• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Noah's Global Flood Never Occurred

Jerry said:
'Supernatural' simply means we can't explain something.

'God' simply means a significantly superior being.
Click to expand...

If God only works by the consistent rules of the universe then God does nothing supernatural and thus is the same as not existing.
 
polgara said:
Excellent again as usual, Vesper! :thumbs: People either believe, or they don't, but science is continuing to prove that things recorded in the Bible may certainly have happened. I've heard it said that the Bible is an all-inclusive book - there is something in there for everyone according to your reading interest - faith, trust, romance, wars, betrayal, hope, hate, history, immigration patterns, lineage, unusual earth changes, miracles, oddities, and many others. I agree with them! :yes:

Greetings, Vesper. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Any knowledge of physical geography, geology or astronomy causes you to know that the Bible is often factually wrong.
 
vesper said:
I did no such thing. At least not intentionally.
The tunnel accredited to Hezekiah we now know has naturally formed sections within it. However, people were under the impression that long before Hezekiah, the tunnels underground were used by previous civilizations that lived in the area and traveled as a passage way. Then you get to the account of Hezekiah's tunnel and it turns out that he used the existing tunneling (natural) already present to tie into what he had tunneled giving the tunnel such bends in its shape to direct the water where needed. They also hewn out the floor to slope where needed so it would flow properly. How on earth is that wrongly misrepresenting Gill?
Click to expand...

The part about shells proving water had flowed (IE the Flood) since the creation of the tunnel.
Let Mr Gill close the debate:

" ...Beneath the City of David, he found, lie two layers of rock, highly porous limestone on top of more impervious dolomite. Warren's Shaft is a natural sinkhole that developed along a joint in the limestone. Its bottom narrows into a funnel-like shape, typical of a karstic sinkhole, and carbon dating of the calcium crust on its walls indicates an age of more than 40,000 years.

"This provides unequivocal evidence that the shaft could not have been dug by man," Dr. Gill wrote."

So the natural part of the system is 40,000 years old, with more recent sections joining the natural parts dug through limestone which is made of shell and coral. No flood necessary.
 
Jerry said:
In all fairness, the person who started this thread with a position is the one who has the burdon of proof. OP says it didn't happen, and so it falls to OP to prove it didn't happen.

Good luck proving a negative.
Click to expand...

Last night I set fire to your house and burnt it to the ground.

I expect that you will consider this a lie. You will be confident that it is a lie because you woke up in your house this morning and it was still there and did not even smell of burning.

The absence of the evidence of me burning your house down is the evidence you will, correctly, use to know that I did not burn your house down.

There was never a world flood. I know that because there is no evidence of the massive event which would be utterly overwhelming everywhere all over the Earth.

There is no need to prove a negative. The statement "There was a world flood" is a positive. It is easy to disprove. You are lying for Jesus again.
 
vesper said:
My participation in this thread is not to prove a flood occurred. My focus has been on a 100 mile area including the city of Jerusalem and the possibility that at one time it was covered in water. You are the one that continues to make the claim otherwise.
Click to expand...

It wasn't. At least when humans were walking the Earth.

But there is evidence of flood stories that brought great devastation and involved a family saved by some type of boat in cultures all over the world. Most point to the Mesopotamian and biblical account, but the Greeks had their own version. Zeus sent a flood to destroy the men of the Bronze Age. Prometheus advised his son Deucalion to build a chest. The Romans had their version as well. Jupiter, angered at the evil ways of humanity, decided to destroy it. So he flood the earth with Neptune's help. Heck even the Eskimos have an ancient story passed down through the ages about a great flood and only one family survived on a raft. Coincidence of just a lot of good story telling? I'll leave that for others to decide.
Click to expand...

Yep, the Bible has used pre-existing myths.

Once again my focus has been on a specific area that includes Jerusalem. My interest/knowledge of archaeological diggings in that area is pretty much where my focus has remained.
Click to expand...

Such a shame you know nothing about it.

Coming from someone who posted Jerusalem was on a mountain instead of a plateau a relatively flat surface, who tried to use that "reasoning" to discredit Hezekiah's tunnels and the water running uphill because he took the word of Wiki for his source is quite amusing.
Click to expand...

Jerusalem is on an upland plateau. It's never been flooded.

