Actually I did , where you think I foud the pic. If you'd followed your own advise you'd know that since is was on page 1

OMG, OK, if you want me to do this ok, I'll do this here it is, REAL argentinosaurus, this is how it would look like:

I don't have time to debate this insanity, I have to go into the city early tommorrow and its getting late.
I'll leave the height details in one easy to read post and let the readers make their own conclusions


African Elephant shown in pic = 3 to 4 m (10 - 13 ft.) tall at shoulder

http://www.indianchild.com/african_elephants.htm


Imperial Mammoth = 14 feet high at the shoulder

http://www.unmuseum.org/mastodon.htm


Argentinosaurus = 70 feet (21.4 meters) About the size of a six story building.

http://www.hcc.hawaii.edu/~pine/Phil100/argentinosaurus.html



The fact I actually have bothered to get links should account for something about my argument

How do you expect a mammoth to charge it without getting under its feet?

Paulwhale, I admire your passion for defending this topic (utterly ridiculous as it is), however, you have clearly not thought about this in the slightest. You're argueing a fight based on the statistics you find on paper, and paying little or no attention to what would occur in practice.

You read "mammoth can run faster! It has big tusks! It could gore the dinosaur!"

You fail to take into account that the mammoth's tusks were neither designed for this purpose, or even situated in such a manner to do so. You fail to take into account that the mammoth would probably do far more damage to itself in the impact than it would its opponent, and you fail to take into account that a one hundred ton animal being hit by just about anything is about as likely to be hurt as a bomb shelter being attacked by a tennis ball.

Most importantly, you fail to take into account that the dinosaur lived in a time populated by predators far larger, better armed, and physically stronger than the mammoth you loved so much, and remained utterly untouchable there. The sauropod dinosuars, upon reaching adulthood, had little in the way of natural predators simply because they were too large to fight.

A lone mammoth could not do with the biggest and meanest of the mesezoic era could not.

YOU fail to take in to account that argentinosaurus is not a six storey building, mammoth's tusks were situated in a manner in which they COULD gore dinosaur's belly. LOL, so, you think that 20 tons mammoth will not kill 8 tons gigantosaurus?
those predators didn't attack argentinosaurus alone, but in packs, and it WAS touchable, because of it's immobility and the fact of how slow it was moving, and as I said you again represent ignorance, if you put too bodies together, you will see that mammoth could pretty much gore argentinosaurus, and your laughable argument about no damage from 5 meters tusks, sorry dude, just look at reconstructions, argentinosaurus body was about 5-6 meters thick, tusks will do their job perfectly, almost all body will be gored, you lack information, dude, seriously, please compare skeletons, do research, not just compare weights and say "100 tons will kill 20 tons", it is wrong way to judge the fight.

LOL, ok, but I tell you again, argentinosaurus didn;t look that ridiculous way, I gave the real pic, ok? I can't debate too, because I have to go to bed, cya tomorow guys.
Peace.

Yes. From a camera, planted by early zoologists, in the late cretacous period.

ok, here is the reconstruction pic, if you see difference you will understand why I'm so stubborn and want a pic to be real.

Now I have to go really, see you dude.

I believe that giganotosauris, armed and evolved as a predator, would utterly annihilate a mammoth, armed and evolved as a herbivore, with some elaborate dental work.



This is getting tedius....

The mammoth's tusk are not meant to be used for that purpose. They're meant for digging in shallow earth for food...not for dramatic duels with one hundred ton opponents - to put it in a language you'll understand, they'd break. Just like a five meter stick would break before it managed to punch through a wall.



You lack common sense.


Also, you say this...



And then this...



You also lack consistancy. In any event, an Imperial Mammoth did not weight 20 tonnes, it weighed ten.

mammoth tusk were most probably used for display to get a mate, or if need be, scraping ice and shoveling snow to get any food from under it. possible to "wrestle" with other mammoth, though i doubt that involved charging.. the curvature of the tusks means it will be "goring" the argentinasaurus with the front of the tusks, not the points, hardly damaging there.

and who said to you that 5-10 km an hour is slow and "unmovable". dont forget it is 100 tons. you cant expect it to weigh that much and be faster than a dromiceiomimus.

also they wouldnt have faught anyway. they lived at different periods of time.

