Talk:Tyrannosaurus rex

From Conservapedia
(Redirected from Talk:Tyrannosaurus)
Jump to: navigation, search

This article is in desperate need of more references. --BillOReillyFan 13:50, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

And desperate need of work. This article is lacking in any real information and cites questionable sources. ColinR 14:41, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Again, should be titled Tyrannosaurus REX--Elamdri 18:26, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually it is Tyrannosaurus rex. The genus name is capitalized the species name is not. Sulgran 17:40, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
When I posted that the article was just entitled Tyrannasaurus, with no rex at the end. I changed it to capital just for the title convention of having words capitalized.--Elamdri 17:49, 17 March 2007 (EDT)


Why can't we include the creationist view on T. Rex? My edits keep getting reverted.

Write your edit here to see what's wrong and cite all sources. --ALFa 16:02, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Can't we have some images of a t-rex eating people in a natural history museum? I think that would be a major improvement. (ha ha) Scorpionman 18:55, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

This is brilliant! Don't change a thing!--Jack 16:46, 17 March 2007 (EDT)


I protected this version because it did not lack citations and gave the most information. Please discuss what should and should not remain. --<<-David R->> 17:13, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

One citation repeated three times is not equal to three citations. Try looking at this, careful it has bigwords in it. Gut contents from a cretaceous tyrannosaurid. --Crackertalk 17:21, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I tried to add more citations, but they kept getting deleted! Here's a great one: SCAVENGER!--CWilson 17:24, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

This article is complete and utter nonsense. One line explains what it is, the rest is devoted to arguments for creationism. Can it be unlocked so that real facts can be added to it instead of pure speculation and creationist propaganda.--Sm355 17:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
The current article makes no sense. Please reopen so we can add factual information.ColemanFrancis 17:29, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Creationist propoganda? Noted Hadrosaur expert Jack Horner Sorry this is the best thing I could find thinks they were scavengers, not carnivores.--CWilson 17:30, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm not sure you understand the situation there, CF, they don't want "facts" they want "their facts". And BTW, there CW, jackals are carnivores and scavengers. --Crackertalk 17:37, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
It actually doesn't say that Jack Horner believed they were scavengers, it says he revitalized the theory that they may have been, but it was never a major research focus for him. And even if he did believe it, that's still just one person. What do the majority of paleontologists think? Especially the ones who specialize in T-Rex. --ALFa 17:39, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Horner wrote several articles on the subject. Look it up.

Horner, J.R., (1994). Steak knives, beady eyes, and tiny little arms (a portrait of Tyrannosaurus as a scavenger). The Paleontological Society Special Publication 7: 157-164.

Stop speaking without knowing what your talking about.

And by the way, the jackel has strong front legs, reliable teeth and is fast, so it can be a predator.--CWilson 17:44, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Why not give those sources then? Instead of one which didn't support your argument at all? Either way, there's more paleontologists with other opinions. --ALFa 18:12, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
Yes. This is true. The jackal can be a predator, that also scavenges. Do you think that "scavenger" and "herbivore" are synonyms? Crackertalk 17:53, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
The line "" Bible-believing Christians can be sure of one thing. When dinosaurs were originally created, they were peaceful and harmless just like all the other animals."" is pure speculation or an over active imagination. It is not a fact that can be verified. Besides that, crocodiles have existed since or before dinosaurs (I'm not an expert), which as we know are currently carnivores.--Sm355 17:45, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
How can you be sure of that? Stop adding your facts and look at the actual facts. Scorpionman 08:31, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
@Scorpionman - We can look at fossil records, sediment layers, carbon dating which all point to the same fact that crocodiles have existed for a very long time. They are not my facts but the accepted facts of the vast majority of the worlds zoologists. I.E. they are the actual facts as they stand. Besides, what exactly makes you so sure that what's in the bible has any truth to it at all? You are being asked by the bible to believe fairy tale stories like Noah's flood which are ludicrous. If you really think about these stories logically they make no sense at all.--Sm355 09:07, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
Oh? And evolution asks you to believe that we, animals, plants, earth, even the entire UNIVERSE came about by pure chance! Come on, if that's not a fairy tale I don't know what is. It makes a lot more "logical sense" to believe that there's an Intelligent Designer here. Your comments prove to me that you really know little to nothing of the Bible, that you've just read some biased evolutionist's view of it. Read it for yourself; it makes a lot more sense if you do that. Scorpionman 09:11, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
Then perhaps you should also believe Scientology's story of Xenu and his Thetons. Why not?(I'm NOT a Scientologist btw.) Because its just as likely and provable as the Bible stories. Evolution does not ask us to believe the Earth/Universe came about by pure chance, evolution has nothing to do with the origin on the Universe. The diversity of life comes from tiny incremental steps through natural selection ( a simple logical process ). The origin of life on Earth is unlikely yes, but all it needed was one chance to start then it could sustain itself (in the same way that fire can). --Sm355 09:37, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Evolution is not based only on random chance. DNA being mutated, recombining improperly, or undergoing transcription errors are random. But those changes are then either removed from the population, or are kept through natural selection. Natural selection is definitely NOT random.

