no he said it was to big to effectivley hunt.

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 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.

you talkin bout me?

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 ^^

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.

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".

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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".

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

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.

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

K. 

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