Does this physical "evidence" make you believe in God?

[modest]

...You can also find on YouTube a video called "The Physical Ashen Remains of Sodom and Gomorrah" which shows the crumbliness of the material...

 

Well, I watched 8 minutes of it. That's all I could take of such stupidity. The show some natural outcrops which show clear signs of being a lake evaporite:

 

 

Nice sedimentary layers. How they would think that this is a human structure is completely beyond me. They test it and find calcium sulfate and calcium carbonate which is exactly what you'd expect sedimentary rock to be made of:

 

Calcium carbonate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chalk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

By the way, read this from the second link:

Chalk [calcium carbonate and calcium sulfate] is resistant to erosion and slumping compared to the clays with which it is usually associated, thus forming tall steep cliffs where chalk ridges meet the sea.

 

That's why there are calcium sulfate outcrops near the dead sea! :rant: Look at the picture on that page:

 

 

Look familiar? :rant:

 

The only other thing was that they found sulfur deposits, just like you'd find all around the dead sea.

 

Ridiculous :hihi:

 

~modest

[Mr. Peterman]

Sorry but that's not all the evidence there is. The fact that they are man made structures can be seen in the movie "The Physical Ashen Remains of Sodom and Gomorrah". I think it's the same one you got a picture from with the knife. If you watch the part where they are looking at the ruins from Masada, where that cable car starts from. As they zoom in on the ruins with their camera you can pause the video and see a roundish structure with a wall. The wall has a sharp turn in it. That means it's man made. I'm sorry you can't watch more than eight minutes of it, but the real evidence that is much less disputable is on the movie by Simon Brown. It shows indisputably that the Sodom area is man made. Try getting it free of charge. Don't get it if you don't want to have a reason to change your mind. And what about the theory that the calcium sulfate deposits you have pictured are the remains of walls of one of the cities of the plain? I'd be interested to know exactly where those "deposits" are. It's interesting that they are in a straight line and to know that they are calcium sulfate.

[modest]

Sorry but that's not all the evidence there is.

 

I'm not going to buy the video. And, if it's made by the same people who pointed at natural outcrops on a youtube video and claimed they were ancient brickwork then they have no credibility with me with anything they say.

 

Look at the sedimentary lines (the strata) from the video:

 

 

They are even and consistent across the whole outcrop. If that thing were manufactured from blocks then the lines would not be consistent. They would be uneven and broken. It is clearly a natural outcropping. They are sometimes called yardangs. They're natural. I saw a bunch passing through Arizona:

 

-source

 

And yardangs are often made of chalk (calcium carbonate and sulfate).

 

If you watch the part where they are looking at the ruins from Masada, where that cable car starts from. As they zoom in on the ruins with their camera you can pause the video and see a roundish structure with a wall. The wall has a sharp turn in it. That means it's man made.

 

Nothing in this image looks remotely man made:

 

 

You need some better evidence of God.

 

~modest

[Moontanman]

Mr. Peterman, you seem to be desperately pursuing physical evidence of God. Like many that go on this quest you start out by assuming the existence of god and then try to match up evidence to support your conclusion. The film you give as evidence is typical of such evidence in that it tries to convince gullible people with things that are not proof of anything. Even if you could prove the "ruins" are the remnants of a real city and that it was destroyed by fire and that there is sulfur deposits in the city it still would not be proof of Actions by God. If you must believe then believe, don't allow others to use lies and bad science to sway your beliefs. Science cannot prove the non existence of God, nor can it be used to prove the existence of God. Grasping at straws presented by charlatans like the people who produce this and other "Proofs" only serve to show religion as a bunch of gullible people who ignore reality. If I could prove this wasn't the site of gods wrath would it prove the non existence of God to you? It shouldn't nor should it, believe if belief is what you need then believe it, but don't allow the need for proof to rule your need for belief, you'll end up with neither one.

