Star Trek Armada II: Fleet Operations

I've been thinking a long time about this who's smarter the cavemen or us. Because they made tools from scratch and if we invent something it comes from all the technogly we already have. So what would be smarter.
For example they found out how to meld iron, but we could already do that and we found out how to make glass.

I would say that we are smarter socially and that Cavemen Were Smarter Insticualy

krael, science is a pyramid of people standing on their former's shoulders, each breakthrough passes on to the next. i hardly should think that because we use that model that we should be penalized

We have advanced faster in the last 10 years than in 100.  Our advancements increase exponentialy.

stupid question. peroid

man eufnoc must do well at school.

'eufnoc, what is the heats of formation for CH4?'

'STUPID QUESTION, GOD'

We are probably smarter ,but who knows .history could be wrong

To Eufnoc: Why post to something what doesn't interest you.

To anyone who does find the topic interesting enough: Well I wasn't thinking about the technogly we have, but more like are the cavemen more resourceful than us or are we more resourceful than they. Is it smarter to invent something from scratch or is as smart as inventing something from technogly you already have.

i think it depends, there are different kinds of smarts. for eg, if you & a caveman were to be stranded on some desert island, i'd put money on the caveman coping a lot better. but obviously in terms of brain capacity modern man is more intellegent. i just depends on the situation (& the person) i guess.

who is smarter president bush or a caveman? i'd go with the caveman. :lol:  

whos more resourceful... so cavemen can create create poorly designed tools and start fire, so can us "modern" humans, boyscouts in america are taught how to make fires from scratch, ancient egyptians used tools to shape rock with incredible degree. we can use our resourcefulness to solve seemingly hard problems where the only tools you have are the problem, ie what i mean is, the apollo 11 disaster, they had to create air purifiers, out of only what was in the ship, engineers had to figure out how to allow more memory to be accessed after protected mode was made, so they used a spare gate in the keyboard called the "a20" gate to do this. i think that shows more resourcefulness than the cavemen.

& all of that knowledge comes from where?  :P
thats the whole point in progress, you make something, teach that knowledge to the next gen who then make something slightly better.

& when have you seen a caveman flying around in a spaceship? do you think it is common knowledge "how to create air purifiers or access an a20 gate".

like i said there is different types of knowledge.

i was trying to get the point accross that we can apply our gained knowledge to solve problems that have strictly defined borders. its irrelevant about the knowledge of the user; magically give the knowledge of spaceflight to a caveman, replace nasa in the 1960's with him and his friends, and apollo 11's crew would've been screwed. we are more resourceful, humans now can adapt to most situatons that are presented to us. it doesn't matter that "cavemen" didn't invent the a20 gate, teach them everything about a computer, pretend they would be able to comprehend that info, they would scratch their heads and not know how to solve the problem.

the knowledge of the user is NOT irrelevent, since if you "magically give the knowledge of spaceflight to" the average person today, do you really think they would know what to do. point is those spacemen/women were trained to deal with situations like that, otherwise they wouldn't have been sent.

 its the same with a lot of people today, everyone has there strong & weak points. in regards to their weaker points, it may not matter how long they are given to solve a problem, it just wont come to them. so your spaceflight is a crappy example, because the people who are sent up into space are very carefully selected.

sorry, but the people at nasa weren't trained to solve that problem? they weren't growing up in nasa-school, their teacher going "Now kids, some day eventually there will be a critical disaster where practically everything will go wrong. when that happens, you'll have to create something that will clean the oxygen supply, and you will have these tools to do it in. now, write down the steps from the blackboard carefully, and keep this for the future." they were pretty much flying by the seat of their pants, using typical modern human ingenuity.

:lol:  :lol:  :lol:  and firefighters aren't trained to deal with anything other than fires. of course they are trained to deal with a crisis. do you honestly believe NASA would spend so much money on a group of people who were as well prepared as my sunday roast? use some of your "modern human ingenuity" and think about it.

edit: wooteth 1000 posts, that means i get the coveted 6 squares under my avatar i have achieved greatness :lol: . ALL HAIL RYAN, for i have have become... Adequate

i don't know why you just don't get it....

nasa people back then were trained yes, but they were trained on how to create the technology. they were trained on how to use it, how it works. the simple fact is they weren't trained to handle that situation, they had to quickly learn how to solve the problem. nasa people in current day weren't trained for foam breaking off of the fuel tank and turning into a complete catastrophy. they had to learn what happened and then think of a clever way to solve that problem.  no where did i say "they weren't trained for ANYTHING". i said they weren't trained for that specific problem, which they weren't. the problem was so unlikely, so dire and dangerous, that pretty much everything they learnt was thrown out the window.