@Scorpianman - If the universe being created by an explosion and natural selection over a few billion years is fairy tale, surely you don't want me to believe that some supernatural being, that can't be seen, heard, touched, tasted, smelled, or detected in any way, and was written about in a book by somebody a few thousand years ago which could have been complete fiction, which was then translated (however accurately or inaccurately), has not ever communicated to anyone, yet was bored one day and decided to make the universe and everything in it? And then for some strange reason he needs everyone to pray all the time and give churches money and read stories or he'll put them in a fiery pit of doom called hell? Which, cannot be proven or detected in any way either? But if they do do that, he'll bring them to heaven? Which, also cannot be proven or detected? And he decided to place things on Earth in such a way that they disproved him creating the Earth completely? What an odd, odd fellow. Even if he did exist, which I don't think, and will never think he does, I'm not sure I'd want to follow blindly behind someone who has such strange requests. --ALFa 16:48, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

This article should now be available for editing by registered users. ColinR 14:58, 19 March 2007 (EDT)


To the person who added the last information...again - The writing was NOT cited before, hence the deletion, now it is, but with a single biased source which does not include each possible perspective. Now it's locked, despite being horribly short. Do not state the T-Rex as being a slow vegetarian as fact, it's speculation and there is more than one view. "If some of the dinosaurs we find killed by the Flood did eat meat, they were probably scavengers (like vultures) that lived off the bodies of large dead animals." is not necissarily correct either. I, for one, don't believe there was a great flood, and that they were actually killed by a meteor. It's also possible that they ran out of food. Either way, you cannot state something like that as fact. And they weren't "probably" scavengers, that is just one point of view, from one particular group of scientists. Also the sentence "Bible-believing Christians can be sure of one thing. When dinosaurs were originally created, they were peaceful and harmless just like all the other animals." is ridiculous. They can't be sure of anything, it's a clear bias. You know, as long as I'm critiquing the article, I might as well go through all of it. "The Tyrannosaurus was originally thought to be a carnivore. However, this assertion directly contradicts the statements in the Bible that all animals were herbivorous before sin was introduced to the world." - not relevant, many things contradict the bible that are not incorrect. "Recent evidence has backed up the idea that many of the Dinosaurs like the T-Rex once thought to be meat eaters are actually vegetarians. New research suggests that the Tyranosaurus would not be able to move very quickly. [1] So most other dinosaurs, being fast moving creatures, could have easily gotten away from him." Most other dinosaurs weren't quick, some were, some were very very slow. "Also, the teeth of the Tyranosaur are not well rooted in the Dinosaur's mouth, meaning it seems they could have snapped off easily in a battle.[2] Many have compared his teeth to those of the vegetarian spider monkey." Who are the many? But anyway, the teeth are still strong enough to bite through flesh. "Also, Tyranosaur's front legs were insufficient for attacking any other Dinosaurs." - Irrelevant, they didn't use their front legs to attack other dinosaurs, they used their jaws. Last two points discussed above. Include more than just one pro-creationism source and you might find some more accurate information. --ALFa 17:30, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't agree that they were mere herbivores, but please don't associate this with all creationits; after all, CreationWiki believes that they were scavengers as well as carnivores. Scorpionman 08:38, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
That's funny that you'd ask that considering some of your previous comments regarding liberals and athetists and their beliefs. Jrssr5 10:27, 20 March 2007 (EDT)


While Tyrannosaurs were no doubt herbivorous before the Fall, I don't think it makes sense to believe that they were afterwards. T-rex had a forward-facing eye, which suggests that it would be easier for the dinosaur to see its prey more easily, rather than having to cock its head to look at it. Please read this article by CreationWiki: [1] And also read the one by Wikipedia, just don't pay attention to all that "Cretaceous Period" and "Million years ago" nonsense, but it does have a good section on killer vs. scavenger. I'm sure they did scavenge meat if they found it, but they certainly seem adept hunters. Scorpionman 08:37, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Redirect oddity?

First of all: I love the article, it's really hilarious. Especially the last line. That one made my day.

But on a somewhat more serious note, what is the accepted main article? Right now, the article page for "rex" redirects to "Rex", but the talk page for "Rex" redirects to "rex". It's a minor thing, but still. --Sid 3050 09:27, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Do we mean NOW?

