Stargazer Posted September 25, 2021 Posted September 25, 2021 Now, this is quite interesting. The narrator, Scott Manley, normally covers space technology and science, but here he discusses a paper which suggests that a rubble asteroid striking the Dead Sea area about 3500 years ago might have been the basis of the story of the destruction of the Biblical city of Sodom. Manley isn't convinced by the paper, and he does bring up the arguments of others that argue against the idea there was an asteroid impact at all. I thought this might be of interest. 2
bOObOO Posted September 26, 2021 Posted September 26, 2021 Yep. Nailed it. An asteroid is what it was.
Stargazer Posted September 27, 2021 Author Posted September 27, 2021 On 9/26/2021 at 4:49 PM, Fether said: This changes literally everything "Everything"? Why? Hmmm. Everything covers a lot of ground. For example, I'm going to be 70 years old next week. This information hasn't changed that. 1
Fether Posted September 28, 2021 Posted September 28, 2021 2 hours ago, Stargazer said: "Everything"? Why? Hmmm. Everything covers a lot of ground. For example, I'm going to be 70 years old next week. This information hasn't changed that. Only the initiated will understand how truly life changing this is
Stargazer Posted September 28, 2021 Author Posted September 28, 2021 13 hours ago, Fether said: Only the initiated will understand how truly life changing this is I don't know about that. I feel "initiated", yet it doesn't feel life-changing at all, to me. For one thing, that was always my idea of how S&G got whacked. So nothing changes for me, except perhaps a scientific confirmation of what I imagined to be the case. And then we have the fact that although the asteroid explanation is interesting, it remains a theory and no consensus exists to support it, yet.
Fether Posted September 28, 2021 Posted September 28, 2021 2 hours ago, Stargazer said: it remains a theory and no consensus exists to support it, yet. It’s pretty much confirmed
Stargazer Posted September 28, 2021 Author Posted September 28, 2021 4 hours ago, Fether said: It’s pretty much confirmed The full paper is HERE. I don't believe it's universally accepted or "pretty much confirmed". There are a lot of people who really like the theory, for various reasons, including because of confirmation bias. This would include atheists who love it because it disconnects God from the story, feeling, perhaps, that this will discourage theists (why would it? Nobody ever claimed that God couldn't use natural forces to do His work). It includes theists who are happy that there is scientific evidence for something unusual happening there at the right place and time, thus confirming the Bible. I myself probably fall into the positive confirmation bias column, and I really like the theory because I feel it's an excellent confirmation of the biblical story. But who am I? Just some guy. Some do accept it, but clearly others don't. It's still up for debate. Videos talking about both sides: Did An Asteroid Destroy A Biblical City? Take These Claims With a Pillar Of Salt <-- the OP video. Discusses the contrary evidence. Meteor Explosion Destroyed Ancient City In 1650BC, Was It Biblical Sodom? Discussing the contrary evidence: HERE A Twitter thread started by a bioarchaeologist criticizing the paper that proposes the asteroid theory: see Twitter here. Note that the paper everyone is talking about is published in Nature, a respected journal, but the article itself is not peer-reviewed. This doesn't disqualify it as science, of course, but it does put it in some perspective. Planetary scientist Jason Goodman (this guy) comments on the theory in the OP video comments: "I read this paper closely, I'm a planetary scientist but definitely not an impact specialist. For me, the biggest questions are, "is the `shocked quartz' actually shocked quartz?" Are the glass microspherules actually glass microspherules? Most of the other evidence can be explained away by natural processes, but these two, in tandem, should be enough to confirm a high-energy impact. But I don't have the expertise to assess the microscope images. I'm not too worried about whether an airburst could shock quartz: the paper's authors describe a sort of "hybrid" event with lots of small impactors reaching the ground, creating salty ejecta and small craters, rather than a pure airburst. I was also less convinced by the presence of fragmented human remains in building ruins, and more intrigued by the claims of human remains splattered with molten glass and salt. If that's actually what that is, it's hard to explain as a mundane event. "I agree with Scott that everyone should be suspicious about this one, but I'm not ready to dismiss it. For me, the biggest red flag was that it was too perfect. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but they had *everything*: the shocked quartz, the spherules, the platinum-group elements, the bones splattered with molten rock: any evidence of an impact you could ask for was there. Usually science is done in bits and pieces, with holes that get filled in over time, but this paper is suspiciously complete." [emphasis added] All I'm saying is that this theory is still just a theory, and is still up for argument. 1