Didn't you see link I gave, It would move at 5-10 kph, while mammoth would be able to make 30 kph, he wouldn't be stomped simply because he is fast enough to avoid dinosaur, yes, most of tusks were bended in, but some were not, so, they would be used for GORING, like elephants do, did you know that when elephant fights rihnoceros, he gores rhino's side with tusks, this is so obvious. I think mammoth did same to animals that were nearly as large, or a bit smaller, besides, it also depends on WHERE they would fight (let's assume they lived in one time) if they fought in a place where tempereture is low, mammoth would kill dinosaur without really big problems, because dinosaurus is cold blooded and wouldn't be able not just to walk but to move properly, if it would be in warm areas, here yes, dinosaur will probably be fast enough to kill mammopth, but not stomp it (it is too slow) to knock him down with tail or something.


Shaadow, YOU really lack common sense, I tell you it is funny for me, these arguments, , 8 tons gigantosaurus has ho weapon exceptr jaws, while 20 tons mammoth had weight advantage and tusks, dude, you have to involve a little bit common sense here, please don't post insensible things.

Now that is one of the funniest things ive read in awhile

God I hope this doesnt go for another 10 pages

Oh my god...I'd heard the rumours, but I honestly didn't believe it until I saw it for myself

Rather than going over old territory, I shall let Shady and Talon's existing disection of your ludicrious lack of logic on this matter stand. All I shall add it...



That's like claiming "Yes, most people have arms! But some have four legs!" The shape of an Imperial Mammoth's tusks were the result of millions of years of natural selection for their purpose As Shady said, they were used to forage for food, or most likely for displaying to females (Hey girls! Look at my machinery!" )

As such their shape would have been universal. To my knowledge, no variety of mammoth had their tusks doing anything but curving Shady is right, they would have broken if the mamoth tried to use them as weapons, rather like a saber toothed tiger's trademark teeth...they were only used to kill prey once it was immobilised, because to use them to try and take prey down would simply snap them

Needless to say, had a saber tooth tiger's teeth been five meteres long, they probably would have snapped trying even that too



As Shady has tried to explain to you three or four times now, there is a very good chance indeed that dinosaurs were warm blooded. "They reached their size because they were cold blooded"...for crying out loud, how little thought into an arguement can you put...the largest creature on earth at the moment in time is warm blooded



I actually agree with Shady, it wouldn't be much of a fight. The mammoth evolved in such a way that, like the sauropods before it, it's primary defence was size. The intention was, I'm sure, to simply be too big to mess with. A ten ton animal however, is not a great deterent for an eight ton predator - big cats do not weigh as much as cows, but are still perfectly capable of killing one The tusks, despite how fond you are of bringing them up, would have been useless in combat...the mammoth doesn't have any natural weapons



What Shady has proven in the last few pages is that he is significantly better versed in topics like this than you are He was right earlier when he posted that you seem to have just looked at the fight "on paper", and applied no thought to the matter whatsoever.

Anyway, this is a stupid question to begin with Shady spent some time this morning lamenting to me about how he wasted so much of his time arguing over a topic that he couldn't believe even made it onto a board populated by (mostly) intelligent people I, however, have another hour to waste before work, so thought I'd do the honours of summing it all up.

Paulwhale, you're beaten. You're arguements have been crushed, your attempt at providing evidence has been shown to be lies, and all that's happening now is that people are just going to have to repeat themselves to try and hammer the message home to you. It could get boring

