Close
Trending Articles
Featured Blogs
Featured Merchandise
Scified Network

Spinosaurus Theories

0 Upvotes36 RepliesUpvoteAdd A Reply
Forum Topic

Jezza

Mar-10-2014 4:15 AM

WARNING: My theories may different than yours, If you have is a problem with that than I suggest you don't read any further.

Today I will discuss my opions on Spinosaurus' size, behavior, hunting, diet, and anatomy. I will try not to make any grammar mistakes (though I'm not promising much).

Size:

Spinosaurus' size has been estimated to be around 11-15 tons by most paleontologists. Some say that he was 6-7.5 tons (not pointing fingers), but they have no evidence for it. We only have some ribs, spines, and the lower part of a jaw to work with here. There is no way to tell what its exact size was, but judging from its length and height, it would have most likely been over 12 tons. It could have looked like Planet Dinosaur, Monsters Ressurected (unlikely, but still), Walking With Dinosurs, JP III, or even Primal Carnage. We do have other spinosaur remains we can look at though. The point is, we don't know exactly how these animals were.

 

Height: 23-26ft.-Length: 56-60ft.-Weight: 11-15 tons

Head:

Since we only have a partial skull, there is no way to tell for sure what its head was like.

Spinosaur heads are some of the most interresting heads in the animal kingdom. They were 7-8ft long, crocodile-like, with long, conical teeth. They had a small crest in-between heir eyes, no one knows for sure what it was for though.

There jaws were fairly narrow for such a large animal, but still lethal. Its long jaws were eight feet long and powerful. Though maybe not as powerful as a T-rex, but strong none the less. I estimate it to be around 5.5-6.5 tons, while Rex has a 9-10 ton bite force.

Their snout was very speciallized, the end of a spinosaurus' snout had pores. These pores are presumed to be pressure sensors, like those of a modern day croc. They were very sensitive and strong, they would sense movement, but this would mean that they swam as well.

Teeth:

Spinosaurus had long, conical teeth that were anywhere from 5-14.5in. long. These teeth were perfect for skewering fish and leaving deep puncture wounds in large animals. Some people say that Spino had weak, eaily breakable teeth, but there were heavily armored fish then, those teeth had to go through tough skin and scales of prey and competitors. They were great for holding things in place so it could bring its claws into play.

Recently, scientistswere examining a spinosaurus tooth and found fine little serrations on them. These serrations were so small that no one had ever noticed before. The serrations probably only helped some, if the victim was struggling or spino was moving his jaws violently, then the serrations would have made some damage and made the wound bigger. This is to be studied some more, but it is possible that spino had serrated teeth.

With the shape of their teeth, they would had to thrash their heads around to rip off large chunks of meat and swollowing them whole, much like a crocodile.

Eyes:

We don't much about what their eyes were like, but judging from other spinosaurs, they were most likely binocular. 

I believe spinosaurus probably swam, but not have swam either. If it did, than I believe it probably had a third eyelid to protect its eye ball from sand and grit floating around. But even if it didn't swim, it would have most likely had a third eyelid to protect its eye from sandstorms.

Hearing:

Not much is none about its hearing, but using other spinosaurs' (we have use reference to other spinosaurs because of the lack of fossil evidence from spinosaurus) ears, they were probably not the best in the animal kingdom. But only time will tell, maybe someday, we'll find some more fossils.

Olfactory Glands:

Olfactory glands are just a fancy word for nostrils.

The spinosaurus' sense of smell was very strong like T-rex's. They had very large nasal chamber to capture even the slightest smell.

Claws/Arms:

Spinosaurus had massive claws the size of meat hooks that were upwards of 15in. These massive claws were thick and serrated, razor sharp knives. But that's not all, they were suspended on giant 7ft. arms strong enough to punch those claws through metal.

Sail:

There are too many speculations on its sail to count. Some believe it was actually a hump, some believe i was a sail. Some believe it was for display, it changed colors, it regulated the body.

I think it was used to regulate body temperature and attract mates. I don't believe however that it was a hump, but it wasn' just skin.

 Just think about it. If a spino is running, its sail would be floppingf around a bit, and probably causing spinal damage. If it was a hump, than would most likely over-heat, being so large a having a hump weighing him down even more. I propose that its sail had a build up of muscle and/or fat at the base of its sail, then it gets thinner as it goes up to the top of the sail. It can still regulate, display to mates, and not get bogged down by a massive hump.