its a stupid question in the terms of the fact we know we are ******* smarter than a cave man, the reason i said its a stupid question as it is like asking whats bigger 2 or 5000000000000? so yeah it is a stupid question, name one thing a cave man can do that we can not, and i am sure i can name 10000 things a cave man can not do that we can.

cavemen can kill dinosaurs with a stone spears. if dinosaurs were still alive do you think you could do that?

alright... you're kidding me right? there was not a time in history where humans and dinosaurs coexisted

it was a joke. oh, never mind.
i should put j/k behind em shouldn't i.

use html tags for conversational mnemonics, like [sarcasm] [/sarcasm] or [joke] [/joke], thats the best solution i've found for text based anythings

now that i've actually had some sleep, it's not that funny. but, it's not like i didn't see it comming.

me caveman me clever you modern man you *****

if there were dinosaurs today we would wipe out most because they were to dangerous or keep them in zoos like tigers

if there were dinosaurs today i think it highly unlikely that we would be as advanced as we are.

We might be more advanced because we would have had to develope larger weapons faster to counter the threat they pose to our survivle.

but then again man has developed things like walls that would keep the likes of raptors out, and we developed siege weapons designed to take down citys i think we could develop weapons that where designed purely for dinosaurs. Agian if it happend i think we could develop weapons to take down aliens if they came it might take a while but we could problerley do it.

or what if they evolved faster like in voyager where they fled to the delta quadrant??


what if they were like that but on earth no more man

what if the bloke who invented scientology was right?  

what if anna nicole smith married someone that wasn't several powers to her age? :lol:

:lol:  

(Sorry, too many what if's you guys asked for it :P)

dont you think that having dinosaurs roaming around would have disrupted advancement just a tad :rolleyes: . particually when they are eating all of our smartest scientists. a few raptors loose inside a lab is really gonna set you back a bit  :lol:  

but then again a few longbows and arrows will set the raptors back aswell.

the dinosaurs were in a totally different climate millions of years ago too

oh yeah & those automatic machine guns those mercs in jurrassic park 3 had are a step back from long bows lol. but then we are forgetting the infamous T-Rex (er somehow i think your gonna need a bigger bow  :P )

thats what siege weapons are for.

you dont get it do you? i hate to break this to you but if the dinosaurs were still walking about today, we would NOT be the dominant species on the planet. we would be quite a few notches down the food chain, and almost constantly in hiding from those higher up. where exactly are we gonna get the time or minerals to start building cannons and missles.

steel comes froms mountains, people hide in caves, use a tool to get the metal out of the cave and there you are, a cannon is born :)

ding ding ding, tell roach what he's won johnny. i hate to break this to you, what am i kidding i love it, but dinosaurs weren't like jurassic park. you have to take into account what period of time you are talking about, since a lot of the "ferocious" dinosaurs from the jurassic park movies were actually from the later cretacious period, or spread out from other periods. statistics show you'd more often run into a herbivore than a carnivore, so the only thing you'd have to worry about is being stomped on. besides, human ancestors had to avoid tigers, lions, panthers, and bears (oh my!). any one of those can easily take a human 1v1, and yet we survived long enough for me to correct you.

who says siege weapons had to be cannons? there was blasitas catapults and not only siege weaponsbut poisions look at the amazon tribes they use blow pipes with poison to kill pray i'm sure if you had 20 humans blowing poision tip darts at you you would be dead very very quickly.

Even if dinosaurs were among us we would still be the dominant species. As someone has mentioned b4 humans already fought lions bears and stuff, but also do not forget mammoths(spelling?), they didnt actually attack humans but humans attacked them eventhough they were as strong as a medium size dinosaur ;)

dinosaurs are a whole different ball game from lions & bears (whose descendants are still around today). also the big but with mammoths (which were probably closer to the strength of a smaller end dino by the way) is that they didn't go out of their way to attack humans, you can bet on yer life a pack of rapters & the occasional t-rex are gonna pick up your scent and go out of their way to hunt you down.

