Ancient City Discovered In Syria

A highly developed city burst onto the scene about 4,000 to 6,000 years ago in the evolutionary time frame. Early indications reveal a society rich in trade, copper metallurgy and pottery production but supposedly, the wheel hadn’t been invented yet…

“Covering about 31 acres, Tell Zeidan was situated where the Balikh River joins the Euphrates River in modern-day Syria. The location was at the crossroads of major, ancient trade routes in Mesopotamia that followed the course of the Euphrates River valley. The Ubaid period lasted from about 5300 to 4000 B.C.”

“This enigmatic period saw the first development of widespread irrigation, agriculture, centralized temples, powerful political leaders and the first emergence of social inequality as communities became divided into wealthy elites and poorer commoners,” said Gil Stein, director of the Oriental Institute and a leader of the expedition.”

The dating of 6000 years is questionable. What about it being an enigmatic period? It’s not enigmatic at all, in fact if one follows Biblical history after Babel, it’s quite logical.  Intelligent humans in a complex society spread out and build cities rapidly. Observational data shows humans can migrate at a pretty fast rate. The funny part of this discovery and it goes along the line of overusing the hypothesis first method which they rely very heavy on, how do they know the wheel in this particular society wasn’t invented yet? They still have a ways to go as far as uncovering the ancient city of Tell Zeidan.

Evolutionists have a real challenge on their hands, falsifications of simplicity is the norm in other fields in this story but in this chapter, you have a society all of a sudden burst on the scene before urban cities came into existence with anatomically correct modern humans who were able to organize their own habitats, decorate themselves, cook with fire and even play music, but for one to two million years straight they could only hunt, gather and dwell in a cave before an idea of planting came to mind. This is when according to the evolutionary time line, cities appeared with irrigation, commerce, metallurgy and a stratified society.

There is a pattern, just like in other areas of science, for example, the Human genome. Evolutionary scientists held to the idea (hypothesis first) was that signalling pathways were fairly simple and linear but what they have been finding is networks of complex information!

Ancient man was found to be more complex, now we see an ancient city more complex than they ever imagined, one would think they would expect more complexity with their discoveries…This is what happens with an unbelief in God’s word, you get a confusing story that makes no sense whatsoever in light of the evidence.

Advertisements

12 thoughts on “Ancient City Discovered In Syria

  1. Michael: those answers to our questions – where are they ?
    Lost in time ?

    “The dating of 6000 years is questionable. ”

    And why would that be ? Would you bother to justify this statement ? Probably you do not bother …

  2. Evolutionists have a real challenge on their hands, falsifications of simplicity is the norm in other fields in this story but in this chapter, you have a society all of a sudden burst on [sic] the scene before urban cities came into existence with anatomically correct modern humans who were able to organize their own habitats, decorate themselves, cook with fire and even play music, but for one to two million years straight they could only hunt, gather and dwell in a cave before an idea of planting came to mind. This is when according to the evolutionary time line, cities appeared with irrigation, commerce, metallurgy and a stratified society.

    Michael must have written this howler himself. A true mishmash of unrelated contentions and misunderstandings. “Be specific,” Eelco insists. So, OK—

    (1) What does evolution have to do with this article? The inhabitants of the tell were just like us in every way. Modern.

    {2) What is “falsification of simplicity”? Please give us an inkling as to what that may mean. Seems to be a conglomeration of idle buzzwords.

    (3) This society did not “burst onto the scene.” If you even read your own quotation, you’ll espy an interval of 1300 years. See? Right at the end of the last sentence in the first graf.

    (4) Why is it strange that there were societies before cities appeared? Even the Bible records these. Oh–and how does an “urban city” differ from a “city”?

    (5) What is an “anatomically correct” human? Are not all humans anatomically correct? I always thought this term applied only to dolls. Does Michael’s mind run only on buzzwords?[0]

    (6) If you knew anything about prehistory, you would know that modern humans appeared long before cities: about 100,00 years, versus 8,000 years ago. Archeology has shown that modern humans (Cro-Magnon, homo sapiens sapiens) had been organizing habitats (making camps, living in caves), decorating themselves, and playing music (bone flutes) for at least 40,000 years, and cooking with fire for about 400,00 years (before they were “modern”).

