Originally Posted by RamboPreacher
given the information available, you (NEp8ntballer) could come up with theories and assumptions and beliefs of what they ate but it would be based on the information given. I have no problem with that at all, but still, those assumptions would/should be laid out. when presenting your answer.
presenting it as a fact, or as a matter of fact would be an incorrect answer. stating it as something that is known based on the given variables would be acceptable. a minor difference to some, but a major difference to many.
no, I could hypothesize about what it ate. in science a hypothesis and a theory are completely different. not only would I have the information given to look at, but also past research, what other people think and why they think so, and observations from creatures living today with similar feeding structures.
To make the statement that a t-rex which has a mouth full or pointy teeth being herbivorous or omviverous is not congruent with anything that could be considered science. NO herbivorous or omniverous animal has a mouth full of pointy teeth. so stating that an extinct animal with the same feeding structures of a currenly living species having differing diets is preposterous. In nature, form follows function and things that aren't broke do not get fixed.