@eufnoc, dont forget most dinosaurs had either a kind of armour plating or extremely tough skin, so i doubt if a machine gun is struggling to punch through it a blow pipe is its weakness.

also dont forget that their would be no schools or supermarkets around, not to mention the other technological advances (internet, phones etc etc..) so there would be no way to communicate with others outside of your tribe (unless you got a really load voice lol). where am i going with this? well say some smart bloke does find out the weakness of the dinos, hows he gonna tell everyone. oh dear he just died, back to square 1 lads.

more power is not always better kevlar can stop bulltes but a person with a knife can still cut through it if he comes at it from the right angle. Every thing has a weakness and if there are a couple houndret darts fling though the air several of them are bound to hit the creater in the eyes which is what the people would problely be aming for anyway.

this is a dinosaur, how much poison do you think you can get on a dart. it will be like trying to kill a lion with a .38 .  in the words of crocodile dundee "you'll just **** him off"

this guy just loves being wrong doesn't he? dinosaurs aren't in a league of their own. they're large, they're slow, they're not agile compared to humans. tigers can swing their mighty paws, and knock your head cleanly off your neck. they are more agile, they are more cunning. yet we invented weaponry that defeated them, and eventually led to human supremacy. the same thing would happen with dinosaurs. end of story.

you say about how would we communicate outsude of the tribe, do you think that towns did not know about each other untill the phone was invented? or the  romans did not know about the rest of the world untill they got that sat nav with auto update from the internet? ;)

now u know as well as me that the romans knew about the rest of the world when they invented roads! :lol:

OK i think that dinos would have evolved to have brains in 25 million years dont u? we most likely would have stable cultures

well no if u believe the dinos where wiped out by an asteriod. or replaced by aliens with cavemen ;)

hmm good sign. the KLINGONS ARE PROTECTING US!. wait, there idiots.  thats bad!  OH NO THE KLINGONS ARE PROTECTING US!

oi i am the leader of the klingons :) Respect my authorathayh!

klingons aren't dumb, they just think differently. and they enjoy bloodshed a little too much.

then again who among us don't every so often

You watched the Jurrasic park one too many times ;) Dinosaurs most probably didnt act like that, of course noone can tell for sure. Also dinosaurs ranged from very small(like a big rat) to huge. And Mammoth is as big as a medium size dinosaur.

well, i can't think of any current day civilizations that base their entire culture around death and killing. can anyone else?

But you’re right, I’m a blood thirsty SOB, who happens to love insanely high body-counts. :badgrin:  

not a current day civilisastion, but the inca's wheere very good with death

reminds me of a certain american country that will go unnamed... oh whoops

hahaha. lol :lol:  :lol:  

You believe in human intellect so much, yet believe nothing that any of those so called top scientists say :rolleyes: . These "top scientists" are able to determine things like how something moved & how fast they were by the structure of its skeleton. in other words they can tell that dinosaurs like the Raptors, were a lot faster than humans & incredably agile. remember agility is NOT just about being able to do backflips, more accurate measurements of agility come from measuring how far & high you can jump or how far down you can fall without injury etc, etc...
and besides when you are as big as a T-Rex you really dont need agility, seeing as how at full stride (something in the region of 25-30mph on uneven ground) you'll probably take whatever you run into with you.

@eufnoc, you forget that dinosaurs weren't running around at the time :P  so who knows how things would have turned out.

@Baron, yep :P  (the 3rd one anyway) besides if an arguement is not based on anything, it will only be in someones imagination. in that case EVERYBODY is right :)

mm yeah, because i've openly stated that i've abandoned scientific facts all over this forum. you know what, your argument is so tight, that i'd need a pin to pop your bubble. uhoh... it looks like i have one! since all we have left of the dinosaurs is a few sets of skeletons, almost none complete, all we can do is estimate creatures true body appearance, performance, and statistics. but since you are so wise, i bet you already knew that. it doesn't matter that species X pertaining to dinosaurs is more agile than humans, pretty much anything with more than two legs on this planet is more agile than a human, and they could could 1v1 beat us. by the way, agility isn't a measure of your jumping ability, since many creatures cannot jump, and yet still are quite agile. the definition of agility is:

Ability to start, stop, and move the body quickly in different directions.

