Alert icon
We're changing our privacy policy. This stuff matters.  Learn more  Dismiss

T. rex, Finish Y our Broccoli: "Teeth and Forelimbs" Pt. 1

Loading...

Sign in or sign up now!
2,066
Loading...
Alert icon
Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon

Uploaded by on May 10, 2008

http://chiasmatic.net

Part 1 - Discussing claims that T. Rex ate plant matter and was not a carnivore because it best goes along with the teaching of Genesis. At best, creationists will say that maybe they were omnivores that feasted on dead animals - it actually nearly impossible to claim that a T. Rex never ate another animal because of the discovery of fossilized Rex feces.

Errata: I meant Jack Horner for the part about Scavengers, and Lawrence Lambe for the part about Albertosaurus.

  • likes, 5 dislikes

Link to this comment:

Share to:

Uploader Comments (Biogirl52)

  • Critical thinking makes baby jesus cry.

  • LOL. Just smiling and nodding is much more pleasant.

  • It is almost a waste of effort to discredit this level of sophistry.

    Why bother biogirl?

  • Because it's fun.

    And thanks a lot. I'm glad to feel encouraged, you ass.

Top Comments

  • 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!!!

Video Responses

see all

All Comments (156)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • 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

  • this is not proven by the law thisi s made by some spino fan this guy is a spino faker fan

  • 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

  • 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.

  • 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".

  • 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?

  • You are continuing to utilize ridicule. Typical creationist.

  • 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.

  • 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?

View all Comments »
Loading...

0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more