You resort to calling me a liar whenever I present something that doesn't fit your line of thinking. Dr. Gill's published paper can be found on line in PDF. It is a good size file. I gave all the information one needs if they are interested in researching it further. There are also archived articles in the NYT and other large papers from the 1990's that covered his discovery on Hezekiah's tunnel. From those articles you can glean what periodicals published his papers and get the opinions of other scientists on his findings. If my purpose was to prove there was a flood, I guess I could have posted a bunch of links but that isn't my intent. Mine has been to show that the area of Jerusalem was one time under water and I believe I have shown that to be a possibility. The recent discovery of a 6000 year old monument that once sat on dry land is now at the bottom of the Sea of Galilee showing the lowest sea level ever known for the Sea of Galilee area is an important find.
Click to expand...

Yet you are not the one to post the link;Biblical Puzzle Solved - Jerusalem Tunnel Is A Product of Nature - NYTimes.com It also has zero support for any flood.

Your use of the changing level of the sea of Galilee as evidence of a world flood or indeed any sudden flood is disingenuous. Something like lying. If you don't like been shown to be dishonest stop lying.

In well established ancient cities the evidence would not be so massive unless one were to dig down through centuries of civilizations that inhabited the area. They were often conquered by others turned to rubble and the new tenants built their city on top of the rubble of the previous owner. That's what fascinates me about the digs in Jerusalem and surrounding areas. It's a walk back through time because everyone leaves evidence of themselves.
Click to expand...

A massive flood would leave vastly more evidence than a sacking. You already know this.

Once again, my focus has been from the beginning on the Jerusalem area. The earliest archaeological backed data that I could find had folks inhabiting that area was approximately the same time Noah was born around the Gihon Springs area. But like the article about the discovery of the 6000 year old monument approximately 100 miles North at the Sea of Galilee obviously was inhabited much earlier. Fresh water sources had a major role in where people would settle. The Gihon Spring was the major source of water for the old Jerusalem area. It's very possible the spring did not exist that early or was not discovered until later.
Gill provided evidence that the area of Jerusalem was once flooded with ocean water. Which proves my initial post and nothing more. I'm tired of you calling me a liar for simply posting about geological finds I have read about. Or mock me over using a biblical account to point out the massive amounts of limestone found in the Jerusalem area. Because my thinking varies from yours does not make me a liar. I have no intention of proving a worldwide flood to you or anyone else. My focus has been in one specific area where I have spent a good amount of time reading about the archaeological diggings and their discoveries. To share that information should not be such a threat to you or anyone else. Certainly not to the point of calling another a liar, mocking them or accusing them of being ignorant.
Click to expand...

It is pathetic to say that you have read of the archeological evidence of the cities of the are without understanding that it contradicts the story of a great flood. Jericho is the world's oldest inhabited city. This is so widely known that if you have read about the ancient cities of the middle east you must have come across this. You must have come across the time lines of cities which don't have a great flood event disrupting them. That's what makes you a liar. Amongst other things.
 
Manc Skipper said:
The part about shells proving water had flowed (IE the Flood) since the creation of the tunnel.
Let Mr Gill close the debate:

" ...Beneath the City of David, he found, lie two layers of rock, highly porous limestone on top of more impervious dolomite. Warren's Shaft is a natural sinkhole that developed along a joint in the limestone. Its bottom narrows into a funnel-like shape, typical of a karstic sinkhole, and carbon dating of the calcium crust on its walls indicates an age of more than 40,000 years.

"This provides unequivocal evidence that the shaft could not have been dug by man," Dr. Gill wrote."

So the natural part of the system is 40,000 years old, with more recent sections joining the natural parts dug through limestone which is made of shell and coral. No flood necessary.
Click to expand...

Yes the carbon dating as I understand was 40,000 in the natural part. With 30% of the walls throughout the tunnel full of marine fossils, it may not necessarily prove a flood but it sure as heck proves that where Jerusalem stands was one time under water
 
vesper said:
Yes the carbon dating as I understand was 40,000 in the natural part. With 30% of the walls throughout the tunnel full of marine fossils, it may not necessarily prove a flood but it sure as heck proves that where Jerusalem stands was one time under water
Click to expand...

OK, I'll take it slowly.

