To end this once and for all about spinosaurus

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.

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 ;)

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.

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?

I thought we came to a peace on this?  

What happened to that peace?

I thought we agreed, No contreveral threads about spinosaurus or rex, Unless its news about them in the film, Or a new discovery.... 

*Keeping the peace in check*

Let's not bring Rex into this PFG, but probably, he probably will.

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.

Also it appears anything bad mouthing a spinosaur isn't going to have ' any relevance'

That's fine S-Rex, I respect your opinion (because it is an opinion, and you say it's an opinion).

i didn't really want to, but i couldn't find any carchy spino skull comparisons..

Quote: 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.

There are no opinions in paleontology... Just theories that are supported by facts.

Quote: 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?

Ok, so I used the searching function to search for both theropods, and nothing came up comparing and contrasting the two. Tyrannosaurus had a pneumatic rostrum, but yet it is common knowledge that it was a simply very strongly-fused structure that was designed for resistance and crushing as a whole, which allosaurs like carcharodontosaurus (for relevance reasons) did not possess... It is definitely likely that carcharodontosaurus had a generally STRONGER SKULL VERTICALLY, but probably not for gripping. It is all about adaptations buddy

Carcharodontosaurus did not possess a very robust snout! It would have likely been damaged very easily in gripping events, especially by comparison to that ability in spinosaurus. Spinosaurus was characterized by a much more robustly-constructed rostrum that was, fundamentally in conjunction with its tooth morphology, a decent indicator of high gripping resistance. Based on what we know about both animals, spinosaurus was simply much better designed for gripping as evidenced by its comparably more dense rostrum.

Quote: i didn't really want to, but i couldn't find any carchy spino skull comparisons..

http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20101003190116/archosauria/images/e/e2/Skulls2.png

That's fine, I get it.

you're seriously ridiculous bro. You didn't Even READ it? then you can't say it didn' thave anything relevant in it. so scientific.

The stuff your insistantly spewing at us about spino is a theory of YOURS. that is it. point. blank. period.

Better things to do? Such as......? What? Theories, opinions, same deal, different word. It is my theory that Rex (for example) maxed out at 45 feet, or It is my opinion that Rex maxed out at 45 feet. Theory just sounds more professional.

You know what, tell me what evidence you have to back up your "opinion" that spinosaurus was a weakly-built animal.

I tried to already and it says its a forbidden page...

When the F*** did anyone say Spino was weakly built? Answer me that! I look forward to seeing what you have misunderstood to get that.

your link failed epically.

I will find sources for my info in a minute, but one limitation/ disadvange of spino is that huge sail on it's back. It falls on that thing,it breaks its back and dies. It is also a huge target for Carcharodontosaurus to munch into, and is EVIDENCE of that happening( or some large theropod) biting into a spinos sail. there's one thing that made it a 'weak' animal. Probably wasn't adapted for terrestrial prey, or fighting other theropods. But that's MY THEORY.