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

[freeztar]

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.

 

You're circling around yourself now Mr. Peterman.

 

Here's some questions: What happens when limestone erodes? What is limestone made of? What derivatives of these chemicals can be found naturally occurring?

 

We're still waiting for physical evidence by the way...

[Mr. Peterman]

I didn't mean limestone won't break down due to weathering. I meant that limestone doesn't just "get old" and start breaking down inside. Now maybe you could help me here. How far into a piece of limestone does the limestone break down when saturated in weakly acidic water before it is carried away by the water? If you want to see the evidence that those places are cities, you will have to buy the movie by Simon Brown. It's there. I guess most of you don't have it. It's not something I can pull off the internet. It's copyrighted.

[Moontanman]

Mr Peterman, it all depends on the type and quality of the limestone. I've seen your film it's nothing but BS artists desperately trying to prove the unprovable in order to fake out the gullible religious people who need proof of something that has no proof. They use these gullible people to get money, it all revolves around money. It's really sad.

[Mr. Peterman]

So you've seen the movie have you. Did you think that brick wall and door were really a wall and door. If not I would say you are lying and you've never seen the movie, or you are intentionally lying about it. You would HAVE to be. "Our Search for Sodom and Gomorrah" by Simon Brown is the movie. Are you sure that's the one you're talking about? Did you watch more than eight minutes of it? I don't know. I may be wrong, but I don't really expect an atheist to order a movie from Europe. I would sooner believe they were lying about having watched it. I may be wrong. Maybe you have it and play it, but you just don't look at it.

[Moontanman]

So you've seen the movie have you. Did you think that brick wall and door were really a wall and door. If not I would say you are lying and you've never seen the movie, or you are intentionally lying about it. You would HAVE to be. "Our Search for Sodom and Gomorrah" by Simon Brown is the movie. Are you sure that's the one you're talking about? Did you watch more than eight minutes of it? I don't know. I may be wrong, but I don't really expect an atheist to order a movie from Europe. I would sooner believe they were lying about having watched it. I may be wrong. Maybe you have it and play it, but you just don't look at it.

 

Mr Peterman, I have tried to be nice to you but now you are just insulting. You need to see proof of god, fine, see it, believe it, I am finished with you....

[freeztar]

If you want to see the evidence that those places are cities, you will have to buy the movie by Simon Brown. It's there. I guess most of you don't have it. It's not something I can pull off the internet. It's copyrighted.

 

Right. Any evidence for the existence of God would naturally be Copyrighted. :P

 

I'm sure the good Christians would forgive you for plagarism if it was in the name of The Lord. Eh?

[Mr. Peterman]

Maybe they would forgive me for plagiarism, but what can I say, I'm paranoid. I did send a message to Simon Brown just now so maybe he'll show up or give me permission or something.

[freeztar]

Maybe they would forgive me for plagiarism, but what can I say, I'm paranoid. I did send a message to Simon Brown just now so maybe he'll show up or give me permission or something.

 

I don't think there's any need for paranoia or plagarism.

 

Certain things fall under Fair Use.

[Mr. Peterman]

This may fall under fair use, but I'm not sure, and so I'm going to wait.

[Turtle]

... 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".

 

this is reason enough to end this conversation as you do not and will not believe us either. this is a science forum, not a therapy center. :rolleyes:

[CraigD]

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?

Mr. Peterman, the late Ron Wyatt is not considered a credible scientific source. Coming as this does from a hypography moderator or administrator, you may consider it a definitive pronouncement.

 

He’s not considered credible, because he was not, nor did he claim to be, an accredited archeologist (meaning someone with at least a bachelor’s degree in archeology or a related discipline), nor someone who worked under the guidance of an archeologist. He was essentially a religiously devout tourist who traveled with other religiously devout tourists to various traditional holy sites and walked around them handling things and taking pictures, which he used in books and videos published by religious publishing companies. His claims are, in my opinion, without significant exception, believed only by religious devotees, non-religious believers in the supernatural, and the scientifically ill-educated.

