> 1. Backwards editing. 
> 
> Otherwise, present me with the appropriate verses, and I will consider. At the same time, George Lucas's conception of the Death Star is/was a radical idea which may only have had precedent in the "Planet Eater" of Star Trek Fame.
> 
> Star Trek is a notorious show for predicting future technologies. 
> 
> Was Gene Roddenberry a God, or was he just innovative and creative enough to peer into the future? You are trying to put limits on what a creative mind can imagine. What frame of reference did Gene have for the Planet Eater? How about George Lucas for his Death star, or Tolkien for his "One Ring?"
> 
> How much of the Vimanas is fact, how much is fiction, and how much is fiction believed to be fact? Unless you can answer all three of those categories, you don't have a case.-The whole point of trying to get science to investigate the claims of the Vimanas is to answer those three questions. Unless I completely misunderstand science to a gross degree, that is its primary purpose, to explore, discover, and explain.-You also completely misunderstand the term 'frame of reference', apparently. By the time Star Trek and Star Wars came along, we knew some little about space, and electronics, and photons, and plasma, and lasers etc. These provide a 'frame of reference' for an author to expound on. If you know what gravity is, you can imagine a way to defy it. If you know what an engine is, you can imagine newer, higher performance engines, that use different fuels, or work in different environments. Lord of the Rings did little but expound on things that were already familiar. Differences in humanoids have been used as part of myth and legend for thousands of years.(Puck, minotaur, harpies, etc) Even the 'rings of power' were only a conglomeration of a few different pre-existing ideas(rings, domination, greed, power, control, mysticism, volcanoes). I am not trying to discredit any of these authors, because I am a big fan of most of them, and see their imagination as inspiring. But you can not deny that they did have a frame of reference for all of their writings. -As far as references to the particular verses, I have already linked a website which contains the references you asked for, you have but to look and you will find.

Well, according to the vimanas the ancient Indians knew about 92 of the elements, studied sciences that we consider relatively young, like geology, and had aircraft. You still haven't done anything to explain the facts that don't fit with our modern historical record.
> > 
> > And they had the rudiments of modern reconstructive plastic surgery... though with wood and leather. THAT we have evidence of. 
> > 
> > Your point here? That in the absence of evidence we are safe to accept the claims of the vimanas? Safe to consider of course, but that--as with all things lacking evidence--remains in the "mystery" or "doubt" category. Show me a plan, or a wreckage of a machine we can reverse engineer and demonstrate and you'll see me more pliant.
> 
> 
> No the point is that they had no frame of reference to even begin to describe what they were describing according to our modern historical paradigm. It isn't enough to say they dreamed it all up, or imagined it. I will give a clear example of what I mean.
> 
> In the Greek myth of Icarus and Daedalous, Daedalous built a pair of fantastic wings for himself and his son. The wings were metal framed, leather harnessed, and covered with wax in which feathers were set. Now in this story, the Greeks had a very obvious frame of reference, birds. The wings were shaped like bird wings, used like bird wings, even contained feathers like bird wings. 
> 
> 
> The Vimanas however are different. Where is the frame of reference to describe a missile with atomic fallout? Where is the frame of reference for electromagnetism? Where is the frame of reference for nuclear weapons complete with accurate descriptions of the side effects (radiation poisoning, the heat blast, shock wave, the blinding light)-1. Backwards editing. -Otherwise, present me with the appropriate verses, and I will consider. At the same time, George Lucas's conception of the Death Star is/was a radical idea which may only have had precedent in the "Planet Eater" of Star Trek Fame.-Star Trek is a notorious show for predicting future technologies. -Was Gene Roddenberry a God, or was he just innovative and creative enough to peer into the future? You are trying to put limits on what a creative mind can imagine. What frame of reference did Gene have for the Planet Eater? How about George Lucas for his Death star, or Tolkien for his "One Ring?"-How much of the Vimanas is fact, how much is fiction, and how much is fiction believed to be fact? Unless you can answer all three of those categories, you don't have a case.


> > It is an established observation that the universe is expanding at a rate of 3x the speed of light, and accelerating. We live in an infinite universe. 
> > 
> > 
> 
> Actually, the fact that it CAN expand is proof that it is finite, by definition.-Then... why did you challenge it?


> > The book I'm writing is rooted upon the entire epic of Gilgamesh; and every scholar of religion agrees that Gilgamesh was the proto-tale for Noah's Ark. Just like how Christian hell was actually a syncretism of Zorastrian and Jewish Mysticism. The general mode in comparative religions is that all the religions we have today all shared a common route going all the way back to our emergence out of Africa. That's why it's interesting that that small group of Uighurs I mentioned don't have a flood myth. 
> 
> 
> I actually purchased of copy of "Bhagavad Gita As it Is" right before I came out to the boat. I have it down in my cabin, but got side tracked reading the Gnostic Gospels :) I will start on it again here shortly and see if I can find some outstanding examples to share as well. 
> 
> I do not so much look for accuracy. First off, I am looking for consistency within certain texts. That gives me a starting point for comparison with something external. I.E. If they are not consistent with themselves they will not likely be consistent with anything else. The same applies to any ancient text I study, it just happens that I am much more familiar with the bible.
> 
> And spotting links between religious ideologies is what set me down this bumpy road to begin with, and one of the reasons that I actively seek out groups like this so as to learn from others at a much faster rate than I can pick up on my own. (Don't reinvent the wheel unless it needs it)-dhw and I have gone round on this topic before; My position is that the consistencies between texts is too general for us to derive any meaningful conclusions or explanations. Like how we always mess up things in statistics--causation/correlation, etc. -You strike me as someone who'd like the movie "The Fountain." z