The crust that is referred to is the deposit of new limestone on top of the existing old stuff. Limestone gets dissolved by rainwater. As the water seeps into a cave it hags around on the ceiling of the cave then drips onto the floor. Whilst hanging on the ceiling and whilst on the floor it evaporates a bit. Since it's full of dissolved limestone it leaves behind a crust when it dries out. This is what makes stalagmites and stalactites. That is at least 40,000 years old. That's how old the passages are. At least 40,000 years. There is no vast amount of dirt and rubble in these passages. Thus there has never been a great flood washing vast amounts of flood debris down them.

That limestone was originally formed under the sea is evidence that the world is very much older than the Bible would have it. To point to it as evidence of a flood is lying because you definitely know by now just from reading this thread that is how it is.
 
Tim the plumber said:
OK, I'll take it slowly.

The crust that is referred to is the deposit of new limestone on top of the existing old stuff. Limestone gets dissolved by rainwater. As the water seeps into a cave it hags around on the ceiling of the cave then drips onto the floor. Whilst hanging on the ceiling and whilst on the floor it evaporates a bit. Since it's full of dissolved limestone it leaves behind a crust when it dries out. This is what makes stalagmites and stalactites. That is at least 40,000 years old. That's how old the passages are. At least 40,000 years. There is no vast amount of dirt and rubble in these passages. Thus there has never been a great flood washing vast amounts of flood debris down them.

That limestone was originally formed under the sea is evidence that the world is very much older than the Bible would have it. To point to it as evidence of a flood is lying because you definitely know by now just from reading this thread that is how it is.
Click to expand...

Excuse me, I am the one that brought up the subject of limestone in this thread. I know how it is formed. Instead of talking down to me, wouldn't a person truly seeking the truth be asking themselves if the fossils were formed after the natural tunnels and caves were formed or during the process of the formation of the limestone itself. And are the fossils also located on the dolomite found in the tunnel? I don't have that information and neither do you.
 
vesper said:
Excuse me, I am the one that brought up the subject of limestone in this thread. I know how it is formed. Instead of talking down to me, wouldn't a person truly seeking the truth be asking themselves if the fossils were formed after the natural tunnels and caves were formed or during the process of the formation of the limestone itself. And are the fossils also located on the dolomite found in the tunnel? I don't have that information and neither do you.
Click to expand...
You're LYING AGAIN.
Every post you make is a Lie or DISHONEST Deflection.
I provided that information already:

mbig said:
You're LYING again.
Your intent, and the ONLY reason these 'facts' were introduced as to show they were Consistent with a Flood. That was their [Only] relevance to the discussion.

The 6000 year old example of tectonic subsidence (in a rift valley) is Not in any way consistent with a 40 day/40 Night rain-created Worldwide or even Regional flood in any case.
The Shoreline around it has similar age archaelogical digs that were NOT under water. Proving only that particular instance wasn't the flood.
So this selecta-fact has -0- relevance is Cherry-Picking/Deceiving-for-Jesus.

The Limestone under/around Jerusalem, OTOH, is Upper Cretacious:
http://www.newark.osu.edu/facultystaff/personal/jstjohn/Documents/Decorative-Stones/Limestone.htm

Jerusalem Limestone (field of view ~5.0 cm across) - a fossiliferous oolitic limestone, widely used for centuries as a building stone in Jerusalem, Israel. Several Cretaceous-aged marine limestones in Israel have been & are quarried for building/decorative stone. Light from the setting sun results in these rocks having the famous “Jerusalem Gold” color.

The sample shown above & below is a buff-colored, fossiliferous oolitic limestone. Yaacov Arkin of the Israel Geological Survey has kindly identified this rock as likely being “Mizzi Hilu” (= “sweet rock” in Arabic) from the Zihor Formation (upper Judea Group, Turonian, lower Upper Cretaceous).​

Upper Cretacious, Meaning 100 Million-60 Million Years old.
Meaning Precisely what I said and used examples with examples like the American high desert and Sandstone, and much else.
Meaning precisely what I said about you making Irrelevant claims as to Time period.

