Geology and the Doomed Cities of the Plain

A post was made about how archaeology supports the Bible, and an atheopath said that it never has, never will. To be blunt, that is stupid as well as bigoted. Geology also supports the Bible. In fact, the cities of the plain in Genesis 19:29 KJV that God destroyed have apparently been located.

Sodom and the other cities of the plain in the book of Genesis may have been located. Both history and archaeology support the biblical narrative.
Lot and his family leaving Sodom, Peter Paul Rubens, 1625
Sodom was a big place, and it had some smaller states around it. In fact, it was a nice place, and that's why Lot chose to live there when he parted from Abram (Genesis 13:8-12). When Lot was warned and forced to evacuate the exceptionally sinful area, they fled to Zoar

The Bible tells us about fire and brimstone that destroyed the area, and geological evidence has been found to support this. By the way, when Lot's wife looked back and turned into a pillar of salt, it wasn't just a quick glance over the shoulder. It would have been a case of lagging and longing. Remember, the angels compelled Lot and the others to leave.
To this day nothing grows there because of the salt.

But is it really possible that salt can shoot up from the ground? Is the biblical account geologically sound? Absolutely. Geologically we know there is plenty of salt there. Salt is often found in underground salt domes, especially where there are fault lines.

To read the whole article, see "Geology and the Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah". For the following video, the lyrics are available under the YouTube post.