Revealing God's Historic Treasures

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgQHQ992Wnw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dkoSJt6xfY&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwTVFk1HK3Y

I am sorry, but I just watched that vid and I never heard so much biased, unscientific, BS in my life.

The first vid was based on Ron Wyatt's research, replaced it with his own film, and then added another.

I agree with Teala.

This is almost painful to watch.

 geesh ...I figured they would find it near Chicago these days

Originally posted by Teala

I am sorry, but I just watched that vid and I never heard so much biased, unscientific, BS in my life.

Thanks for sparing the rest of us : )  I saw something flipping through channels the other day where a guy was claiming (100% seriously) that the grand canyon was formed by the waters receding from Noah's flood.

Sure, make archaeology out to be unscientific bollocks.

Well I couldn't resist.

I watched the first video right up to the point where the guy breaks off a part of the "city wall" and holds it up to the camera.  Sedimentary strata are plainly visible in the sample.

There should be laws against impersonating a scientist.  A geology class should be mandatory education for everyone.

Jeebus!  I have seen some people make some crap up, but i don't think i have ever seen people so desperate to see what they want to see then these people...wow just wow...

The issue that what is there is ash, which is why its as soft as powder. The Thermal ionization swirling effect in the rock is not from  essentially petrified sediment, its a function of heat, hence the term thermal ionization.

Originally posted by Reborn17

 

The issue that what is there is ash, which is why its as soft as powder. The Thermal ionization swirling effect in the rock is not from  essentially petrified sediment, its a function of heat, hence the term thermal ionization.

Amigo, trust me.  I got my MS in geochemistry and spent a LOT of time doing fieldwork.  This guy is a flake.

I'm not attacking your faith.  I AM attacking people who peddle pseudoscience to support their personal delusions.

Originally posted by Enkindu

Originally posted by Reborn17

 

The issue that what is there is ash, which is why its as soft as powder. The Thermal ionization swirling effect in the rock is not from  essentially petrified sediment, its a function of heat, hence the term thermal ionization.

 

Amigo, trust me.  I got my MS in geochemistry and spent a LOT of time doing fieldwork.  This guy is a flake.

 

I'm not attacking your faith.  I AM attacking people who peddle pseudoscience to support their personal delusions.

You're an EXCELLENT person to post with on this subject then if what you say is true, please break down what you see as inconsistencies in the piece.

Originally posted by Reborn17

Originally posted by Enkindu

Originally posted by Reborn17

 

The issue that what is there is ash, which is why its as soft as powder. The Thermal ionization swirling effect in the rock is not from  essentially petrified sediment, its a function of heat, hence the term thermal ionization.

 

Amigo, trust me.  I got my MS in geochemistry and spent a LOT of time doing fieldwork.  This guy is a flake.

 

I'm not attacking your faith.  I AM attacking people who peddle pseudoscience to support their personal delusions.

 

You're an EXCELLENT person to post with on this subject then if what you say is true, please break down what you see as inconsistencies in the piece.

This is an evil trick to make me watch the whole thing....
 

Originally posted by Enkindu

Originally posted by Reborn17

Originally posted by Enkindu

Originally posted by Reborn17

 

The issue that what is there is ash, which is why its as soft as powder. The Thermal ionization swirling effect in the rock is not from  essentially petrified sediment, its a function of heat, hence the term thermal ionization.

 

Amigo, trust me.  I got my MS in geochemistry and spent a LOT of time doing fieldwork.  This guy is a flake.

 

I'm not attacking your faith.  I AM attacking people who peddle pseudoscience to support their personal delusions.

 

You're an EXCELLENT person to post with on this subject then if what you say is true, please break down what you see as inconsistencies in the piece.

This is an evil trick to make me watch the whole thing....
 

 

I love ya bro, no trick, I literally thought you watched it, as a researcher and former student of science for many years myself, I assumed you had some particular thing you could point to

Alright.. I just watched all of part one and I swear to god my IQ dropped a couple points.. you can just owe me for that.

First of all, that "ionization" garbage that they are talking about and "heavy ash" remaining for thousands of years is just nonsense.

Every SINGLE outcrop in that film displays standard stratigraphic features.  The "buildings" and "walls" are all common erosion features created where there is hard "caprock" overlying softer layers.  Observe the following photo from Texas:

This is not an ancient biblical structure.

Sedimentary features can be quite striking and often appear man made. Look at these pictures for an idea.

ok... off to lose more brain cells in part 2.....

Edit- fixed the picture link

Part 2...

First of all, those "brimstone raindrops" are sedimentary features produced when a layer of conglomerate or breccia protrudes into an adjacent layer.

If one were to examine the conglomerate boundry in this formation you would see the same thing:

Burrow trace fossils can cause similar features.

It appears that people have been mistaking natural features for man-made structures in this area for years.  This article in Nature (peer reviewed real science) demonstrates that an "assault ramp" at Masada was actually a natural bedrock feature.

I'll add more shortly.. looking for a good geological map of the region.

Yes, found the layers I expected in this map of the Dead Sea Basin:

oh joy I see part 3...

