Comments (Page 1,002)

Very short, but you gotta start somewhere.

I have a pretty high breaking point so you know you've pissed me off when I start to go off.

Sorry about that S-Rex. You kinda hit my breaking point with the "Stating the obvious" and "Childhood hero remarks.

The first(and only skeleton) of Spinosaurus implied a length of 46-50 ft. Only recently were estimates of 60 ft given!

Spino Rex, I've tried being the nice guy. Obviously that ain't gonna work. You wanna play that game? Fine by me! Pretty soon, all hell will break loose!

Holidays are really nice, but tough to get ready for :/

Sands change dude, wind blows at it and someone was fortunate enough to find a skeleton where the wind hand unearthed it, wieght would have little to do with it. Im sorry, it was you that made that comment, i didnt look at who posted it, i just assumed it was godzillasaurus. But im sorry about getting snappy, today has been a little pushy for me for getting ready for Christmas

hi DinoS you will find the thread and the article  here: Amazing! T-rex soft tissue preserved intact! ;)

I have an opinion of my own regarding the one fossil that was discovered. What I think is that the fossil found was the only one that was heavy enough to survive the Sahara for millions of years, and I believe that Spino averaged at 50-52 feet.

Good job, kinda short though. Refer to any of mine, Rex Fan 684's, or Dinofights's fights for future reference.

At trexes time, there were not many kinds of dinosaurs discovered yet! Of coure people should have expected something to be even bigger than it, its just that many people are too stupid to look at it that way! Im sorry for snappin at ya, but it was the way you had your wording. Just look back at your wording. I dont think ive ever seen you on this forum, but either way if i have or not, you have to make it sound as if its your opinion. I know i did the same you did and im sorry, ok? Today i just snapped for some reason. Now back to the subject, the reason i think the way i do of spino is because there has only been one skeleton found, partial at that, but it was enough to say it was at least 60 ft. in length. So that led me to believe that there were even bigger ones than that due to only being one skeleton found. Now you are not going to tell me that there werent possibly bigger ones than that for there only being one found right? And you have no idea that trex was more heavily built because again with the partial evidence of spino. Ill explain more of my reasoning in a profile text

at first i totally rejected the the idea of troodon but now that ive read up on him i am completley convinced this is the villain. im mean jesus its freaking terrifying. if this guy did what it does in the game im pretty sure this movie would give me nightmares for years to come

Its bite was certainly very strong, but it was not monstrously strong. Its strong biting force seems to be attributed to its immense size, nothing more. In fact, I do not think bite force is necessarily the most accurate way to determine if an animal is strong or not, as spinosaurus occupied a niche and had a lifestyle/ecology that did not require such a strong biting force; it was very strong because it was evolved to hunt powerful freshwater fish through the utilization of its gripping anatomy. So of course it was a strong animal, but that was due to its lifestyle in which such a strong bite force in unnecessary.

Quote: Look at its jaw structure, it looks a lot like a crocodile's, and guess what has the strongest bite force today... CROCODILES!!

Do not think of spinosaurus as a scaled-up crocodile; it was certainly not analogous to most species of crocodilian. Spinosaurus was really only similar to the false gharial or freshwater crocodile if anything. Those species seem to be where the bulk of the theories surrounding spinosaurus' lifestyle come from; they were awfully similar in snout morphology to the theropod in this case in terms of width and specialization. That said, those species do not necessarily possess gracile jaws necessarily (which is yet another reason to believe that spinosaurus was not a weak animal) and are generalist (opportunist) predators, capable of taking down reasonably-sized mammals on occasion. This leads into the next point that spinosaurus hunted fish most of all but was capable of killing dinosaurs.

Quote: And also who is to say that spinosaurus only ate fish and small dinosaurs. Im pretty sure a carnivorous dinosaur THAT big must have killed and eaten dinosaurs as big as sauropods

The fish that spinosaurus ate were pretty huge; they were no goldfish. The point is that spinosaurus was evolved to kill such fish, and with such a robust snout, pointed conical teeth designed for piercing deeply and gripping with much efficiency, and lack of an exceptional bite force it is really no surprise. Spinosaurus' jaws and teeth were designed for gripping without injury, but that is because it evolved to occupy such a niche. You must not think that spinosaurus was weak because it hunted fish, as that is what its specialization lies in.

Its teeth were more "heavily" pointed than those of tyrannosaurus (designed for crushing) and those of allosaurs (designed for ripping), so it was much better designed for this kind of lifestyle.

Troodon is more likely, and Horner said it would have jaws and claws (it could be an Allosaur).

Don't bother Godzillasaurus, he won't listen. It's stating that Rex was stronger than Spino, he will see it as biased and BS. 

Troodon is most likely, and I would not mind Carnotaurus, althought, if I remember right, was denied by Horner.

