How can creationists explain the changes in tools that have taken place over human history?
If humans were placed on earth with the intelligence more or less of today (not technical knowledge, but intelligence), how would the types of tools that have been found changed from primitive, such as sharp-edged stones and pebbles (made by the ancestors of human beings) to more complex tools such as axes, spears, etc.that come with the ability to think more abstractly?
With the materials of the day, shouldn't the humans have thought "here's a stick, a rock, if i somehow attach the stick to the rock i will have more leverage than just using the rock itself"? Since the type of tool is a function of intelligence, why is it that it seems that intelligence has evolved?
Even crows can make fairly complex tools, relative to their intelligence, using the materials handy! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbwRHIuXqMU
We didn't get smarter, if we are the same species back then as we are today.
Today we know more. We aren't any smarter than were 5000 years ago.
To say that, because there weren't cars 500 years ago, we were less intelligent is nonsense.
"A product of time"? Why didn't the first humans make an axe or a spear? Because they couldn't think that abstractly; therefore they were not human! They had to evolve before such a tool was possible.
- GregoryLv 71 decade agoFavorite Answer
The information listed is false. Take the Gaza pyramids.
They are made up of more then two million three hundered thousand blocks. These blocks on the average weigh 2.5 tons each. How did just people move a block in the dessert no less to build the pyramids? One block weighs as much as 25 refrigerators. See the Nova web site for pyramids. They were made so exact that a piece of paper can not even be inserted between two blocks. They fit togather so perfectly.
Another example Neanderthals and their tools. On the other hand, the fossil record shows that Neanderthals possessed an advanced culture. One of the most interesting examples of
this is a fossilized flute made by Neanderthal people. This flute, made from the thighbone of a bear, was found by the archaeologist Ivan Turk in a cave in northern Yugoslavia in July 1995. Musicologist Bob Fink then analyzed it. Fink proved that this flute, thought by radio-carbon testing to be between 43,000 and 67,000 years old, produced four notes, and that it had half and full tones. This discovery shows that Neanderthals used the seven-note scale, the basic formula of western music. Fink, who examined the flute, states that "the distance between the second and third holes on the old flute is double that between the third and fourth." This means that
the first distance represents a full note, and the distance next to it a half note. Fink says, "These three notes … are inescapably diatonic and will sound like a near-perfect fit within any kind of standard diatonic scale, modern or antique," thus revealing that Neanderthals were people with
an ear for and knowledge of music.
They were not as primitive as science says. They found a bone needle that is straight and a hole in it to make clothes with. This needle, which is made of bone, is exceedingly straight and has a hole for the thread to be passed through. People who wear clothing and feel the need for a sewing needle cannot be considered "primitive." The best research into the Neanderthals' tool-making abilities is that of Steven L. Kuhn and Mary C. Stiner, professors of anthropology and
archaeology, respectively, at the University of New Mexico. Although these two scientists are proponents of the theory of evolution, the results of their archaeological research and analyses show that the Neanderthals who lived in caves on the coast of southwest Italy for thousands of years carried out activities that required as complex a capacity for thought as
modern-day human beings. Kuhn and Stiner found a number of tools in these caves. The discoveries were of sharp, pointed cutting implements, including spearheads, made by carefully chipping away layers at the edges of the flint. Making sharp edges of this kind by chipping away layers is without a doubt a process calling for intelligence and skill. Research has shown that one of the most important problems encountered in that process is breakages that occur as a result of pressure at the edge of the stones. For
this reason, the individual carrying out the process has to make fine judgments of the amount of force to use in order to keep the edges straight, and of the precise angle to strike at, if he is making an angled tool. This showed there are more intelligent than science gives them credit for.
- The DocLv 61 decade ago
Well, that's not really the best example. The early homo sapiens probably had very nearly the same or exactly the same brain capacity as we do now, and those in early civilizations almost certainly did (there hasn't been time to evolve significantly) - I'm not necessarily any smarter than someone who lived in ancient Egypt, say, but I do have access to much more technology because of the time and place I live in. As we progress, we stand on the shoulders of giants, and we don't have to be smarter than earlier people to have things they do not, we can use everything they learned and everything that we've learned since.
- HerodotusLv 71 decade ago
I am certainly not a Creationist. There is no creditable Creationist theory. That is Zero.
I do, however, not agree with your thought here. Knowledge builds slowly. Modern man used incredibly primitive tools at his beginning. Large mounds of dirt were the very height of his accomplishments. This changed little for tens of thousands of years. There was advancement, and it is carefully noted, but it was slow.
As our ability to record ideas improved, and we developed specialization of labor, our learning curve began to turn upward more quickly. With the printing press everything changed. It was the advancement of knowledge, not our mental capacity, that showed the greatest changes in the last 50,000 years.
- Anonymous5 years ago
I don't know that anyone has really looked into it yet - but here are my personal thoughts on it........ evolution assumes a common ancestor creation assumes a common creator and God is a scientist. either one could account for this......although most assume it has to be one or the other, I think not necessarily (one who is set on interpreting evidence in favor of only one outcome is not doing good science......) the entire claim of common descent (in this case) is because one of our chromosomes looks like two of the ape chromosomes. chromosomes can split or join, with little or no effect on the genes themselves. and the entire interpretation is based on the understanding that telomeres and centromeres behave only one way......we don't definitively know that. we assume that because it is what we know how to do (ie: dog breeding etc.) we can only offer explanations based on the knowledge we currently have. we can sometimes expostulate from there, but it is still only base on what we know. (ie: the world is flat, things at a distance disappear a little @a time - postulate: the world is round) assuming instead a common creator - He would have understood what was needed to initiate the genetic difference and what it would look like.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- 1 decade ago
"How can creationists explain the changes in tools that have taken place over human history?"
I can explain anything with a really good set of Snap Ons
- 1 decade ago
We got smarter. So hard to believe? Then why weren't there cars or computers hundreds of years earlier?!
- Anonymous1 decade ago
- Anonymous1 decade ago
That crow is smarter than most christians I have known
- Servant LeaderLv 51 decade ago
Wisdom gained from trial and error which is a product of time.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Creationism and "intelligent design" are retrograde concepts that our inadequate education system has failed to overcome.