It is equally stupid to ignore the evidence that something does not compute when we look at the masses of the super-large dinosauria and the known capabilities of muscles and their chemical limitations.
While that largest dinosaur is based on a few bones (specifically an 8 foot tall tail vertebra and a 14-15 ft fossilized femur - both now lost due to fragility) and could possibly be a mis-interpretation of species and extrapolated size, there are many near complete fossils of other dinosaurs that are far larger than anything that could walk on Earth today.
Even when the original apatosaurus was unearthed and had the wrong head mounted on the skeleton and called "Brontosaurus" it was calculated that the 75 foot long complete skeleton was from an animal that weighed at least 33 tons... 66,000 lbs., a figure twice as large as the theoretical maximum of ~30,000 lbs that a chemical driven muscle engine could lift in 1G. Early paleontologists decided the only way such a large animal could survive was by wallowing in shallow marshes... so the water could support the weight.
Early Brontosaurus depiction
However, none of the fossils were found in strata that was consistent with such marshy conditions and instead seemed to be normal coniferous forest. In addition, the feet of the Apatosaurus/Brontosaurus were not adapted to muddy marsh bottoms.
Later fossil finds of the similar species were up to 110 feet long... and up to 200% heavier. The Apatosaurus/Brontosaurus are not alone:
- Apatosaurus - 23 m, 75 ft., est. 30 - 35 tons, 60-70,000 lbs.
- Brachiosaurus - 25 m, 82 ft., est. 35 - 45 tons, 70-90,000 Lbs.
- Diplodocus - 27 m, 92 ft., est. 45-55 tons, 90-110,000 lbs.
- Argyrosaurus * - 30 m, 98 ft., est. 45 -55 tons, 90-110,000 lbs.
- Sauroposeidon * - 30 m, 98 ft., est. 55 - 65 tons, 110-130,000 lbs.
- Paralititan - 32 m, * 105 ft., est. 72 - 88 tons, 144-176,000 lbs.
- Argentinasaurus * - 35 m, 114 ft., est. 90 - 100 tons, 180-200,000 lbs.
- Seismosaurus ** - 36 m, 120 ft., 80 - 100 tons, 160-200,000 lbs.
- Bruhathkayosaurus ** - 40 m, 130 ft., est. 190 - 240 tons, 380-480,000 lbs.
- Amphicoelias fragillimus ** - 58 m, 190 ft., est. 140 - 185 tons, 280-370,000 lbs.
* Accepted sizes based on comparisons of similar bone structures from incomplete skeletal remains to complete (related species) Diplodocus fossils.
** Controversial size estimates due to incomplete or fragmentary remains or possible mis-location of vertebrae.
Several of these megafauna are represented by almost totally complete fossil skeletons...
London's 82 foot Complete Diplodocus fossil
Estimated 70,000 to 90,000 pounds.
... and the estimated weights of those complete specimens are the modern calculations accepted by most paleontologists. Even the smallest is estimated to have weighed in at twice the theoretical maximum animal weight under a 1G gravity field... and the largest could be as much as 16 times that figure!
We also have many fossils of two to four foot dragonflies that are proportionately identical to modern 2 to 6 inch dragonflies yet would weigh more than 64 times as much but don't have the muscle attachments to their wings to lift that much mass against 1 gravity.
Meganeura (wing-span 70 cm - 27 inches) -
A huge archaic dragonfly-like insect
belonging to a group called Protodonata
We have the almost complete skeletons of Argentine Teratorns that, while essentially identical in structure to modern Eagles and Condors, are three times their size... and 27 times their mass... with wings and wing musceles that are no larger proportionately to their size than those of their smaller, modern cousins.
7 foot tall Teratorn skeleton found in Argentina,
Its flight feathers would have been 5 feet long.
The Argentavis magnificens's humerous
bone above a 15cm (~6") ruler.
California Teratornis Meriami, found
in the La Brea Tarpit. It's 1/3rd larger
than the largest California Condor.
1.333=2.35 X 23 lbs Condor weight =
Merriam's Teratorn weight of ~54 Lbs.
Calculations have been done on the power the Argentavis magnificens had available to it under modern conditions (the only one's the team of scientists who did the calculations even considered) to maintain level flight under 1G. They found that the Teratorn would require 600 Watts of continuous aerobic power to maintain level flight... but the theoretical maximum power the bird could generate with its muscles (using extremely conservative estimates for its mass, and extremely liberal estimates for its wing area and flight muscle mass) was only 170 Watts. Oops. It couldn't sustain level flight under 1G conditions.
In addition, it was calculated that their ideal Argentavis magnificens' stall speed for landing was 39 Mph... far too fast for a safe landing... and its take off speed with no headwind required the bird, whom ornithologists say was not well designed for running, to run at 39 Mph... for ~100 feet down a 10º slope to gain air speed and lift and then hope it finds an 300 foot diameter continuous updraft of at least 3 feet per second to use to climb before it crashes back to the ground. Of course if our hypothetical bird were lucky, and if found an obliging headwind, he could run a bit slower or for a lesser distance. An alternative method to get into the air required the bird to climb up a >65 foot tree or cliff and jump off into a 5 mphhead wind and hope to level off before hitting the ground... and THEN, again, find an large updraft.
All the while avoiding hungry, ground based predators.
Strangely, while some Argentavis magnificens skeletons have been found in the Andes, the majority have been found on the Pampas... flat, level, treeless plains. Again, oops... how does it get airborne? Sounds to me like an awful lot of luck and ideal conditions was needed to get this over sized, over weight bird into the air.
Other scientists were able to get the Merriam's Teratorn, a much smaller bird, into simulated flight... but to do it they assumed that the bird, 1/3rd larger then the California Condor, also weighed only 1/3rd more than the Condor! That is totally ignoring the Square Cube Law... which they are apparently familiar with because they DID multiply the wing area of the Teratorn by the square of the size multiplier... but didn't multiply the mass by the CUBE of the size multiplier... Why? Did they think that the Teratorn's muscles and bones were 2.35 times lighter than a Condor's? That's what it would take to keep the mass only 1/3rd more. In other words: they cheated.
Are you also going to deny the extremely well understood science of aeronautics that says that under modern conditions this bird cannot fly? Or can we admit that something had to be fundamentally different about their environment that would allow them to defy gravity?