LOL, good story, but if you people would know some facts, I wouldn't have to explain you what is cold-blooded and some basic biomechanics, ok, guys, since you don't want to listen to facts and proof, you just go for weights and that's all, I'm really sorry for you guys, I wish you guys have more knowledge about animals and about what cold-blooded and warm-blooded means, if you were there wouldn't be so laughable arguments like "Common theory is, in fact, that dinosaurs were warm blooded. That is, unfortunately, an arguement that is unlikely ever to be settled." this is completely ridiculous and laughable, I wish you know a bit more about warm blooded creatures, Shadow. Some of you also lack knowledge about the animals involved here, as for argentinosaurus and mammoth, if you knew a little bit about argentinosaurus, for example had a look at reconstructions, measurements, involved a little bit of common sense, you would not write some BS like this: "mammoth tusks will not even do damage to a creature of such size" ok, I don't want to argue more, since some of you not just lack commmon sense, but simply don't want to understand facts, because you are stubborn I guess, ok, I wish you did more thorough research on what argentinosaurus was, then we would not see such a stupid pictures like those one, and if YOU Shadow knew at least how argentinosaurus looked like we would not get some of your stupid arguments that mean this: mammoth would not be able to even reach dinosaurus side, I guess this is the first time you saw the picture of argentinosaurus, If you guys knew what cold blooded is you would not even argue about defeat of dinosaur in cold tempereture environment, because... well, I allready explained but you don't want to listen so, the answer is obvious, you guys lack some knowledge about both animals, since that I will leave you until you get to know some more facts, ok, think a little, but most important: get more knowledge about animals.

and I want to tell you about someone's theory that dinosaurs were warm blooded, dude, you really lack common sense, or you just don't know what is warm blooded creature, , dude, I don't know how to explain to you this, I have never saw such a stubborn person who lacks knowledge and still tries to proove his point, LOL, it is just so funny, because the theory thought that ONLY small dinos were warm blooded, not huge ones, why? get to nowwhat warm blooded is, then come back:lol: , it seems you just don't have a clue about warm blooded, LOL, the theory was NEVER meant to include huge dinosaurs, because they actually got that big because they were cold-blooded, so, guys, I leave you to your ignorance, unless you would like to get to know some really simple things.
, cya guys, I'm out for now.

What's laughable about it? It's a theory that has been in circulation for some time, and has gained tremendou strength in many circles of palientology.



They wouldn't do much damage to an animal of any size - they're elaborate spoons, not weapons.

Paulwhale, as a final note, since you say you're leaving us (thank god), a question has been floating around in my head for some time...exactly how old are you?

You see, while reading your posts, I've noticed that your spelling and grammar are exceptional substandard. In fact, I spend more time trying to decipher some of what you say than I do replying to it...I am curious to know whether you're simply very young, or if english isn't your first language.

Based on your above closing post, I am going to put my money on the former....in fact, based on the fact you even started up such an inane topic, and have defended your ludicrious opinion on the matter to the death, such a conclusion seems fairly obvious.

WEll, I'll tell you why it is laughable, warm blooded creatures keep themselves warm, right? so, when theory was proposed, it was at those point declined that dinosaurs above 20 tons or something like this could be warm-blooded, because amount of heat that ehy would need to generate at their size would sort of burn them from inside, they would need so much heat (which they wouldn't be able to support) that it would be too much for their body tissues to endure, this is why it is laughable to say that argentinosaurus was warm-blooded, there is a possibility t-rex was warm blooded, but not big dinos, they were completely cold-blooded. And some tusks of mammoth were NOT BENDED, they could do damage, a lot of damage, why don't you want to admit it, it is so obvious, most were bended, but some were in such a good shape, so that mammoth would simply gor from low side, some tusks were like forks, bended upwards, they would be extremely usefull for goring from above, plus mammoth was VERY intelligent, more intilligent than elephants, so, he would now whaty to do with those two formidable weapons.


About my age, I may be older than you, but mistakes you saw are due the fact that I'm not native english speaker, I'm from Russia, that's why you spotted some mistakes.

now you understand why argentinosaurus would be VERY vulnerable in cold tempereture, there is a video of crocodile that weighed around 500 kg killed by a FEMALE tiger of about 140-150 kg, or even less, it happened when croc was trying to take over tiger's kill, but it was cold weather, it was rainy or something, and tiger killed crocodile, It is hard to understand but she twice ran just before croc's face and crocodile couldn't grab her, because to do it he would have to move his whole body, and he couldn't do it fast enough to grab tigeress, and she finally got on his back and killed him, wanna see video, it is REALLY COOL:


http://members.at.infoseek.co.jp/big_game/...essvsmugger.wmv

cool video huh? It is because croc was slow did tiger killed him, if it would be a better weather, he'd have MUch better chances, same thing here, dinosaur who was slow would be even slower, and would move really slow, in any terms, and would not be able to catch mammoth to stop it, why did dinos die? One of the theories is that it got too cold, and most of them were not able to find enough food due to the fact they were cold-blooded.

here is another interesting fight between tiger and lion:

http://animalpark.pe.kr/spboard/board.cgi?...5285.cgi&img=no

Paulwhale, I present to you Balaenoptera musculus....the largest known animal to ever inhabit the earth. Male specimens weigh approximately 100 tonnes. Females closer to 150. They are somewhere in the region of 90-100 feet long.

