T-Rex - response to Creationist-only post

Has anyone here considered the media and the modern world's obsession with T-rex in any discussion like this? As I remember T-rex had six-inch long teeth with 1-inch long roots - if he took a bite out of a live dinosaur he would come away all gums! On this basis it is more likely he was a scavenger, possibly an omnivore, as he could not have preyed on large live animals with tough hides.

Click to expand...

Good science is science which has good, repeatable, testable methodology.

We can only repeat and test things in the present. We can observe fossils, geology etc and make assumptions and theories about how this arose, but can never prove the past through science. We can however understand what was most plausible through science.

Click to expand...

1. So how do you know that T-Rex teeth need to have deep roots to rip away flesh? After all, that's just the present. We don't know that about the past. You can't prove for sure that T-Rex wasn't a carnivore, so why bother?

This whole business about separating science in the present from science in the past is completely messed up because all observation occurs in the past.

2. It didn't take 5 pageloads from Google to locate these:

http://www.uleth.ca/vft/crowsnest/tooth.jpg
http://www.boneclones.com/KO-039.htm

do those look like it's a 6:1 tooth:root ratio?

And all this was found on Google.

Live and learn.