I'm quite familiar with sedimentary layering, the thermal ionization "swirling" effect is the distinguishing feature, the first pic didn't come through on my comp, but the link showed pics that had none of the swirling effect of which I speak. Also, when sulphur burns it forms either sulphur dioxide or sulfur trioxide, i.e. it bonds with oxygen and hence if using almost pure sulphur you get ash heavier than the initial unburned sample. As far  as the city itself, it appears to be made of something as soft as talcom powder, yet it does in fact partially remain. The myriads of almost pure sulphur balls (brimstone) are all over this particular area in "crystalline capsules", where does something like that come from?

BTW, thank you for your effort in this discussion

The soft stuff is anhydrite.  CaSO₄. Gypsum.  It is deposited in arid basins and it is as soft as talcum powder. That third video very clearly shows anhydrite and calcium carbonate strata.

I'm sorry I have no idea what you are referring to relating "ionization patterns."  In each video I see nothing but standard stratigraphic sedimentary features and evaporites.

There is no "ash" anywhere in these videos.

I realize that lots of people really really want to believe that these are really ancient biblical sites, but they are just naturally occuring geological features.

Hopefully this picture of caprock formations will work for you.

These are not ancient temples.

Are you referring to these?

This is just common strata deformation.  I think this is in Honduras.

As far as the sulfur deposits, interestingly enough the best photo to show you comes from one of these pseudoscience sites:

This is a deposit of elemental sulfur inside one of the "ziggurats." stratigraphic layers are clearly visible in the picture.  This is a sedimentary geological feature.  Period.

Native sulfur deposits are formed through sa series of redox reactions during low-grade metamrphism in high sulfur evaporites (like anhydrite pictured here).  You will find the same thing in many places on the globe, including the western united states. So unless you think God also rained brimstone on North America, the case sort of falls apart.

Here's more good info out of Texas:

SULFUR INDUSTRY. Sulfur, one of the major natural resources of Texas, occurs in important commercial quantities in the calcite caprock of some of the salt domes on the Coastal Plain,qv in the Permian Castile gypsum in numerous localities, and in secondary gypsite material in the Toyah Basin of Culberson and Reeves counties. The earliest sulfur deposits in Texas to attract attention were discovered in 1854 in an extension of the Toyah Basin in Permian gypsum deposits near the surface.

If you want to read more about the real science here's a link to a paper.

Originally posted by zzvicezz

I didn't watch any of it just read some of the commentary here....

The suspected sites(dunno if they are those in the vids) have been being studied by Archaeologists for a few decades now. If you want to know more look around.

 

If the more likely real possibility that the towns existed and where destroyed by unexplained events upsets your atheist teenage angsts..who cares.  If we all did that then places like Troy would still be myth.

 

I have no doubt that the city really existed.  This just isn't it.

I really don't think you have to give up rational thought just because you have faith.

The people in these videos are making bad assumptions based on emotion and obviously lack any training in geological science.  A first year geology undergrad could have posted everything I've written in this thread.

Back, sorry comp was on the fritz. Ya, the swirl formations and other distortions of which I spoke you can see in the first video between 4:12-4:35.

Also it appears you are assuming they have no just cause to think as they do, but read their findings that justify their reasoning  here and some of Ron Wyatt's research on the cities below:

http://www.arkdiscovery.com/s&g-research1.htm

http://www.arkdiscovery.com/s&g-research2.htm

http://www.arkdiscovery.com/s&g-research3.htm

I hope you will take the time to look at some of the links I posted.

Every single thing I've seen on every video and every website you've provided demonstrates straightforward sedimentary/ evaporite geology.

The sulfur deposits are the same type found in evaporite deposits all over the world.  They are common enough that they are commercially exploited in many places (including Texas as demonstrated).  All of the "walls and buildings" are the result of nothing more than standard erosion of very soft rock beneath caprock.  The CaSO4 and CaCO3 deposits found here are not ASH but rather the same evaporite minerals that are found in arid basins all over the planet.  The sedimentary structures in this picture

are common deformation of sedimentary strata.  The extreme example you see here was likely cause by mass movement due to landslide or tectonic activity (which is well documented in this basin).  In this photograph you can see HARD evidence that this stratigraphic section was created over a period of at LEAST thousands of years because there is a very clear unconformity between the deformed strata and the level strata directly above it.  In basic terms it means the bottom strata were deposited, there was a period of erosion, and then the top layers were deposited.  Significant GEOLOGICAL time passed during the deposition of this formation.

You asked for me to evaluate honestly each piece of evidence cited by these videos, and I have done that respectfully.  I also spent quite a bit of time looking for sources and photographs that might help you understand what an "open and shut" case this is.

I hope you will return that respect by actually looking at the evidence and basing any doubts you have on the evidence and not what you might want to believe.

Here is another good picture of extreme stratigraphic deformation from the sierra nevadas in California:

This has nothing to "ionic signatures."  This is nothing more than layers of sediment exposed to shear stress during lithification.  Just like the site in the dead sea basin.