Its unfortunate that your poor T-rex from your favourite movie, Jurassic Park, doesn't depict the real thing. T-rex's had incredibly stubby arms, that were useful for pretty much jack squat. They wouldn't rip cars or humans apart. So, they're limited to feet and mouth for weaponry. But if they use their feet, a human is squished into a pile of blood and bones, which provides a meal fit only for rats. Ergo, the only thing a T-rex could do is hope to bend down and catch a human in its mouth, and seeing as humans vs T-rex's agility is like comparing an ant to a jumbo jet, this would be incredibly hard to accomplish. and a T-rex could only target one human at a time, so that means if anyone were to die, it would be the oldest and the slowest, leaving the rest of the group to survive, and learn from their experiences. besides the fact, humans, of any time period, not just the past 4000 years, are incredibly wise, and know how to adapt to their surroundings. to avoid T-rex's, humans would simply habit caves, areas with mountains, deep thick forests. This limits the size of a beast that would pose a threat to humans, and it would provide many strategies for defense.

To support eufnoc's argument, humans would send runners. then they would learn to mount equines, and provide a much faster and safer travel. Its pretty clear just how easily a human population can spiral into extremely huge numbers. There would simply be too many humans for dinosaurs to kill us all. Some would survive, and those that did, would bring cruical information and evolutionary steps to the species, which would seal the victory for the Humans.

i can't wait for your rebuttal, no doubt claiming everything here is wrong, it should provide a good laugh.

well i vote cave man. here a USA Commercial about cave man abuse.

(http://www.funnyclipcentral.com/content/tgeicocaveman.gif)http://www.funnyclipcentral.com/content/geicocaveman.php (http://www.funnyclipcentral.com/content/geicocaveman.php)

(http://www.funnyclipcentral.com/content/tgeicocaveman3.gif)http://www.funnyclipcentral.com/content/geicocaveman3.php (http://www.funnyclipcentral.com/content/geicocaveman3.php)

Seriously...attacking someone like that, and putting words in their mouth, isn't going to prove your point, do you honestly think openly attacking someone in intelligent debate would get your point across? I'm 90% sure that they would ignore you, and no longer take your opinion seriously after a post like that :hmmm: so why don't we lay of the subtle insults (which I commend you for, I have a talent for doing that too ;))and rude comments and discuss this like civilized humans?

I havn't posted because I've been reading what everyone else says...personally I believe were far more intelligent than "cavemen", however not more able, (again, it's amazing how starwars fits so perfectly into everything) In KotOR II it was shown that a normal, non Force adept, human is much more capable than a Jedi because the Jedi and Sith completely rely on the Force. We rely on our technology, want to admit it or no, as basic as the technology as you want to describe, we depend on it. The "cavemen" without this technology were more capable, simple as that, able to do many things without technology makes them more capable because we rely on it so, sure we're able to do these things, problem is: we don't think we can, and we rely on things like "boyscout" training, which isn't going to help you in the long run, sure, you'll survive for a few days, what do you do for food in a Tundra? We would have no idea, because by definition, a desert is a place of barren land, extream temperatures, and little to no life. Certain parts of Alaska are technically a desert, so we couldn't survive, but the Inuit could...Hmm...

Civility comes with a price, a dependence on that civility, and when we find ourselves in an area where such civility is lacking, our base abilities are unpracticed and weak, however with our technology we can over come our friends without it to an interesting level. However, there are occasions where they would dominate, even with our technology...so we can't say one is stronger or smarter, because each of us have our own unique abilities that make the playing feild of life drastically to diffrent...

you are sooooo being ignored lords of kobol :P :))

i am just wondering how many pages this thread will become

*puts down 15 dollars* I say 10 pages at least :lol:

I predict it will stumble to nearly 9, get locked, or move onto a new topic in another thread.

how much are you betting against me then Rhaz? Papa needs a new graphics card :omg: :P

maybe because thats what he's been doing for the duration of the "debate" so far? and this isn't an intelligent debate, its two sides going "heres proof xyz!, and i ignore abc completely!" whilst the other side goes "heres proof abc, and xyz is a lie!"

edit- i don't give a flying falafel about attacking people in debates, they have a word for that in english, its called politics

What do you think all debate is? You honestly think opposing divisions are going to aknowledge the proof of another team? Come on now, that'd be far to smart for a debate, we're too busy yelling at each other and trying to disprove each other...;)

THAT IS A DOWNRIGHT LIE NOW STFU

edit i hope someone gets that, and i'm now too busy configuring bastille to be bothered

:lol: don't worry about me getting that Teh-Plaf me and you have a very similar sense of humor ;)

Actually now scientists think that T-Rex wasnt even a predator but a scavenger :D
So I dont think that would be a threat to humans at all  ^_^  

that strangely makes sense, being a scavenger, of course we used to have to fight off scavengers like hyenas for food, so there would be some fights to start with the smaller scavengers, but eventually we would be too big a threat

why dont we tolk about thes movies i posted insted of geting to the pont wher the tread will need to be locked.

for get pass disagremets.



peace man! cant we all get along!