[Mr. Peterman]

Well if you were zoomed out a little more it would look more man made. Anyway, you said I need more evidence than that, and I do. I just can't show it to you or I would get in legal trouble maybe. The whole reason I came back to this thread is because I got through watching the movie. I got the movie because I still wasn't sure these places were legitimate and now I have more proof. I would give you a screen shot if I thought I couldn't get in trouble for it. The brickwork is obvious. I doubt you would not think they were brickwork. The top you would have to argue to be some kind of large rock conglomerate or something although anyone who saw it would think you were reaching and completely wrong. You wouldn't argue that the brick wall was not man made unless you didn't think anyone who knew you would ever see it. It extends out of the ground maybe 30 inches or something up. If I showed you a picture of it, you would definitely say it was an old broken wall. You couldn't pick it out to be different from the ruins at Masada or St. Catherine's Monastery. It has a place where the bricks were lined up to serve as the edge of a doorway, right in downtown Sodom. I could tell you more but I think we might not supposed to do that. So I don't know what to tell you. The proof exists and I just can't get it to you. See if you got the movie you would have to argue that the brickwork was built on top of the ashen anomaly and that the brick wall was built later or something. I bet you would probably end up arguing that the city was burned or something. Something happened you would say, maybe a volcano or maybe "no one knows". I'd be interested to know what you would say. Well I guess I'll say the rest because you would still wan't to see it. There are perfectly round circular wells and arches that are circular on top like the Roman arches found in Sodom.

[Mr. Peterman]

Sorry but I don't have faith like a christian because I am not one. I believe more along the lines of Judaism. I wanted to know if there is a God and I looked for information about it the way I do when I try to find out anything else in the real world. The Sodom and Gomorrah story was supposedly a miracle of God. Look! A direct miracle with possible remaining evidence. The spirit world is definitely real according to my experiences, and I don't have many more scruples with not believing Him if he exists so maybe I'm not that skeptical. I'm schizophrenic and I don't believe anything the doctors say about it because what they say doesn't line up with what I experience or with logical reasoning. I know well what happened, how it happened, and why it happened and they don't have a clue, and I haven't told them 1% of what did happen. My reason's for believing in a spiritual world far outweigh any arguments against it from my point of view and I do consider their explanations but they don't add up. Can people see a miracle? Yes. But then they are known as schizophrenic perhaps maybe to keep a lid on it. It's like if an angel came down from heaven and had a chat with you and then you say something about it and someone gives you a "crazy" label as if that means anything. Then all the people who say they've talked to angels are ignored because they are "crazy".

[pamela]

well mr peterman, if that works for you then so be it.You dont need proof of a miracle, your faith simply acknowledges it.Do you honestly think that an omnipotent being would need to prove himself to the likes of man? In the three religions Judaism, Christianity and Islam, acceptance of that supreme being is based upon faith and is executed thru works, actions and words.Whatever you choose to see, will become a reality to you, and a natural occurrence will be your miracle.The perception is yours, so do not expect validation

[Mr. Peterman]

Only there is no proof it was a natural occurrence and the bible says it was miraculous. I've certainly seen nothing like it before as I've never seen brick buildings and city walls turned to crumbly material like that. Seems miraculous to me. I can expect validation, and I can look for validation, and so far I'm pretty satisfied.

[modest]

I've certainly seen nothing like it before as I've never seen brick buildings and city walls turned to crumbly material like that. Seems miraculous to me.

 

As the youtube video shows: the outcroppings are made of alternating layers of calcium carbonate and calcium sulfate. Both CaCO₃ and CaSO₄ are common evaporite, sedimentary rock. When a lake, ocean, or sea dries up, they are what is left behind in layers. The following source explains:

Formation of evaporite rocks

 

Although all water bodies on the surface and in aquifers contain dissolved salts, the water must evaporate into the atmosphere for the minerals to precipitate. For this to happen the water body must enter a restricted environment where water input into this environment remains below the net rate of evaporation. This is usually an arid.

 

A region is said to be arid when it is characterized by a severe lack of available water, to the extent of hindering or even preventing the Individual growth and Morphogenesis of plant and animal life.... environment with a small basin fed by a limited input of water. When evaporation occurs, the remaining water is enriched in salts, and they precipitate when the water becomes oversaturated...

 

Evaporite depositional environments

Sedimentary depositional environment

• Examples include the Red Sea, and the
  Dead Sea

 

<snip>

 

Major groups of evaporite minerals

 

The minerals precipitate out of solution in the reverse order of their solubilities, such that the order of precipitation from sea water is

1. Calcite. CaCO
   ₃
   
   
2. Gypsum CaSO
   ₄
   
   

Evaporite: Facts, Discussion Forum, and Encyclopedia Article

 

In other words, alternating layers of calcium carbonate (CaCO₃) and calcium sulfate (CaSO₄) are exactly what you would expect to find near the shores of the dead sea. These calcium deposits are known as "chalk". The source I provided earlier explains that chalk erodes more slowly than does clay often leaving cliffs and yardangs just like you see near Masada.

