Hambo Says Humans Could Always Cook

Ten days ago PhysOrg had this article: How Stone Age humans unlocked the glucose in plants, which mentions evidence that early humans ate plants as well as animals. They say, with our bold font:

During the last glacial period when ice caps expanded to cover much of northern Europe, there was an explosion of a new technology driven by the need for processing new sources of plant food: the ground stone. It was a major evolutionary success, dating back about 30,000 years, says Dr. Emanuela Cristiani, associate professor in prehistoric archaeology at Sapienza University of Rome, Italy.

That has infuriated Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else. He just posted this at the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), his creationist ministry: Ground Stone: A Key to Human Evolution? Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

Acorn flour, bread made from cattail roots, and water lily tubers — do these sound appetizing? Well, maybe not to us, but according to a new study [He links to the PhysOrg article], ancient humans ate these foods and more. This study was exploring the diets of ancient man and they revealed a surprise (at least to those who think with an evolutionary worldview, anyway): past humans didn’t just eat meat — they ate plants, including plants they cooked or even ground into flour. This finding may be surprising to evolutionists, but it’s certainly not to those who start with God’s Word. It sounds normal for humans living in this fallen world.

Hambo wasn’t surprised by the discovery that humans were eating plants, but he still finds a lot to disagree about. He says:

This study claims that the discovery of the “ground stone” (a simple stone tool to grind food) was a key in our evolutionary success. With the ability to grind grains to make flour came the ability to unlock the glucose inside, which was important for nutrition. But this whole study is based on evolutionary assumptions about human evolution. [So it’s worthless!] The researchers believe we were hunter-gatherers (when we first came out of the trees, they’d say!) before slowly developing the technology to become farmers.

Hambo doesn’t like that! He tells us:

Now, this view does not match with what Scripture teaches about early man. Within just a few generations of Adam, mankind was making musical instruments and working with bronze and iron (Genesis 4:21–22) — Adam himself was to care for the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2:15), before being driven out of it because of sin (Genesis 3:23). And his sons were farming and raising livestock (Genesis 4:2). So there’s no slow progression from primitive brute to hunter-gatherer to farmer. Also, man was vegetarian until God said humans could eat meat (Genesis 9:3).

How could those scientists have been so wrong? Hambo explains:

So where does this supposed evolutionary progression come from? Well, because evolutionists start with the wrong starting point — millions of years and primitive man, descended from an ape-like ancestor — they interpret the evidence (tools of various materials, cave dwellings, etc.) incorrectly. The evidence doesn’t “speak for itself” — it’s interpreted within a worldview.

Then he tells us the proper worldview:

When we start with God’s Word, we know the world was destroyed by a global flood and people were scattered at the time of the Tower of Babel, not long after the flood. The flood was followed by an ice age, and people living in certain climates during this rough time in history had to make do with whatever they could find.

That’s from ol’ Hambo, so you know it’s The Truth (even though that ice age isn’t in the bible). He continues:

They weren’t unintelligent — they were surviving in a very difficult changed world. So it’s no surprise that some were hunting and foraging, using simple tools made from the available resources to prepare and cook this food. But at the same time, in other parts of the world, humans were innovating and using other materials (such as metals) to build their homes and modify the world around them.

Hambo wouldn’t give you anything but an accurate account of human history. Now we come to the end:

So was the discovery of a ground stone key in our evolutionary success? No, humans were intelligent and knew how to cook and prepare food from the very beginning.

Nothing really new there, but it’s good to see that ol’ Hambo is keeping his nose to the grindstone, so to speak.

Copyright © 2020. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

22 responses to “Hambo Says Humans Could Always Cook

  1. Robert van Bakel

    I can never get over their Creation of an ice Age.
    Also I think it much more plausible that ancient people found dinosaur fossils and then Created Dragons, as their humble explanation of said fossils.

  2. Dave Luckett

    Two problems with the Ham dating:

    1. The existence of hunter-gatherers using stone and bone tools, and no metal, as late as the nineteenth century CE. Australian aboriginals, for example. They eagerly took up metal tools and weapons as soon as they were available. If metal technology had been already available within a generation or two of the first human beings, they would have had it, too.

    2. The vast numbers of stone tools found in all areas where humans had settled early, far more than can be accounted for by Ham’s chronology. The sheer scale of the stone tool aggregates at sites all over Africa, Europe, Asia and America attests to many generations of using stone tools, not one or two. And the stone tools themselves demonstrate slowly advancing manufacturing techniques, too. That this advance took place over very long periods is attested by the completely different assemblages found at different sites. Why else would there be only simple hand-axes at one site, and intricate pressure-flaked spear and arrow points at another?

    But of course, Ham need never consider such questions. Nether he nor his flock know or could care less about such-like quibbling.

  3. @Dave Luckett
    See the essay by R. Joel Duff, “Trillions of Stone Age Artifacts: A Young Earth Anthropology Paradox” in his blog “Naturalis Historia”
    https://thenaturalhistorian.com/2015/03/14/trillions-of-stone-age-artifacts-a-young-earth-anthropology-paradox/

  4. @DaveL detects some problems that only result from his biased, evolutionary wolrdview – exactly what Ol’Hambo warns against:

    1. “The existence of hunter-gatherers using stone and bone tools, and no metal, as late as the nineteenth century CE. Australian aboriginals, for example.”
    That’s not evolution. Evolution makes progress; the original Aussies are degenerated.