There are also people who say that he wasn't agile or very manueverable, but that's just not the case. Its spinal collumns were very flexible and jointed, giving it an amazing amount of mobility.

Diet:

I don't believe in evolution so this is my list.

Hadrosaurs (Ouranosaurus), Sauropods, fish, buffalo, zebra, wildebeast, crocodiles, carrion, etc.

I don't think a dinosaur that big would just eat fish. It would need a wider diet, eating larger, more satisfying meals.

Hunting:

Spinosaurus probably stayed close to the water a lot of the time fish and ambushing herbivores from the water like a croc.

Using its pressure sensors I mentioned earlier, it would find prey easily in the murky water. Sneaking up on its drinking prey from the depths, and then darting out like a flash and grabbing it. Then, using its immense strength and size, drag it below the surface of the water to drown.

Swimming wouldn't be a problem for Spinosaurus, with its powerful tail, webbed claws and feet it would glide through water with ease.

Now onto its land based hunting. It probably didn't do this too much, if the fish were scarce and the it was the dry season, then it would go out hunting for a meal on land. Likely anything it could catch. It might go kill an ouranosaurus, buffalo, or a good sized sauropod to have for dinner.

I truely think that this is one of the most awesome creatures God has made.

Thank you readers for reading my discussion, hope you liked it and shed some more light on Spinosaurus' life.

Personnally, I think the pc game Primal Carnage has got it pretty close to what I imagine to have been.

Feel FREE to comment below, I'm always welcome to new ideas.

Next, if you liked this, I'll talk about my other favorite dino...Acrocanthosaursus.

 

 

Youre fat, and I'm not sugarcoating it cause you'd probably eat that too.

36 Responses to Spinosaurus Theories

Lord Vader

Mar-10-2014 7:19 AM

You have some valid points in the matter, yes. I do however, disagree with a few and have a few other things to say. I agree with your height, I thing your length and weight are high. You say we have no evidence for it being 6-7.5 tons, but at the same time, we have no evidence that it was 11-15 tons. We also truly have no evidence that Spinosaurus hulking 7 foot long arms that could pierce metal. We have no evidence that it had webbed feet eithe. Since there are no footprints found and skin doesn't fossilize. 

 

You do have some valid points, but at the same time, your theories to have some gaps, but hey, those are just your opinions and I respect you for being rational about.

 

One other thing, leave T-Rex out of this. I saw that remark about the metal and "not to mention a T-Rex." 

Jack of all trades. Master of none

Carnosaur

Mar-10-2014 8:14 AM

you do have some interesting ideas...and while your weight and length numbers seem to a bit high, you aren't high balling them too bad.  Keep in mind Spinosaurs in general were lightly built animals. These are your opinions, and it's good for you to get 'em out there.

It's a shame we don't have more of Spino, so we would actually know a bit about the behavior.

Nature doesn't deceive us; it is we who deceive ourselves.

Jezza

Mar-10-2014 5:01 PM

I'll edit the rex part out right away. brb

Youre fat, and I'm not sugarcoating it cause you'd probably eat that too.

Jezza

Mar-10-2014 5:17 PM

I honestly do think spino would've easily reached 60ft, but not any more. And I don't think was 15 tons, there is a slight possiblilty (given that some feel he was 20 tons, which is highly unlikely). 

Carnosaur, we really don't know if it was a heavy or light weight dinosaur. And I realize that some animals are long but not heavy, but there is no ignoring 60ft. To me, 60ft. is too big to count as 7 tons.

And I was just using other spinosaur members as prefference to the claws and arms. I think they could've easily gotten to 7ft., and if they did, I think they would have peirce a sheet or two of steel with little resistance. Also the webbing, it is just something I always thought was highly probable for spino, given their resemblance to crocs and them living basically on the water.

Also, I don't really agree with all of Monsters Ressuerrected's statements, but their were a few things I thought would've been accurate.

P.S.

How did you guys feel about the suppored sail theory and Primal Carnage's recreation. Plus do you think I should make an Acrocanthosaurus thread?

Youre fat, and I'm not sugarcoating it cause you'd probably eat that too.

