could you imagine if the originally created "kind" had those characteristics?
The heterozygosity of such an animal would be huge!
Today, only 6.7% of our genetic code is heterozygous, but that still would result in about 10^2017 different possible gametes.
Anywho- a few of the articles that I have on the soft-tissue topic I found by "google-ing" it. I do have others though, do you want me to send them via youtube email?
(we can't post links here, sadly).
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
Yes, please. You may e-mail me whatever you like.
Sooo.... the T. Rex... evolved, eh? It sounds basically like an oversimplication of natural selection to me, but I would be interested as always in any information supporting that claim though - thanks!
Biogirl52 3 years ago
Not evolved, adapted. Adapted to environmental niches- and because of the availability of these niches, there was rapid speciation. It wasn't new information introduced into these dinosaur's genome, it was a reshuffling of pre-existing genetic information.
For the most part, the result of this reshuffling is speciation.
I'll get you the links via youtube email!
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
I am having a difficult time seeing exactly what you are saying, and I really dislike youtube comments, so if you want to e-mail me, please do.
Further more, adaptation is evolution. Adaptation is changes made to an organism to better suit it's environment through natural selection. Microevolution. Small changes make big changes over time. Unless you're wanting to talk acclimation, which is entirely different. It's like plants not freezing to death by adjusting to a slow drop in temps.
Biogirl52 3 years ago
This is exactly the point where I get to with the creation/evolution debate... almost every time.
I feel that it is necessary to properly define evolution. If evolution is a change in allele frequency over time, then yes, evolution occurs.
However, the argument can be made that the dodo bird evolved into non-existence, and that's not evolution.
The problem with the current definition of evolution is that it is so plastic that it can encompass skin color changes from my father's generation.
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
Populations change, and that would be stupid to claim that they do not.
However, the real question is (or at least, should be):
Can the processes that we observe today result in the diversity of life that we see on the earth?
These process include:
mutations, natural selection, sexual selection, gene flow, genetic drift, adaptation, acclimation, and I'm sure that I missed a couple, those are off the top of my head.
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
In almost every case, the adaptations that populations undergo are nothing more than a reshuffling of pre-existing genes, and are acted upon by natural selection.
Speciation.
The emergence of a new species does not validate molecules-to-man evolution though.
After (hypothetical) abiogenesis, it is imperative that there is a constant flow on new information into the genome of this first proto-cell.
These information increasing mutations are rare, but they do occur.
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
(I really should have emailed this, sorry)
The problem with these mutations is that none are known to create a biochemical pathway, such as photosynthesis (which is believed to be one of the first to evolve).
There is one- nylonase.
But it is very possible that a mutation in the stop codon created an alternative reading frame, making pre-existing genes, previously in the untranslated region, be expressed, and helped to digest nylon.
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
"Populations change, and that would be stupid to claim that they do not."
Their genomes change: therefore evolution happens.
Desertphile 3 years ago
"This is exactly the point where I get to with the creation/evolution debate... almost every time."
There is no such debate. Creation (the Big Bang) involves cosmology; evolution is the change of populations' geneomes over time.
Perhaps you meant CREATIONISM, not "creation." If so, there is no such debate either: Creationism lost the debate over 200 years ago.
Desertphile 3 years ago
"Not evolved, adapted."
Adaption is evolution: that is what evolution is--- species adapting to changing environments.
Desertphile 3 years ago
"The teeth of the T-Rex were most likely not created as we see most of the fossils today."
That is correct: they were not. They evolved from amphibian teeth. The first known bones to evolve were fish teeth long before fish had any other bones.
Desertphile 3 years ago
change in genetic information doesn't validate evolution, and if you claim that it does, that shows a complete lack of understanding.
I'm not going to argue semantics with you. By creation, I mean any part of creation.
Adaptation is not evolution. Adaptation is a population losing detrimental genetic information. For the most part, this is a result of reproductive isolation, which leads to speciation.
T-Rex teeth from amphibian teeth. You saw it I'm guessing? If not, you're speculating.
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
A change, any change is the beginning of the evolutionary process. The earth is not young. No magician pull every species from a magic hat. There was no ark capable of containing a pair of every type of fauna on earth. Understand that you are in love with a fairy tail and live with it. Thanks.
dagda825 3 years ago
This is exactly the problem.
If my skin color compared to my father's is considered evolution, then I agree- evolution does occur.
However, skin color changes cannot account for all of the life that we see today, and you know it.
Yes, evolution isn't only skin color changes, but it's silly to classify every change as evolution.
In order to go from a single cell to every living thing on earth- requires a constant increase of information in the genome, which can create and maintain everything.
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
Again you are ranting on about abiogenisis.Stick to the subject.
jesuslives57 3 years ago
I think you should definitely make a video explaining how soft tissue could possibly be preserved if the T-Rex died out 65 million years ago.
Considering how much tissue we find on an egyptian mummy (preserved a few thousand years ago), it seems impossible for tissue to be preserved for 65 million years.
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
Yes, I have heard about this discovery, and I think it is extremely thought provoking and ground breaking. I would enjoy making a video discussing this topic only I don't know much about the whole issue, if you could provide me with some links about it that would be fantastic.
Biogirl52 3 years ago
Creationists are jumping on this like it proves their side or something. The fact of the matter is that researchers are expecting to find similar tissues in the bones of current exhibits. The only problem is that they don't want to cut up their displays in order to find out. Considering the fact that the femur is the densest bone in a large biped like the T-Rex, it is reasoned that water could not penetrate the bone to replace the tissue with mineral.
The Washington Post has a good article.
tribidemp 3 years ago
Not all creationists say that T-Rex (and other dinosaurs for that matter) were always herbivores. That would be silly.
Everything in the garden of eden was initially created to consume only plants. Because of the T-Rex's size, it was much easier for him (or her) to eat animals, so, after the fall... he did!
This also includes all of the carnivorous animals that we see today, including lions and tigers. There are accounts of a few herbivorous tigers- completely refuse to eat meat.
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
It wasn't only the T-Rex's size that allowed him to eat meat, it was also the environment.
Animals adapt to their environment, that's obvious. The T-Rex population adapted to eating meat. Because they began to eat meat, their body produces less protein (and other nutrients that come from meat). This new population of T-Rex completely relied on meat for nutrients, so they were forced to eat meat, or die.
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
Yes, not all creationists think that, but I was specifically debunking this particular article.
My thoughts are, if everything was initally created to eat plants in Eden, wouldn't it make more sense for the designer to design the teeth of an animal like T. Rex to be more suitable to eating plants in the first place? Or did God already know that the "fall" was going to happen and he had a back up plan?
I enjoy this topic. Lots of interesting things to think about, aren't there?
Biogirl52 3 years ago
Great movie. You could have used the crocodile in the teeth section, too, as an example of a known flesh eater.
Kashrlyyk 3 years ago
Ah yes, thanks. A very good comparison. Hmm...I think I'll bring Mr. Crocodile now when I'm talking about Spinosaurus and how "defenseless" he was in P2 :P. They have extremey similar teeth structures. Thanks for watching :D!
Biogirl52 3 years ago
and i just saw a video from your old channel, PwnIgnorance
your CUTE!
=)
elgringos 3 years ago
pssssst, agreed;) but shhh:P
Erech01 3 years ago
Aww yeah. Look at me, totally cute...