so much... why in those comments..

No, it most certainly did not point to T.rex being a scavenger.

you're overgeneralizing. And atm, i don't really feel like picking apart his evidence....maybe later though

K. 

Tyrant King almost all the evidence AT THE TIME he presented the theory pointed to a scavenging T-Rex.

The evidence used to support his hypothesis wasn't very good and he thought it was tried and true -- until people started picking it apart. He wanted people to think outside the box, challenge ideas. Well, his notion was very poor and now he's not taken very seriously.

Again, i don't care if you think my comments were rude in the slightest; that's your bad not mine.

/thread.

Actually I owe you an apology Carnosaur, you were just really correcting what I said. Although I still think you put it in sort of a rude way, you were just sort of correcting me I guess you could say.

He is slrt of a hypocrite because, Well he should not make assumptions when he does not have evidence to prove it. 

What I am trying to say there is that people are criticizing him because of his old theory that was made in the latest 20th century or earliest 21st century (I don't know for sure), he did not know all the evidence. Hence why I said "Evidence buried in the ground". Also the quote is supposed to say that what I stated is the "moral of the story".

Don't get overly defensive over my remarks, LOTS. Punctuation =/= me being an ass, and if you think this i could really care less because i was expressing me opinion.

If you do have an issue with me, address me via pm because we don't need flame wars.

Calm down. To be fair I thotight to my self "I am gonna nail this kid" too.

I'm going to highlight even why the content of this thread was suggesting something entirely different( disregarding the title)

Ok, before I get started, I am going to state this, I don't believe T-Rex was a pure scavenger, it was a hunter and a scavenger, like any predator. Also, a lot of this info comes from the documentary "Valley of the T. Rex".Anyways let's get started.

So, a lot of people tend to hate Jack Horner just because of his T-Rex scavenger theory, but the thing is, they don't get the moral of the story. You see, what Jack is trying to say is that you can't let your imagination guide you in Science, what guides you is evidence. You need to ignore your imagination and look at what really matters, evidence. 

You see, when Barnum Brown discovered T-Rex he made it as intimidating as possible. His imagination told him to make it a very upright monster to intimidate people, though in the process he would be breaking its back, neck, and tail.

And let me tell you, If I saw Jack's theory right after he revealed it to the world, I would be convinced. 

Recently we have come across new evidence suggesting T-Rex was a predator, for example the healed bit marks on a Triceratops specimen.

You see, Jack Horner was going off what all the evidence at the time was pointing to, T-Rex being a scavenger. How is he supposed to know about evidence thats buried in the ground? And people then hate him for questioning popular culture.

I don't care if T-Rex was a predator, show me the evidence.

-Paleontologist Jack Horner

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

You're all over the place with this thread. You're supporting the idealogy behind it, and then you're against the idea, and then back on it.

Note that i didn't come into this thread thinking i was gonna annihilate you, but you should probably change up some of this thread because its not conveying the idea you wanted it to....to anybody.

Carnosaur, I find your comments rude. The theory itself is not what I am trying to discuss, ok?

I'm trying to discuss what Jack Horner was trying to tell us, which I am sure you know by now.

Go into a rant about the theory or about how I'm being emotionally effected by this or how this is debate, I really don't care.

You have a point Svanya, that was my fault, though regardless of the title you should always read the context.

Tyrant King I'm not talking about you. I feel like you and Raptor-401 were the only ones that read this thread, everyone elso probably saw the title and thought "I'm going to nail this kid".

Well, to be fair you did name the title "Defending the T-Rex Scaveger theory". This is why we encourage members to post titles that accurately describe the body of their posts. Not flaming you btw, just pointing that out and how people could get confused.

What's funny is i read the thread. So, telling me i didn't is dumb.

This theory is old and has technically been proven to be false, in fact Horner might not even believe it anymore.

Technically? no. There's without a shadow of a doubt its false and, via all of the loopholes, is invalid. He retracted it years ago.

You need to ignore your imagination and look at what really matters, evidence

In his case, lack thereof. You can't convince any one of anything if your evidence is circumstantial at best, his "evidence" was picked apart by just about everyone with a brain stem.

With no offence intended the title of the thread was misleading to begin with, and the things in the OP suggested something entirely diferent from your main point. Thus, general confusion.

Things like this:

You see, Jack Horner was going off what all the evidence at the time was pointing to, T-Rex being a scavenger. How is he supposed to know about evidence thats buried in the ground? And people then hate him for questioning popular culture.

Make it as if you're defending the theory. Hence, all of this ^^

you talkin bout me?

I feel the same pain right now Lord of the Spinosaurs... I don't think some people read the discussion before commenting, which is kind of necessary before replying.