I shall conclude our fun, fact finding mission by stating that it is, in fact, warmblooded. As all mammals are. When next you argue, I suggest you think first.



I still do have concerns about anyone over the age of thirteen starting a topic such as this, but we shall see...however, that didn't answer the question.



There are a number of reasons why this is irrelevant....

The first being that crocodiles are not only cold blooded, but there has never been any dispute as to whether or not it is. They spend hours at a time sunning themselves in order to simply get on with their way...the debate, however, remains when concerning dinosaurs.

Second of all, a tiger is a predator, and is armed and evolved to the specific end of killing animals far larger than itself. A mammoth is not. A mammoth is a large herbivore, armed only with its (normally) superior size...an advantage it would lose in the encounter you propose.

okay, paul if you re-read your posts, you might find your iinconsistencies in your posts, and also how impossible that this situation is, the only way we could ever truely, 100% know the answer is if we brought both of these creatures back to life and forced them to fight that is the only way we would know, and if you really think about it, it's pretty obvious who would win, the Titanosaurs (or the as you guys refer them as the argentinousarus) would win, i hope this topic does not continue on and on of continued arguments

Now, back to my first post in this topic...


"And featured next week, a yorkshire terrier goes one on one with a cow."

the main disadvantage of a dinosaur would be his cold-bloodeness if they would fight in a cold tempereture area, I don't know how to state it easier for you, man, honestly, you don't understand something? or what? it WAS cold blooded, it therefore would not be able to move even at very slow speed, I know what are you gonna say: you don't need to run in the fight, but in this fight you do, because look:

they meet each other face to face, dinosaur tried to stomp mammoth, but mammoth easily runs a bit around dinosaur and gets to it's side (dude to cold weather dinosaur will not be able to even turn around quick enough to still stand face to face with mammoth) and when it is near dino's side, dinosaur allready can't do anything about this, it is all done, mammoth is at dinosaur's side, dinosaur tries to stomp it by moving his legs to the side and trying to sidewalk? it collapses, dinosaur tries to turn around? he can't, because mammoth is faster, and dino is not mobile at cold weather, and mammoth keeps staying at dino's side and goring him with tusks, though I think one hit with tusks coming through all inner organs and nearly coming out from other side wil be enough for dinosaur to die later simply of blood loss, do you think all these maneovers are impossible? I don't think so, I know it looks kind of too difficult for mammoth to perform, but mammoth was smartest mammal to ever walk the earth (except man), it had largest brain of all land mammals (though hornless rhino was bigger overall but had smaller head), elephants have been seen doing really smart things in a fights with rhinos, things like coming a bit far from rhino to force it to charge, then dodge the charge and come ti rhino's side ang gore him with tusks, this involves some maneovurs, I heard of it from zookeeper, he said that when elephants want to mate, they walk around and look for female, but from afar he saw rhino, elephant, having bad vision, does not recognize that it is rhino, thinks it is female elephant, and comes closer, then it sees it is rhino and gets angry and attacks, they start to fight, elephant tries to gore rhino's side, as you probably know rhino's style of attack is a bit different, he charges at anything and then tries to deliver blows with front legs, teeth and horn, but elephant manipulated with horns so good, that rhino never even made contact with elephant body, while elephant was trying to make rhino charge, to apply this strategy: dodge the charge and gore the side of rhino with tusks, and he finally did it, same thing here, with the exception that here mammoth would have to dodge animal that moves very very slowly, due to it's size and tempereture, I think mammoth would win, but you are right, it is very unlikely that either of animals would even attack each other, but if they would, I think mamoth would do it because he was more maneouverable(sorry for spelling) and smarter (look at the pic I gave, mammoth's head was larger, and his overall brain to body proportion was prety big, which meant his brain was pretty big for his body), and of course MUCH quicker, a lot quicker, and finally he had a weapon with which he could do deadly damage to even such a creature like 100 tons dinosaur (it's body was about 5-6 meters thick, while let's say, ok mammoth had undeveloped tusks of 4 meters, they would be not bended then, hehehe, and still imagine that something gores your body to nearly a half of it's thikness,, you would die of course due to blood loss) think about it, man, just think about it, dinosaur is very slow, it's body is positioned not very high (unlike on those laughable picture), it would be gored pretty easily, just think about it, it is not as if you fought a guy who is 5 times smaller than you, because you are not that big to experience any difficulties moving, but argentinosaurus was on the edge of size (it was as large as a terrastrial creature can ever get), it had difficulties moving in warm tempereture, it would be almost immobile in cold tempereture.