Carnosaur

Mar-10-2014 5:24 PM

i meant SPINOSAURS, the group of animals in general. 20 tons, in my opinion, is high balling it greatly. For an example, a 11 meter Suchomimus would weigh around 4 tons, compared to...let's say a 11 meter Torvosaurus, who would weigh 5-6 tons.

Webbing on the toes is an interesting idea, it may be possible. Webbing wouldn't really fossilize, so we may not know for sure

Nature doesn't deceive us; it is we who deceive ourselves.

Rex Fan 684

Mar-10-2014 7:44 PM

Personally, I put Spino at an average size of 14-15 meters long and 5-6 tons. 16-17 meters long and 7-8 tons is my max estimate.

 

 

Webbing, possible, but hard to say.

 

Power/Diet- Strong simply because we're talking an animal bigger than an elephant, but pound for pound, not nearly as strong as T. rex or even possibly Giganotosaurus/Carcharodontosaurus. I estimate Spino's bite force at about 2-3 tons psi. I feel it hunted fish, crocodiles, pterosaurs(possibly), small to mid-sized dinosaurs(like Ouranosaurus), juvenile sauropods, and it would also scavenge from time to time.

 

Just my thoughts.

"Men like me don't start the wars. We just die in them. We've always died in them, and we always will. We don't expect any praise for it, no parades. No one knows our names." ―Alpha-98

Primal King

Mar-10-2014 8:23 PM

^Agreed RexFan

"If you can't see it... It's already too late."

-Jurassic Apocalypse (by Paden)

Elite Raptor 007

Mar-11-2014 4:38 AM

I possibly think that Jezza's idea was correct, i personally think that spino hunting area were not just limited to the waters edge, along the mating season or nesting season, it mostly will kill a young individual, or hunt an adult Ouranosaurus.

were just not know too much about Spino, till that more evidence found..... there will be more Debate about Spino

Jezza

Mar-11-2014 1:01 PM

Woops...I forgot to add a couple more things in the discussion. Looks like I'll be editting some more.

Youre fat, and I'm not sugarcoating it cause you'd probably eat that too.

Carnosaur

Mar-15-2014 1:05 AM

despite the popular belief, ouranosaurus didn't live with Spinosaurus.

Now, a close relative, yes. Just not the species Ouranosaurus....common misconception.

Nature doesn't deceive us; it is we who deceive ourselves.

Jezza

Mar-15-2014 2:45 PM

Oh, sorry, my bad. Well, spino probably ate dinos that size.

Youre fat, and I'm not sugarcoating it cause you'd probably eat that too.

Phantom Raptor

Mar-30-2014 2:24 AM

Gotta love creationist logic.

Guy says; “I don’t believe in evolution. I believe dinosaurs like Spinosaurus and Ouranosaurus lived with man and other contemporary animals.”

Gets corrected by a sane person who informs him that Ouranosaurus and Spinosaurus did not live at the same time, and his response is; “Oh, sorry, my bad. Well, spino probably ate other dinos that size.”

Gold...

You realize that less time separates us from Spinosaurus than that which separates Spinosaurus from other dinosaurs like Stegosaurus, (right?). When corrected on that you accepted it. So how exactly do Zebras and Wildebeests fit into this retarded timeline of yours?

Lord Vader

Mar-30-2014 7:32 AM

Instead of picking on the kid, why don't you do something constructive? All insulting someone does is tick people off and make yourself look like an ass. 

Jack of all trades. Master of none

Phantom Raptor

Mar-31-2014 2:23 AM

I did do something constructive (in my opinion). I pointed out an awesomely ironic self-contradictory statement.

If person A doesn’t accept (despite over 150 years of compiled scientific evidence) the concept of deep geologic time and different dinosaurs living at different time periods, then person B telling him that Spinosaurus and Ouranosaurus actually lived millions of years apart should be absolutely meaningless to him – because person A believes that everything that has EVER evolved lived on the planet at the same exact time!

Things like Spinosaurus and wildebeest are actually almost as far apart (chronologically speaking) as Ouranosaurus is from Spinosaurus.

According to his logic; Spinosaurus lived with wildebeest and kangaroos, but not Ouranosaurus because according to the geological timescale (which he doesn’t accept) Ouranosaurus lived in the Early Cretaceous, but Spinosaurus lived in the Late Cretaceous! I’m sorry but that’s hilarious any way you cut it…

Pointing out someone’s hypocrisy does not make one an ass (quite the opposite actually).

