Scientists Say That Sodom and Gomorrah Were Actually Destroyed by “Fire From the Sky!” An Article

[mdgspencer]

see Scientists Say That Sodom and Gomorrah Were Actually Destroyed by “Fire From the Sky!” - CatholicCitizens.org

According to the Book of Genesis, God destroyed these cities because of the depravity there.
Genesis 19: 24 Then the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the Lord out of heaven; 25 and he overthrew those cities, and all the Plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground.

“A group of archeologists and other scientists say they have discovered strong evidence that the region where the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah are believed to have existed, were in fact destroyed by a meteor that exploded in the sky above, raining down superheated matter and raising temperatures to thousands of degrees”

 

[Annie]

It’s great when they find evidence the Bible is true!

 

[TheLittleLady]

Pretty sure there was a thread on this about 5 years ago when the theory first came out.

Archaeologists say Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed by meteor World News

December 11, 2018 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A group of archeologists and other scientists say they have discovered strong evidence that the region of the “Middle Ghor,” where the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah are believed to have existed, were in fact destroyed by a meteor that exploded in the sky above, raining down superheated matter and raising temperatures to thousands of degrees, a theory that matches the account of the cities’ destruction contained in the Old Testament Book of Genesis. Accord…

There was question then about the researchers looking to find evidence to support their narrative, which is not standard scientific practice.

 

[HarryStotle]

Pretty sure there was a thread on this about 5 years ago when the theory first came out.

Archaeologists say Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed by meteor

There was question then about the researchers looking to find evidence to support their narrative, which is not standard scientific practice.

This is interesting that “looking for evidence to support their narrative” is NOT "standard scientific practice.

I recall teaching the scientific method (before I retired).

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Source: Steps of the Scientific Method

Make note of the third step: Construct a hypothesis.

Puzzle me this: What is the difference, exactly, between “looking for evidence to support their narrative” and “looking for evidence to support an hypothesis.”

Seems to me that whether or not an hypothesis (or narrative) is supportable by science, ultimately depends upon the quality of the evidence gathering, not the question of whether the “narrative” (or hypothesis) is unstained by human motives for proposing it.

A narrative might be nothing more than a “theory” to explain an event. If we want to overturn all science because the proposed hypothesis (or narrative) is one someone somewhere might object to with prejudice before any evidence is gathered, then science is in a difficult position.

No, the “science” in question does not depend upon the origin or genesis of the theory (or narrative) — Cf. genetic fallacy — but on the sufficiency of the evidence gathered to support it.

Bottom line: it doesn’t matter about the “narrative” that initiates the science. Everything depends upon the quality of the science that supports and confirms that narrative or hypothesis. That is where “standard scientific practice” comes into play. The “narrative” means nothing.