Tyrannosaurus Rex Was a Vegetarian

One of the many ridiculous creationist arguments is the idea that T-rex only ate vegetation before the "fall of man".
My opponent will try to defend this hilarious idea.
I will counter it.

==definitions==

T-rex: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Fall of man: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Vegetation: http://en.wikipedia.org...

_____

Creationist Ray Comfort:
"T- Rex was a vegetarian before the fall, which may have happened within a few days of Adam being created. Afterwards he may have been primarily a scavenger (he had shallowly rooted teeth). Big sharp teeth are found on vegetarians too."

Creationist Ken Ham:
"Now, I can just hear some of you saying, "But T-rex had sharp teeth, so he was obviously a meat eater". Are you really sure? Can you really assume that? Just because an animal has sharp teeth doesn't mean it's a meat eater. It just means what?...of course--it has sharp teeth! Let's see if you can think of any animals that lives in today's would that has sharp, frightening-looking teeth to us, but they eat mainly plants? The Australian fruit bat--what a savage looking creature! He flies around Australia and rips up and eats...fruit!

What I have to say about that:

Observe the teeth of an Australian fruit bat: http://www.boneclones.com...

Now that of the T-rex:
http://www.aaskolnick.com...

I rest my case on that matter.

Contention: It is widely accepted by distinguished scientists to be scientifically most evident upon research that T-rex is a carnivore. The Creationists only source, on the other hand, is that of the bible.

By using the comparison between the Tyrannosaurus rex's teeth and that of the fruit bat's, my opponent has immediately implied that the T-rex's teeth are not suited for a vegetarian diet. I shall therefore be in full anticipation of his justifications.

My opponent seems to have based his first point on a lack of imagination. For instance, how does one open a tin can? How does one remove a cork from a wine bottle? Many a time, sharp objects do come in handy. So why do saws have toothed blades? What about hard-shelled vegetation? Some other dinosaurs also possess jagged, razor teeth, for instance, the genus Troodon. They are not necessarily carnivorous. They could even be omnivorous, as would be the case if the Fall occurred -- animals might be expected to obtain their carnivorous nature, either suddenly, or gradually by microevolution.

My opponent's contention is an appeal to a secular authority. Secularism is a worldview, and it can be said that my argument simply arises from a different worldview, however, the evidence remains completely unchanged. While a secularist might conclude that oviraptors are "egg-robbers", because their fossils were found near egg nests, we may approach this very same evidence from a different (non-selfish-gene) standpoint, and thereby conclude that the oviraptors were, instead, protective parents. Notice how this one piece of evidence can be interpreted both ways, simply according to different worldviews.

The burden of proof (the proof which I shall later address) lies upon me as much as it lies upon secularists who claim that the "T-rex was a carnivore". For the sake of argument, let's first turn our attention to the vegetarian musk deer (http://www.nhc.ed.ac.uk...) or even the omnivorous hedgehog (http://chestofbooks.com...).

"Secularism is a worldview"

Do you even know what Secularism is, creationist? ;)
Secularism: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Basically the idea of less biased, more fact based education.

"(non-selfish-gene)"

Proof?

"and thereby conclude that the oviraptors were, instead, protective parents'"

And were these eggs it's own?
Obviously not or else the accusation would not have been made that these eggs consist of it's main diet.
It would make no sense at all for it to protect another creature's eggs. Your argument falls apart.

"Notice how this one piece of evidence can be interpreted both ways, simply according to different worldviews."

Just by calling it a different world-view does not justify that one is more illogical than the other. *cough*yours*cough*
Some facts may be interpretable, but some conclusions are more likely than others.

"let's first turn our attention to the vegetarian musk deer"

Your not gonna find any secular scientist who says tusks exist for the purpose of eating meat.
Notice all the rest of the teeth, shaped so that plants may be gnashed--teeth which a T-rex does not have.

To add:
I demand you offer proof for such a "fall of man", which is the basis for your argument.