Apologies for using the word ‘retarded’ (the intent was not to offend) but it was the only adjective that sprung to mind at the time… And I never directly insulted him, the adjective was applied to the weird timeline conjured by his mental gymnastics - not him as a person…

I actually agreed with most of his other observations about Spinosaurus (and I study these animals for a living), though I didn’t feel like commenting on the lack of evidence for webbed feet (as cool and/or probable as that might be), or some of his comments on the weight estimates of Spinosaurus.

I didn’t comment on all that because honestly what’s the point? This Spinosaurs Vs T-rex ‘debate’ has been raging for years and you’re never going to convince the die-hard fanboys of anything…

Lord Vader

Mar-31-2014 3:34 AM

Sorry to come across as a jerk there. Good points, and you're one if the first new guys who hasn't come here and started posting in Rex vs Spino. I know what you mean with the fanboys.

Jack of all trades. Master of none

Phantom Raptor

Mar-31-2014 9:29 AM

Yeah, I only signed up to be able to comment on Jurassic World news and interact with other fans here. I’m still getting used to this site.

 

As for this thread, it was the title that caught my attention with the weird heading “My theories may differ from yours, if you have a problem with that, don’t read this...” I thought that was odd, but ascribed it to the common misuse of the word theory. He probably meant hypothesis (I thought to myself).

In Science a theory is the highest form of knowing. They are the best explanation. By definition there can be no two opposing theories for one natural phenomenon (the theory of evolution, the theory of gravity, the germ theory of disease etc.). He does not have a theory! What he should have said was hypothesis. You can have multiple competing/opposing hypotheses, but eventually only one will explain your observations accurately.

Overall, it was a very weird warning. If you disagree with something, you don’t ignore it – you question it. If someone makes a claim, it’s up to them to defend it, not advise potential dissenters to move along and ignore it. It struck me as a very odd thing to say. Then I read on and it all made sense when the guy revealed that he was a creationist.

I would normally have just rolled my eyes and clicked away, but when I read his self-contradictory comment the irony was just too much...  

 

As for the Rex Vs. Spino debate, I’ve met my fair share of fanboys. The trick is to get them to define exactly what they are comparing. You must first state whether you are talking about the real Mesozoic animals (which lived on different continents and at different points in earth history), or the transgenics bred by InGen and set free on Isla Sorna. Otherwise you’re comparing apples and oranges. And you have to compare them on a trait by trait basis, then tally it all up and see who comes out on top...

I’ll leave it at that. But in my opinion, that is the best way to enter into this debate, and the only method by which you have half a chance of introducing logic to a die-hard fanboy...

Lord Vader

Mar-31-2014 2:44 PM

Good points, and regarding the warning thing, that was me that did it first. I was ticked off when Rex vs Spino started up a fifth or so time because of the same guy, and I did that with a topic on my opinions on Spino so the fanboys wouldn't give me sh!t for "under rating" the "true King" or the "real King." 

Jack of all trades. Master of none

Jezza

Apr-02-2014 11:28 PM

@Phantom Raptor

Sorry for the missuse of the word "theory", just the first thing that popped in my head and sounded good. Should've used another word.

As for the timeline, I missread Carnosaur's post. I took it as, he was saying that they didn't live in the same place. Since I know almost nothing about ouranosaurs, and for some reason thought they lived together, I thought that was what I was wrong about.

So yes, it was a contradiction, but one for a good reason, a simple missunderstanding.

No, it was not a spino vs rex thread at all, just a disscussion on my thoughts on spino. Though I did put one thing rex vs spino in there, but edited it out.

And sorry, I don't believe in evolution, to much stuff going against it. I know, you may say something about God being fake, but there is nothing that can't prove His existance.

I believe that all creatures lived together at one time. Yes, some animals go extinct.

There is evidence that dinosaurs lived with humans. There are drawings, statues, art, and ancient documents that describe animals just like dinosaurs.

Also, as for the "ass" thing, you basically called me one. Don't do that again, or I'll have a talk with Chris.

Youre fat, and I'm not sugarcoating it cause you'd probably eat that too.

