Laughable and ridiculous statements

[Infinity Blade]

Another well-liked Carnivora thread that I'd like to put on here. Title explains all. I'll start:

"An Argentinosaurus would have little chance against a T.rex sized bear, especially if the bear attacked it from the front. The bear on the otherhand would have no trouble snapping the sauropod's neck to kill it."
Source

[Carcharodon]

African Elephant vs Tyrannosaurus is a mismatch in favor of the elephant at equal weights.

*cough* Taipan *cough*

[Infinity Blade]

What the bloke doesn't seem to realize is that a T.rex is at the most 8.4 tonnes (Sue) while Argentinosaurus is what? ~60-ish tonnes? No contest there. To make matters worse, a T.rex-sized bear (any bear, really) would almost, if not outright immediately die due to it being completely unadapted to being at such a large size. Even if we used a hypothetical bear that evolved to be ~6.5t or so (and you would probably need to drastically change its anatomy and physiology for it to be that way), again, the mammal is still only a fraction of the sauropod's size. The bear would lack any sufficient weaponry to kill an animal so large, and a single tail slap from Argentinosaurus would probably kill the bear.

It's really no contest.

[Vodmeister]

Siberian Tiger vs Silverback Gorilla is a mismatch... in favor of the gorilla.

[Dakotaraptor]

Apr 5, 2014 5:58:29 GMT 5 Carcharodon said:

African Elephant vs Tyrannosaurus is a mismatch in favor of the elephant at equal weights.

*cough* Taipan *cough*

"Not big surprise" about his bias towards modern mammals. 

[Runic]

So much fail toby....

Did you really screenshot all that? Lol

[Dakotaraptor]

This makes me to do double facepalm.
deadliestbeasts.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:Godkombat21/Velociraptor_vs_Smilodon

One of the most dangerous predators of the dinosaur world? faster? ...And is it proven that they were pack hunters, let alone working well in packs?

[creature386]

"Liopleurodon was 25 m long because a friend of mine has found fossils supporting that"

There are more such comments. For example some guys debated about Spinosaurus vs Tyrannosaurus and one said: "I'm a famous paleontologist, so I am right. The reason why my channel says I'm 13 is because my brother hacked it. I'm actually 23!"

[theropod]

Apr 6, 2014 13:34:19 GMT 5 Dakotaraptor said:

This makes me to do double facepalm.
deadliestbeasts.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:Godkombat21/Velociraptor_vs_Smilodon

One of the most dangerous predators of the dinosaur world? faster? ...And is it proven that they were pack hunters, let alone working well in packs?

Of course! Jurassic park provided unequivocal scientific proof of that. After all, didn’t they resurrect Velociraptors that were only about 10 times the size they should have been?

some very funny statements on Spinosaurus and Tyrannosaurus:

deathstar976 said:

You've gotten that all wrong. The mount at Japan was constructed in 2010 at 45ft(would be about~4-6tons) because the recent and more valid skull only measured at 4.9-5.7ft rather than 9ft which would have made it 18meters and ~9tons. This is why it's on every modern size chart.
The weight estimates of 11ton and up are miserably based on François Therrien's and Donald Henderson's severely flawed references to tyrannosaurids and carnosaurs which were very different than spinosaurids entirely

deathstar976 said:

Spino's max (yet controversial) estimates are 59ft. Sucho was about ~2-3tons yet about ~36ft. If we scale that by about an additional 65%, it would have weighed an additional 6600-9900 pounds or about 3-4 more tons which would make spino actually ~7tons; with the massive bony sail, it may have reached 9tons.
Ultimately, I was clearly right and 7-9tons is still the accurate estimate for spinosaurus.
However, the skull measured more at around 4.9-5.7ft, making it realistically 41-47ft.

Spinosaurus seemingly defies the square-cube law!

deathstar976 said:

You mean other than the results of several expert paleontologists observing the skull in person...
It's a widely accepted fact that MOR008 was indeed 7% larger than the 42 and a half foot Sue which practically makes it 46ft. Unless you are not good with math, I do not see how you could not see that.

Rather like...one palaeontologist,who observed a wrongly reconstructed skull.

deathstar976 said:

Where are you getting that false inforfation that MOR008 was smaller than Sue? All sites I've seen all state the same thing. Nothing states that it was bigger and the maxilla is actually very noticalbly larger than Sue's.

deathstar976 said:

Well 41-47ft seems to be the most accepted as for it's even on all modern size charts. Also, with a skull measurement of 4.9-5.7ft, for that spino to be 18 meters would mean it had a very small skull ratio by spinosaurid standards and that's not accurate. Their skull length was a major component to their body length and would mean it was actually 41-47ft.
So either spino was 18meters and 9tons or 41-47ft and weighed 4-6tons, 1/3 is sail and Sue has been proven to be over 9tons.

[Dakotaraptor]

I remember Spinosaurus fanboy Spinothisfragilis (i may spell his usermane wrong), who say his father
is paleontologist. It is pretty common in YT that someone say "i am paleontologist" or "i work in museum" etc.