I notice the the (locked) article says ..(they) "are actually vegetarians" and that Scorpioman says "they certainly seem adept hunters." Errrr.... We do know they are dead - don't we? --British_cons (talk) 14:45, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Apparently, you and I do, but they're not quite sure. See Dinosaur and its sources, especially [2]. --Sid 3050 14:52, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
Yes, well. I've seen the conservapedia article before, but I hadn't clicked the link you provided. It's hard to make a reasoned intelligent response really. There's so little connection to reality. --British_cons (talk) 16:25, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
Sid, don't be absurd. Of course we know they're dead. Stop trying to insult us. But since you're going to be so picky, shall I say "It certainly seems that they were adept hunters"? Scorpionman 11:24, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Yeah, stealthily sneaking up on an unsuspecting CABBAGE! Crackertalk 11:28, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
I'll gladly include you in the list of people who know they're dead, but quite a few people here and out there seem to argue that they might still exist. Or at least they try to spread as much doubt as possible. My usage of "they" had been somewhat broad, though. Honest apologies for that. --Sid 3050 12:23, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Then somebody should change this locked article so that it reads "were actually vegetarians". It'll still be wrong, but at least that little bit of grammar would be correct. You might want to change the bit about the teeth as well. As far as the "they believe" and "we believe" stuff is concerned - I note that the Dinosaur article talks about creationists believing that dinosaurs "still roam the earth today". I'm afraid I don't know you - could you tell me who you speak for when you say "we"?--British_cons (talk) 14:34, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Maybe YEC folks think we were ALL born yesterday? Crackertalk 14:48, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Far weirder thing is that the first sentence states that they were carnivorous while the entire rest of the article argues that they weren't carnivorous. Like, make up your mind, please? --Sid 3050


"Bible-believing Christians can be sure of one thing. When dinosaurs were originally created, they were peaceful and harmless just like all the other animals."

Aren't all Christians Bible-believing? Or am I mistaken and there are some Christians that don't believe in the Bible, Jesus and God.--Liberalmedia 21:49, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

You are mistaken. Most Christians, including catholics, eastern orthodox, and mainline protestants respect the bible, but do not take it as literal truth. The loud evangelical literalists in the states are the minority of Christians. Though Conservapedia is built for the wacky fringes, not for conservatives as I had previously thought.

Perhaps we should rename it to "whackopedia", though that name may be taken by a different sort of project!

"Whackopedia" sounds like a great title of a parody of Wikpedia, although there already is one: Uncyclopedia. Scorpiontalk 14:31, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Article Protection

I unlocked this article earlier in the hopes of a well-written, accurate entry being created. If the "evolutionist"/creationist text keeps being replaced without accurate sources, this article will be protected again. I don't support the locking of articles, but if need be, it will be done. ColinR 21:52, 19 March 2007 (EDT)


I've added a section on tyrannosaur's diet. If anything is missing, feel free to add. Most of it is there already, but if there are some other aspects about this creature's diet that need to be there, please add them in. Scorpiontalk 14:30, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Did not Live??

I see that there is a line under the alternative theories which states the animal: "either did not live, or that they lived at the same time as humans at some point in history." While I can (just about)imagine somebody believing that they co-existed with humans - are there really people who simply refuse to believe they existed at all? The bones come from ... where? in this case? --British_cons (talk) 17:14, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

That section needs reworking because it doesn't make sense at the moment.
Ok I've done it now. I left that view in that they didn't exist - YECs used to have that opinion, though I couldn't find a decent source for it. JamesK 17:53, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
I've never heard that argument put forth by anyone. Scorpiontalk 18:57, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Hojimachongtalk, you broke a Conservapedia rule. It is not a fact there is very little evidence.

Hojimachongtalk, you broke a Conservapedia rule. It is not a fact there is very little evidence. That was the reason for the rollback. Conservative 15:50, 25 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Erm, OK, which rule was broken, and what scientific evidence is there that T-rex lived about 6,000 years ago? --Hojimachongtalk 15:54, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
Everything you post must be true and verifiable. Conservative 16:11, 25 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
IT IS TRUE. Me saying that there is not scientific evidence to support it, and then not citing the nonexistent scientific evidence, affirms the point made. It is your job to support your views by adding citations that there is some scientific evidence to support it. Though there isn't. --Hojimachongtalk 16:13, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
You can't bloody prove either viewpoint. That's what NPOV is for. Liπus the Turbogeek(contact me) 07:10, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservative, I believe that you were too quick and too judgemental here. Before you accuse someone of breaking a rule, you should establish and demonstrate that they have broken a rule. That he had broken a rule was not self-evident, and it could have been inadvertent or through a misunderstanding. You should engage in discussion before throwing accusations.

Hojimachongtalk, your claim that there is very little evidence is not a fact, but the view of anti-creationists. Creationists point out that both evolutionists and creationists have the same evidence, but the difference is in how one interprets the evidence. To use an unrelated example, the Grand Canyon is evidence of erosion on a large scale. Uniformitarians interpret this as the result of a little bit of water (the Colorado River) acting over a long period of time. Creationists interpret it as the result of a lot of water (e.g. flood runoff) acting over a short period of time. Same evidence, different interpretations.