Phantom Raptor

Apr-03-2014 3:54 AM

@ Jezza

“Sorry for the missuse of the word "theory", just the first thing that popped in my head and sounded good. Should've used another word.”

Yes, you should have.

It is a common thing that lay-people do. They say theory when they mean hypothesis. At best you had some armchair speculations on the nature of Spinosaurus, and due to the scant remains of this genus, that’s really all you can have.

If you had a theory, it would be an accepted FACT, (like the theory of gravity, or the germ theory of disease or the theory of evolution). Theories in science are the absolute best explanation of a collection of facts or natural phenomena. All scientific knowledge and theories are based on observation and consistent logic. A theory is the most logical explanation for ALL observations. A good, scientific theory also proposes a set of new observations that could test a theory's power to explain. This ability to be tested, and the potential for the theory to be invalidated by the experiment, is the essence of falsifiability (a virtue not a weakness in a scientific theory). Evolution, for example, is falsifiable (if for example you find a rabbit fossil from the Precambrian or a wildebeest fossil from the Cretaceous you would have a case, but people have been trying to falsify the theory for over 150 years and have consistently failed). ‘Intelligent design’ is not a theory because it is not falsifiable, this is because it makes no predictions that can actually be tested.

That’s why when people say things like evolution is ‘JUST a theory’, they only make themselves look ignorant.

 

“As for the timeline, I missread Carnosaur's post. I took it as, he was saying that they didn't live in the same place. Since I know almost nothing about ouranosaurs, and for some reason thought they lived together, I thought that was what I was wrong about.”

You were wrong about that. They did live in the same general place (Northern Africa) just not at the same time.

 

“No, it was not a spino vs rex thread at all, just a disscussion on my thoughts on spino. Though I did put one thing rex vs spino in there, but edited it out.”

You didn’t edit it out completely because you still compare Spinosaurus to Tyrannosaurus in terms of olfactory ability, and anyway there are several mentions of Tyrannosaurus in the comments.

But ignoring all that, where exactly did I imply that it WAS a ‘Spino Vs Rex’ thread? I simply stated that I agreed with ‘most’ of the comments you made, but did not feel like commenting on the lack of evidence for some of your speculations – because I DIDN’T want to turn it into a Spinosaurus Vs Tyrannosaurus debate.

 

“And sorry, I don't believe in evolution, to much stuff going against it.”

You should be sorry; ignorance is something to be ashamed of especially when there is so much information on this topic out there.

By the way, no one ‘believes’ in the theory of evolution, just as no one ‘believes’ in the germ theory of disease. It is demonstrable that germs cause disease, just as it is demonstrable that life on this planet has evolved/changed over time. It’s not a matter of belief. You either UNDERSTAND a theory or you don’t (and clearly, you don’t).

And there is nothing ‘going against it’ otherwise it would not be a theory! People have been trying to find something that ‘goes against’ the theory of evolution for over 150 years, and they have all failed miserably. And by that I mean actual scientists, not creationists (who present nothing but forgeries and demonstrably flawed arguments). If an actual scientist found a flaw in the theory of evolution, he/she would be awarded a Nobel Prize because people have been sincerely trying and no one has managed to do that in over 150 years. But then they would have to come up with an even better explanation for the undeniable evidence that life on this planet has changed over time.

 

“I know, you may say something about God being fake, but there is nothing that can't prove His existance.”

You don’t know a thing about me. I’m actually a Christian if you must know, and I grew up attending church regularly. What I am NOT, is a fundamentalist creationist biblical literalist. I do not accept creationism because it is not consistent with the world we live in, not because it disagrees with evolution. I am NOT an atheist, but I have the common sense not to take every aspect of scripture literally.

It’s funny how selectively literate creationists are when it comes to reading the Bible. You happily take Genesis I as literally true, but conveniently ignore ALL other chapters;

The Bible tells parents in Deuteronomy 21:18-21 to stone their disobedient children to death. I understand that this is the Old Testament, but then why do we follow the Ten Commandments (also Old Testament)?

Exodus 21:7 says it’s OK to sell your daughter into slavery. Exodus 22:17 NAB says “You should not let a sorceress live.” There goes Copperfield…

Exodus 22:19 NAB says “whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed.” So why aren’t you out there killing followers of all other religions?

Exodus 31:12-15 NLT says “Anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.” So why aren’t you out there killing people who work on the weekend?