Using those two [DISPARATE] 'facts' to enable Flood-thinking (and that IS what you were doing in this Noah string) is/REMAINS Ridiculous.
Click to expand...
And when I demanded a Link for what clearly came from one (with chapter and page mentioned), YOU Did NOT provide it because you MISCHARACTERIZED it.

mbig said:
vesper said:
What I didn't know until today after doing some research is a geologist in Israel, Dan Gill has published his findings about Hezekiah's tunnel in "Digging" (December 1994, Vol. 10, No. 12), "Why Hezekiah's Tunnel Has the Bends" (p.5): Evidently Hezekiah's tunnel has curves and bends in it. That was news to me and the reason for the bends according to Gill is out of a rush to complete the tunnel to insure fresh water supply into the city before being attacked, they used already existing tunnels that at the time would have been ancient to them used by the previous tenants and tied them into the tunnel they were digging to save time. It is on the walls of these older portions of the tunnel that have fossils of shells and coral on them obviously formed after the old tunnels had been hewned.
Click to expand...
LINK?
There are only about 5 Websites with the precise bolded portion. None are authoritative, most are mbs, or Creationist websites.
Withholding the Link enabled you to LIE (underlined portion) again about the age and nature of the embedded fossils.
Click to expand...
When someone demands a LINK for what clearly came from one, you Must provide it.
In fact, you should source all Material that obviously has one, without being asked.

ALL your posts are LIES and all Unbelievably Vacuous.
 
Last edited:
mbig said:
You're LYING AGAIN.
Every post you make is a Lie or DISHONEST Deflection.
I provided that information already:

And when I demanded a Link for what clearly came from one (with chapter and page mentioned), YOU Did NOT provide it because you MISCHARACTERIZED it.

When someone demands a LINK for what clearly came from one, you Must provide it.
In fact, you should source all Material that obviously has one, without being asked.

ALL your posts are LIES and all Unbelievably Vacuous.
Click to expand...

Someone comes up with a valid question and there you go again calling them a liar. How small of you.

Gee another poster in this thread was able to find the NYT article I mentioned in my post related to Dr. Gills discovery in the 90's which also provided the name of the periodical that published his paper. And they did that without a link. What's your problem couldn't find anything at Wiki?
 
Dan Gill never said he found older man-made tunnels as you inferred, he found natural shafts and waterways within the rock (which naturally contains fossils, shells and corals, that's what it's made of!) which the tunnelers linked to make their wells. You have been economical with the truth.
 
Tim the plumber said:
If God only works by the consistent rules of the universe then God does nothing supernatural and thus is the same as not existing.
Click to expand...
If humans only work by the consistent rules of the universe then humans do nothing supernatural and thus is the same as not existing.

See how stupid you sound?
 
Manc Skipper said:
Dan Gill never said he found older man-made tunnels as you inferred, he found natural shafts and waterways within the rock (which naturally contains fossils, shells and corals, that's what it's made of!) which the tunnelers linked to make their wells. You have been economical with the truth.
Click to expand...
Look, before yesterday I had no idea that Hezekiah's tunnel was comprised of manmade works tied to natural works. And until a few decades ago most believed the entire system was manmade. To add to that complexity, the tunnels that ran under the ancient city of David were once thought to have been created by previous civilizations. There's ample evidence those tunnels which we now know are natural had been hewn out to increase their size in certain locations long before Hezekiah. Now if I in anyway did not make that perfectly clear in my earlier posts, I hope this clarifies things.

As far as this issue with the fossils, you say they are explained away by the natural result of the limestone. Well until yesterday I did not know there was a substantial amount of dolomite in the tunnel. It forms at the Earth's surface in a few very unusual places marked by high salinity and extreme alkaline conditions. Many deposits of limestone are altered to some extent into dolomite rock. It's harder than marble and can be brittle. If this mineral forms at the Earth's surface, I want to know if there were any marine fossils found on it.
 
Manc Skipper said:
Why? It can do nothing to support the flood argument.
Click to expand...

To find fossils on the dolomite, will only support the fact that the Jerusalem area( that I believe was originally formed out of the sea bed), sometime much later it was engulfed in sea water again at a later date after the dolomite had time to form on the Earth's surface. How long does it take for dolomite to form? We certainly know that the conditions are ripe for the dolomite to form above ground in that area. Jerusalem is only 15 miles from the Dead Sea.
 
They're not "on" the dolomite. As with the limestone, they're IN it. Fossils are contained within the millions of years old rocks, which were formed under a millions of years old sea, then geologically uplifted to where they are today. Which is when some fossils are leached out into the tunnel crust by natural water action dissolving them and or their surroundings.
 