bOObOO Posted September 28, 2021 Posted September 28, 2021 1 hour ago, Stargazer said: The full paper is HERE. You seem to be taking this seriously. Even though some people don't. Fascinating. 1 hour ago, Stargazer said: I don't believe it's universally accepted or "pretty much confirmed". It is confirmed. I confirmed it. Nothing is universally accepted. 1 hour ago, Stargazer said: There are a lot of people who really like the theory, for various reasons, including because of confirmation bias. This would include atheists who love it because it disconnects God from the story, feeling, perhaps, that this will discourage theists (why would it? Nobody ever claimed that God couldn't use natural forces to do His work). It includes theists who are happy that there is scientific evidence for something unusual happening there at the right place and time, thus confirming the Bible. I myself probably fall into the positive confirmation bias column, and I really like the theory because I feel it's an excellent confirmation of the biblical story. But who am I? Just some guy. Just some guy? JUST SOME GUY?!? Oh, well, if you are just some guy I suppose I should never ever take you seriously. 1 hour ago, Stargazer said: Some do accept it, but clearly others don't. It's still up for debate. Everything is up for debate for those who like to debate. Can we stop using that as an excuse to not accept what is true now? If not now will we ever be able to stop using the fact that some people CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH as an excuse to excuse it? 1 hour ago, Stargazer said: Videos talking about both sides: Did An Asteroid Destroy A Biblical City? Take These Claims With a Pillar Of Salt <-- the OP video. Discusses the contrary evidence. Meteor Explosion Destroyed Ancient City In 1650BC, Was It Biblical Sodom? Discussing the contrary evidence: HERE A Twitter thread started by a bioarchaeologist criticizing the paper that proposes the asteroid theory: see Twitter here. Note that the paper everyone is talking about is published in Nature, a respected journal, but the article itself is not peer-reviewed. This doesn't disqualify it as science, of course, but it does put it in some perspective. Planetary scientist Jason Goodman (this guy) comments on the theory in the OP video comments: "I read this paper closely, I'm a planetary scientist but definitely not an impact specialist. For me, the biggest questions are, "is the `shocked quartz' actually shocked quartz?" Are the glass microspherules actually glass microspherules? Most of the other evidence can be explained away by natural processes, but these two, in tandem, should be enough to confirm a high-energy impact. But I don't have the expertise to assess the microscope images. I'm not too worried about whether an airburst could shock quartz: the paper's authors describe a sort of "hybrid" event with lots of small impactors reaching the ground, creating salty ejecta and small craters, rather than a pure airburst. I was also less convinced by the presence of fragmented human remains in building ruins, and more intrigued by the claims of human remains splattered with molten glass and salt. If that's actually what that is, it's hard to explain as a mundane event. "I agree with Scott that everyone should be suspicious about this one, but I'm not ready to dismiss it. For me, the biggest red flag was that it was too perfect. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but they had *everything*: the shocked quartz, the spherules, the platinum-group elements, the bones splattered with molten rock: any evidence of an impact you could ask for was there. Usually science is done in bits and pieces, with holes that get filled in over time, but this paper is suspiciously complete." [emphasis added] All I'm saying is that this theory is still just a theory, and is still up for argument. That's it. I'm done now. What's the point of me telling everybody what the truth is if they're just going to say everything is still up for debate. I might as well stop trying to tell people what the truth is. At least people who will not believe what I tell them.
Fether Posted September 29, 2021 Posted September 29, 2021 2 hours ago, Stargazer said: I don't believe it's universally accepted or "pretty much confirmed". I prayed about it. It’s confirmed 1
Stargazer Posted September 29, 2021 Author Posted September 29, 2021 22 hours ago, Fether said: I prayed about it. It’s confirmed Well, great. Congratulations. Seriously. You're welcome to your conviction, and so is @bOObOO. But your confirmation, aside from testimentary value, confirms nothing for anyone else. They are required to obtain their own testimony. Your testimony is, to them, borrowed light. And is a divine testimony of an asteroid strike even necessary? That's an individual question. For some it might be, but the world has been without a scientific explanation of this event for millennia. Hasn't stopped people believing it -- perhaps it's needed now, with all the disbelief in the world. And perhaps not. For me, the testimony of the scientists as reflected in this paper is arguable. And I'm not particularly inclined to seek divine confirmation of the conclusions of this paper. I'm happy to let man's conclusions be confirmed by other men. This will move towards consensus (pro or con) over time, as more scientists evaluate the claims and evidence. What I do know and testify is that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by the will and act of God. Was it done by an asteroid strike? I don't know, nor do I need to know, even if I believe it likely. If defending the scriptures to a doubter, I'm happy to use this theory as suggestive evidence in favor of the Word of God. But I'm not going to try to use it as proof, because one needn't believe in God to believe an asteroid hit Sodom. An asteroid doesn't require God, to a nonbeliever. 1
Stargazer Posted September 29, 2021 Author Posted September 29, 2021 (edited) nvrmind Edited September 29, 2021 by Stargazer
Stargazer Posted September 29, 2021 Author Posted September 29, 2021 On 9/29/2021 at 12:31 AM, bOObOO said: Just some guy? JUST SOME GUY?!? Oh, well, if you are just some guy I suppose I should never ever take you seriously. Then don't. I don't care. Did you think I were some person with special knowledge or power? I'm not. I'm just like everyone here on this forum. Just some guy with opinions, some of whose opinions can be backed up by data, and some that cannot.