Why do you eat shrimp? Leviticus 11:10 reads, "But whatever is in the seas and in the rivers that does not have fins and scales among all the teeming life of the water, and among all the living creatures that are in the water, they are detestable things to you." And shellfish is right in that wheelhouse.

Leviticus 11 bans a TON of animals from being eaten (it's THE basis for Kosher law); beyond shellfish and pig, it also says you can't eat camel, rock badger, rabbit, eagle, vulture, buzzard, falcon, raven, crow, ostrich, owl, seagull, hawk, pelican, stork, heron, bat, winged insects that walk on four legs unless they have joints to jump with like grasshoppers (?), bear, mole, mouse, lizard, gecko, crocodile, chameleon and snail.

People eat some of the things on that list every day. Sorry if that totally ruins your plans for some steamed escargot this weekend.

Leviticus 19:19 reads, "You are to keep My statutes. You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together." Check the tag on your shirt right now. Chances are that it is polyester or some other blend of fabric. Didn't realize you were mid-sin at this exact second, did you?

You don’t seem to be so anal about following those laws to the letter…

But ignore all that, the Earth was made in 6 LITERAL days (because if creationists are good at one thing; it’s taking the entire Bible literally and following it to the T – right?)

Food for thought...

 

Also; “there is nothing that can't prove His existance.”

What is with that double negative?! Are you saying that EVERYTHING proves his existence or that you will accept no evidence that does'nt? I’ve argued with creationists long enough to know that what you meant to say was; “you cannot disprove his existence.”

That is a logical fallacy. The onus is not on me to disprove a claim (God exists) that YOU made. You are the one making an extrodinary claim, and thus the burden of proof is on YOU to prove that this is true, not me to disprove it (and being a Christian I don't see why I would want to).

I’ll give you an example;

I tell you that I have a magical fire breathing dragon in my room. You say “that’s not true, I can look in your room and see that it is not there.” So I tell you that it is invisible. So you say you can’t feel the heat form its breath. And I tell you that the dragon breathes a heatless fire and that it cannot be seen, heard, or sensed in any way, nor does it leave footprints. You don’t believe me.So I say; “there is nothing that can't prove my dragons’ existence.” And I challenge YOU to disprove it.

Do you see the HUGE problem in that? YOU are the one making a fantastic claim, and so the onus is on YOU to back-up YOUR claim, not on the person you are trying to convince…

 

“I believe that all creatures lived together at one time.”

Wrong. Demonstrably wrong…

“There is evidence that dinosaurs lived with humans. There are drawings, statues, art, and ancient documents that describe animals just like dinosaurs.”

Spare me.

I’ve investigated every single creationist claim of human-dinosaur coexistence and they are all NONSENSE.

90% of them are forgeries like the Inca stones (made by a farmer who admitted to making thousands and selling them to tourists. He based his designs on an old comic book, which is why they are all posed like 50’s style dinosaurs dragging their tails instead of the more accurate modern view we would expect if who ever carved those images saw an actual dinosaur) or the poorly carved paluxy tracks (when a foot presses down in mud it compresses the layers beneath it. These human footprints that cross-cut dinosaur tracks have been X-rayed and CT-scanned and they all show NO compression – in other words; they were carved!). The other 10% are statues of fantastical mythological creatures or scratchings on a cave wall where you have to squint really hard and actively try to convince yourself that these even look remotely like a dinosaur like creationists claim…

I’m not going to sit here and disprove every single nonsense claim you make, so here is a great video that completely disproves every “man lived with dinosaurs” claim (including the examples I gave) in a very clear way; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5kckGxwJr4

You can also watch this video series for more; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnJX68ELbAY&list=PL126AFB53A6F002CC

 

“Also, as for the "ass" thing, you basically called me one. Don't do that again, or I'll have a talk with Chris.”

I don’t recall calling you an ass and I don’t take kindly to threats. You don’t scare me because I did nothing wrong.

You are typical of creationists on the internet, super touchy with the slightest of ‘bad’ language and then attempt to censor your dissenters when you can’t defeat them with logic.

I’m not interested in a creationism/evolution debate with you (there’s really nothing to debate. Creationism is false), so leave it at this.

And for the record; I never called you an ass. What I said in reply to ‘Mr. Happy’ was; “Pointing out someone’s hypocrisy does not make one an ass (quite the opposite actually)”. Ass was his word, not mine and it was originally directed at ME.

