Asteroid Annihilated City Thought to be Biblical Sodom

[Aupmanyav]

It goes to their credit.

 

[exchemist]

It goes to their credit.

All the ancient universities were originally religious foundations. My old college, Christ Church, actually has Oxford Cathedral in the middle of it! But the requirement to be an observant Christian (Protestant) in order to be a member lapsed some time in the c.19th, for all of them.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

My bias for stories in the Bible that describe events is that they're likely real events that have been mythologized.

It's almost a genre as popular as the etiological tales that give birth to them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hmm. It begins to look pretty bogus. The description of the “university” in Wiki is damning - and it appears the institution has had a bee in its bonnet about Tell el Hammam for almost 20 years: Trinity Southwest University - Wikipedia

So, good catch!

Sometimes the best approach is to try to use an unbiased search. For the scientific reasons that this article fails in Google I did a copy and paste of the title of the article and ignored the rah rah links and the first critical article was golden. That article itself was not very strong, but the link to issues raised by scientists in appropriate fields.

The Wikipedia article was found by just using the journal's name. I never trust what a journal says about itself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, Trinity University is certain to have some bees in their bonnet, nothing surprising about that.
But I blame Nature to have published this article. I had more faith in Nature, now it is a bit less.

It was not Nature itself, it was a journal that they own.

 

[sun rise]

For those that did not bother to look at the article and related links themselves, a followup was attached making the same points as can be found in secondary sources No mineralogic or geochemical evidence of impact at Tall el-Hammam, a Middle Bronze Age city in the Jordan Valley near the Dead Sea - Scientific Reports That's what I expect reputable journals to do - provide space for disputes to be published.

As far as the claim I should have read this or that in detail goes, I'm not an expert in the field. I'm interested in this area and will follow the debate until a conclusion is reached.

Finally it's not the job of a journal to decide whether something passes muster or does not. That's the point of peer review. And as we know, that's an imperfect process but the best one I know of for an individual paper.

 

[Subduction Zone]

For those that did not bother to look at the article and related links themselves, a followup was attached making the same points as can be found in secondary sources No mineralogic or geochemical evidence of impact at Tall el-Hammam, a Middle Bronze Age city in the Jordan Valley near the Dead Sea - Scientific Reports That's what I expect reputable journals to do - provide space for disputes to be published.

As far as the claim I should have read this or that in detail goes, I'm not an expert in the field. I'm interested in this area and will follow the debate until a conclusion is reached.

Finally it's not the job of a journal to decide whether something passes muster or does not. That's the point of peer review. And as we know, that's an imperfect process but the best one I know of for an individual paper.

No, that is exactly the job of a journal is. Peer review is first done before the article is published. I assume that you read how that Scientific Reports claims to be a peer reviewed journal? That means that they are supposed to have experts in the various applicable fields that read the article and made sure that there were no such gross errors before publishing.

Many articles are sent back to the author for corrections. Why they didn't for this one shows why that source has such a high percentage of retracted articles.

Journals by the way do not like to have to order retractions at all. It is the journal admitting that they screwed up and should never have published the article in the first place.

 

[sun rise]

I noticed this story Stanford University president announces resignation over concerns about his research

The president of Stanford University said Wednesday he would resign, citing an independent review that cleared him of research misconduct but found “serious flaws” in five scientific papers on subjects such as brain development in which he was the principal author. @Subduction Zone 's blanked assertion is thus not correct. In this case the the journals would not have known or had reason to believe there were serious issues with the papers.
...
Tessier-Lavigne, a neuroscientist, says he “never submitted a scientific paper without firmly believing that the data were correct and accurately presented.” But he says he should have been more diligent in seeking corrections regarding his work and he should have operated laboratories with tighter controls.

Panelists found multiple instances of manipulated data in the 12 papers they investigated, but concluded he was not responsible for the misconduct. Still, they found that each of the five papers in which he was principal author “has serious flaws in the presentation of research data” and in at least four of them, there was apparent manipulation of data by others.

 

[Aupmanyav]

It was not Nature itself, it was a journal that they own.

This is what they claim, and that is what I expected Nature and Smithsonian to do, but they seem to have failed. Of course, I understaqnd that the journal has open access.

