The Lost World

Not to get on a creationist rant here but isn't it interesting that creationists (thanks John for pointing out something that I didn't know) believe that all dinosaurs were herbivores before the fall of man, explaining away the obvious intent of the sharp teeth that some dinosaurs possessed.  Shouldn't it be plainly obvious that sharp teeth are *intended* to rip flesh and that the *design* is for these certain prehistoric animals to be carnivorous? 

So what of teeth?  Here is an excerpt from a post from Dinosaurs and the Bible:

Herbivores that eat only plants have chewing molars to help them chew food on all sides of the teeth. The supposed sharp teeth of both omnivores and herbivores are found to be smooth, thin, shallow-rooted and blunt, unlike teeth of lions, tigers, jaguars, Tyrannosaurus and Velociraptor, which has teeth that are thick, sharp, rigged, deep-rooted, and long lasting; all the better to strip, bite, and tear raw meat from their prey. The molars the big cats have is known as carnassials. These are a special type of chewing teeth that help animals to get a good grip on the meat, tear it from the bones and chew it. The meat from the prey is raw and difficult to tear so these animals need such teeth not to mention a strong muscular neck to support their jaws and help pull meat from the bones, strong legs for running after prey, eyes that see forward, ears for hearing their prey underground, claws to serve as meat hooks, and huge sense of smell.

And aside from tooth design, there are other attributable things that makes up herbivores and carnivores (via Dinosaurs and the Bible):

There are other ways of telling which animal eats either plants or meat other than looking at their teeth. Plant-eaters have a complex digestive system to help digest plants while meat-eaters have a simpler digestive system for digesting meat.

So why wouldn't you agree with the obvious intention of sharp teeth?  What about digestive systems?  What about strong jaws as seen in the fossil record?  Why would you go out of your way to argue against these points?  These are rhetorical questions of course.  But when you are trying to fit the facts to your beliefs, this is what happens.

But the irony of this (and yes... above was a setup) is that creationists go out of their way in an effort to disprove the obvious and then have a roundabout way to prove some other point about intelligent design/creationism.  Take for instance the classic ID clip regarding the banana and the hand.

So I am to believe that the sharp teeth of some dinosaurs were not meant to do the obvious, such as tear through meat, yet I am to believe that the *shape* of a banana and all of its intricacies explains that it was designed to fit my hand?