I actually applied the word ‘retarded’ (as in; lagging/backward) to your timeline of earth history… which is exactly what it is when you cram 3billion years of evolution into a timeframe of 6 days.

 I'm not interested in an argument, so I'll leave it at this.

Lord Vader

Apr-03-2014 4:17 AM

Let's NOT get religion into this. Just cool it, both of you.

 

Jezza, there's no need to get help from Chris just because the guy disagrees with you. He hasn't broken any forum rules.

 

Phantom, once again, keep religion out of this. Regarding the Rex vs Spino thing, it has nothing to do with what he said about the smell. It was when he said that Spino's arms were strong enough to slash through a piece of metal, and as an afterthought, he put, "Not to mention a T-Rex." 

Jack of all trades. Master of none

Phantom Raptor

Apr-03-2014 4:31 AM

Ok.

I said my piece so I’m done here anyway (as indicated).

Oh; and my reference to his mention of Spinosaurus’ olfaction abilities could probably have been deleted.

I was trying to say that there were other people in the comments here comparing T-rex and Spino (though briefly), and pointing out that what I actually said was that I did not want to turn it into a Rex Vs Spino debate (Still don’t)…

Lord Vader

Apr-03-2014 4:33 AM

Alright, just trying to keep things under control.

Jack of all trades. Master of none

Jezza

Apr-03-2014 1:29 PM

Phantom Raptor, I really don't want any enemoes on this site. But I just don't see your form of Christianity, is Christianity. It completely goes against the Bible.You have completely looked over Jesus' work. I am a REAL Christian, one who doesn't pick and choose verses to believe. I won't go out stone everyone to death because I'm not a Muslim. (911, car bombs, etc.). But don't around talking about Scripture when you have no idea what you're saying. I don't like it when people like you twist God's Words to what they want it to be.

I really am confused, your idea of Christianity is weird, never heard of one like it.

Sorry Mr. Happy, I had to get that out of my system. I won't let this get out of hand.

I agree, the threat was a bit childish on my part, sorry. It was stupid. I had a bad day when I posted that 

What is with all the grammar corrections? I am from the south, I say double negatives sometimes, get over it.

I don't see how my post about olfactory glands was spino vs rex related, I just simply used rex as a comparitive. I didn't say that spino would beat rex in a smelling competion or anything like that. Tyrannosaurus Rex is one of my favorite dinos, right under spinosaurus and acrocanthosaurus. There is no doubt in my mind that T-rex was king of North America, with Acro in second place.

I do agree, there are forgeries out there of ancient dino statues, art, etc. But there are some out there that I do think are real.

I'm making a thread on how a few (still doing research on it) dinosaurs could still be alive, or were not long ago. Think about medieval dragons, they are described a lot like dinosaurs. Just some of my opions. (are you happy I didn't use theory in there?)

When it's done I'll message you about it. I welcome you to check it out when it's done. 

P.S.

There was another member to this forum ( not saying who) who quoted other people and made them look like idiots a lot like you did to me, nobody liked him so he went back to the Godzilla forums (I think Mr. Happy and some other people know who I'm talking about). Don't act like him, just don't.

I don't want a feud between us. You're a new member and I don't want to chase any new people off like FACT DUDE and S-Rex did.

Youre fat, and I'm not sugarcoating it cause you'd probably eat that too.

Jezza

Apr-03-2014 1:31 PM

Also Mr. Happy, thanks for the moderating, you're good at it. ;)

Youre fat, and I'm not sugarcoating it cause you'd probably eat that too.

Lord Vader

Apr-03-2014 1:57 PM

Thanks, and that's fine Jezza. Let's keep religion off these forums in general from here on out. About the quote thing, it wasn't so much the whole quote this quote that, but more so the guy's responses. The guy tried to pass off everything he said as fact and said we were all morons for thinking paleootology is opinions. I had a few things that I could say were fact, and they sure as hell weren't regarding paleontology if you know what I mean.

Jack of all trades. Master of none

Raptor-401

Apr-03-2014 10:29 PM

Yah, listen to Mr. Happy. I myself am a Roman Catholic, proud to be one, but this is site is called Scified. I think it's just better to not discuss religion at all in any forum.

