Comments (Page 970)

Niether am i letting go of my opinion of spinosaurus being the strongest of any land carnivores, this guy did stress good points, but didnt have to get off at the pace he did.

These things went extinct 65 million years ago (100 million for the two that are being discussed), so don't say that this isn't opinion, because it isn't fact. You have your opinions, and I'm slowly losing my respect, but that's fine that you hav your opinions. Saying something is fact about Spinosaurus (all dinosaurs, for that matter), is saying everything we know about sharks (creatures that have been observed and documented), is an opinion.

oh god -_- it talked about Carcharodontosaurs' skull anatomy and function, like you wanted. Carcharodontosaurus did have a more robust skull! that is FACT! heck, tyrannosaurus rex has a more robust skull. Are you gonna say its not?

Partially, This is what speculation and theory leads us to believe... 

I know PFG.

Never thought I'd say this (no offence), but thank you for speaking rationally in a topic discussing Spino's strength.

That said nothing about spinosaurus of any relevance.

I say again, you have no real reason to believe that carcharodontosaurus had a more robust snout than spinosaurus; that is just wrong. If you want to think that, then fine. But I am going to tell you that this is not an opinion one bit. Simple, spinosaurus possessed a narrower and shallower rostrum by comparison that was an adaptation for reduced drag in water. It, however, is a comparably more robustly-constructed structure by comparison (it was a particularly denser and more compact piece, to say the least) that was far better adapted for gripping resistance much evident in its lack of similar pockets within its skull and lessened risk of injury occurring. NONE OF THIS IS OPINION! If I were to claim carcharodontosaurus to have a more robust snout just because it was bigger, that is an opinion.

I dont think i would call that "proof ", i look at them as educated guesses, and lets not forget these are animals that went extinct 65 million years ago, but what we do know is that they are much different from any animals today, so i wouldnt be surprised by the outcome of this ;)

he was sayin stuff like that in RexFans 'The Spinosaurs' therad...partly why that went on for so long. and i agree, my ideas aren't about to be changed.

Quote: "It is not wise to say something is your opinion."

Quote: I know you are all desparate to be right."

And so on, the list of things he's said to piss me off is huge.

Nonetheless, he's fighting an uphill battle against the Hitlerwall (it was real thing, in Italy 1944, it stopped .308 bullets fired from point blank) with a slingshot and marbles.

Spino had conical teeth, there's on fact we know about it. That's all I can think of.

oh yeah, that ticked me off. don't know what it was about what he was saying, but it pissed me off.

I gave him ' the evidence' he wanted so bad and then he never said anything back..

Don't think so. First post on this topic, "Try to disprove this." If I had seen that before I left, I would have lost it on him.

did i miss somethin? XD

He's lucky I had to work on my Jeep after I commented, if I had seen that before I left.......

Godzillasaurus, you're fighting a losing battle. You aren't gonna convince anyone by badmouthing them! Try to disprove that!

Godzillasaurus, you're telling me that you know facts, undeniable facts, about an animal that has been dead for 100 million years? NO BODY knows any "facts" about these animals except that they existed on our planet. No facts at all! Just theories and opinions!

Nice PFG.

One last thing, "lets put an end to this," and your opening line is "I know you guys are desparate to be right....." Im going to put end to this by pissing people off (you got my nerves at least).

I'm more than annoyed by this whole thing right now. You do realize that most of these topics are from mid-summer and older, right? 

If we say something is not our opinion, but fact, people get pissed off, and now you're saying that it is not wise to say stuff is out opinion. You sound just like the next biased as **** Spino fan.

Wow, that's uh, interesting ;)

exactly...this is random, but i thought it would lighten the mood :)

Observation and opinion go hand in hand. Someone could look at this very discussion and say who they think is right because of what they observed. They don't know who's right for any real certainty, but they have an opinion. Observation and opinion are closely linked.

No one is right and no one is wrong. End of story. 

no one ever stated that, but you may find this entertaining? 

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/277/1698/3327.full

then it is YOUR THEORY, stepped it up rfom opinion for ya ;) it's not a scientifically established fact, but it's what you believe bud. kudos to you, i respectfully disagree

http://theworldofanimals.proboards.com/thread/527/sarcosuchus-imperator-carcharodontosaurus-saharicus?page=7

http://www.topix.com/forum/science/dinosaurs/T7M8U4AAT440HGAJD/p49

Haha I'm 14 aswell MrHappy9097...don't we have so much in common...lol. I agree we dont talk like we're a bit high or something,I don't think spinosaurus is weak but that might be someone's opinion and that is their own and they are free to voice it so.....

because you haven't given us any strong sources that say other wise..

THAT is an opinion... But what I am doing is using inference and observation instead of just saying "I think so, thus I am right". The stresses present in predation would naturally be much higher in spinosaurus; an animal that is well adapted for gripping large fish would naturally be experiences a particularly higher amount of pressure than an animal that kills much quicker and is not designed for gripping and would instead most likely be injured by such an event.

Quote: "It wass sow mutch......" are you F***** 6? We may be young (I'm 14), but we don't talk like that.

