A Venomous Dinosaur

A Venomous Duck, from the “Bob & Tom Show”

That is pretty cool. If I’m not mistaken I remember the whole Dilophosaurus from Jurrasic Park was venomous. But seeing as how the grossly exagerated the size of a Raptor, I doubt the validity of the venomous dinosaur. Great new discovery. I love self-correcting science!

Interesting.
I have to agree with the question part saying “Who didn’t?”, because, they say dinosaurs were reptiles. It is highly common for reptilian carnivores to be venomous, meaning, we should assume that most dinosaurs, likely even the non-carnivorous ones, would have venom.
@Lawrence, I believe you’re confusing that one, that dinosaur is the one who spat the liquid into the face of the one man. It wasn’t spitting venom as far as I can tell, it was acid. Basing on the way the animal behaved, it’s likely that it was acid, one that was only used in defence, or, rarely, in offense, which, the acid, was used to blind others.
@Don, well, science is similar to religion. Religion, can be said, as the beliefs made by the superstitious, to make sense, or make things make sense, of/in the world around them. Science, are the beliefs made by the rational whom try to make sense about the world around them, via thinking, and testing. Science is just the system we use in which logic rationalizes the world. Science is a system of theories, trial and error, hypothesis, and other things. With science, a theory largely believed in could be proved wrong. Say, the ideal that the sun and everything else, revolved around the earth, was proved wrong. Sure, from a certain point of view and perspective, everything revolves around us, but if you look from another, we revolve around the sun. From every other point, we revolve around the sun. What you say about science can be said about religion. For example, a religion can be easily changed by the leader of the religion, or a general agreement of the mass, meaning, a peaceful, and kind religion, can turn corrupt, and evil, with the snap of a finger.
With both religion and science, we cannot just believe what they(it), tell us so. We must all go out into the world, and test these things, and try to disprove them, and only when we can’t prove them wrong, we should believe them, but if we can’t prove them right, we shouldn’t believe, but if we can’t prove nor disprove, we must make sense in a way we see fit.
In other words, we must try to avoid being blind lambs, and we must also avoid the either or fallacy.

@Scorpio Redhead
We can mark this as:
Appeal to authority fallacy
You assume she’s right because she’s Sarah Palin, a republican and conservative, right?
Or something similar to that.
You’re just saying a close variation to what others say, such as:
“Dinosaurs never existed, the government put those bones there.”
“God put dinosaur bones in the ground to test our faith!”
Also, not to be rude, but, you buy whatever Sarah Palin says?

Yawn. Old theory.
Gila monsters are venomous. Why not a dinosaur? I don’t think anybody will be able to prove it either way.

Yeah, god put bones in the ground to fool us. Amazing that the devout can insult god by believing he is a trickster, even more amazing that they can twist their thinking enough to make it seem like a virtue instead of an insult. I think the devout born agains in this country are the ones headed for the hot place.

Don the Cynic wrote: “If it is only true until the next correction, how can it be true to start with? Just because the scientists tell us it is so? Sounds like propaganda and consensus science to manipulate the masses.”
==========================
No, Don. It sounds like you didn’t apply yourself when you were taught science in school.
Scientists distinguish between hypotheses, theories, and laws. The first two are unsure possibilities that can be corrected in the future if wrong.
The first research paper I coauthored in a Scientific Journal was about the mechanism that allows something called the “Dienol-Benzene Rearrangement” to occur. After two solid years of research and extremely conclusive results, our paper began, “One POSSIBLE mechanism …”
That’s how science works. So when scientists “tell” you that dinosaurs are related to birds, you’re mishearing them. They’re actually saying, “Dinosaurs are, based on the most likely interpretation of the evidence we have, probably related to birds.”
And look at this article: “It PROBABLY had venom in its bite.”
Such a statement is little more than a hypothesis right now: an educated guess.
If that hypothesis finds support in other future research and observations, it may become a theory: a hypothesis that explains a phenomenon and has withstood every reasonable test.
And if that theory is still working to explain new observations made many years from now, it will be called a Law: a theory that’s withstood the test of time.

“And if that theory is still working to explain new observations made many years from now, it will be called a Law: a theory that’s withstood the test of time.”—Not exactly…
Scientific laws are similar to scientific theories in that they are principles that can be used to predict the behavior of the natural world. Both scientific laws and scientific theories are typically well-supported by observations and/or experimental evidence. Usually scientific laws refer to rules for how nature will behave under certain conditions. Scientific theories are more overarching explanations of how nature works and why it exhibits certain characteristics.
A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into scientific laws when enough data and evidence has been accumulated. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always remain a theory, a law will always remain a law.