[theropod]

Behold, the king of the fanboys (at least as far as dinosaurs are concerned), I give you the mighty…Palaeosaurus.

Sauropods lacked speed, attack, defense, had no real weapons, no armor and were the least intelligent dinosaurs. They were not battle prey and all they had was their size
The biggest giga is about 43ft which is about a half a foot longer than Sue. This being the case, the fact that giga was much slenderer, lightly built and had tibias with a circumference half that of the original holotype t.rex -which was much smaller than Sue- would mean that giga couldn't possibly be heavier.

Lol

Carnosaur skulls are actually very lightly and quite fragility built. Their skulls had practically paper thin walling and were juxtapose in weak spots.Those skulls were clearly not built to do much damage and would actually be quite easy to fracture.The reason why their skulls were fragile was because they weren't hunting battle prey and thus it would not be necessary to be so durable and resilient
I double that allo using its head like an axe would even be nearly as effective as a crushing blow

That's just a poor fragmented case of which we do not even know what it actually was in certainty and is likely overestimated
Large carcharodontosaurs also had short arms that were also not effective in battle; slightly larger than t.rex's but just as unnecessary. However they also had lighter and more fragile skulls capable of much weaker bites. Tyrannosaurs took a more smarter evolution and shortened their arms to gain a much heavier skull of which was extremely effective.

Ah, I see, a smarter evolution. I guess then that every animal that did not evolve a crushing bite is on a stupid path of evolution...

That is an outdated underestimate and there are many of t.rex's prey items that proves t.rex was biting well over 6tons to 9.6tons. Modern studies is showing that t.rex's bite force was even greater than that. Recent studies are showing that t.rex's bite force was 50X greater than a lion's meaning t.rex's bite was over 15tons
watch?v=YyGAjhuhCzM&feature=plcp

Yes, of course!

"bullshit"? First of all watch the language please. It's actually a lot more evident than you give it credit for. The septic bite for komodo dragons is based on saliva. T.rex's is based on its serrations which held aging pieces of meat and most of t.rex's teeth were too big to stay in its mouth. This would mean that komodo dragons would not compromise t.rex's septic bite
Sure you can get an infection from almost any bite but it all depends on the circumstances and t.rex's seem to be deliberate

Being too big to stay in the mouth somehow improves their ability to grow bacteria?

Obviously you misconstrued what I said and what you about giga's skull did not make sense. What I was saying was that clearly, t-rex had a much greater bite force than giga.Giga's jaws were clearly slender and small whereas t-rex's were very noticeably larger.The skull of giga though longer was clearly more fragile, lighter and not but for such a bite whereas t-rex's clearly was
Besides, most of the length of giga's skull was its mouth, not its jaws and that may actually mean an even weaker bite

I didn’t really get that part. But I got that bite force was very important to that guy.

A stronger and more resilient head means that t-rex can actually fight
down its prey. Its skull can take tremendous force and is unlikely to be
fractured. Plus its head can be used as a weapon

Apparently carnosaurs did not use their heads as weapons!

"They are actually like a saw"? No, not really. Allo's teeth
were sharp but they were only going to go as deep as their teeth and
gums would allow. Allo's teeth stud out at about 2in, maybe 3in. A saw
or blade of an axe can go much deeper because they really do not have
anything to stop them.
I still see no reasons to believe the light
skulls built with practically paper thin walling, large open holes and
juxtaposed with weak spots on carnosaurs to be by any means strong.
Please explain

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11234010

Giga's length for its skull is clearly due to evolving a bigger mouth.In
fact it is almost all *mouth*. A long *mouth* does not mean a greater
or equal bite and may actually mean weaker. Giga's small slender jaws
are not nearly as large and evidence from t.rex skulls show that its
jaws muscles were even larger than we thought. Plus the skull of giga
though longer was clearly more fragile, lighter and not built for such a
bite whereas t.rex's robust compacted skull with powerful teeth clearly
was

At that point I was slowly starting to realize that guy had no clue what a mouth was.

Giganotosaurus’ dentary is freaking 18cm deep at the anterior end! And higher bite force=/=bigger bite

You said that earlier but really, its teeth are only going to
go as far as they are long. For such an axe-like motion to occur and be
even nearly as effective as you are suggesting, the prey would need to
stand perfectly still for quite a while and not react while allo lifts
its head up and then down and so on.
A crushing blow is basically just going up to prey and instantly cause deep and nasty tremendous damage.
I do not see how they compare.

palaeo-electronica.org/content/2013/389-allosaurus-feeding

Science papers? You've literally just linked me to a children's site of
which sells 8th grade leveled books, dino-based party kits such as
disposable paper plates with cartoon dinosaurs on them and was not
giving anything convincing.
As I said, what part about this *small*,
flimsy and almost entirely chipped piece of toothless mandible that
conclusively states that it's a giga? That's all it is and with that
being the case, it is far from *just* inclusive and should not be
accounted for

Note that what I linked him back then were the theropod database and Coria & Calvo 1998!

[Dakotaraptor]

This comment makes me sick.