Philip J. Rayment 23:24, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

For the last time, I never said it wasn't a fact. I said that most mainstream scientists (you know, the evil, heathen, hellbound atheist ones) feel that the view is not supported by enough evidence. They certainly regard it in that manner. --Hojimachongtalk 23:28, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
You are mistaken. Your edit had the article saying, "this [creationist] view is supported by very little scientific evidence". There's no qualifier there that that's what most mainstream scientists believe. Philip J. Rayment 23:43, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Incivility is not appropriate, Hojimachong

Hojimachong is being quite uncivil. Here is what he wrote to me: "It is a fact that there is very little scientific evidence. Quote the Bible all you want, but it does not encompass the generally accepted scientific view, which is that T-rex lived several million years ago. It specifically said, backed up by very little scientific evidence, which is true. --Hojimachongtalk 15:52, 25 March 2007 (EDT) Conservative 15:57, 25 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Explain how in any stretch of the imagination this is incivil. I am voicing a completely valid concern (your deletion of factual material). --Hojimachongtalk 16:01, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservative - why are you whining? --Huey gunna getcha 16:00, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Let's not argue about who's civil, uncivil, whining, etc. Free pizza and root beer to all who agree. :-)
Sounds good to me. Now wheres the root beer and pizza? --Hojimachongtalk 16:25, 25 March 2007 (EDT)


This view is regarded with much skepticism by people outside the young earth creationist community, who feel it is not supported by enough evidence.

I'd like to see any 'scientific' references related to estimates of how long ago t-rex went extinct. I gather Young Earth creationism is at odds with mainstream biology on this. A good encyclopedia would describe this dispute clearly. --Ed Poor 16:25, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

The general consensus among scientists is that T-Rex, along with nearly all other land dinosaurs, became extinct during the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event, about 65.5 million years ago. Boethius 17:01, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

YEC theories

One of the mentioned "theories" of Young Earth Creationists is that T-Rex "did not live" -- I am not sure how that theory works. Who created the skeletons of T-Rex, then? Have a look at the Creation Wiki page on T-Rex; perhaps it might be of some value as a model. Boethius 16:35, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Some think that the Earth was created "with age", seeing as how all the animals were fully matured, mountains/canyons were carved, etc. Therefore, some think that the Earth was created with the fossils already in the ground, and that the dinosaurs never actually existed. --Hojimachongtalk 16:36, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
Thanks Hoji -- well, an all-powerful Creator can create whatever sort of Earth He wishes, but the purpose of creating fossil skeletons of creatures which never lived must certainly be a rather obscure part of the Divine plan. In any case, I just wondered whether "theory" was the best word for a claim which doesn't seem to explain anything. Boethius 16:39, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Can anyone name me one creationist working for one of the major creationist organisations (CMI, AiG, ICR, CRS) who believes that God created the fossils already in the ground? Unless you can (and I know you can't), that bit should come out of the article. Philip J. Rayment 23:34, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

It's not a view found in the organisations. Rather it's a theological opinion which is occassional formed by individuals. It's crops up on occassion, so I think we should mention it, but it shouldn't be called mainstream or common. Nematocyte 10:12, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
As long as the qualifications that you put there are quite clear in the article, I guess I could go along with that. Philip J. Rayment 10:20, 26 March 2007 (EDT)


The linked references to the Creation Science section include on that mentions Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster in passing, so the mention of these in the article -- if this reference is retained -- don't seem to be entirely groundless. Also, I would note that most of the articles cited are not themselves sources, but articles citing other articles (e.g. Romashko, “Tracking Dinosaurs,” Moscow News, No. 24, 1983, p. 10, which does not seem to be available itself anywhere online, is the source for one of the referenced article's claim of human and dinosaur footprints being found together. It should also be noted that the items referenced so far are general essays on pro-Creation and Christian websites.Boethius 16:59, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Before/after the fall

If T-Rex lived in the garden of Eden, he must have been a vegetarian rather than a scavenger since there was no death in the garden, right? If so, it looks like God created T-Rex knowing that man would fall and the world would need some predators. I wonder what Adam thought when he saw those huge teeth and massive claws. I wonder if he had some thought in the back of his head that something was off?

Also, is there a consensus on whether T-Rex made it to the Ark? I've read that they became extinct because they didn't make it to the Ark, but other sources say that ALL animals made it to the ark and T-Rex would then have become extinct sometime after the flood - perhaps because of overhunting (That is Kent Hovind's view).

Any thoughts on the above? Bob2 11:02, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Genesis indicates that the animals were created as vegetarians, so correct on that point. And of course an omniscient God would know what would happen. But it doesn't necessarily mean that T. Rex was designed to eat meat. There are creatures today that would be (and in at least one case are) classified as carnivores on the basis of their teeth, but which are vegetarians. Big sharp teeth can be used by vegetarians, but in a fallen world, some creatures—such as ones with big sharp teeth—may be better suited to becoming carnivores than others.
If T. Rex fossils are found in sediments laid down by the flood (which they are), then they must have survived until the time of the flood, and (at least) two of every kind of land-dwelling, air-breathing creature alive at the time of the flood made it onto the ark. Therefore, so did T. Rex, and it must have become extinct since, possibly because of changed habitat, possibly because of being hunted to extinction by man (or of course a combination of reasons).
Philip J. Rayment 11:53, 5 April 2007 (EDT)


Asked CPAdmin1 why revert was made and didn't get a response. Query Put references back in. Jrssr5 22:52, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Added links to the science article and a PDF of the methods used for the research.--TimS 12:01, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

I haven't looked at the page yet. When I was an active Mediator at Wikipedia I often commented before taking a look. May as well get all my cards on the table before playing the game. Okay, here goes (dons spacesuit, enters time machine). --Ed Poor 12:20, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Point of view

What's that logical fallacy called again, begging the question? Anyway, I only got this far in the article history:

Recent findings have shown that the Tyrannosaurus rex is a distant cousin to the modern chicken. [3]

That sort of wording is unsuitable because:

  1. Saying that something "has been shown to be true" is the same as endorsing the view, i.e., calling it "knowledge" (justified true belief).
  2. Scientists like to take a few months or years to kick around a new idea before deciding whether to accept it or not.