"Partnering with our extensive network of expert peer reviewers, our editorial team provides rigorous, objective and constructive peer review, and will support you throughout the publication process. Scientific Reports is led by the same ethical and editorial policy guidelines as other Nature Research journals to ensure that all the research we publish is scientifically robust, original, and of the highest quality."

 

[Subduction Zone]

I noticed this story Stanford University president announces resignation over concerns about his research

The president of Stanford University said Wednesday he would resign, citing an independent review that cleared him of research misconduct but found “serious flaws” in five scientific papers on subjects such as brain development in which he was the principal author. @Subduction Zone 's blanked assertion is thus not correct. In this case the the journals would not have known or had reason to believe there were serious issues with the papers.
...
Tessier-Lavigne, a neuroscientist, says he “never submitted a scientific paper without firmly believing that the data were correct and accurately presented.” But he says he should have been more diligent in seeking corrections regarding his work and he should have operated laboratories with tighter controls.

Panelists found multiple instances of manipulated data in the 12 papers they investigated, but concluded he was not responsible for the misconduct. Still, they found that each of the five papers in which he was principal author “has serious flaws in the presentation of research data” and in at least four of them, there was apparent manipulation of data by others.

How is that the same? And if you wanted me to support my claim I could have, but I thought that peer review is well understood here. What I said was extremely basic about it. Just ask and i will provide links, or better yet you could Google search "What is peer review" yourself.

This case does not appear to be the same at all. This author was an experienced publisher and may have broken some rules. I do not know enough either way. But an experience publisher with false results would now how to hide them at least temporarily. Those are not going to be found by reviewers. They would be usually found by others that repeated his work.

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm trying to track that down. But this is hardly a Bible journal report Ancient City's Destruction by Exploding Space Rock May Have Inspired Biblical Story of Sodom

A Tunguska sized airburst destroyed Tall el-Hammam a Middle Bronze Age city in the Jordan Valley near the Dead Sea - Scientific Reports has a note a further update coming.

So for now, the science-answer is "we'll see" and that is fair.

I'd like to add that it doesn't say it did inspire the story of Sodom. It said it may have inspired the story. It didn't say it really was about the biblical story of Sodom, or that it verified it as recorded in the Bible.

 

[YoursTrue]

I noticed this story Stanford University president announces resignation over concerns about his research

The president of Stanford University said Wednesday he would resign, citing an independent review that cleared him of research misconduct but found “serious flaws” in five scientific papers on subjects such as brain development in which he was the principal author. @Subduction Zone 's blanked assertion is thus not correct. In this case the the journals would not have known or had reason to believe there were serious issues with the papers.
...
Tessier-Lavigne, a neuroscientist, says he “never submitted a scientific paper without firmly believing that the data were correct and accurately presented.” But he says he should have been more diligent in seeking corrections regarding his work and he should have operated laboratories with tighter controls.

Panelists found multiple instances of manipulated data in the 12 papers they investigated, but concluded he was not responsible for the misconduct. Still, they found that each of the five papers in which he was principal author “has serious flaws in the presentation of research data” and in at least four of them, there was apparent manipulation of data by others.

Thanks for that. I have done research about this situation (not this particular one, but the idea of "peer reviewed" articles) in the past.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'd like to add that it doesn't say it did inspire the story of Sodom. It said it may have inspired the story. It didn't say it really was about the biblical story of Sodom, or that it verified it as recorded in the Bible.

It doesn't matter. The claims look as if they have been refuted.Huge problems have arisen with the article and the authors only have denial. That is a problem for any scientific paper.

 

[syo]

LOL! Sodom is myth.

 

[YoursTrue]

LOL! Sodom is myth.

Well, a rather large crater was discovered so someone must have known something back then.

 

[syo]

Well, a rather large crater was discovered so someone must have known something back then.

Please, tell me you are joking.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, a rather large crater was discovered so someone must have known something back then.

Where?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please, tell me you are joking.

Oh wait!! I found it. And if you want proof of God just look at how close it was to hitting the visitor center:

 

[syo]

Oh wait!! I found it. And if you want proof of God just look at how close it was to hitting the visitor center:

View attachment 79694

Some people will believe anything.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Oh wait!! I found it. And if you want proof of God just look at how close it was to hitting the visitor center:

View attachment 79694

And it completely missed New York by grace of God. Allah is great.