This is from The Answers Book, by Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati, and Carl Wieland, p. 234:
Instead of making this overly complex, I'm just going to bold AiG's comments and respond in plain text beneath each paragraph.
In some instances, the stone tools may have been used temporarily, until their settlements were fully established and they had found and exploited metal deposits, for example. In others, the original diverging group may not have taken the relevant knowledge with them. Ask an average family group today how many of them, if they had to start again, as it were, would know how to find, mine and smelt metal-bearing deposits? Obviously, there has been technological (cultural) degeneration in many post-Babel groups.
Stone tools aren't used by any society that had the technology to work metal. In some cases they did lack them (Polynesian island societies) but in the vast majority they never developed the technology in the first place, even if they were on top of rich deposits (Australian aborigines) or knew how to extract and work metal but only did so for ornamental purposes (Incas/Aztecs). Societies coming from iron using antecedants would find a way to get iron even if there wasn't any locally (Greenland Norse) they don't suddenly stop using technology just because they've moved away from their homeland.
As far as my family finding metal and smelting it, that's a straw man, since we're talking about 21st century people. I can't slaughter and skin a cow, but the Greenland Norse could. I can't fashion a homemade chain link, but the Greenland Norse could. They also (and this gets back to small populations and isolations vs. time) were able to get small amounts of bog iron during their visits to Vinland when they couldn't get fresh shipments of iron from Norway.
As far as Babel goes, by Gen. 12, we already have mention of Pharoah, so apparently the cultural and technological degredation didn't last very long or was not evenly distributed in the post-Babel population so that leaves more questions for AiG than provides answers.
In some cases, harsh environments may have contributed. The Australian Aborigines have a technology and cultural knowledge which, in relation to their lifestyle and need to survive in the dry outback, is most appropriate. This includes the aerodynamic principles used in making boomerangs (some of which were designed to return to the thrower, while others were not).
This would make a convincing argument in a vacuum, but history shows it's not. The Australian Aborigines aren't, for the most part, indigenous to the Outback. Most of them were forced into the more arid, less desireable areas after the arrival of the British. Those who did live in the Outback had 2,000 generations of ancestors who had learned the secrets of surviving there. Again, time that doesn't exist in the YEC model.
Sometimes we see evidence of degeneration that is hard to explain, but is real, nonetheless. For instance, when Europeans arrived in Tasmania, the Aborigines there had the simplest technology known. They caught no fish, and did not usually make and wear clothes. Yet recent archaeological discoveries suggest that earlier generations had more knowledge and equipment.
It's not that hard to explain. Small population + isolation + time = the loss of technology as people die off without passing on their knowledge or the younger generation fails to sufficiently pick up on it. Not hard to explain, but since YECism doesn't allow for time in the equation, it's no wonder they're stumped.
For instance, archaeologist Rhys Jones believes that in the Tasmanian Aborigines' distant past, these people had equipment to sew skins into complex clothes. This contrasts with the observations in the early 1800's that they just slung skins over their shoulders. It also appears that they were in fact catching and eating fish in the past, but when Europeans arrived, they had not been doing this for a long time. From this we infer that technology is not always retained and built upon, but can be lost or abandoned.
Are "no duh" statements like that in blue why AiG is held in such high regard by Creationists?
And note the little game they play, "they had not being doing this for a 'long time'". Yeah, for 2-7,000 years depending on the technology. Of course they won't tell you that since the flood occured only 3,800 years before those early European explorers arrived. They also don't tell you that the reason they had the lost technologies is that Tasmania was attached to Greater Australia and there was cultural exchange that ended 8-10,000 years ago when the island was cut off. Small populations + isoloation + thousands of years of isolation = technological loss.
Animist peoples live in fear of evil spirits and often have taboos against healthy practices like washing, and eating various nutritious foods. Again this illustrates how loss of knowledge of the true Creator-God leads to degradation (Romans 1:18-32).
Wow, that came out of right field... I think I'll just leave it for the readers to decide what to conclude.