Shall I stop here, or continue my analysis? --Ed Poor 12:28, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Please continue. This research has been anticipated since the discovery of the soft tissue. The claims from it have already undergone scientific review, one reason so many of us have known about it before the publication. We can reword it to say something like "has been found to be linked to..." --TimS 12:34, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
How about this:
"A recent study by (whoever did the study) indicates that the Tyrannosaurus may be the genetic forebear of the modern chicken. (reference)"
This way, there is still considerable room for doubt but it will direct people to the reference where they can decide for themselves if the science is valid. I disapprove of the term cousin in this setting also. Lacks gravitas. Myk 12:36, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
I would be fine with that:). I reverted what had been posted before and added additional links since yesterday they were not avalible online. I guess the other issue was the total removal of the scientific community's consensus as well, not the chicken thing as much as the age thing.--TimS 12:41, 13 April 2007 (EDT)--TimS 12:39, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps I have not made myself clear. The problem is with the concept of a finding. We need to say (1) that scientists think there's a connection between raptors and chickens and (2) that this important because (as they 'think') it demonstrates (illustrates? proves?) once and for all that the Theory of evolution is true and all those YECs are dodos (i.e., birdbrains doomed to extinction).

Or something like that - anyway, that's the subtext. By the way, I keep making all these red links for a reason. --Ed Poor 12:42, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

LOL, I got your hint and can add to the red. (I feel like one of my students correcting the red marks I put on their essay exams). I am fine with point 1 but point 2 is not needed here. The edits were made due to the research that linked the T-Rex with the chicken instead of other animals. The evolution stuff can be placed on the ToE page, here I believe just the information that is within the scope of this page should be placed.--TimS 12:51, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
How about something like this "Scientists have hypothesized about a link between dinosaurs and birds for many years. Just recently a research article "cite" was published, claiming a molecular link between the T-Rex and chickens."--TimS 12:55, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
That's about right. The key to wiki collaboration is to anticipate (and head off) all likely objections. Not overstating one's point is generally the best tactic. See terms to avoid. --Ed Poor 13:03, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
I'll agree that maybe the original wording wasn't the best, but I still think it should be included in the article as it does pertain to the T Rex. Also, if the YEC section is to be included, why not information that supports/presents the evolution idea too?
I'd still like an explanation from the webmaster why he removed it and ignored my questions. I hate non-confrontation. Jrssr5 13:12, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

TimS, the problem that I had with your edits, other than Ed's point about "finding" vs. a different wording, is that I don't believe the scientists have actually done what you said they have. That is, they have not shown "that the Tyrannosaurus rex is a distant cousin to the modern chicken". What they have done is show similarities between T rex and modern chickens. But is that similarity due to evolutionary relationship, or other causes?

Dr. Menton commented on earlier work similar to this:

...all of the similarities they describe would be expected in essentially any amphibian, reptile, bird or mammal. All small blood vessels are tubular and branched. All blood vessels, as well as the heart, are lined with special cells called endothelial cells. Among other things, these cells are necessary to avoid clotting of the blood inside the vessel. And of course, all blood vessels contain … blood cells

Do you know of any studies that have been done to show that the T rex material is closer to that of chickens than (a) other birds, or even (b) reptiles or other vertebrates?

Also, I don't agree with putting the YEC stuff in a separate section. This has the result of describing when they live, what they eat, etc., in the main sections, with the YEC stuff relegated to an "also ran". I will be reverting that.

Philip J. Rayment 04:17, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Philip, because I am getting ready to head to work. Question (a) from above: yes they had tested the proteins against other bird families. (b) yes they tested agains several families of vertebrates, reptiles and mammals. Review the link to the science page and read the research yourself. What Dr. Menton is discribing is an physiological comparison, what was done was a molecular comparison. They are totaly different, a physiolgical comparison would identify you as a human while a molecular one would identify you as related to your grand parents, or the English royal family.