Manc Skipper said:
They're not "on" the dolomite. As with the limestone, they're IN it. Fossils are contained within the millions of years old rocks, which were formed under a millions of years old sea, then geologically uplifted to where they are today. Which is when some fossils are leached out into the tunnel crust by natural water action dissolving them and or their surroundings.
Click to expand...

Of course the ancient critter is "IN" them. But if the dolomite was formed above the earth and there is a cute little shell fossil formed on top of it what does that say?
 
It says the fossilised shell was less soluble than the dolomite?
 
I should have said the dolomite isn't formed above the earth, but below it at high pressure.
 
These rudiments of elementary geological processes are all very well, but your tenous grasp of them remains evident in your maintaining your stance regarding their relevance to your frankly foolish flood claims.
 
Manc Skipper said:
These rudiments of elementary geological processes are all very well, but your tenous grasp of them remains evident in your maintaining your stance regarding their relevance to your frankly foolish flood claims.
Click to expand...

No scientists are not sold on your take. Yes dolomite can form under pressure but it also can form above ground.

Many deposits of limestone are altered to some extent into dolomite rock. The details are still a subject of research. Dolomite also occurs in some bodies of serpentinite, which are rich in magnesium. It forms at the Earth's surface in a few very unusual places marked by high salinity and extreme alkaline conditions. ]
Click to expand...
We all know that the Dead Sea is is but 15 miles from Jerusalem and it is full of saline. But how many know of the high levels of magnesium found in the Dead Sea which is fed by under ground means.
Dolomite - Carbonate Minerals
Products of the Dead Sea | Dead Sea Products | Magnesoothe

The area is ripe to form dolomite above ground.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
Ahh I see you've never actually read Genesis 6 for yourself. Typical.
Click to expand...

No, I have read it I just want to know what it had to do with my post? I can summarize Genesis all on my own. What I was getting at was that Noah's flood was a fictional story and that fictional story is pivotal to many other important parts of the bible. I was also pointing out that western culture isnt as enlightened as you ask just about anyone if the flood was global and they will say yes. Perhaps a few will say no but even people like Billy Graham say the flood was global. So you seem to be from a biased sect of Christians that believe that the flood was regional. This isnt unusual Christian sects have been bickering over details of the bible for as long as Christianity has been around.

You say that I am using the wrong translations. But 9/10ths of Christians are using these translations that you have disqualified. I know Christians pretty well and they wouldnt be pleased with that. What other parts of this story is incorrect in your opinion? You accuse me of never actually reading Genesis 6 (lol) but according to you most Christians are reading the wrong translations, so no matter what I say about Genesis 6 you will just say that I read the wrong translation again.

SO what translation was it again that you think is the correct one. You so realize that all the sects think that there translation is the correct one right?
 
vesper said:
Look, before yesterday I had no idea that Hezekiah's tunnel was comprised of manmade works tied to natural works. And until a few decades ago most believed the entire system was manmade. To add to that complexity, the tunnels that ran under the ancient city of David were once thought to have been created by previous civilizations. There's ample evidence those tunnels which we now know are natural had been hewn out to increase their size in certain locations long before Hezekiah. Now if I in anyway did not make that perfectly clear in my earlier posts, I hope this clarifies things.

As far as this issue with the fossils, you say they are explained away by the natural result of the limestone. Well until yesterday I did not know there was a substantial amount of dolomite in the tunnel. It forms at the Earth's surface in a few very unusual places marked by high salinity and extreme alkaline conditions. Many deposits of limestone are altered to some extent into dolomite rock. It's harder than marble and can be brittle. If this mineral forms at the Earth's surface, I want to know if there were any marine fossils found on it.
Click to expand...

Is there a reason you've been hijacking this thread with things that are absolutely positively irrelevant to the OP? If you'd like to start a "was there ancient underground tunnels under Jerusalem" thread, do that, but stop derailing a thread on a purpose. Nothing you've said has anything to do with Noah's flood.

Jerry said:
If humans only work by the consistent rules of the universe then humans do nothing supernatural and thus is the same as not existing.

See how stupid you sound?
Click to expand...

God has a requirement that he must be able to do something supernatural, humans do not. If he has no supernatural powers, IE: no more powerful than a human, he's not god. If that describes your god then maybe you picked the wrong one.

It seems as though your god lost all his powers a few thousand years ago. Maybe he's scared of science.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom