‘7,000-Year-Old Lost City’ Found

Image result for abydos in egypt

Abydos in Egypt–does this look “lost” to you?

I love archaeology. I’m fascinated by the distant past. So when I saw a headline that proclaimed “7,000-year-old Lost City Found” by Egyptian archaeologists, naturally I hastened to read the story ( http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/egypt-lost-city-found-luxor-a7435206.html ).

Hmm… Egyptian history has long been written up as starting sometime around 5,000 years ago, so 7,000 is quite a long extension of it. Also, “Abydos” is a well-known ancient site nearby–as well as a town by the same name in Asia Minor. So “Abydos,” the name given to the lost city in the headline, was never actually “lost.” Maybe just misplaced.

We are also told that Egypt’s tourist industry, since the fall of Hosni Mubarak and all that business with the Muslim Brotherhood, has taken a terrible hit. This discovery is expected to give it a much-needed boost. Hmmm… again.

In all periods of history, there have always been groups of people who did not partake of civilization, even as there are today. I’ve been coming around to the opinion that the “cave men” that we think we know so much about were really just people who weren’t part of any civilization–and that whatever civilization might have coexisted with them has been largely erased by the passage of thousands of years.

I’ve always wondered how what we call “civilization”–with buildings, writing, government, etc.–got started in the first place. If it’s “wired in” for us, why did it take so long to appear? And if it’s not, why did it ever appear at all?

The Bible tells us that the descendants of Adam, once they were expelled from Eden, lost little time in getting cities built, creating a civilization that was wiped out in the catastrophe of the Great Flood. Another civilization arose after the flood, only to be knocked down when God confused human language when they built the Tower of Babel.

So civilization comes and goes, and the ages roll on over its remains. Stuff only lasts so long. And then we’re puzzled when we discover something like Potbelly Hill in Turkey, or that wooden tablet full of indecipherable writing dredged up from a pond in northern Greece after 7,000 years at the bottom–discoveries that upset our preconceptions of the ancient world. Maybe this discovery in Egypt is on the level, and our preconceptions will take another hard knock.

3 comments on “‘7,000-Year-Old Lost City’ Found

  1. History, as it is commonly taught, strikes me as having a lot of assumptions associated with it. For example, if the Native Americans all came from Asia on an ice bridge across the Bering Strait how did they populate all the way to Tierra Del Fuego? Crossing the Darian Gap is difficult in our day, I can’t imagine how a huge population could be seeded across such an obstacle.

    I’m not advocating a literal six day/144 hour creative period; I’m willing to concede that those “days” could have been very long. However, a global flood, especially one that came not only from above, but from vast watery deeps below the ground, would have changed the landscape of the entire planet very quickly. It may also have caused rapid cooling of the earth’s climate and resulted in huge ice caps; which would mean that there were smaller oceans; which would mean that there would have been land bridges between continents.

    The fact is that history is highly speculative and the scientific community is loathe to admit that there may of been a global flood (which would confirm the bible’s accuracy) and their view of history is built upon denial of that possibility.

    The good news is that as more discoveries are being made it is becoming harder to deny that something is seriously wrong with the version of history being taught today. For example, they have discovered soft tissue in dinosaur fossils and that is impossible with the “deep time” version of events taught as history. Neanderthals have been found to be quite human after all and if the current climate theory is any indicator of their abilities, I think we can safely question the “scientific” explanation of ancient climate.

    1. I exchanged several emails with the scientist who first discovered dinosaur soft tissue. At first the establishment wrote her off as an incompetent huckleberry who didn’t know what she was talking about. Then a lot of other researchers discovered soft tissue lots of different fossils, so now the explanation is “oh, it’s the high iron content in dinosaur tissue that sometimes allows this soft stuff to survive,” or something like that. It can’t be that our whole understanding of fossilization could have been hopelessly wrong. And it even more can’t be that the fossils are not gazillions of years old!

      Because they have so much invested in it, politically and religiously, they will cling bitterly to their Darwinism and never give it up–certainly not for the sake of some annoying evidence.

    2. They love the lie.

      I have a number of Intelligent Design DVDs which go into the vast amount of information involved in the simplest cell. It is simply impossible for this much information to come into existence on its own. There is digital coding at the cellular level and translation from RNA to proteins; a computational process happening continually at the cellular level.

      No one, not even Darwin, has proposed a viable theory of how the first life appeared and chemical evolution amounts to wishful thinking on steroids. Mutations, the supposed engine of evolution, do not add functionality, they tend to reduce it. The mutation that gives Malaria resistance also give sickle cell anemia; it’s a trade off that has no real upside.

      The long-beaked finches that Darwin so admired are not a change. In dry years they prosper and increase as a portion of population, but during wet years the dispersion of beak lengths returns to the mean.

Leave a Reply