I can understand your position of not believeing, that is why we are changing the wording, however that is not a reason to strike it. I do not believe much of what is written, however that does not make it any less. The YEC stuff was not touched by the edits of Jrssr5 and I.--TimS 07:00, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

For easy reference, here are Jrssr5's and TimS' links that he added to the article (only the first two of which are currently in the article):
Okay, with a closer look, I think I've found what you were referring to. The 1st reference does make mention of comparisons with a newt and a frog. But in the absence of any other creatures mentioned (or have I missed something else?), that's hardly a convincing argument. At the most, it says that dinosaurs are more similar to birds than amphibians. I think that could have been presumed anyway.
And my other point is that it doesn't prove an evolutionary relationship. Dinosaurs and birds are similar (both are air-breathing vertebrates, for example), so you would expect similarities if they were both designed by the same creator. So demonstrating similarities does not prove an evolutionary relationship. Or have you already conceded that point?
And apologies for any (unintended) inference that either you or Jrssr5 had moved the YEC stuff.
Philip J. Rayment 09:39, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
I've since found another source ([6]) which does mention other creatures that they compared against. However, it also says this:
The sequence similarity between the T. rex and the chicken was 58% ,while it was only 51% similar to both frogs and newts. This compares with a reported 81% similarity between humans and frogs, and 97% between humans and cows
Philip J. Rayment 11:10, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Philip, the first two links were already there, I just added the science publication links. The difference in what you sourced above with the % sequences is based on DNA squencing, this is protein matching, something alot more difinitive. Whereas DNA squences are transcribed to RNA and then translated into an aminoacid chain the protein is helped by other proteins to form the final shape. So the same DNA sequence can be used to produce several different possible proteins. However, when molecular protein matching is performed the results are far more difinitive, think about how a western blott works. DeWitt cited another work by the group however his cite did not show what he stated. No where in the research did the comparisons between humans, frogs and cows was made in the article that he cited. I know those percentages to be DNA sequence percentages not protein sequences. Totaly different standards, like comparing apples to oranges. Check the sources yourself and you can see the difference--TimS 12:40, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Sorry about the links. Jrssr5 added the first two a short time before you added the other two. I've corrected it.
Isn't DNA sequencing what is used to show the 98% (or whatever the figure is today) similarity between apes and humans? Are you sure this is not a case of picking the comparison that suits the argument best?
Regardless, it still doesn't affect the argument that similarities could be due to a common designer (using similar proteins for similar functions).
Philip J. Rayment 03:33, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
It is a combination of DNA and protein matching to get that number. Although it is important to note that not every ape is as close as others. I will agree that it does not make any statement towards the similarities that could be due to a designer.--TimS 07:24, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Just for my curiosity, what are these scientists claiming about the T-rex/chicken relationship (if anything)? That various dinosaurs independently evolved into different birds, or that some dinosaur evolved into a bird, from which all modern birds are descended, and that chickens are the nearest thing to that original bird? Philip J. Rayment 03:36, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
I can not say. The paper only reported the similarities and showed the genetic distance of other families of animals from the dinosaurs. They made no claim about the method of descent just that there was a relationship.--TimS 07:24, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for both answers. I didn't mean to imply that all apes are the same in that regard. Philip J. Rayment 08:36, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
No problem Philip, I am glad you asked for the information.--TimS 08:27, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm glad to see that a resolution was made here. Philip, you always seem to have a level head and are rational. Even though I don't share some of your beliefs, working with you is easy. Jrssr5 10:22, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks. Just going back to my last question for a moment, I accept that you don't know the answer, but would you agree that the two possibilities I mentioned seem to be about the only two possibilities, and that both seem rather unlikely (even within the evolutionary paradigm)? Philip J. Rayment 10:58, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

T-Rex soft tissue?

I am a little concerned about the soft tissue reference.

The source is a creationist site. I do not mean to imply that creationist sites are necessarily unreliable - but isn't there some other additional source? It sounds like a sensational find. I would have expected it to make the front cover of New Scientist.

Also, when you look at the site a couple of things stand out for me. Firstly the story says that the tissue was found in a T-Rex bone that they had to break in order to transport it by helicopter. Does that sound right to you? Breaking a T-Rex bone to transport it? Not to me either.

Second, if the flesh was not fossilized why hasn't it been carbon dated? That would settle a few arguments wouldn't it?

The whole thing sounds a bit suspicious. --Horace Conservapedia:Requests_for_adminship#Support_2|Vote Horace for sysop 20:46, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

If creationists accepted carbon dating there wouldn't be creationists anymore, don't you think?

Middle Man

How about National Geographic? The BBC has a good article too. The NG article explains the why of breaking the bone:

The dinosaur was under an incredible amount of rock," said Jack Horner, a curator of paleontology at the museum. "When it was collected, the specimen was very far away from a road, and everything had to be done by helicopter.
"The team made a plaster jacket to get part of the fossil out, and it was too big for the helicopter to lift. And so we had to take the fossil apart.
"In so doing, we had to break a thighbone in two pieces. When we did that, it allowed [Schweitzer] to get samples out of the middle of the specimen. You don't see that in most excavations, because every effort is made to keep the fossil intact," said Horner, a co-author of the study.

