Gorilla strength

BTW: Is the "Gary Nutback" guy the same person who said that cats have the greatest "Explosive power"? If so, that isn't strength but POWER, a combination of strength and speed that makes extra force.

---

"The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4

So the tigress killed the bear. Outfought him, not overpowered him. That does not prove that they are stronger.

---

"The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4

I never called you a moron. But you seemed to LOVE to write those LOL thingies and act all "im smarder than u".

---

"The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4

I already dealt with this in an earlier post, but this begs a Question:Does youre source take into account the Squared cube law? If you increase the height/length of an animal, in order to keep it relativerly poportioned, it's weight must increase by a factor of 8. But it's strength, the cross section of the muscles, cannot grow as fast as the weight. The wolverine's strength would increase by only a factor of 4. If the Wolverine was as relatively/poportionally as strong as he is at normal size, it could no doubt take down elephants. But since that can't happen, it wont be that strong.And if we are talking about "relative" then even "youre" mighty cats are nowhere near as strong as the Rhino Beetle, which can lift and carry 850 times their own weight.

---

"The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4

agreed but im saying bears arent the strongest animals proportinally and neither are cats ok

how about this no more stupid comments like i hope you kno that or any other retarded comment, ok ill stop, but anyway regarding the bear i misunderstood you i thought you meant that proportionally the bear is the strongest animal, which obviously is not true

Ok then. Lets keep things civil.

---

"The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4

wat i meant is that MOST BEARS would engage in fights more than MOST cats because if injured they can rely on plants where as if a solitary cat is severly injured it will starve. How ever their are some exceptions like lion because they are social and could if injured scavege off the kills made by the rest of the pride

If the Wolverine was as relatively/poportionally as strong as he is at normal size, it could no doubt take down elephants. But since that can't happen, it wont be that strong.explain this to me because it sounds like your saying wolverines can take down elephants, but maybe im just an idiot and i misunderstood you

Exactly. There are several animals that, weight for weight would be stronger. But we have to consider the kind of strength we are talking about.For instance=Hippos and Grizzlies in relative terms.THe Grizzly obviously has immensly strong forelimbs and hind limbs, which allow it to strike hard and stand. But Hippos have strong foward and backward motion in their legs. They have a more robust torso, and their bite force is unearthly (They have been known to snap crocs in half with one bite. Some where stated to be 3,000 lbs crocs!)I'll be back.

---

"The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4

never mind i understand you r wolverine post so no need to explain it

Dont call yourself that.It's squared cube law. I cant get in depth now (Mom needs the computer) but i promise I'll get into it later.

---

"The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4

first of all nile crocodiles only reach 2200lbs not 3000lbs and a hippo because of its huge immense size is much much much stronger than any bear and would destroy a bear very quickly in a fight

but your probally right about the bear being stronger proportionally stronger than a hippo, but since the hippo is 6000lbs vs 1000lbs for the bear the hippo would slaughter the bear

i understand you are saying that a grizzly bear sized wolverine if it was equally propotionally as strong as it is at normal size grew to be the size of a grizzly, and its proportional strength was the same it could kill elephants