WHAT'S WRONG

Original title: "WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?" DA won't allow title lengths that long anymore, for some reason.

By .
Please direct favorites and comments to the artist's original submission.

GEE I DUNNO! WHAT IS WRONG WITH IT?

Yeah... I found this article while scouring the internets a while ago. Some of the arguements the damn Creationuts use to support their position are just *asinine*. Apparantly, T-Rex (and other theropods) had to be herbivores, since death apparantly did not exist until Adam and Eve did the whole original sin thing and it wasn't okay for animals to eat eachother until Noah let them off the Ark. The article tries and fails spectacularly to try and prove this. What, did T-Rex go extinct because he was so busy stuffing his maw with plants that he forgot to get on board the Ark? xp

I figured I'd have some fun and refute it piece by piece. :3

"The sharp teeth and claws of some dinosaurs have made people think that they were mean, vicious animals. The Tyrannosaurus Rex is often pictured as a horrible killer, attacking every dinosaur in sight. But this may not be true at all.

New research suggests that the Tyrannosaurus would not be able to move very quickly. Most other dinosaurs could probably have gotten away from him easily."

False! Depending on who you ask and how heavy you think T-Rex was, it would have been capable of reaching a top running speed of up to 10-25mph. It doesn't *sound* very fast, but it was more then sufficiant to keep up with the Hadrosaurs and Ceratopsians which were the staple of its diet. T-Rex was a lumbering brute, but so were the animals it hunted.

"Fossil evidence indicates that Tyrannosaurus walked in a stooped-over (hunched) position and probably waddled like a duck."

The horizontal stance would've allowed T-Rex to move *faster* by keeping its tail from dragging on the ground and acting as a counterbalance to its torso. Furthermore, ducks waddle because their legs are stubby; Tyrannosaur legs were long and limber. A better analogy would be to compare it to an Emu or a Secretary bird; or, if you're Robert Bakker, "a 10,000 pound Roadrunner from Hell."

"There are other reasons to think that tyrannosaurs were not "super-killers." Their teeth were not rooted very well and might have snapped off in any real battle."

Obviously these people have never X-Rayed a Tyrannosaur's skull before. Catscans show that the roots of a Tyrannosaur's teeth extend a good 8 inches deep into the muzzle. They were very firmly rooted in the jaw.

"Tyrannosaurus rex's small front legs seem far too weak for grabbing and killing large dinosaurs. In fact, they were too short to even reach his mouth."

T-Rex's forelimbs were small to reduce the weight of its torso, enebling it to balance better. Its jaws were its main weapon, it didn't need to use its arms for hunting. Secretary birds and roadrunners hunt much in the same way.

Furthermore, despite their stubbiness, T-Rex's arms were very heavily muscled and not at all weak. It could potentially have used them to hold onto its prey while dragging it to a safe place to eat; to pin meat against the body and keep it from awkwardly swinging around.

"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."

Ah, the old "T-Rex is a scavenger" theory. That's almost another rant entirely. Jack Horner is the only paleontologist you'll see today who still thinks T-Rex was a specialised scavenger- most believe T-Rex was an opportunistic predator, primarily hunting and supplimenting its diet with the occasional free meal.

Tyrannosaurus Rex was the only large meat eater in its environment- if T-Rex wasn't hunting the big ceratopsians and hadrosaurs, well, who was? It certainly couldn't have been Raptors, especially since we know now that their claws were used for stabbing rather then slashing.

Furthermore, studies done on Tyrannosaur bite mark distribution indicates they primarily fed on Hadrosaurs and Ceratopsians, mostly leaving Ankylosaurs alone- if Tyrannosaurs were scavengers, feeding on animals that were already dead and thus presented no risk, we'd expect to find more evenly distributed bite marks, rather then a bias towards un-armoured dinosaurs on T-Rex's part. Almost as if *gasp!* it was TARGETING THINGS THAT WERE EASIER TO KILL.

Finally, the presence of healed Tyrannosaur bite marks on Edmontosaurus and Triceratops show that they were attacked by Tyrannosaurs while they were still alive, fully discrediting the idea of Tyrannosaurs being full time scavengers. There's your smoking gun right there; T-Rex was a predator. I've got no idea why Horner continues to cling to this theory despite the mountains of evidence against it; maybe he just hates T-Rex or something.

"If we look at three other dinosaurs very much like Tyrannosaurus, even more problems can be seen with the idea that they were "super-killers."
Killing dinosaurs, biting through bones and tearing off hunks of meat should leave definite signs of tooth wear. Sometimes a tooth would have been broken or lost. An Albertosaurus (al-BERT-oh-SOR-us) was found with teeth that show almost no wear. The tips and delicate edge serration's are said to be in almost perfect condition. Yet this tyrannosaur was an adult."