    (7) So humans were hunting for a million years before “the idea of planting” came to them. Well, Michael, let’s see if the idea of planting will come to you. Please name the characteristics that are required of a plant that can be cultivated—seed type, environmental requirements, nutritional capacity, etc. Then go out and find a plant that has not yet been cultivated, and figure out how to cultivate it. Then figure out how to harvest it—that is, how to get it out of the ground efficiently, how to separate the edible bits from the inedible stuff, how to prepare the edible part, and so on.[1]

    Also, if you were surrounded by enough food without planting anything, why would you go to the trouble of planting something?[2]

    (8) Why should it be strange that cities appeared at the time agriculture began? Again, sheer ignorance on Michael’s part. Agriculture requires that people reside permanently in one place. Residing in one place is almost the definition of a “city.” (Oh, and evolution has nothing to do with cities. To Michael, evolution as a bugbear that lurks in every shadow, ready to spring out at him without warning. Boo!)

    That’s enough for now. Michael has penned a paragraph replete with non sequiturs, gross ignorance, and just plain silliness. Tell, us again, Michael, your qualifications to discuss this or any other aspect of science.

    And don’t forget the two possibilities: (a) You are qualified, which means you’re deliberately misrepresenting the facts; or (b) you are speaking from total ignorance, which means that you shouldn’t say anything at all, and turn this blog over to someone else.

    Reasons #97-104 why people laugh at creationists.

    =============

    [0] We had a program at IBM that generated “executive reports” by combining buzzwords from a database. Perhaps the creationists have appropriated this idea—as they steal other things—and named it “Michael.”

    [1] This is reminiscent of the people who sneer that only humans can compose a symphony. I have yet to see a symphony written by any of those people.

    [2] American Indians did not use the wheel for transportation. Did they know about wheels? Sure; they used them to make pottery. But their environment was not conducive to wheeled transportation. Here’s another question for you, Michael: What characteristic of a wheel makes it useful for vehicles? No? I knew you wouldn’t know.

  3. So anything dating to more than 6,000 years is compatible with Evolution?

    — I’m sure that there are some Old-Earth Creationists that would have a good laugh at this.

  4. Michael: “It’s not enigmatic at all, in fact if one follows Biblical history after Babel, it’s quite logical. Intelligent humans in a complex society spread out and build cities rapidly.”

    Let’s see. Biblical dating puts the Tower of Babel about 2500 BCE. But the date of the tell was 5300-4000 BCE, at least 1500 years BEFORE Babel, not after it.

    Tell us again how it’s “quite logical.” that the tell follows Babel. Then tell us why it follows that cities were buit “quiter rapidly” in this era. This one seemes to have taken 2300 years.

    (Then define what archeologists mean by a “tell”. I thought not.)

  5. This post also assumes that there are NO GAPS in the Genesis geneologies. — And there is actually demonstable evidence that geneologies in the Bible were not intended to be used in the manner young earth creationists use them since you run into inconsistencies of time when you cross differing versions of the same geneologies.

    Link: http://www.reasons.org/are-there-gaps-biblical-genealogies

  6. Olorin,

    Be careful what you ask for…You say, “{2) What is “falsification of simplicity”? Please give us an inkling as to what that may mean. Seems to be a conglomeration of idle buzzwords.” This is going to be fun! You remind me of perhaps one of the people that you admire, Ken Miller who once said in 1994, “…the designer made serious errors, wasting millions of bases of DNA on a blueprint full of junk and scribbles.”

    In nature which is linked in main post recently stated…

    “Just one decade of post-genome biology has exploded that view. Biology’s new glimpse at a universe of non-coding DNA — what used to be called ‘junk’ DNA — has been fascinating and befuddling. Researchers from an international collaborative project called the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) showed that in a selected portion of the genome containing just a few per cent of protein-coding sequence, between 74% and 93% of DNA was transcribed into RNA2. Much non-coding DNA has a regulatory role; small RNAs of different varieties seem to control gene expression at the level of both DNA and RNA transcripts in ways that are still only beginning to become clear.”

    Ken Miller’s argument against an intelligent designer namely God has been falsified.

    “the ENCODE effort found about half of functional elements in the human genome do not appear to have been obviously constrained during evolution.”

    This is another challenge for evolutionists, in this article at least half the genome did not obtain function though evolutionary processes!

    Darwin once said…

    “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

    Indeed, his theory which is really an hypothesis has been absolutely broke down in more ways than one…

  7. Sorry Michael. You misunderstand the question.

    The plain meaning to the phrase “falsifying simplicity” is to demonstrate that there is no such thing as simplicity.

    From your comment above, that combination of buzzwords may have meant that functions have been found for some things that were once thought to be nonfunctional.

    If so, it is still quite a stretch from what someone might noodle out from the phrase “falsifying simplicity.” What is the simplicity that has been falsified? In what way could this be called falsification?