I'm sorry if this sounds rude and harsh, but I feel as if half of you are not reading what I wrote, this is getting frustrating for me. I want to make the reputation of this great scientist that revolutionized our think of Dinosaurs (his theory that birds are Dinosaurs) to be lightened. This theory is old and has technically been proven to be false, in fact Horner might not even believe it anymore. As I stated a million times before, he was trying to say that you should not let your imagination guide you in science. Thats what I want to discuss. I have a feeling that a lot of you came into this post, didn't read it and assumed I believe the theory, and post things pointing to Rex being a predator, thats not what I want to discuss, and I don't believe the theory. Once again sorry if I sounded harsh, but it is very frustrating for me.

I believe they did it on purpose, for nostaligia reasons.

no he said it was to big to effectivley hunt.

^I agree. However, I heard they're trying to make it excellent (we wouldn't want the JG tech demo), and I believe we'll be getting more Tech Demos sooner than the wait for the first.

Guys, Horner was not trying to say T-Rex was a scavenger, thats not the moral of the story I guess you could say, he is trying to say that you should not let your imagination guide you in Science.

I personally think Rex was oppurtunistic. It's hungry and finds an Edmontosaurus herd? It would attack. It's hungry and finds a Triceratops carcass? It would eat it.

excited to see other dinos

I looked around and that was the most recent thing I could find on the subject. It's from last year, so pretty recent.  Imo it probably ate a bit of both, like wolves do. They hunt and scavange when they can. I think sharks also do this.

T. Rex Was Ferocious Predator, Not Scavenger

"It's the Holy Grail for a paleontologist," said study co-author David Burnham, a paleontologist at the University of Kansas. "Not only was the tooth broken off, but the tail had healed around it. That means that T Rex attacked that other dinosaur."

'Beyond a reasonable doubt'

Burnham's graduate student, Robert DePalma, uncovered two fused vertebrae from the tail of a hadrosaur, likely Edmontosaurus annectens,a plant eater that munched on pine needles using scissorlike teeth.

Lodged inside the vertebrae was part of a tooth, and the area around it showed signs of healing. When the team analyzed the serrations on the tooth, they confirmed it belonged to a T. rex.

"We were able to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that that is aT.rex tooth," Burnham told LiveScience.

The T. rex likely attacked the hadrosaur, but the herbivore was able to escape, Burnham said. The healing over the tooth indicates that the hadrosaur lived awhile after the attack.

The new findings prove that the iconic dinosaur preyed on hadrosaurs.

"This is the first time we have physical evidence, and without physical evidence for predation, people always said, 'Oh yeah, T.rex could have been a scavenger,'" Burnham said.

***************

Well you said that his theory had a lot of holes in it, of course it does, but what he was trying to say is that you should not let your imagination guide you in science.

I don't think you get the point of the T-Rex scavenger theory.

Nah, i think i do.

Also his theories like Triceratops and Torosaurus have A LOT of evidence to back it up. 

Depends on your definition of "evidence".

Don't just hate somebody for one thing.

Hate? nope. There's a pretty vast difference between hating someone for their ideas, and not taking them seriously because of said ideas. Me? i'm the latter.

BTW the 100% scavenger thing was probably just an exaggeration.

This is simply not the case, what you're eye is  interpreting doesn't mean the color change is caused by it trying to blend in.

It's a myth that's been debunked for a while. Why some people still think its valid i can't even...

/debate.

Cheers.

I don't think you get the point of the T-Rex scavenger theory.

Also his theories like Triceratops and Torosaurus have A LOT of evidence to back it up. 

Don't just hate somebody for one thing.

No terrestrial large bodied predator, to ever walk this earth, has been a  100% scavenger. No offense to horner, but his hypothesis(he called it that, not me) was full of holes. Any respectable paleontological enthusiast would note this.

I for one did, and Tyrannosaurus isn't even my favorite theropod. Alot of his theories he put forward had no scientific backing, and yes he wanted people to think outside the box, he lost alot of credibility in doing so.

Well grooves like that are in a lot of Theropod teeth.

It happens:)

Jack still believes in that theory? it is possible that sinornithosaurus was venomus. It was small and had large teeth with grooves in them. I don't blame the scientist for thinking it venomous.

p.s, it's venomous not poisonous.

venom is injected while poison is injested.

it is a pet peeve of mine when people get them messed up.

A lot of people seem to forgot that haha.

I'm pretty sure he himself doesn't buy the threory- he probably wanted to mainly prove a point. I also heard that he supposedly hates Tyrannosaurs, but don't know whether or not that's legit.

Remember once so many said hsi theories were questionable, but the only ones the person found questionable were solely the ones that "downgraded" Rex.

Yes, that is possible, though don't let your imagination guide you all the way.

And I personally think Jack Horner is one of the smartest and most famous Paleontologists out there, I betcha that the T-Rex in Jurassic Park would be upright if it weren't for him.

Yes, it's a very good point. The only reasont hey theorize it had a poisonous bite is because there's enough space for it. And because a poison sac would work well, etc.

Granted I do think dinosaurs could possibly deliver "poisonous" bites but only for one reason- bacteria. Bacteria could have grown on the teeth of carnivores causing infections for some prey.