Difference between revisions of "Talk:Tyrannosaurus rex"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Point of view)
(Point of view)
Line 219: Line 219:
::"A recent study by (whoever did the study) indicates that the Tyrannosaurus may be the genetic forebear of the modern chicken. (reference)"
::"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. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 12:36, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
::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''. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 12:36, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Revision as of 16:37, 13 April 2007

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)