 

And, that whole area is chuck full of chalk deposits scattered across it as shown in this lithology:

 

-source

 

There is nothing unusual about that area. It is not evidence of anything unusual. You are experiencing confirmation bias—that is all.

 

~modest

[InfiniteNow]

Only there is no proof it was a natural occurrence and the bible says it was miraculous. I've certainly seen nothing like it before as I've never seen brick buildings and city walls turned to crumbly material like that. Seems miraculous to me.

 

You know, I've been an atheist for nearly two decades now, but I must say... After seeing this incontrovertible evidence and reading such a flawless argument, I have changed my stance and now believe in god without question. I cannot believe I've been so blind to something so obvious for so very long.

 

 

Now, do I need to get some sort of ID card before I start hating homos and arguing against evolution, or does that just come naturally? Please let me know. I'm new to this whole "being a believer" thing. Thanks again. You've really changed my life.

[Moontanman]

Gee INow, if you're going to take the plunge join the Raelians, at least they have topless women..... Talk about great sunday services!

[CraigD]

Though it’s been implied throughout this thread, I think it bears restating: Simon Brown’s Our Search for Sodom and Gomorrah should not be considered a credible archeological paper, but rather a work of Christian apologetics, and as such, should not be considered a scientific work addressing objective reality, but rather a religious work intended to reassure and instruct religious people. “Religious people” in this context doesn’t carry a requirement that one be a member of an established church, or even objective belief in the supernatural, only the belief that it’s good to accept, as part of one’s personal reality, the supernatural.

 

However, since many previous posts in this thread have emphasized the perils of confusing religious and scientific writing, I’ll like to focus only on some commonly know, objectively real, information and concepts about which I believe Mr Peterman and perhaps others suffer from misconceptions

… and do people build cities out of ash?

Since the early 20th century, many cities are built of materials containing fairly high percentages of ash, primarily fly ash, a byproduct of burning coal, in concrete and concrete block - which is why it’s commonly called “cinder block”. This practice was known at least as early as in early 1st millennium Rome, though as coal ash was nearly unknown then, volcanic ash was used. The practice was lost during the dark ages, but is becoming increasingly significant now, as it significantly reduces CO2 emissions associated with concrete making. (encyclopedic source: [/url]).

Maybe there is nothing that makes sulfur too terribly destructive, I'm not sure.

Sulfur isn’t especially destructive, but rather a very useful element, used in compounds with applications in practically everything: food, photographs, drugs, black powder gunpowder, and early matches (from about the 6th to the early 18th centuries, when phosphorus-based matches rendered sulfur-based ones rendered them obsolete).

 

Crystalline sulfur burns (well, like many atypical things that burn, I think it’s actually a gas of it vaporized from the solid that burns), unusual in something that looks a bit like a soft semiprecious stone (though it’s much, much too soft, and much to chemically reactive, to actually use in jewelry). It has a fairly low ignition temperature, around 200 C, and I think a low flame temperature (I couldn’t find a reference :phones:). I don’t think it has much energy density – that is, its not a very good fuel, but again, couldn’t find a good reference –

this late 19th century textbook reference suggests that it has about 1/3rd that of an equal mass of wood.

So that makes me think it was a miracle even more considering how high of a concentration of sulfur there would have to be to cook limestone and turn entire cities to ash.

Though a good additive to improve the characteristics of more destructive mixtures (black powder, for example, is about 10% sulfur, the sulfur serving to lower the ignition temperature and increase the burn rate of its other ingredients) sulfur isn’t a very good choice for something to rain destruction. The mention of sulfur, under the old name brimstone, in the story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, is, I think, intended to emphasize the supernatural nature of their destruction, not to realistically describe an actual, witnessed event. As the linked Wikipedia article notes, even the names Sodom and Gomorrah are likely illustrative, possibly being variations of the Hebrew words for “scorched” (sedom) and “a ruined heap” (“‘amorah”).

 

Look familiar? ;)

I'd be interested to know exactly where those "deposits" are. It's interesting that they are in a straight line and to know that they are calcium sulfate.

