Jump to content


Photo

Technology Then---Technlogy Now


  • Please log in to reply
43 replies to this topic

#41 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,281 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 17 June 2017 - 02:19 AM

....

The ark could easily have been built. I am not certain that this is exclusively what is being debated. The understanding of astronomy, calendars, weight, leverage, geology, and science in general was understood at an extraordinary level. Our modern structures require yearly maintenance at a minimum. The pyramids have stood for thousands with none, withstanding earthquakes that have leveled Cairo. The how is the mystery. The fact that they could be and were constructed is not.

Are there any findings of tools that indicate lesser intelligence in our species? Even the oldowan stones found near Lake Turkana is beyond what any primate has devised. I don't want to derail this into an evolution vs creation thread. Please ignore this and continue with the discussion—I am following with high interest.

It's easy once you know how to do it. Less mastery of a technology doesn't mean less intelligence. One feature of more primitive culture is that they lack specialization. They may not have specialized biochemists, but their man often master a greater number of skills from agriculture to manufacturing and construction. That means that a small team of their men would be able to construct their houses from commodity to finished building. Today you just have a larger number of specialists involved, which increases overall productivity with people knowing more about less and are able to repeat more work within given time, but it also means they may just know less in total. 



#42 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,699 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 17 June 2017 - 01:42 PM

Yeah just a bit of fun, but I wasn't poking fun at Mike, I was just using his example to then parody an absurd version of a creationist, who takes things to a silly level. That kind of mischief I get a kick out of. :D (pretending to be a crackpot cracks me up)

 

Pretending? ? ? ?

 

.......  Sorry, mike, it was just there and I couldn't resist ......



#43 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,699 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 17 June 2017 - 02:32 PM

It's easy once you know how to do it. Less mastery of a technology doesn't mean less intelligence. One feature of more primitive culture is that they lack specialization. They may not have specialized biochemists, but their man often master a greater number of skills from agriculture to manufacturing and construction. That means that a small team of their men would be able to construct their houses from commodity to finished building. Today you just have a larger number of specialists involved, which increases overall productivity with people knowing more about less and are able to repeat more work within given time, but it also means they may just know less in total. 

Ancient peoples being less intelligent than we are is an argument put forward, in this forum at least, by creationists only.  Not once have I seen any evolutionist here claim the ancients were less intelligent than we are.  

 

Sometimes my students will claim they're just "stupid" because they don't understand a point I'm making.  My response is they aren't stupid, they're ignorant.  Ignorance is a lack of knowledge, not a lack of intelligence.  Ignorance can be fixed.  That's why they're in school ..... to "fix" ignorance.

 

It's the same thing with a lack of technology.  In some (rare) cases, the ancients had even better solutions than we do.

 

Paraphrasing again what Newton said:   "We stand tall because we stand on the shoulders of giants."

 

But, let's look at this.... 

Using the YEC timeline, we have creation about 6,000 years ago and a flood about 4500 years ago.  So, from creation to the flood (1500 years) would be only about one third the time it has been from the flood to the present (4500 years).  There is no reason to believe the ancients could accumulate more knowledge in 1500 years than we can in 4500.... even without the "head start" from any technology or knowledge that survived the flood.



#44 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,885 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 17 June 2017 - 11:58 PM

 

But, let's look at this.... 

Using the YEC timeline, we have creation about 6,000 years ago and a flood about 4500 years ago.  So, from creation to the flood (1500 years) would be only about one third the time it has been from the flood to the present (4500 years).  There is no reason to believe the ancients could accumulate more knowledge in 1500 years than we can in 4500.... even without the "head start" from any technology or knowledge that survived the flood.

 

You seem to forget they had direct access to divine knowledge back then...


  • Mike Summers likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users