True, and this applies with RedX who uses the word "game" in a different manner than the dictionary definition. Seems hypocritical...
But back to the warm-blooded dinos.

I dont know...like I said I let this go after my first reply to him...he keeps replying so I keep replying

No, it really is a game if you think about it

http://home13.inet.tele.dk/palm/warmweb.htm
I like this site as well.
(edit:He just admitted it was a game all along....and I as I've stated previously in post 49-"it's still a game")
edit: "different manner" meaning you're getting "nit-picky with words". That's not the dictionary definition.

...Do I really have to do this???You changed the meaning of your post from a joke to being sarcastic...which I didnt care about till you got jazzy at the end and then again with your next post.

Do I really have to do this. This is my previous post. I think you missed it. With sarcasm, you don't take someone seriously or literally, hence a joke, derr.

Yeah, its somewhat a game you play to win a agruement that resulted from the incorrect useage of words...as in me correcting you which in turn ends the agruement over the useage of the word meaning. Nothing but me telling you why jokes and sarcasm are different which proves my point. Nice game aint it
?

sarcasm: the use of irony
Uh...no, because when you're being sarcastic, no one should take you seriously...put the two together.

There once was an old lady,
She lived in a shoe,
She was warm-blooded and so was her brew
Let's go back to the dino topic please,
Or I'll have to get out of here on my knees

.. and that wouldn't be a pretty sight...

*takes a bow* we're here most of the night.. ty ty...



Source

Some are determined to prove dinosaurs were warm-blooded because they feel it strengthens their argument that dinosaurs evolved into birds. Some need to prove dinosaurs were cold-blooded because it strengthens their argument that dinosaurs evolved from reptiles.

Source



Source\

The more research I do on this subject, the more I find that Yelekiah is funny and that I'm getting more confused regarding dinosaurs being warm or cold-blooded...


pssst, btw.. it's arguement and usage...

Whele I dont know how you see sarcasm as a joke that should never be tooken seriously because thats not it true meaning.
Sarcasm-opposite if what you really mean. This is not limited to joking around nor is it something no one should take you seriously with.

pssst, btw.. it's arguement and usage...

I guess Im getting too worked up to check

Not necessarily. Sarcasm is the use of irony.
irony:The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning. And once again, I said don't take me literally. No one should take it literally if it's a "joke" because you obviously aren't supposed to take jokes literally. Read the definition of irony very closely.

I will say this ONCE to Yelekiah...let this go, this has been going on for way too long. I have so you should

Yelekiah said it was a joke and sarcasm right from the word go, so he was not being jazzy with words. He told you what he meant in the very beginning.

I posted at 6:56pm, then you posted at 7:14pm Eastern time. You took a while to respond and you continue to premeditate on your next move. You're the one who keeps perpetuating this. And no, you don't have me. Anyone else think they are cold-blooded? Not too many votes on that....

Yes I think that they are warm blooded. Warm blooded even if they need to use the sun to warm it up...

WHEN did I take the "joke" literally??? I said something about your jokes being unclear then you came back with some jive and it took off from there.

When did I ever say you took it literally? Hmmm....never.
I had to explain a definition to you. That's all. Back on topic.

So it can end there right?

I just post to your replies when I see them...nothing more, nothing less. And when did I say I "have you"?

Hmmm, misread "I have so you"-read quickly
But back to the topic.

And he posts to your replies too. Just don't reply any more. Either of you!! Omg!!

I don't think dinosaurs are the only ones warm blooded.

Neither do I, artymoon.

Yeah, You hit that one on the head

I think that most dinosaurs were cold blooded, but they had very nice flannel sweaters when it got chilly.

I also think that folks here should stay on topic and get away from bickering.

Thank You.

Seriously though, the technical definition of "dinosaur" -A fossil reptile of the Mesoziac era.
We know today that reptiles are cold-blooded, but do we categorize all animals of that era to be dinosaurs? That couldn't have been the case could it have?

Yelekiah said it was a joke and sarcasm right from the word go, so he was not being jazzy with words. He told you what he meant in the very beginning

No, Jazzy is talking down to someone as if they are below you (being a smart A). In the post in which he replyed to me, at the end, he gave a sence of me not knowing what sarcasm was and his next stated that I was confussed in someway so my dislikement came from that.

Lots of theories on this. what do you classify dinosaurs as?
edit:Given that there are so many nuances to language and I'm on a computer (and you don't know my tone of voice), you can't really conclude how I was being necessarily.

Well I think I would have to classify it as a reptile since that is the definition, so in that
respect I would say cold-blooded based on our knowledge of reptiles.

Yeah, whele thats how I took it.
(use your smilies, they hope alot with these kinds of things)

Actually a smiley might make me look snarky after certain statements.
So what about smaller dinosaurs? what's the theory?

small "dinosaurs" by definition are reptile therefore being cold-blooded.

I've heard of that somewhere. I have to check that out.

But how can they prove 100% that the fossils labeled "dinosaurs" are reptiles.

They found fossils of a dino heart so it made things more interesting.

Seriously?

The first page of this thread there is a link. Scientist found the heart fossil. Not a big reptile expert so I don't know how it varies from mammalian chambers.

Well if this is decided to be warm-blooded then the actual definition of dinosaur must be changed. I happen to think that there were all types back then, like now, both warm and cold-blooded, and even luke-warm.