I willexplain you even simpler, THERE IS NO DEBATE WHETHER ARGENTINOSAURUS OR OTHER BIG DINOS WERE WARM-BLOODED, THEY WERE COLD-BLOODED, THOERY INVOLVED ONLY SMALL ONES LIKE T-REX, is it simple enough now? ask scientists if you don't belive me.


You just lack some really obvious facts, that's why you are so sure argentinosaurus would win, but it depends where they would fight.

LOL, it lives in water(Balaenoptra musculus), I suggest YOU think first before you argue.

Yes, it does. What's your point? Your arguement that was the large dinosaurs couldn't possibly be warm blooded because of their size...I have pointed to a large animal (in fact, the largest animal of all time) that is warm blooded.

Case and point: you're arguement if crap.

You statement about a mammoth's intelligence is correct - they were likely the smartest animal of their time (early humans excluded). Smart enough to know that they would be far better off running away from this encounter than they would fighting....something that you, interestingly enough, can't seem to work out.



No it didn't.

As you have been told again and again, a mamoth's tusks were not weapons. They were tools designed to dig through shallow earth for roots and vegitable matter. They would be far too brittle to possible withstand direct impact with a solid target.

I'm getting rather sick of arguing with a child over the victor in this particular showdown...I was saying to Talon just a few minutes ago that the only reason I felt the need to even bother was because the scenario made me angry.

When people post hypothetical fights between mothman and goatman, I can live with it. At least those are fictional creatures, and I don't care what one primary school pupil says about one or the other. However, both the creatures in this thread actually existed...actual facts and science are involved, and it does make me angry and offended when an annoying little kid not only posts an insane veiw on the subject, but attempts to back it up with garbage....garbage that, despite being exposed time and time again for it is, he continues to stick to.

Long story short - the battle you propose is rather like giving a human child a knife, and telling him to go and fight an elephant. In terms of scale and physical prowess, I imagine those would be fitting substitutes for a scaled down version of the battle. I'll offer you odds of ten thousand to one if you bet on the kid.

Maybe, we should just make a poll?

Who's right?

The Paisley Coalition led by Shady

Or Paulwhale?

Ok, dude, I'm really out now, you have ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE, YOUR arguments are really crap, you pointed on animal that lived in water, it could getthat big being warm blooded because it lives in water, where you can be very very heavy because it is water, you seem not only lack facts about animals, but also lack knowledge of simple things, ok, I showed you why tusks would be deadly, you keep arguing, which is stupid, very stupid, because these tusks, even at 4 meters would be deadly for this animal, I told you why aallready, but you keep arguing, it seems to me you just want to proove your point, you don't care of what is truth, you are just defending your point, but it is too bad, that you come up with MOST STUPID EXAMPLES I've ever seen, and your laughable arguments really make me laugh, , because they are pretty ridiculous, but this one about whale is the most ridiculous I've ever seen, argentinosaurus were warm-blooded holds second place of stupidity, but this one I don't count in, because you didn't know some basic facts about warm-blooded creatures, and what is the most bad, you don't want to learn them, learn your mistakes and say, ok, I was wrong, no, instead of this you keep arguing, not even awear that for a guy, who knows basic biology this seems funny, , third place is held by an argument about tusks, that if 5 meters thick body would be gored with 4 meters tusks, creature will not be damaged at all, this is funny also, and 4 place is held by this last ridiculous statement about child and elephant (child weighs aroung 50 kg, elephant weighs 7 tons, what is weight difference? 140 times, mammoth weighs 20 tons, dino weighs 100 tons, what is weight difference? 5 times, after this you have said that this would be correct In terms of scale and physical prowess, so, I understand now, we are having problems with math also, huh? not only with biology , and another one made it clear there are some problems occuring with physics, this one in particular: "They would be far too brittle to possible withstand direct impact with a solid target." this made it clear dude, very clear, I just want to remind you of one thing, tusks were bones, belly of argentinosaurus was made of skin and soft tissues, and was most probably tender, like a belly of an elephant, thus tusks would EASILY gore belly of dinosaur. DID you actually learnt what is density in high school? or if you want I can explain it to you?