 

Hypography’s theology forum if for discussion about religion and the study of it. As such, discussion of how books and movies by people like Wyatt and Simon Brown influence religion are appropriate to it. IMHO, such discussion can be interesting and informative, as many of us here at hypography mistakenly assume that claims such as Wyatt and Brown’s are widely accepted by most religious people and writers, while they are rejected nearly as strongly by religionists as by scientists. Gary Amiraul’s A Great Christian Scam is an example of a religionists rejection of Wyatt’s claims.

 

Although, due to the subjective nature of the theology, hypography’s usual focus or carefully backing up your claims with links and references is relaxed, it’s not completely set aside. A key characteristic of scientific findings is that many researchers can reproduce them. To argue that Wyatts and Browns claims that the Torah story of Sodom and Gomorrah is factual are correct, Mr. Peterman, you need to provide links or references to trained anthropologists who have examined the sites and artifacts on which these claims are based, and agreed with their conclusions. Just stating that they are correct because Wyatt and Brown claim to have “proven them beyond all doubt” isn’t acceptable posting behavior at hypography. You must not continue doing it. It’s against the rules. It will get you banned.

 

You posted something a couple of days ago that I’m not sure every reader of this thread picked up on (though Turtle certainly did):

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.

...

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".

Schizophrenia is a serious, and unfortunately usually incurable psychiatric condition that impairs ones ability to distinguish the imaginary from consensus reality. The diagnosis was not made to prevent you schizophrenic delusions from being expressed and accepted as real by non-schizophrenics, or because these delusion are upsetting or threatening, but because you match a set of specific, reliable diagnostic criteria.

 

Schizophrenia can be a serious impediment to understanding science. Despite the severity of your condition, however, I believe it’s possible for you to overcome many of its impediments. To quote Mark Vonnegut "Knowing that you're crazy doesn't make the crazy things stop happening.". You can, however, learn recognize delusional thinking, even if you can’t stop thinking it. I’ve know several schizophrenics who have succeeded in and benefitted from this.

 

Mr. Peterman, I encourage you to do the same. Rejecting the obviously false claims of pseudoarcheologists like Wyatt and Brown is a step toward doing so.

[Mr. Peterman]

Why do people keep using that Ron Wyatt isn't credible stuff. There is evidence those places are cities. I've seen the evidence with my own eyes thanks to the modern technology of video cameras. I'm sorry but seeing arches, circular wells, bricked doors, walls, and windows supersedes people claiming the structures were sedimentary deposits. It is very clear that that is what they are. So why do people keep claiming that stuff in spite of the evidence that those places are not sedimentary deposits. Do you need to see the evidence or are you illogical. Like I said before, you would definitely think the wall found at Sodom was a wall. It stands higher than a person. So there, there is evidence those places are cities.

[freeztar]

Why do people keep using that Ron Wyatt isn't credible stuff.

Because he is not a scientist. :eek2:

 

There is evidence those places are cities. I've seen the evidence with my own eyes thanks to the modern technology of video cameras. I'm sorry but seeing arches, circular wells, bricked doors, walls, and windows supersedes people claiming the structures were sedimentary deposits. It is very clear that that is what they are. So why do people keep claiming that stuff in spite of the evidence that those places are not sedimentary deposits. Do you need to see the evidence or are you illogical. Like I said before, you would definitely think the wall found at Sodom was a wall. It stands higher than a person. So there, there is evidence those places are cities.

 

Here's the thing. If we can't see any evidence, then we only have your word to go on. No offense, but that's not enough for an internet science forum (at least this one).

 

So, I did some digging and found a google video which is an interview with Simon Brown, the producer of the film "Our Search for Sodom and Gomorrah". I recommend, for those interested enough, to watch the whole video, but for our purposes here, I recommend two sections that show pictures and videos of the proposed site. Start at 18:38 and then you can skip ahead to 27:00 for some video from the film showing the formations.