    Do you see the problem?

  8. The whole junk-DNA mop has been dragged through the puddle by creationists forever, and rebutted ad nauseam.

    Briefly: “Junk DNA” is a sarcastic name given by opponents of the concept, like “Big Bang” in cosmology.

    Scientists never abandoned the quest for functions–if for no other reason than carrying around over 90% of a genome as junk seemed evolutionarily burdensome. And it was these same mainstream scientists who actually found the functions—the creationists, you will notice, didn’t propose a single function, didn’t carry out a single investigation, didn’t lift a finger to demonstrate this vaunted contention. Actually, the creationist “prediction” was made after some of the functions had already been found. Most people require predictions to predate the results; apparently creationists do not.

    If the creationist/ID hypothesis were true, then all junk DNA would have a function. Go back and read your quoted reference again, but without the distorting funhouse lenses. Note the limiting qualifiers on how much of the DNA serves each of the listed purposes; there is no reference at all to the total human genome. In fact—YCLIU—more than half of the genome consists of high numbers of repetitions of very small groups of DNA (ALU sequences) too small to have any function.

    A large fraction of the human DNA we know positively is junk. Genetic elements that once had a function, but no longer do: broken retrotransposons, pseudogenes, retroviruses incapable of reproducing themselves, and genes that produce enzymes that no longer have any function (think citric-acid cycle.) This is like buying a new 2010 Ford carrying broken bumpers from the 2008 model in its trunk, a glove-compartment door welded shut, and a wiring harness with a hundred dead-end wires in it.

    The junk-DNA issue has been hashed to death elsewhere. Nice try, but you failed to read the Nature article correctly.

  9. “the ENCODE effort found about half of functional elements in the human genome do not appear to have been obviously constrained during evolution.”

    This is another challenge for evolutionists, in this article at least half the genome did not obtain function though evolutionary processes!

    Tch, tch. Another failure of reading comprehension.

    First, the quote says half of the “functional elements” whereas Michael inflates this to half the total genome—that’s an error of about an order of magnitude.

    Second, the subject of the quote concerns elements subject to natural selection (constrained), which Michael transmogrifies into generation of element function (mutation, etc). Michael isn’t even talking about the same subject as Miller.

  10. Darwin once said…

    “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

    Indeed, his theory [sic] which is really an hypothesis [sic] has been absolutely broke down [sic] in more ways than one…

    So you keep saying. But, among 484,000 practicing research scientists who are qualified to judge the weight of the evidence, there are only 2 (Michael Behe, Scott Minnich) who agree with you. And both of them agree on an old Earth and descent from a common ancestor.

    Michael, we don’t really care what you believe in the religious sense. The world rests on the backs of an infinite column of turtles? Fine.

    What we do care about is the lies you promulgate about science. Is your faith so weak—and science so strong—that you must distort science to prop up ypur faith?

  11. SPEAKING OF our friend Michael Behe, who remains comfortably ensconced at Lehigh University, creationists often get their knickers twisted over supposed discrimination perpetrated against them.

    Here’s a recent story of discrimination against evolution.

    Bruce Wltke is an otherwise competent Old Testament scholar at the Reformed Theological Seminary.[1] Or, rather he was at the RTS. No longer. He was booted out for the high crime of stating his opinion that a Christian could accept evolution. even while believing in biblical inerrency.[2]

    The RTU’s policy was expressed thusly: “But while Milton insisted that this provides for ‘a diversity’ of views, he acknowledged that others are not permitted. Darwinian views, and any suggestion that humans didn’t arrive on earth directly from being created by God (as opposed to having evolved from other forms of life) are not allowed, he said, and faculty members know this.”

    So there is diversity and there is diversity. A little is good, but a lot is not, and too much is out the door.

    Way back in the 1960s’ colonial-liberation struggles, a tinpot African dictator explained his actions thusly: When you are in power, I beg for my freedom, for that is your way; when I am in power, I take away your freedom, for that is my way.

    .

    Reason #73 why people laugh at creationists.

    ==============

    [1] Of the non-denominational evangelical persuasion.

    [2] This egregious heresy was perpetrated at a seminar sponsored by Francis Collins’ BioLogos Foundation.

  12. As we all continue our quest for truth, and sort through the earths evidence, I believe we will all have the opportunity to decide this for ourselves. Either the Bible and creationism, Which includes the Gospel of Christ, is one big lie. Or Jesus is exaclty who He says He is. Continue your hunt for truth! Scoffers welcome.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s