I'll hold my tounge on that "Peace" statement...

The T-Rex wasn't a threat to humans because humans did not exist then, we were primates :P Correct me If I'm wrong but the T-Rex existed in the Jurassic period (hence Jurassic Park) and it is generally accepted that humans hadn't evolved past simple primates then...So no, there weren't a threat to us, since we didn't technically exist :P

Problem with all this is, it's speculation, theres no way to know, and I highly doubt it was a scavanger, there would be no need to it to be, it's strong enough and large enough to be a very dangerous predator...why eat what's already dead when you can kill stuff yourself?

okay, i will. tyrannosaurus rex lived in the Cretaceous period, not the Jurassic period. the movie "Jurassic Park" actually squished a few of the time periods togeather, putting several dinosaurs that would never exist at the same time against eachother.

Ah, ok, well, still that's even more proof to my statement...that's even farther away from the evolution of humans.

No actually thats closer, much, much closer. The Cretaceous period was the last era of the dinosaurs, despite what steven spielberg would have you believe. this period was 144-65 million years ago. now, the T-rex was dominant in the late cretaceous, known as the Senonian period. this is actually the closest possible time to humans than anything, which isn't really proof for you at all. the Senonian period was 89-65 million years ago.

this defines a primate:
Unguiculate, claviculate, placental mammals, with orbits encircled by bone; three kinds of teeth, at least at one time of life; brain always with a posterior lobe and calcarine fissure; the innermost digit of at least one pair of extremities opposable; hallux with a flat nail or none; a well developed caecum; ***** pendulous; testes scrotal; always two pectoral mammae. (Mivart 1873)

you're right, we were primates back then. but we're primates right now too lol

Hmm...didn't know that, well for one thing, Stevie didn't persaude me towards anything other than thinking that large Tripod aliens from war of the worlds really do exist under the ground :omg: jk...No, seriously, thought it was opposite...I never really had an interest in them, I tend to look toward the future, however it's been a long, long time since Biology class :P :lol: I should brush up a bit...

Very true, however I refered to them as "simple primates" we have evolved past the general "Primate".

u people want to watch the BBC's Walking With.... series, they done dinosours, beast and monsters, its really good and tells u pretty much what scientists have assumed regarding the behaviour of the dinosours and the other creatures that walked the earth millions of years ago. some of it may be bulls**t some might not but it is a brilliant series and would add interesting points to this debate..

Hmm...sounds interesting, I only get BBC America unfortunatly, however the Discovery Channel did something similar, BBC might have gotten it off them, or vica versa...Either way it was a CG representation on what life was like back when the Dinos were top dog...It really didn't reveal all that much scientific information, just how certain ones survived, and how they functioned in communities...ect...

the BBC made the series themselves, spent about 10mil on the walking with dinosaurs one, u can buy the dvds if u got cash to spare get them

Well...it just sounds exactly like the Discovery Channel thing, and I might, but i'm getting my Battlestar DVDs first ;)

the BBC does sell everything they make to get some extra cash in lol

what? the british taxes for it aren't enough? come on...

lol! its too expensive to make any films or tv shows here as it is! the taxman takes everything

:lol:

you know what bbc show was realy funny? Monty Pythons Flying Circus

I never really liked monty python, the only british humor that really ever got to me was Bridget Jones' Diary :lol:

monty python's and now for something completely different.
that **** cracked me up. i love monty python.

They suspect T-rex was a scavenger because his arms were totally useless, he could not run(they know this by comparing his leg bones, with leg bones of some fast running dinosaurs), if he would fall, he would most probably die because he was to heavy(and that happens a lot during hunting) and plus he looks very different from good "hunters" of that time like the Raptors :P

i bet if we had more people like monthy python the world would be saved  with their genious brains

when you say about you doubt it was a scavenger i know it was a scavenger they have alredey proven this and known it for about 10 years :blank: so :P

They havent proven anythin, they can only judge by the look of his skeleton. They cant prove anything :P
Anyhow I've known this for a while but it seems like some other folk here didnt, thats why I brought it up :P