Secularism: - secular spirit or tendency, esp. a system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith and worship. (Random House Dictionary)
- the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious element. (Random House Dictionary)
- religious skepticism or indifference. (American Heritage� Dictionary of the English Language)
- The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education. (American Heritage� Dictionary of the English Language)

Yes... hmm... It appears to be the case that some sources are a tad more reliable than Wikipedia. Plus, Con is fully aware which definition of "secularism" I am implying in this context -- however, he is simply trying to be finical.

|| Con asked for proof: "(non-selfish-gene)"

"Dawkins explicitly abandons the Darwinian concept of individuals as the units of selection: ‘I shall argue that the fundamental unit of selection, and therefore of self-interest, is not the species, nor the group, nor even, strictly, the individual. It is the gene, the unit of heredity,' Thus, we should not talk about kin selection and apparent altruism. Bodies are not the appropriate units. Genes merely try to recognize copies of themselves wherever they occur. They act only to preserve copies and make more of them. They couldn't care less which body happens to be their temporary home. […] Still, I find a fatal flaw in Dawkins' attack from below. No matter how much power Dawkins wishes to assign to genes, there is one thing he cannot give them — discrete visibility to natural selection. Selection simply cannot see genes and pick among them directly. It must use bodies as an intermediary. A gene is a bit of DNA hidden within a cell. Selection views bodies. It favors some bodies because they are stronger, better insulated, earlier in their sexual maturation, fiercer in combat, or more beautiful to behold."2 - Stephen Jay Gould

Yes, Dawkin's gene-centred view of evolution has always been, and will continue to be, challenged.

|| Con said: "Obviously not or else the accusation would not have been made that these eggs consist of it's main diet. It would make no sense at all for it to protect another creature's eggs. Your argument falls apart."

But wait!!! ... "Recently, however, in Mongolia, paleontologists found some eggs containing fossilized embryos that were identified as embryonic Oviraptors (1). These eggs were very similar to those eggs found in 1924 that originally implicated the Oviraptor as a thief. If would seem that the Oviraptor fossil in 1924 was probably a parent of the eggs in the nest, and not an egg stealer but a nurturer." [EnchantedLearning]

Hmm... So, *whose* argument did you say fell apart?

|| Con: "Some facts may be interpretable, but some conclusions are more likely than others."

It has never occurred to you, then, that the conclusions appear "more likely than others" to you due to your secular world-view?

More importantly, my opponent has again failed to show how the T-rex's teeth would not be suited for a vegetarian diet, while I have clearly marked few instances in which such sharp, serrated teeth can in fact be beneficial to the herbivorous creature.

Having instigated this debate, Con has done nothing in his arguments but appeal to secular authority. He has chosen not to present any of the "scientific" evidence to which he ardently refer, and the logical fallacy he committed has been made extremely clear in his contention.

----------
1. Osborn, H.F. "Three new Theropoda, Protoceratops zone, central Mongolia." American Museum Novitates, 144: 12 pp., 8 figs.; (American Museum of Natural History) New York. (11.7.1924).

2. Gould, Stephen Jay. "Caring Groups and Selfish Genes," The Panda's Thumb: More Reflections in Natural History, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1980, pp. 89-90.

My opponent is completely lacking in material.

Regarding the Oviraptors, even if your right, it's entirely irrelevant because an Oviraptor isn't a T-rex. It hardly has any recognizable teeth!!
Seen here: http://farm1.static.flickr.com...

My opponent has yet to provide any evidence of a creature with teeth similar to the t-rex that is also proven to eat plants, let alone ONLY eat plants.

He also failed to meet my request of proof for the "fall of man".

Now, lets see if he can explain this:

"A coprolite (fossilized feces) from a T. rex was recently found in Saskatchewan, Canada by a team led by Karen Chin. This 65 million year old specimen contains chunks of bones from an herbivorous (plant-eating) dinosaur which was eaten by the T. rex. This bone fragment is perhaps part of the head frill of a Triceratops, a three-horned plant eater."
~enchantedlearning.com <----had to check out that source you used to see if it was trust-worthy and found this

And this:

"In The Denver Museum of Nature and Science, a duckbill dinosaur is on display with a healed bite mark at the base of its tail. Triceratops specimens also have been found with similar healed injuries - injuries that could not have been made in the Cretaceous by anything besides T. rex's mouth"
~unearthingtrex.com

"There are several specimens of dinosaur - principly Edmontosaurus and Triceratops - in North American museums which show clear bite wounds that have healed over, and T-rex teeth easily fit inside them."
~conservapedia.com <------Even Conservapedia agrees with me!!

Also care to explain why T-rex teeth are curved backwards, which is ideal for ripping apart flesh as opposed to grabbing vegetation?

Obvious creationist fail is obvious!

Thank you for this fun debate.

Behold my irrefutable proof:

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.

11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [b] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

------------

Resolution affirmed. Pro wins.