Fether Posted September 30, 2021 Posted September 30, 2021 4 hours ago, Stargazer said: Well, great. Congratulations. Seriously. You're welcome to your conviction, and so is @bOObOO. But your confirmation, aside from testimentary value, confirms nothing for anyone else. They are required to obtain their own testimony. Your testimony is, to them, borrowed light. And is a divine testimony of an asteroid strike even necessary? That's an individual question. For some it might be, but the world has been without a scientific explanation of this event for millennia. Hasn't stopped people believing it -- perhaps it's needed now, with all the disbelief in the world. And perhaps not. For me, the testimony of the scientists as reflected in this paper is arguable. And I'm not particularly inclined to seek divine confirmation of the conclusions of this paper. I'm happy to let man's conclusions be confirmed by other men. This will move towards consensus (pro or con) over time, as more scientists evaluate the claims and evidence. What I do know and testify is that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by the will and act of God. Was it done by an asteroid strike? I don't know, nor do I need to know, even if I believe it likely. If defending the scriptures to a doubter, I'm happy to use this theory as suggestive evidence in favor of the Word of God. But I'm not going to try to use it as proof, because one needn't believe in God to believe an asteroid hit Sodom. An asteroid doesn't require God, to a nonbeliever. Ok I’ll give it up. I’ve been trolling you the whole time. My first comment was completely sarcastic. You bit so I built on it 1
The Nehor Posted September 30, 2021 Posted September 30, 2021 3 hours ago, Fether said: Ok I’ll give it up. I’ve been trolling you the whole time. My first comment was completely sarcastic. You bit so I built on it What kind of perverse person would violate the sanctity of these hallowed forums with such degenerate trickery? A pox on you I say! 3
Stargazer Posted September 30, 2021 Author Posted September 30, 2021 (edited) 7 hours ago, Fether said: Ok I’ll give it up. I’ve been trolling you the whole time. My first comment was completely sarcastic. You bit so I built on it Philistine! LOL. Actually, it had the flavor of sarcasm, and it seemed a little out of character for you, but... yeah, you got me. But the temptation was strong to go total pedant. I have a hard time resisting that pull. Edited September 30, 2021 by Stargazer
Fether Posted September 30, 2021 Posted September 30, 2021 4 hours ago, Stargazer said: Philistine! LOL. Actually, it had the flavor of sarcasm, and it seemed a little out of character for you, but... yeah, you got me. But the temptation was strong to go total pedant. I have a hard time resisting that pull. It’s fair. I’m fairly new to the forum and still haven’t quite established myself. I also am not completely sure of the atmosphere here. Every forum has their own unwritten social rules
Freedom Posted October 3, 2021 Posted October 3, 2021 On 9/27/2021 at 2:29 PM, Stargazer said: "Everything"? Why? Hmmm. Everything covers a lot of ground. For example, I'm going to be 70 years old next week. This information hasn't changed that. check your birth records, I think you are now 29. Ancient asteroid hits has that affect on people.
The Nehor Posted October 3, 2021 Posted October 3, 2021 So did we find the bits and pieces of it and forge it into a magic sword yet? 1
Stargazer Posted October 3, 2021 Author Posted October 3, 2021 15 hours ago, Freedom said: check your birth records, I think you are now 29. Ancient asteroid hits has that affect on people. Except for the gray hair and all the accumulated aches, pains and so on, I feel 27.
Freedom Posted October 3, 2021 Posted October 3, 2021 1 hour ago, Stargazer said: Except for the gray hair and all the accumulated aches, pains and so on, I feel 27. well, you look amazing, whether or not those sinful people got obliterated by space rocks.
Stargazer Posted October 3, 2021 Author Posted October 3, 2021 1 minute ago, Freedom said: well, you look amazing, whether or not those sinful people got obliterated by space rocks. Well, they're going to be replacing me, soon, with the James Webb telescope. Or whatever they decide to name it.
Freedom Posted October 3, 2021 Posted October 3, 2021 30 minutes ago, Stargazer said: Well, they're going to be replacing me, soon, with the James Webb telescope. Or whatever they decide to name it. meh, that thing is overrated. It just wants to look backward in time. Trailblazers like you look forward. 1
Recommended Posts