I’m guessing Mr. Peterman’s referring to modest’s post of the famous and spectacular Needles of the western tip of the Isle of Wight, England. Why they’re called “The Needles” isn’t obvious until you consider a pre-1764 image such as this one:

By a remarkable coincidence, the now-missing spire was known as Lot’s Wife, after the turned-to-salt character from the bible story.

 

For a sense of scale, notice the lighthouse tower just beyond the last of the natural formations in the photo – it’s 31 meters high.

 

As for why they’re in a strait line, and tall and thin rather than the usual wide and flat for chalk deposits, the modern geological explanation is that the chalk deposits were “folded” so extremely during the same mountain building (orogenic) period about 70-65 million years ago that produced the great European and Asian mountains, including the Alps and Himalayas. The Needles are the remnants of once horizontal chalk sediments that have been turned nearly 90° on edge.

[Mr. Peterman]

There is a difference between building a city out of pure fly ash that is not mixed with anything and mixing fly ash in concrete to be used as a building material. See the difference. Put another way you could say that I was asking, "Do people build cities out of highly erosive and weak material?" The answer is no. The Needles do not refute the evidence that Ron Wyatt's sites were cities. Like I said before though, I can't show you a picture.

[Mr. Peterman]

I need to correct myself a little bit maybe if I posted wrong. The walls found at Sodom are about maybe two and a half feet thick and taller than a person. Even the doorway comes up on both sides about as tall as a person, and it is clearly a doorway with the bricks lined up perfectly on both sides. I wouldn't have to convince you it was a door at all. I wouldn't have to convince you it was a wall either, even if you were extremely extremely skeptical. I just watched that part of the movie again because I couldn't really remember the dimensions.

[Moontanman]

Put another way you could say that I was asking, "Do people build cities out of highly erosive and weak material?" The answer is no. The Needles do not refute the evidence that Ron Wyatt's sites were cities. Like I said before though, I can't show you a picture.

 

The answer is yes, people, especially in desert regions often use soft easily carved rock to build with. Just because it doesn't hold up over thousands of years doesn't mean it isn't useful over human time scales. Ron Wyatt is not a dependable source of anything, you really need to get away from people like that.

[freeztar]

For Sodom and giggles, I visited the Ron Wyatt site where I have taken this quote from (bolding mine):

 

Later in 1989, Ron and Mary Nell Wyatt visited the site just below Masada and took samples of the whitish material which broke right off in their hands and disintegrated into particles the consistency of talcum powder. At that time, Mary Nell actually found one of the brimstone capsules imbedded in a piece of compacted ash, however, no conclusion was drawn, at that time, as to what it was.

It seems Mary found some naturally occurring chalk and then assumed it was ash.

 

In October of 1990, Ron Wyatt and Richard Rives returned to area. As they examined the area below Masada they discovered that it had just rained. As they wandered through the area, Richard saw what looked like an open room or cave at some distance and as they approached the vicinity of the cave they came upon a very large chunk of ash that had just recently fallen from a high section - probably because of the recent rain. As Ron stopped to view this he saw numerous yellowish balls inside this broken ash, all surrounded by a reddish-black, crusty ring. Prying one out, he recognized it as sulfur. On closer examination, now knowing what to look for, it was found that all through the ashen remains were round balls of encapsulated sulfur (brimstone).

 

"A very large chunk of ash"? Or a chunk of calcium carbonate evaporite?

 

And those "reddish-black" rings are in fact even more evidence that the minerals found are naturally occurring. They are known as iron concretions and are very typical in anaerobic aquatic conditions. In fact, they are used by the Army Corps of Engineers as evidence of wetland characteristics. In my work as a wetland scientist, I've found many of these iron concretions in wetland environments. I've also found them in the arid SW USA while hunting for rocks, minerals, fossils, and artifacts. I also found chalk there. (Chaco Canyon)

 

Concretions

 

Wetlands - Google Books

[Mr. Peterman]

It's funny how you all say Ron Wyatt isn't a dependable source of anything when he's correct about these sites being cities. Care to admit these are cities? I just watched on site footage that proves beyond all doubt they were cities. Walls? Doors? Wells? Does any of this ring a bell? Rock generally doesn't wear out over time. That is why limestone has been around for so long. Remember they used easily workable rock but it didn't crumble in their hand. They certainly wouldn't use such materials to build a wall around their city. The enemy would just knock it down.