I guess you still keep arguing about the fact that 4 meters tusks would not be deadly for 5 meters thick body is because you have problems with math, as example with child and elephant shown us, maybe that's why you keep saying that 4 meters tusks would do no damage to 5 meters thick body, , ok, I have to do math now, sorry, have to go .

You know Paulwhale, I don't actually see you providing much of an argument anymore. You just re-post the same points you made several times in the last page, which two biologists have shown to be false, and you've really just reverted to calling their argument stupid and insulting their intelligence... you haven't been able to explain why they are stupid, but its what your argument's devolved into.

Considering Shadow and Sera are on the exact same biology course, a UNIVERSITY biology course, and have been doing so for 2 years. And the fact that they agree with each other's conclusions. And that they have found links that actually relate to the issues at hand and back them up. I am far more inclined to believe what they say.

Plus, even if they weren't here, the size and weight of the animals in questions speaks for itself.

While I don't care to get into this rather pointless debate..... I will pick you up on your weight examples Mr Whale.

The average weight of an elephant is in fact 3 1/2 - 6 1/2 tones.
The weight of an imperial Mammoth is estimated at 8 - 10 tonnes, not 20 as you seem to think. http://www.calvin.edu/academic/geology/mastodon/species.htm

So in mass, its possible the mammoth would be between 10 to 12.5 times the mammoths mass.

So, it would be more like a small child taking on something the size of a grizzy bear.... to be exact.

Now, I am getting tired of this topic....... Unless you can bring firther clarification to your side of this debate Paulwhale may I suggest not posting again, or in fact if you post again make sure you back yourself up. Going over the same points over and over again, without any backup will make me close this thread on you....

That's why I find it so ammusing that this child continues to tell me I know nothing about biology...it frustrates me in a contemptious way.

i have a better idea....

shadowsleet Vs Paulwhale. fight to the death.

who would win?

ill go for shady as he has gotten angry at pauls stupid "facts".

Well, let's argue the mechanics of that one also...

The typical Shady is a large example of the homo sapien species, of the Varietas Caucasia. An omnivore, It's diet consists mainly of red meat (their typical prey is pig, although a wild Shady may supplement its diet occasional with other herd animals such as cows or sheep). Throughout its lifetime, the Shady maintains a slightly above average size for the Varietas Caucasia, eventually becoming fully grown at a height of some six feet or more, and weighing approx 200lbs.

Living in close knit social structures, the Shady serves as a hunter-defender subtype, as its physiology suits this role, with both an abnormally high metabolic rate. Of above average intelligence, it often also acts as the leader of any given group, unless the group contains a Seraphina (also of the Varietas Caucasia), to which wild Shadies universally show deference, and ensure that the rest of the group does also. Although working well within a unit, the Shady is notoriously territorial, and any given group is likely to only have a single Shady.

The Shady is usually found in the lowlands of Scotland, dwelling in predominantly flat terrain. It does, however, frequently make forays into woodland environments.


Let the ball be in Paulwhite's court.

And I thought a Shady was just a large termite..... How wrong I was.....

My vote is for shady, GO Shady

lmao shady. that was quality

Dude, no more versus, unless I make them, cause I roleplay as Bigfoot, Mothman, and others. I even made my own thread. Gorosaurus V.s. King Kong. But these ones are stupid. Now, Bigfoot versus a Werewolf, they've been seen at the same area, sometimes the same time.