 

I must admit, the walls shown in the pictures starting at 18:38 are pretty convincing. They do appear to be human built rock walls (sandstone, according to Simon, which looks right to me from what I can make out in the picture). Simon mentions a dry stream bed in the vicinity, so it might have been, at one time, some sort of stream control wall. But, who knows.

 

The video section starting around 27:00 is less convincing. Actually, it's not convincing at all. Everything they show looks exactly like natural rock formations. It takes quite a bit imagination to envision these obviously natural rock structures as relics from a ~4,000 year old city. Anyone who has done some hiking in the SW USA has seen similar structures. The scree alone should be a dead (no pun intended) giveaway.

 

Here's the link:

SODOM AND GOMORRAH INTERVIEW http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4615293124964960840

 

Mr. Peterman, I recommend searching google images for pictures of sandstone formations, canyons, buttes, and Bryce Canyon. I think you will see that naturally occurring geological structures can have a multitude of shapes and sizes. With a vivid imagination, they can look like spires, faces, etc. It's like looking at clouds and seeing familiar things like a face, an animal, etc. In the past, that was good enough for humans, but now that we have sciences such as meteorology and atmospheric science, we have much better explanations and can explain away those ancient ideas of "faces in the sky".

 

So, I would need much more evidence than seems to be provided, just to accept this site as Sodom (or Gomorrah). What about excavations?

 

But regardless, and on topic to this thread's title, it would never constitute evidence that God exists. It might strengthen the claims that the Bible provides a good historical account of ancient civilizations in the dead sea area, but it does nothing to prove that God destroyed the cities with fire and brimstone.

[Mr. Peterman]

One of those "natural rock formations" is still bricked around the top. There is also a broken wall and door that you would say was convincing also. There is also portions of bricked buildings with windows as well. I don't think they were on that video. Evidence that those places are cities exists that is more convincing than what I saw on that video including that little bricked thingy you showed us.

[freeztar]

One of those "natural rock formations" is still bricked around the top. There is also a broken wall and door that you would say was convincing also. There is also portions of bricked buildings with windows as well. I don't think they were on that video. Evidence that those places are cities exists that is more convincing than what I saw on that video including that little bricked thingy you showed us.

 

Ok, let's try this from a different angle.

Let's say that these sites actually do have walls, arches (which, btw, weren't around 4,000 years ago - also see Arches National Park), and wells.

 

How do we know it's Sodom and Gomorrah? Does that not require a leap of faith?

It's mentioned that Simon took some other people on his second trip including an archaeologist. It would seem that if the archaeologist found something convincing, and he was a credible scientist, that he would have published a journal article on such a significant find. I can't find anything on it though.

 

If we say this was a great city, what does the carbon dating show? Have they seperated out the natural from the formed in such a way that the age can be deduced? In other words, why should we blindly accept that these sites are the relics of Sodom and Gomorrah?

[Mr. Peterman]

I just wonder that if you saw the wall, the door, the arch in the ash remains, a well, and the anomaly bricked around the top, if you would admit that they were cities. The reasoning is that the anomalies are buildings based on the fact that one of the anomalies is still bricked on top, has windows/arches, and is nearby other man made structures. Then you would reason that if one of these anomalies is a building and there are man made structures around, the other anomalies together would constitute a city. This would prove that these anomalies are not sedimentary deposits. I just wonder if any of you would admit that. I also wonder that if I took pictures of a wedding ceremony and showed them to you, complete with an audience, a bride, a groom, a preacher, and all the decorations, would you believe me when I said there was a wedding or would you not believe me because I am not a professional photographer? Thats how illogical all this stuff about people not being scientists seems to me.

[freeztar]

Thats how illogical all this stuff about people not being scientists seems to me.

 

It's not just about being a scientist. A non-scientist can certainly provide scientific evidence by following the scientific method. (some would argue that makes one a scientist)

 

What seems to be lacking in Ron Wyatt's case is that he has not performed vigorous experiments that have been subject to review by outside authorities on the subject.

 

As a science site, Hypography's quite fond of the scientific method and lends credibility to those that practice it.