Researchers say fossil with tooth proves T. rex was predator

did you mean to say that they wouldn't eat very often or move very much?

I don’t really care who he is....one fossil does not fact make. I’m really tired of arguing you people.... I don’t really care about that weight you place on whatever...

Yes, you have made your point. It is not worth arguing about for the evolutionist.

Faith is always the issue. Since the evolutionist cannot prove that "slime" (mass, force, dimensions, time, animation) came from nothing (ex nihilo), the only rational answer is self-termination; for why waste more meaningless effort?

But for the Biblical creationist, one's ultimate disposition and that of others affects an eternal existence; thus deserving a consistent persevering motivation beyond mere preservation of self.

The bad thing about creationists is the arrogant and very often condescending attitude.

The bad thing about evolutionists is their reliance on science consisting of a lot of pieced-together empirical data and what not to put together the latest ‘theory’ which often goes out of its way to ignore Occam’s Razor

Merely for your information, here is the text of the exchange on this posted topic between myself and Dr. Jobe Martin. In this I have substituted my username here = (imardmd1) in place of my birth name.

********** text of email exchange ***********

Subject: (imardmd1) says: For your special attention:

imardmd1 to drjobe

. . . . . .

Dear Bro. Jobe and Miss Jenna Dee --

I am always thinking of you. I often post articles and comments on Free Republic, a fairly prominent Christian-leaning conservative forum. As I wrote you earlier, I referred some participants to your work.

But last night, something caught my attention that I thought would be of special interest to you. On CNN, two paleographers claim to have found a T. Rex lost a tooth that was found embedded in the tail of a broad-billed dinosaur. They say this proves the T. R. was both a carnivore, and a predator. I posted this article on Free Republic, but rebuffed their conclusions, mentioning your estimate of the nature of T. R.'s dentation suggesting that it was an herbivorous critter.

Here are the links:

o To the original article:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/16/us/tyrannosaurus-rex-tooth/index.html?iid=article_sidebar

And to the post on Free Republic of an excerpt, with comments and a link to your site:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3049342/posts?page=1

Would you take a look at some of the comments on it?

Thanks to you all for your work --

In Christ's redemptive love, and as your brother in Delaware,

(imardmd1)

======

Subject: RE: (imardmd1) says: For your special attention:

drjobe to imardmd1

. . . . . .

From Dr. Jobe Martin

Thanks, (imardmd1), Also the T-Rex probably was an opportunist and would eat dead things, or “road kill” possibly, which of course would be rotten and not with the texture of the live undecaying animal, etc., so it would be much easier to eat at that stage. Gen. 1:30, everything was eating green plants (even up to and including Noah’s Ark including T-Rex, unless (due to the curse, FALL) they rebelled against God’s decree. Then in Gen. 9:1-5 God gave mankind permission to eat animals and animals could eat man, so now meat eating was OK, AFTER the flood. The remains that were found by the palentologists . . . how do they know if these creatures were before or after the flood?? Of course to these people they don’t believe in a global flood anyway. It is really hard to debate with this type of mind, although certainly it would have to give them something to think about and God can use these little evidences in whatever way He pleases.

Hope this is helpful.

Thanks for your interest in our ministry. Keep the prayers coming.

In Christ,

Jobe Martin

Is. 48:11

For mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it: for how should my name be polluted? and I will not give my glory unto another.

==========

Subject: RE: Re: (imardmd1) says: For your special attention:

imardmd1 to drjobe

. . . . . .

Yes, Bro. Jobe, your observations below were pretty much covered in the forum comment section which, largely due to your spoken review on tape many years ago, are well wirhin my mental information pool. I realize your time is quite precious, so you probably couldn't devote to a lengthy scrutiny of the discussion byplay.

Thanks for enriching my education by freely sharing the indications from the life investment you have made in ferreting out many secrets that Jehovah has lodged throughout His general revelation. (Deut. 29:29)

I trust He will continue to bless those who follow your example of dying to self, the world, and Sin as a master, and coming alive in the Lordship of The Christ --

With deep gratitude,

(imardmd1)

********** end of text of email exchange ***********

Deu 29:29

The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.

did you mean to say that they wouldn't eat very often or move very much?

Yes, cold blooded animals do not require much food.

modern reptiles in the 1 lb to 2,000 lb range may get by on fewer meals than modern warm blooded animals but nobody was around 67 million years ago so we can’t for sure say if that holds true for the T. rex as well. Still, it’s going to take a quite a lot of protein to initially reach 14,000 lbs and to then maintain it. I don’t think it would have passed up an easy meal whether it killed it,stole it, or found it.

Wasnt there a theory going round a bit ago that dinosaurs were actually warm blooded?