A theory set forth by Canadian Paleontologist Lawrence Lambe almost 100 years ago that has long since been discredited. Tyrannosaurs routinely lost and regenerated teeth, just like sharks and crocodiles do, hence why the toothline is uneven. A cute trick, that might have been a convincing arguement if I knew nothing about dinosaurs.

"The Dilophosaurus (die-LOAF- oh-SOR-us) had two high, paper-thin bone crests on its head! It doesn't seem very likely that this delicate head gear could keep from breaking off if the dinosaur made its living as a scavenger--greedily tearing into the insides of dead dinosaurs. If he was a fierce eater of live dinosaurs, the thin crests would have certainly been ruined."

An intentionally misleading or misinformed statement. Dilophosaurus was of a comparably light built for a theropod of its size, so it was probably more a hunter of smaller prey and not of animals which were as big or even bigger than itself. There was no danger of it breaking its crests in fights with much smaller animals it could easily overpower.

"The Spinosaurus (SPINE-oh-SOR-us) had long, delicate spines attached to its back bone. Some of these stood straight up in the air six-and-a-half feet high--taller than most men. These spines could have been very easy to damage in a fierce fight with a heavy dinosaur."

Another intentionally misleading or misinformed statement. The article neglects to mention that Spinosaurus' straight teeth and long, narrow skull, as well as the presence of scales in the belly of its close relative Baryonyx, indicated it was a specialised fish eater. It also might have gone after prey it could easily overpower, much like the Dilophosaurus; not that hard a task when you're the single biggest theropod in existence. It also neglects to mention that there were sheets of skin between each spine to reinforce them, forming a tall "fin".

"True fierce meat-eaters are smooth and sleek, like the tiger, lion, polar bear and wolf. They don't have any delicate spines or crests to get in their way and cause pain in a chase and fight."

This is true. Less specialsed theropods like Tyrannosaurus, Allosaurus et all have no crazy doo-dads dangling off of them. They're very practical, streamlined predators. This quote is intentionally misleading because it implies that *all* theropods had fragile ornaments.

"Perhaps the guess that tyrannosaurs were aggressive "brontosaur" killers is completely wrong."

Empty rhetoric. Not only did Tyrannosaurs not hunt "Brontosaurs", Brontosaurus didn't even exist! The correct name for the creature is "Apatosaurus". Furthermore, Apatosaurus lived millions of years before T-Rex, so the idea of a Tyrannosaur hunting one is laughable. Whoever "guessed" that Tyrannosaurs were "Brontosaur" killers needs to read more books and watch fewer Caveman movies.

"Could it be that tyrannosaurs were mostly plant-eaters, not meat-eaters? The shape of their teeth alone can't tell us what they ate."

No, and no. It couldn't be that Tyrannosaurs ate plants because we've found Tyrannosaur bite marks on other dinosaurs, and Tyrannosaur dung shows no traces of plant material.

"Perhaps they used their sharp teeth and claws to tear up tough plants and fruits, not dinosaurs. Obviously sharp teeth can serve other purposes than simply cutting meat, just as kitchen knives can be used for cutting carrots as well as steaks."

Molars are far more efficiant for processing plant material. Furthermore, a Tyrannosaur's jaws only move up and down; a very inefficiant way to eat plants. Most herbivores chew their food with a side-to-side motion. Since it was unable to chew, Tyrannosaurus would've needed a gizzard, as well as to swallow rocks, in order to process tough plant material. No "gizzard stones" have been found among Tyrannosaur remains, as opposed to Sauropods, who definately did not chew the plants they ate and swallowed rocks to aid in digestion.

"Many sharp-toothed animals living today are plant-eaters and rarely (or never) eat flesh. A few of many examples include the Giant Panda, the large Australian fruit bat, and some apes and bears."

All of the above animals have flat, grinding molars for chewing; the canine teeth are used in no way for processing the plant material. Tyrannosaurs have no molars, and their jaws only move up and down.

So there you have it. A typical Creationist essay, full of typical Creationist misconceptions and meaningless rhetoric. I was able to tear it to shreds like a T-Rex into a Triceratops, and I'm not even a paleontologist!

Admittedly though, I've been obsessed with dinosaurs as long as I remember- it makes me shudder to think that this steaming pile of blatant lies might actually sound *convincing* to an uninitiated layman. D: