View Full Version : Absolute proof of Sodom and Gamorah
Ok you want proof of God's existence do you? Well I can give that proof you seek through new evidence which shows the existence of the cities Sodom and Gamorah as well as what happened to each city.
http://www.arkdiscovery.com/sodom_&_gomorrah.htm
Ausinus
02-02-2007, 01:07 AM
Ok you want proof of God's existence do you? Well I can give that proof you seek through new evidence which shows the existence of the cities Sodom and Gamorah as well as what happened to each city.
http://www.arkdiscovery.com/sodom_&_gomorrah.htm
There is a perfectly logical explanation for it. That region has a lot of bitumen, natural gas and petroleum deposists. It would have been easy enough for a pocket of natural gas to be released by an earthquake and react with fires burning in the cities. Or just as easily, those flammable pockets were ignited by an earthquake.
What about the white ash?
Ausinus
02-02-2007, 01:12 AM
What about the white ash?
The limestone in the region could have been ignited by the resulting conflagration.
Ok then how do you explain the fact that these brimstone balls were all completely round? Could an earthquake do that?
Ausinus
02-02-2007, 01:18 AM
Ok then how do you explain the fact that these brimstone balls were all completely round? Could an earthquake do that?
Yes, it could. A sphere is the shape with the lowest resistance. Its also likely that other aerobic and geological factors contributed to it.
Okay if you won't believe that, how about this:
http://www.bible-history.com/biblehistoryonline_fallenempires.php#Biblical%20Ar chaeology
This is listing of different archeological discoveries that prove different things in the Bible. Also of note, no discovery has disproven anything stated in the Bible.
Ausinus
02-02-2007, 01:39 AM
Okay if you won't believe that, how about this:
http://www.bible-history.com/biblehistoryonline_fallenempires.php#Biblical%20Ar chaeology
This is listing of different archeological discoveries that prove different things in the Bible. Also of note, no discovery has disproven anything stated in the Bible.
The great flood has been disproven. :p
And how did you come to that conclusion?
Ausinus
02-02-2007, 01:41 AM
And how did you come to that conclusion?
Geological formations and the distribution of fossils throughout the various strata.
Is there an archelogical reference for this though?
Ausinus
02-02-2007, 01:51 AM
Is there an archelogical reference for this though?
Read this page. Its full of evidence against the great flood.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#georecord
Additionally, the tower of Babel myth has been disproven too by linguistics (and common sense).
Ausinus
02-02-2007, 02:01 AM
Explain yourself.
Simple. There are too many chronological inconstistencies.
And if this tower is was so massive, where is it now? Surely such a gargatuan structure would have survived to this day?
And plus, how would changing the languages stop the construction of a massive tower that had been determinedly going on for x number of years.
Read this page. Its full of evidence against the great flood.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#georecord
Okay but how would you explain the finding of Noah's Ark?
http://www.arkdiscovery.com/noah's_ark.htm
Ausinus
02-02-2007, 02:13 AM
Okay but how would you explain the finding of Noah's Ark?
http://www.arkdiscovery.com/noah's_ark.htm
The validity of the Durupinar site is still highly questionable. For one thing, the object is about 50% too wide to be the ark of biblical measurements. See this site.
http://www.tentmaker.org/WAR/HasNoahsArkBeenFound1.html
Take a look at the Ark evacavated by God portion of the link I gave you.
Ausinus
02-02-2007, 02:18 AM
Take a look at the Ark evacavated by God portion of the link I gave you.
One word: coincidence. Earthquakes happen in Turkey all the time.
Maybe so, but the fact that before the earthquake the Ark was buried in the ground, and then all of a sudden viewable afterward is no coincidence.
Ausinus
02-02-2007, 02:21 AM
Maybe so, but the fact that before the earthquake the Ark was buried in the ground, and then all of a sudden viewable afterward is no coincidence.
Perhaps Wyatt made the story of his prayer up to make it seem credible.
Additionally, I dont count your link as informed since they claim that Aluminium and Titanium are not found in nature, which is bullshit.
Ausinus
02-02-2007, 02:27 AM
Lets see, the Deluge, Etamnanki, yep, that pretty much covers it.
Ausinus
02-02-2007, 02:49 AM
It bothers me as to why Gomorrah was destroyed in the bible, what exactly were they doing wrong? Or was it just collateral damage from Sodom.
Perhaps Wyatt made the story of his prayer up to make it seem credible.
Or perhaps you're wrong.
Lets see, the Deluge, Etamnanki, yep, that pretty much covers it.
And just what was "disproved" these?
something
02-02-2007, 06:50 AM
AJK, it's ridicoulus that you use science to prove that you're right.
yea_thats_right1
02-02-2007, 08:27 AM
Simple. There are too many chronological inconstistencies.
And if this tower is was so massive, where is it now? Surely such a gargatuan structure would have survived to this day?
And plus, how would changing the languages stop the construction of a massive tower that had been determinedly going on for x number of years.
i thought it was in turkey? Maybe im confusing something else... they believe noahs ark is on some mountain in turkey.... though noone is allowed near it and its heavily gaurded.... every once in awhile they wil allow hellicopters and such with some tourists to get close enough to see it.... when i was there we tried to get a tour but the government at that time said no...
something
02-02-2007, 08:33 AM
Noah's ark is a completely upmade, bullshitting story. But it's based on a true story. A king in mesopotamia filled a boat with animals, peoples, trades and stuff, when the great river (Eufrat, Tigris or anyone of thoose) floated over more, than in a very long time, and some scientists think that here's were the story about Noah's ark started. It make sense to me.
Ausinus
02-02-2007, 01:13 PM
Or perhaps you're wrong.
THen why would Wyatt cover up some of the things that disprove his findings?
Ausinus
02-02-2007, 02:34 PM
Like what?
The carbon tests he did, that he says show the presence of wood, show a carbon percentage which falls within the normal bounds of soil. Did he tell people that?
Ausinus
02-02-2007, 02:41 PM
Also, notice how the petrified "wood" has no growth rings.
theicidal maniac
02-02-2007, 06:06 PM
Isn't it interesting how NONE OF THE SITES that talk about this stuff are ACTUALLY SCIENTIFIC ONES? That was rhetorical, AJK, you don't have to answer, we all know. These are all religiously biased sites and "researchers."
By the way, AJK, you do realize that sulfer exists naturally in the planet, right? No supernatural explanation is needed here, because natural explanations are available.
Also it is interesting that you would believe the conclusions that THESE PEOPLE came to after viewing the geological data, but the other 99.9% of geologists who have shown evolution to have happened, well, somehow you don't believe them? Only the guys that believe in a god, then, are worth listening to? Is that what you are saying?
Here's the problem with people who try to use science to support their religions; THEY START WITH A CONCLUSION ALREADY IN MIND. Then they try to collect any scrap of evidence no matter how silly that supports their case, and REJECT ALL THE OVERWHELMINGLY HUGE EVIDENCES that do not support their cause. THAT ISN'T SCIENCE, SWEET SPIRIT.
These people are not scientists. They are the geological equivalents of palm-readers and alchemists.
theicidal maniac
02-02-2007, 07:43 PM
So I did a little research, to see what SCIENTISTS have to say about this hoax. The guys who perpetrated this pseudo-scientific farse are named Ron Wyatt and Jonathan Gray, who are biblical scholars with no appropriate training.
According to David Down of http://www.diggingsonline.com/
"It took the precaution of having a qualified geologist go to the Dead Sea and examine the so-called evidence. Elizabeth H. Gierlowski-Kordesch made an analytical report on her conclusions. After remarking that Wyatt has no academic background in archaeology or geology, she concludes that "the geological formations that Wyatt mistakes for ancient cities are simply lake sediments that accumulated when the Dea Sea was larger and deeper than it is today.
In his video, Wyatt crumbles some substance in his hand, claiming that it is ash from the fire and brimstone which fell on Sodom and Gomorrah. Elizabeth points out that these lake sediments have not solidfied into rock yet and this leads Wyatt to confuse them with ash. There is an abundance of these lake sediments in the Dead Sea area.
Then the point about the round balls of sulphur was brought up, and what did Elizabeth say about that?
Elizabeth points out that this type of chemical feature in lake sediemnts can be found in many ancient lakes elsewhere in the world. Actually, sulphur is particularly common (LIKE I SAID in the last post, AJK) - around the Dead Sea. There is a chemical factory at the south end of the sea which extracts salt and other minerals from the area and when I first visited there in 1958 I found a huge mound of yellow sulphur ready for treatment and export.
In conclusion Elizabeth asks, "The verdict on this video? Beware of junk science."
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.8 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.