You are clearly talking about the wrong carnosaur. Mapusaurus was actually just over 30ft and actually weighed about 3.6tons; nothing states otherwise.

He deserves to medal "Master of unfair statements".

They are the only three that potentially rival t.rex and NONE OF THEM show any factual evidence of being even AS powerful as the robust Sue. This would only mean that t.rex was indisputably the strongest
That was all based on comparing them with Sue
MOR-008 which was a very complete t.rex skull estimated to be 7% larger than the 42ft Sue. that meant that it was ~45ft
UCMP-137538 was 15.3 meters(50ft)
UCMP-118742 was a juvenile larger than Sue and was estimated to get to 15-16.8 meters

[Infinity Blade]

I think I've also heard Palaeosaurus claim the minimum bite force estimated for Carcharodontosaurus (when did they ever do this?) was 8 pounds. 

[creature386]

I really hope he forgot some zeros.

[theropod]

TopPhilosopher1 said:

Fossils of t-rex's teeth actually confirms this. The specialized steak-knife serrations also had small cups found on its teeth which would of held small pools of aged blood and meat. Not to mention, but most of its teeth would have stuck out, allowing the blood and pieces of meat to fester. Clearly, there is factual bases behind it. There is a lot of features on dinosaurs that creatures do not have today, so that statement is pointless.

It is really astonishing how much those trolls resemble each other in terms of what they argue. Honestly, I believe Palaeosaurus and TopPhilosopher1, and likely a bunch of other people, are all the same person.

TopPhilosopher1 said:

Kid, please reads the comments you are replying to correctly. Also, 9tons is the newest weight to its estimated size. As far as evidence is showing, spinosaurids were very gracile animals and was depicted to be about 4tons even with the sail. It is the possible estimates of about 51ft that is considered to possibly be 9tons and that the most proven and logical maximum. that theory you are referring to is inconstant as for was not a scaled up version and is a small theory at best.

I kind of enjoyed those discussions, they were really entertaining!

TopPhilosopher1 said:

It appears that you have yet again misconstrued what I wrote; please read carefully. The very largest spinosaurus is only 46ft and is on display; only through assumptions and small theories that spino may grow up to 51ft while t-rec can get to 46ft. Spino is not built like other theropods and its really only longer due to its elongated narrow snout, slender neck, and tail. Clearly their size is not significant. Spino's most logical and proven weight is 9tons and its sail takes part of that.

Quite the contrary, it’s due to its very long body!

TopPhilosopher1 said:

Not only did I read your replies but answered and corrected them properly. The 7tons estimates were only done on specimen BHI 3033, not Sue HERself. Evidence show that it was likely a female and is the only adult found. When studies were finally actually done on Sue, evidence from Sue showed that it was 9tons. Keep in mind, unlike primitive theropods, t-rex was not JUST large but built for power and immense musculature. Spino was about 46-51ft, about the same height to the hip, and very gracile.

That guy has strange definitions of the words "adult" and "female".

TopPhilosopher1 said:

If you actually take the the time to read that, it's referencing to crocodilians. Theropods are more closely related to BIRDS and if we look at STORKS or CRANE(much more suited and logical references), even they prove that false. With jaws that were quite small and an elongated snout meant that its jaws were actually very uneven and quite weak. Not to mention, but with non-serrated fish spearing teeth, it would even less.

Here comes the funny part: That guy referenced to Abler 1992 earlier, when it was about the supposedly infectious bite. Of course he didn’t actually read of know the paper, he parrotted what other fanboys and documentaries had said.
In any case, that paper did not just suggest the possibility, based on the now outdated assumption that that’s the case in komodo dragons, that T. rex bite was infectious (we know, of course, that more or less every carnivore’s bite is infectious!). It had a far more interesting main point, and that was that T. rex teeth were not effective at cutting and that its serrations acted like a dull, smooth blade! To put it in a nutshell, the same thing he highlights here applies to his beloved 46ft, 9t+ T. rex!

TopPhilosopher1 said:

Oh, really? Than why are there NO venom glands? If they were venomous lizards, than they would have chomped, hold on, and grind its teeth in so that the venom can seep in like Gila monsters. Komodo dragons do not have venom inserting teeth like snakes and kill by quickly nipping prey; they bite too quickly for venom to seep in(does not squirt).

Gila monsters do and actually have venom glands with special grooves on their teeth to allow the venom to seep in. This however is not like t-rex's.

what a genius. He actually comprehended that T. rex didn’t have a venomous bite. But for some reason, he doesn’t see there is no paralell between T. rex and the komodo dragon either, and that oras actually have venom glands!

TopPhilosopher1 said:

Actually, spino's sail by no means resembles a hump; it's too thin, delicate, large, and long. The hump theory was just an outdated small theory which has been debunked. In fact, it more so resembles a sail, like that of edaphosaurus or dimetrodon. Spino having a lot of fat is actually a major component to what increased the weight estimates of spino as explained in Planet Dinosaurs; too much abundant fish for just one group. T-rex was logically always hunting, moving and would not be fat.