Changes

Creationist propoganda? Noted Hadrosaur expert Jack Horner [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Horner_%28paleontologist%29 Sorry this is the best thing I could find] thinks they were scavengers, not carnivores.--[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 17:30, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Creationist propoganda? Noted Hadrosaur expert Jack Horner [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Horner_%28paleontologist%29 Sorry this is the best thing I could find] thinks they were scavengers, not carnivores.--[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 17:30, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Ugh==

==Ugh==

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.  --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 17:30, 17 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.  --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 17:30, 17 March 2007 (EDT)