I'm sorry S-Rex, but you just brought ME to MY breaking point. Let's get this straight first, EVERYTHING IS OUR GOD DAMNED OPINIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I can not say this enough, REX VS SPINO IS DEAD, DEAD I TELL YOU! YOU get pissed off at us when we say s*** isn't our opinion, and when people say something negative against Spino! and then YOU turn around and say you are "Stating the obvious," and that we can not "Let go of T-Rex being our childhood hero." "People had already made a reputation about T-Rex before Spinosaurus ever came into the picture, which was not too smart in my eyes." Well guess what? How the F*** were people supposed to know that a 60 foot long predator was going to be discovered years later? When you find a bipedal creature that is forty feet long and upwards of 7 tons, who the F*** expects to find something BIGGER!? You can have your opinions, and we respect that as long as you respect ours. Now then, I know that you HATE Rex, so I'm going to end on this: Just deal with it. More people like Rex, and that may never change, so deal with the fact that people have different opinions than you.

Okay, im almost to my breaking point, Godzillasaurus. And after what you just said about my comment just brought it much closer. That is NOT a fact by any means, that is your opinion. I state the obvious things a LOT on here but almost nobody believes them because they really cant let go of trex being thier childhood hero. Its a bit like how somebody can have a status they didnt deserve in the first place. People had already made a reputation about trex before spinosaurus ever came into the picture, which wasnt too smart in my eyes. As far as wieght and strength goes, look at some of my previous comments on this discussion and discussions before this one.

Sorry S-Rex, didn't mean to sound like a jerk. About backinaction, I doubt he knows what he's talking about, and I say "The King," because Rex translates to King, and I like saying King.

i want to see more detail on the dinos. ike extrs skin on the fat dinos and the skin jigle on the big dinos from the weight

what happened

there was supposed to be 6 dinos. i was looking forward to running for my life from raptors

@Backinaction, you need to stop dead in your tracks before you start something you cant end

Well, let's not get into any Spino vs. Rex discussion, as the theories Godzillasaurus posted are only about Spinosaurus' skull.

This is getting closer and closer to an ugly debate, so please, let's just enjoy those interesting theories, and not start a no-end situation, shall we?

For EVERYBODY  (including me ;) )

Woah Mr Happy, i said i would never let go of that till further evidence, which of right now the evidence is in my favor. Its just like how you guys wont let go of trex being the biggest. And PLEASE, with all of the power invested in you to stop referring to him as the "King". Im sorry, its just one of the things that really gets under my skin because its really seeming to me that you are really trying to make people agree what you think. PS, no anger towards any of you.

I like Triceratops as it already appears in JP. I don't want major changes, honestly.

um... have you heard of a proto rapter?

well i mean like in the the next milenium

Also, Emu DNA... Emu... Really... We cant build a dinosaur from an emu, we can make some creature that looks like one by tampering with DNA extensively.... But thats not really the way to create a dinosaur... 

True, But eventually is kinda the story of humans... 

We've got the right idea, the right emans to do it... but we cant... One day....

Rex fan has a point, Everything in paleontolgy is mostly theroies... BUT... If we began seperating paleontolgy, lets think about the entire world, Most of it is a string of theroies woven together into a nice fine quilt... However There are some frayed and unfinished parts of the quilt which are left unexplained... 

We can conclude all the theroies we like, HOWEVER, we will never know what their exact bite force was, you see we can rebuild muscle onto the skeleton, but thats not acurate, Becasue its a computer program Not actual nature... We can try and rebuild the said creature with DNA, sure why not, HOWEVER, it wont be a dinosaur, it will be a mutated bird or lizard enhanced with dinosaur DNA, to look like our idea of a dinosaur....

My point is, we honestly can't say anything by the book, becasue that book, is very thin with info on these prehistoric creatures... Everything is just an idea...

The line between fact and theroy is very thin, and blurred... 

However, yes, Most dinosaurs are being found to be more "interesting" then originally thought due to the new ideas being brought to the plate... no more then 50 years ago, we still believed they were slow moving lizards...  Thats about as old as doctor who...  Anyways, Theroies are starting to become facts without being proven, which is bad and good, bad becasue its not the exact truth, good becasue it gives us a set up to work on...

Right. But the DNA in that tissue is better preserved than that in other fossils. It'll be extremely difficult, but it'll happen eventually.

We will (like in the past movies) recieve new colour patterns and styles but probably the same dinosaurs....

URGH.... The grammar...

Anyways, It would be HIGHLY difficult to do so, You see, DNA dosent live forever, after a few years of being preserved, The DNA would disapear... 

Thats why we dont have dinosaurs right now... Because we havent had any intact enough DNA to be recovered.

Well, it's possible in the near future, much more with the new well preserved Rex tissue found some weeks ago. So, it's possible. Naver say never, am I right?

Hmm... intersting i would like to c it