IT'S TIME TO DU-DU-DU-DU-DUEL!!!

Jezza

Apr-03-2014 11:14 PM

Agreed. Religion doesn't really flow with the site, sci-fi stands for science fiction. I concur with Raptor 401 and Mr. Happy.

 

I did reveal that I believe in creation in the discussion, but Phantom chose to make Creationism look idiotic. I did what any other Christian (or other religious person) would do, I defended my faith. I didn't bad mouth his beliefs, I wanted it to stay under control, but he went off on how it was complete bull. I felt no need to insult him or his "Christianity" (which I am still confused about), so I didn't.

 

Then he told me that I was touchy and couldn't take bad words. I can say words like ass, but I just didn't want to make a getting bad debate even worse. It was very naive of him.

 

I won't persecute anyone for there beliefs, I might question them. But never insult them or their beliefs.

 

Yeah, that member (you know who) was a pain in the ass a lot, very demeaning to people. It wasn't his quoting really, just the way he responded to other's thoughts. I was just saying that Phantom would be better off not acting like he did.

 

My appologies if I offended him.

Youre fat, and I'm not sugarcoating it cause you'd probably eat that too.

Raptor-401

Apr-04-2014 5:25 PM

It's okay. It's interesting, though, here in Catholic School they teach us that the first few stories in Genesis are actually myths, especially the Creation stories. They teach us that they were created just to give us a bit understanding of how God works and stuff like that. If you wish to reply to this, PM me.

IT'S TIME TO DU-DU-DU-DU-DUEL!!!

Jezza

May-25-2014 2:25 AM

We can debate about geology and paleontology all day long and not get very far (see how we're both stubborn). You are a Uniformitarian, I'm a Catastrophist, we have different thoughts on earths past. I've recently read a lot on geology, both points of view, and I am sticky with catastrophism. You say it takes a thousand years to deposit one foot of sediments. In my science book, it showed a 20 foot tall wall of sedimentary rock that was formed in less than 5 hours. Tke Engineers' Canyon for example, there is another canyon next to it formed in a day, not a million years.

These are petrified remains of binoculars and a hat. The hat was found in a mine in Tasmainia.

This is a water wheel that was petrified in 60 years. If it takes only 60 years for this to petrify, why would it take millions for fossils to petrify?

Take it how you want, either way, we both have to have faith in something. You have to have faith that the earth is millions of years old and evolution is true as you say, and I have to have faith the Bible is true. Both view points have  a lot of evidence to support them. But I, being slightly biased like all other person with scientific views, am leaning towards Creation and catastrophism. I also really don't see how the Big Bang Theory (not the show) is even a theory at all. The idea of a sudden explosion of energies floating around in nothing creating everything in the precise positions to support life on Earth. There had to be something more intelligent than that.

The Great Flood Had a lot to do with geology and paleontology. The constant shifts and current of the water coming from the bottom of the ocean would have had dramatic affect on everything. Different ainmals would be strewn in different places and buried in different layers of sediments. Uniformitarian geologists take different layers of the earth with the same animals that don't even line up, and tell us that it is a timeline. They take a layer here and a layer there and say, "Ah, that's close enough together that they are the same." That's uniformitarianism for ya.

I got this information from my science book, 'Exploraing Creation With General Science', by Dr. Jay L. Wile. Check it out.

This has been a fun debate, I like dabating things like this.

Youre fat, and I'm not sugarcoating it cause you'd probably eat that too.

Raptor-401

Jun-28-2014 5:00 PM

Eh, no offense, but most evidence form the Bible was disproven a while ago, and still goes on to date. Evidence to support Creationism isn't really solid it just relies on quotes and 'scattered' evidence. But we all have our opinions. And it probably would have been better to PM this to me, because I barely saw it right now.

IT'S TIME TO DU-DU-DU-DU-DUEL!!!

Add A Reply
New Topics

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Activity

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Ad

Scified is an entertainment media network covering the latest news on the most popular, upcoming science fiction movies, games and television. All content is property of Scified.com unless otherwise stated. Images and names of content we promote, discuss, review or report are property of their respective owners. Scified is independantly owned and operated by a team of dedicated sci-fi movie fans, who strive to provide the best information and community experience for other like-minded sci-fi movie enthusiasts.

© 2019 Scified.com