    2. “where humans had settled early”
    See what I mean? Evolutionary bias. You assume more than 6000 years, so you conclude more than 6000 years.
    Repent and accept the Bible (as interpreted by Ol’Hambo, which is the only legitimate interpretation) and you’ll understand that all those dating methods are unreliable and hence have to be rejected. You don’t believe me? Consult

    https:// answersingenesis.org/ media/ audio/ answers-with-ken-ham/ volume-107/ dating-methods-reliable-5/

    https://answersingenesis.org/ media/ audio/ answers-with-ken-ham/ volume-135/ dating-methods-are-they-accurate/?

    Ol’Hambo being “the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else” has not only considered, but even answered them long before you asked them. But you have eyes that don’t read and ears that don’t listen. It’s not to late yet, but you’re in for Lake of Fire!

  5. If humans didn’t get permission to eat meat until just after the flood, as in Genesis 9:3 which Ham cites, how come Abel was a keeper of sheep, generations before the flood? I’ve always wondered

  6. @Paul Braterman
    1) for their wool
    2) for sacrifices (as is explicitly told)

  7. Charley Horse X

    Note that the imported Ham’s missives can be read and understood by those who are just learning to read. Regardless of the age of the readers.

  8. Hambone says “This study was exploring the diets of ancient man and they revealed a surprise (at least to those who think with an evolutionary worldview, anyway): past humans didn’t just eat meat — they ate plants, including plants they cooked or even ground into flour.”

    Hammy is never surprised.

  9. @TomS, Yes, and you might have added their milk (sheep milk cheese is delicious) but it is clear from the context that Abel knew that fat lambs were good stuff

  10. @Paul Braterman
    Yes, on both points. In particular, if one approaches the Bible in a naive way, the idea that God forbade killing animals for human consumption, but was pleased by killing them for a divine sacrifice – this strikes one as yet another example of the relativity of good. Along with homicide not being murder if God does it, etc.

  11. Jim Roberts

    @Paul Braterman, the clearest explanation is that Genesis is just a bunch of myths gathered together in a single book, and that the myths of the initial creation, the myths of Adam and his kids, and the myth of Noah are separate tales. They contain contradictions because they were never intended to be read as historical events.

    The standard explanation is that prior to the Fall, humans and animals lived more closely, and while humans killed and ate animals, it didn’t cause animals to fear humans because they had some understanding that it was part of their natural life cycle to be eaten by man. That’s what went away after the Fall – either man became rapacious in their lust for meat, or animals just became more fearful, depending on the theologian or the time in history.

  12. Michael Fugate

    There would have been a time when most humans considered most things to be alive and to be our kin. Before believing we are more closely related to gods than other animals. Not to mention, if we believe we are almost gods, then what we like gods must like.

  13. @Jim Roberts
    I think that Paul B and I are engaging in a sort of “inside” dialog in public, where we accept, without making it explicit, the sort of thing that you are pointing out. Thank you for reminding me that there are others who are reading this, and I think that I should keep that in mind.

  14. After a lifetime of study, one thing I have learned is that humans have never needed to cook. All one needs is a can opener.

  15. @TomS, @Jim Roberts, well put. The redactor(s) did a pretty good job, on the whole, but it’s fun to point out where the disjunctions between narratives turn what Ham is saying into nonsense. I hope it’s also clear that I have a high degree of respect for the compilers, forging myths from a mixture of political motivation, cultural influences, and the best scholarly opinion of their time

  16. @Paul Braterman
    IMHO, the trouble comes when one tries to fit the culture of the Ancient Near East as if it were expressed in the idiom of the 21st century.

  17. What did you expect him to say? Cooking has been around for 6000 years and that is as far back as he is willing to go with human history. A mere logical consequence, it is.

  18. @TomS, indeed, or even of the 17th. Or the 11th, if you include the Arabic/Persian speaking world

  19. TomS:|
    “@Paul Braterman [who asked why Abel kept sheep]
    1) for their wool
    2) for sacrifices (as is explicitly told)”

    3) for (deleted — too explicit).

  20. @TomS: Well, the Bible doesn’t tell us about Abel’s wife and according to the creationist method this means we can make up anything we want. I pick option 3.

    @PaulB: “that I have a high degree of respect”
    So do I for very similar reasons. If I think it nonsense (and I do) that tells nothing about the compilers and everything about 21st Century me. So while I disagree with them regarding the content I totally can understand christians who think Ol’Hambo’s “theology” a perversion. As a consequence I think it a shame when counterapologists like Dawkins also assume a similar “theology”. On that point I rather sympathize with McGrath.

  21. @FrankB et al.
    Abel was raising sheep for the fertilizer.
    To have sheep to count inducing sleep.
    He was keeping sheep parasites alive.
    He was keeping all kinds of animals alive for the time when they would become food for humans.
    The sheep were of the “sheep kind”, i.e. bovids, which could be used for leather.

  22. jimroberts

    Hambo says: “Also, man was vegetarian until God said humans could eat meat.”
    Leading up to the flood, everybody except Noah occupies themselves with being wicked all the time. Eating meat would be one of several very enjoyable ways to be wicked.