Give it a read.--Mtur 21:04, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, there you go. I stand corrected. --Horace Conservapedia:Requests_for_adminship#Support_2|Vote Horace for sysop 21:34, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Freakin' amateurs! (LOL)

Middle Man

Why don't they carbon-date the remains? Because the scientists concerned believe that the remains are 65 million years old, which is too old to date with carbon dating. Creationists wish that they would carbon-date the remains—it would almost certainly show that they are not 65 million years old. Philip J. Rayment 01:53, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

It wouldn't show anything of the sort. It would bottom out at the limit of the Carbon dating test, which isn't the same thing at all. The half-life of C-14 is 5730 years, so 65 million years is approximately 10000 half lives. So after 65 million years, C14 will have reduced by a factor of 2^10000, which can essentially be regarded as infinite. It's like measuring your way home from work using a tape measure: once you reach the end of the tape you can't measure any further. Aloysius 12:11, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

I believe it would show it, because I believe that they are not that old! The tape measure is a good analogy in this case. Evolutionists won't "measure" the age because they believe that the tape measure is not long enough to measure it. Creationists, while agreeing on the length of the tape measure, believe that the tape measure is long enough, and would like it "measured". Philip J. Rayment 05:30, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

No, according to Alosyius' explanation, carbon dating wouldn't work in this case: after 10000 half lives there's not much C-14 left.

Carbon dating does have an upper limit, it's currently about 60.000 years, then anything older than 60.000 years would would give the same test results (the differences became so small they can't be detected anymore): you wouldn't know whether it was 10 or 65 million years old, only that it's older than the upper limit: we'll only know it's at least 60.000 years old.

Middle Man

You're still not seeing the picture. What if the dinosaurs fossils are less than 5,000 years old? You would get a carbon-dating result then, wouldn't you? Alternatively, what if you did a C14 test and got a result? It would mean that they were less than 60,000 years old, wouldn't it? It appears that your blind loyalty to the secular dating is preventing you from even understanding the alternative view that I'm trying to put. Philip J. Rayment 11:53, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
Secular dating? What's that? Is there religous dating of artifacts/fossils? Please explain. Sterile 12:18, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
Uniformitarian dating. Dating that a priori excludes Biblical history and its potential affects on the results from consideration. Philip J. Rayment 23:22, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm sure they did try that on at least one dinosaur, besides, they used it on 10.000 years old human settlements.

Why would you want to carbon date a T-rex anyway? It's just gonna give the +60.000 years old result, but then you'd just say carbon dating is flawed.

Middle Man

(sigh). You haven't answered my question above. You've simply repeated your own blinkered point of view. You're simply saying, "you can't be right because I'm right". That's not an argument; that's an assertion of a closed mind. Philip J. Rayment 23:22, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Actually, I was just saying that carbon dating a dinosaur would give the +60.000 years old result, it would be right there on the screen of the cyclotron, whether you believe in evolution or not, you're not saying the cyclotron is biased, are you?

I was also wondering why carbon dating a dinosaur would be reliable according to you, while carbon dating human settlements wouldn't be?

Besides there is a technique called potassium argon dating which can be accurately used for rocks that are between 100.000 and billions of years old, it's been used to confirm that the chronology derived from stratigraphic research is roughly correct.

My point is that as soon as you would see a result from either of these techniques that's older than 6000 years, you would just respond by saying these techniques are flawed.

Middle Man

Why don't we just do away with radiometric dating, potassium argon dating, and all the rest? Instead, we just ask you how old something is, because you can obviously tell the age of something without those tests being performed! Do you get the point yet? You are saying that my opinion of what the result of such a test would be is wrong because you already "know" how old it is!
Is a cyclotron used for dating? Regardless, measuring instruments don't give dates. They give quantities of elements and isotopes, from which scientists use calculations and biased assumptions to produce a date. So it's not a matter of whether a cyclotron or other instrument is biased, but the researcher calculating the date.
I never said that carbon dating a a dinosaur would be accurate. I'm saying that I expect that carbon dating a dinosaur would give a result that is inconsistent with the evolutionary age. It would also probably be inconsistent with the creationary age too, but creationists don't accept those dates, whereas evolutionists supposedly do. That's the point.
And no, I would not "just respond by saying these techniques are flawed". I would also mention why they are flawed.
Philip J. Rayment 00:24, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Nuclear physics isn't biased, on the atomic level everything works exactly the way scientists predict: decay rates are real, not the product of biased research.

This link gives an example of radiometric dating being used:, 4.5 billion years old meteorites in this case (from space, so definitely uncontaminated).

Middle Man

Okay, so point me to the observations that show, for example, that the decay rates have never changed. You can't because nobody has been around for that 4.5 billion years to make those observations. Secondly, despite your claims, there are plenty of examples where things haven't worked exactly the way that scientists predict. For example, wood embedded in basalt gave an age of around 40,000 years for the wood, but around 40,000,000 years for the basalt, but they were clearly the same age.[7] Philip J. Rayment 02:58, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Because the laws of physics would have to change in order to change decay rates, no, we can't be 100% certain that God didn't change the mass of neutrino and quark particles at sometime, just as we can't be 100% certain that Marduk didn't create the world out of the corpse of the heavenly snake Tiamat. Proposing that the laws of physics would have been changed is pure speculation, scientists tend to stick with what they know. Do you blame God when you lose your car keys, or do you try to retrace your steps?