This was all explained in my post on the first page. All "lower" reptiles are cold blooded (snkes lizards turtles)

Of the living archosaurs, birds are warm blooded and crocs are cold blooded. Dinosaurs are archosaurs too, and vary between these two Archosaurian extremes. Crocs are more closely related to birds than any reptile, and should not be grouped with them.

the definition of "dinosaur" is-- fossilized reptile from Mezosoic era--the key word being reptile. We know reptiles to be cold-blooded.

That may be a layman's definition, but certainly not a scientist's.. Dinosaurs are a distinct animal group which is part of the archosauria branch, in which living animals today remain the birds and crocodilians. Other prehistoric creatures, like the great sea reptiles are not considered dinosaurs by scientists. They are reptiles, but not archosaurs. It is no different than calling a bird a "reptile", and scientifally it is just as incorrect to call a crocodile a reptile, since it is more "bird" than "lizard" in its physiology.

Virtually all animals, if examined at the proper time, will appear to be 'warm-blooded' ie their internal body temperatures will be about the same. What is more important is the mechanism by which the body temperature is maintained, and in this sense the terms endothermic and ectothermic are more appropriate; an ectothermic animal relies on heat from the outside ie the environment, to maintain body temperature, whereas an endothermic animal relies on heat generated within its own body by metabolic processes, and will therefor have a higher metabolic rate. There are even more precise technical terms for processes intermediate between full endothermy and full ectothermy which will not be discussed here.

Once it was thought that all dinosaurs were cold-blooded - now many suggest that at least some were warm-blooded, which would help to explain why they became so plentiful and dominant for so long. If we examine today's fauna , we find no large land predators that are cold-blooded, except for crocodiles that occupy only one very specific ecological niche and are basically water dwellers. The same is true of the entire Cenozoic era - virtually all large predators were warm-blooded.

The reason is not difficult to find. The position of top predator is a very competitive one. The ability to control body temperature and maintain it at a constant value (ie warm-blooded) is a very large advantage. Not only does it mean that the animal is not dependent on the environmental temperature but can hunt at any time of the day (or night), or in any season, but it also means operating at maximum efficiency. All creatures, whether warm- or cold-blooded, use the same basic biochemical processes to produce energy, with the same enzymes and substrates. The chemical reactions involved generally have a particular optimal temperature. For every drop of 10 degrees C, the process will be twice as slow - hence the sluggishness of cold-blooded animals in cold environments or at night. Evolutionary theory thus demands that in any long term competitive situation, warm-blooded animals will always win over their cold-blooded competitors, and this is what the history of mammal development demonstrates. No large cold-blooded predators can develop against mammalian competition - instead they remain small and occupy ecologically specialized positions where they can hide for most of the time and only need to hunt for food occasionally when safe to do so.
There are, of course, attendant disadvantages to endothermy, not the least of which is the need for very much larger expenditure of energy to maintain elevated metabolic rates, and a commensurate increase in food requirements.

Given that mammals have such an enormous advantage, what are we to make of the Mesozoic era, when for 140 million years dinosaurs reigned supreme and few mammals grew larger than a chicken. Mammals and dinosaurs evolved together. Dinosaur ancestors ( thecodonts , particularly ornithosuchians ) and mammal ancestors ( therapsids , particularly cynodonts) were in direct competition in the late Triassic , with the therapsids initially appearing to have the upper hand. However, by the end of the Triassic the thecodonts were on top, dinosaurs assumed the roles of top predator and large herbivore , and all other roles down to the very small, which they left to the mammals and other reptiles. How did they manage to take over in the first place, and then keep the mammals subservient for so long if mammals had such a potent evolutionary advantage in being warm-blooded? The logical answer, of course, is that dinosaurs had to be warm-blooded as well! For those who believe that dinosaurs are just large reptiles this is an unacceptable view.
Given that all we have left are lifeless bones and footprints, is it possible to produce evidence in support of the warm-blooded dinosaur hypothesis? Surprisingly, perhaps, the answer is yes, although such evidence must be largely inferential .

Actually there are several instances in which large cold blooded predadors succesfully competed with mammals for millions of years, and in this respect have had a longer success rate than we humans. The giant monitor lizard of Australia was perhaps the largest land predator after the fall of the dinosaurs and survived until about 10,000 years ago. This may very well be the most succesful large land animal in the earth's history, since varanids were already well established at the end of the Cretaceous, though cannot compete with the aquatic crocdilians for longetivity.There was also a kind of crocodile that assumed a bipedal gait and functioned much like theropod dinosaurs for many millions of years after the dinos perished. In the course of time it became extinct, but in the same space of time many species of large mammalian carnivores also died out, so were not neccesarily "better". Alligators ambush large mammalian prey such as deer and dogs sometimes quite a distance from water.

The lack of tubucles in the nasal passages of dinos, something present in all mammals is one of the latest pieces of evidence in favor of cold blooded dinos.

i think that they could of been warm-blooded, but ,like all debates, its not fact yet

I am going for warm blooded...
I believe Dino's where an evolution of reptiles and had evolved into a species that looked reptilian but where warm blooded.

No way man I tink theyr vereh funneh!!!




Oh and yelekiah just cause I know you love the pic. soooooo much!!!

TY for the pic. Another good one for my massive collection.

where do you get these, Mr vort? you seem to have a non-stop supply