That wasn't supposed to be serious, bro...

Quote: Get it through YOUR thick skull that we won't change our opinions just because of dentition that and lateral pressure this.

Fine, believe what you want. But that doesn't make me wrong... Unless you guys can give me solid evidence to support your claims

Quote: once again, you have not provided your sources for your dubious information. you keep rambling on about how strong Spinos jaws are, and that's find. doesn't make sense, but it's your opinion buddy. Next time, you might wanna lead with ' this is my opinion' instead of saying it's 100% fact :)

And so how does claiming that spinosaurus had more robust jaws than carcharodontosaurus that were so much better designed for multidirectional gripping resistance fall into the opinion category? Spinosaurus had a denser rostrum overall than carcharodontosaurus and related genera (along with plenty of other defining traits), deal with it.

Seriously, you guys always claim that this is opinionated when you yet fail to tell me why

We don't think Spinosaurus is weak. We just thing that Carchar is stronger due to dietary diferences. "It wass sow mutch......" are you F***** 6? We may be young (I'm 14), but we don't talk like that. Get it through YOUR thick skull that we won't change our opinions just because of dentition that and lateral pressure this.

Was a new thread necessary? noone, not once said spinosaurus was weak in the thread. nor did i. once again, you have not provided your sources for your dubious information. you keep rambling on about how strong Spinos jaws are, and that's fine. doesn't make sense, but it's your opinion buddy. Next time, you might wanna lead with ' this is my opinion' instead of saying it's 100% fact :)

Stop arguing. I'm just as annoyed by the constant "lateral pressure" this, and the "dentition" that, as the next guy, so please stop. Like Rex Fan said, you are NOT changing ANYONE'S opinion anytime soon, and that will NOT change.

Thanks. There isn't any real involvement with Baryonyx, but there is a Spinosaurus incident tomorrow I think, and then the event of the 1993 park.

Good fight, let's wait until tomorrow for the next.

i'm 22 broski. i never once said i was 'right' only that your 'facts' were B.S. Show me the studies. Show me the research you have done to back up your claims. as far as pictures go, copy and paste them. simple as that. You might want to do Ctrl V though, as your computer might not allow the copy and paste. simply click copy, then ctrl v on your response. i'd love to see this.

whatever dude. take your B.S. Info else where. You make no sense at all. and i'm not about to listen to this crap any more.

To prove to you that they found more than just a dentary fragment of spinosaurus? Yes, yes I did

Quote: For the last time :WE DON'T know the body plan of spinosaurus! allosaurus is a terrible anology. two COMPLETELY different animals. Allosaurus wasn't a specialized fish eater, so OF COURSE it wasn't good at gripping. it's teeth weren't meant for that. Why? because....as i've stated...it wasn't designed for it. point blank period.

My point exactly...

Quote: You haven't explained anything! all you have done is state your opinions. that is all, anything else you claim is just B.S. The only source you have given is wikipedia...also, no mention of a rostra in it whatsoever, only teeth and the vague phrase 'possible material'

Sigh, you people never learn do you? THIS ISN'T A FUCKING OPINION! How many times do I have to tell you that!? In case you don't know how to read or use Wikipedia, I will tell you how to find information about rostra: 1) go to the article, 2) click on "discovery and naming", 3) read

Quote: P.S. i use suchomimus because that's what ole' spiny has it's body plan based off of XD

Based on the snout evidence that we have, it is not...

Quote: Your opinion belongs to you and I'm not about to let you force it upon everyone else by stating that it's the absolute truth.

And I have come here to tell you that this is not an opinion... The fact that spinosaurus was well adapted for gripping and is in possession of a more heavily-constructed snout than you guys make it out to be is, well, a fact. Claiming that allosaurus was more heavily-built in that realm is just plain wrong, especially when the evidence is right thee in front of you. Now I do not know how to post pictures here, so I cannot show anything to you.

Quote: It's pretty funny that the same WIKIPEDIA article which you used also states that the skull of Spinosaurus had poor resistance in comparison to other Spinosaurids like Baryonyx

Because that is demonstrably wrong. The writer took the results from a resistance test that was used to determine snout strength in spinosaurus. Spinosaurus actually did horribly on the test, but that was because they did not size-correct the respective rostra well. The calculations were way off, and they only tested the most gracile region of the spinosaurus' rostrum (the premaxilla. They did not even attempt at testing the resistance of the maxilla, which was a considerably more robust piece of its rostrum due to its remaining impressive build and greater depth/width): http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0065295

Quote: Even though i don't think that the jaws of Spinosaurus were as robust as you make them out to be,

Really? A snout that is represented by a particularly greater robusticity and overall density than non-piscivorous genera (like allosaurus and carcharodontosaurus) that was a clear adaptation (in heavy correspondence with the animal's enlarged forearms and conical teeth) for gripping large fish is not robust?: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/Spinocombo.jpg

Wikipedia isn't the best source ;) I respect other peoples' opinions...but when you flaunt them as pure fact, that's when i say somethin.