As for inaccurate dating, it does happen on occasion, in this case it probably happened because you'll need carbon dating (0 - 60.000 years) for the wood and potassium-argon dating (100.000 - billions of years) for the rock, because rocks don't contain carbon and wood doesn't contain potassium or argon, no matter what the age of the fossil is, there is no way these two measurements will ever correspond: this case worked out exactly as could have been predicted by decay rates.

Middle Man

Scientists have never been able to change the laws of physics, but they have managed to change decay rates in some circumstances, so that puts the kybosh on your idea that decay rates can't change without changing the laws of physics.
So you're actually suggesting that one or both of those dating methods will give inaccurate results, are you? That's quite an admission!
But you are wrong. If the wood and basalt were actually 40 million years old, then carbon dating would give a nil result; that is, there would be no measurable carbon 14 left, meaning that the calculated date was "older than 60,000 years". 40 million years is compatible with "older than 60,000 years". However, this is not what happened. The carbon date actually worked out to 40,000 years, because there was measurable C14 in it. This means that the wood was less than 60,000 years old, in total contradiction to the basalt age of 40 million years.
Your implied claim that C14 dating would give this result because the limit of C14 dating is 60,000 years is really saying that an artifact older than 60,000 years could give a date younger than 60,000 years, which means that if a date is younger than 60,000 years you can't be sure it isn't really older than 60,000 years, which means you can't trust it at all!
Philip J. Rayment 11:39, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
Not at all. To use an analogy which came up earlier- say I have a tap measure that goes out to 10 meters. I can draw it out all the way. So if I measure how much it is drawn out I can get an answer less than 10 meters, or I can get 10 meters an answer which really means at least 10 meters. Similarly, if I get a date of about 60,000 years I know that the object is approximately at least that old. An object older than 60,000 years will in general not give a date less than about 50,000 years (this is due to the margin of error being high at the lower end of reliability). In general, carbon dating actually works best with objects that are about 2000 to 25,000 years old. The technique is reliable for a bit outside that range in both directions but the error bars become much larger and the precision of measurement required makes it difficult to perform without more specialized equipment. Note that I haven't worked on C-14 dating related stuff in a while so the numbers I gave above may be slightly off, but they are close to correct JoshuaZ 12:01, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
That sounds more like a "not quite" than a "not at all", but regardless, you said that an object older than 60,000 years will in general not give a date less than about 50,000 years, yet I was quoting something that gave a date of 40,000 years, so it seems that your caveat doesn't apply. Philip J. Rayment 23:56, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

The current upper limit of 60.000 years is the result of a technique [8] [9] developed in 2005, the research you linked to was done in 1994, when the upper limit was 35.000 to 40.000 years at best, and in case of the possibility of contamination it would have been closer to the 25.000 years Joshua pointed out.

Creationontheweb also does not provide a link to the research itself, I hypothesized a probable theory (I did say probably), but without the research itself, there is no way for me to say for certain what went wrong, although it wouldn't surprise me if the mistake has already been corrected recently, but is nevertheless still cited by creationists (see Piltdown Man).

Here is the original research used to determine whether C14-dating was useful (it links C14-dates on Egyptian mummy's among other things to corresponding historical dates) [10].

Anyway, I'd say the 40 million years old result is right, because C14 is more easily influenced by contamination or inacuracies, because the date is close to the upper limit (in 1994) and because 40 million years came close to the estimated age (by other techniques) of the basalt layer.

Middle Man

I'll have to check out that bit about the limits of the research in 1994, but claiming "contamination" simply because a date doesn't suit sounds like special pleading.
There is no link for the research because CMI did it themselves (not the actual testing; that was done at a commercial laboratory). So that also blows the "corrected recently" possibility. Piltdown man is still cited (occasionally) because it's still true—that is, still true that there was fraud. This present case is not an example of fraud, nor of the researchers getting it wrong, but of evidence that conflicts with the uniformitarian paradigm.
I'm not questioning that C14 dating is useful when it's used for objects in a date range for which the method has been calibrated (i.e. the last few thousand years). It's beyond that, for both C14 and other methods, where the method is based on assumptions and extrapolations, not calibration, that creationists question it.
So you are choosing which "unbiased" radiometric date to accept and finding ad hoc explanations to dismiss the other one. Dating's not so infallible after all, is it?
Philip J. Rayment 23:56, 29 April 2007 (EDT)


I find it odd that one of the tenants on which CP was founded was the unreliability of wikipedia, yet a reference to an article there is used. Surely in the YECs attempt to prove evolution wrong you can do better (and by better I mean not AiG). Jrssr5 14:52, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

I wondered the same thing about the Wikipedia reference, although I did leave it there and improve it (the footnote). What's wrong with the AiG reference? (AiG is off-line at the moment, so I can't see the article to reference is to.) Philip J. Rayment 01:04, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
Sorry, I didn't mean that AiG article in particular, I just don't trust most things coming from that website. A truly independent source is what I meant should be used. Jrssr5 13:30, 29 April 2007 (EDT)