> The book I'm writing is rooted upon the entire epic of Gilgamesh; and every scholar of religion agrees that Gilgamesh was the proto-tale for Noah's Ark. Just like how Christian hell was actually a syncretism of Zorastrian and Jewish Mysticism. The general mode in comparative religions is that all the religions we have today all shared a common route going all the way back to our emergence out of Africa. That's why it's interesting that that small group of Uighurs I mentioned don't have a flood myth. -
I actually purchased of copy of "Bhagavad Gita As it Is" right before I came out to the boat. I have it down in my cabin, but got side tracked reading the Gnostic Gospels :) I will start on it again here shortly and see if I can find some outstanding examples to share as well. -I do not so much look for accuracy. First off, I am looking for consistency within certain texts. That gives me a starting point for comparison with something external. I.E. If they are not consistent with themselves they will not likely be consistent with anything else. The same applies to any ancient text I study, it just happens that I am much more familiar with the bible.-And spotting links between religious ideologies is what set me down this bumpy road to begin with, and one of the reasons that I actively seek out groups like this so as to learn from others at a much faster rate than I can pick up on my own. (Don't reinvent the wheel unless it needs it)

The story of Gilgamesh was a 'myth', greatly embellished, that contained grains of historical truth that have been proven by science. However, even the story of Gilgamesh carries undertones of esoteric teachings that covers things like the death of the sun. But it also disclosed a very real historical accounting of the Black Sea flood.
> -The book I'm writing is rooted upon the entire epic of Gilgamesh; and every scholar of religion agrees that Gilgamesh was the proto-tale for Noah's Ark. Just like how Christian hell was actually a syncretism of Zorastrian and Jewish Mysticism. The general mode in comparative religions is that all the religions we have today all shared a common route going all the way back to our emergence out of Africa. That's why it's interesting that that small group of Uighurs I mentioned don't have a flood myth. -But again, ascribing the kind of accuracy that you want to with religious texts is generally only done through interpretive sophistry. If you engage in an act of demonstrating that the Bible had some accuracy, you can readily "verify" anything it says just by changing all the semantics of the words--like in Ezekiel. -> I am not so literal minded that I do not see the connections to the deeper mystical and spiritual meanings behind what I read, nor am I so naive as to take ever word ever written as truth. However, I am also well aware that, sometimes, there are many different layers of meaning inside a single statement. We use a play on words to form many of the worlds greatest pun's, jokes, and satires, and ancient writers were no different in that respect. 
> 
> Sometimes, the truth is that we simply ignore what we find because we can't explain it. There is no doubt that the Hindu texts I linked were probably laced through with spiritual admonishments and esoteric teachings. But I am highly doubtful that they could write about, and with astonishing amounts of detail and accuracy, something for which they had no possible frame of reference.-The link you gave me there resonates with one account I'd heard of for the birth of the Hindu religion. At some point long-past, Persians conquered the land, and the short-shrift of it was that they had installed themselves as rulers, and built the religion and caste system. I recently started reading "Bhagavad Gita As it Is," and in the introduction the author states with a dictation that "...everything there is has a controller. A person who thinks they are not controlled is insane." Though, in the same introduction he says "The reader should read the Bhagavad Gita in a mind of Submission, or they will not extract the proper meanings." -Aside from the fact that these two statements contradict each other, we have a strong suggestion right off the bat that there is a reason they are trying to abolish free will. Hinduism is largely seen as having created and supported the caste system. This explanation makes sense--Iranians were incredible innovators in religion. -That said, I never paid much attention to Vimanas the first time through the Gita, I will this time. But just to throw this out there: the earliest mention of Vimana as a flying object, was as a flying chariot for Sri Krsna. Other things I've seen online were for giant flying pyramids. They also had battering rams. So far, I've seen nothing that was so outlandish that a creative writer couldn't synthesize it.-[EDIT]
But lets return to your goal: If your goal is make scientists take claims made in religious books as real, you do so using scientific claims. Because of how interpretive sophistry works, people like me will never take religious texts THAT seriously, because at least in my case doubt is the centerpiece of my thinking. Skepticism is the centerpiece of western philosophy; Science is based on empiricism, (rationalism is out of scope) and you're engaging in rationalism when you try and bridge the Black Sea Flood to Noah/Gilgamesh. Rationalism and Empiricism are two separate answers to the the problem of skepticism, but although all empirical claims are rational, the converse isn't true, that all rational claims are empirical. You need to deal with this problem, because it is THIS problem which gives difficulty to you. Not "closed minds" but the normative epistemology the person is operating with. Understand that, and you will make better cases. -No one doubts that "revealed texts" contain truths, but what truths those are and where they are is definitely not clear. You face an uphill battle here, my friend.

We have no idea, we have no clues other than what came down as myths and legends, which have on occasion proven much more valid than we ever thought possible.(The story of Gilgamesh and the black sea flood)
 -There is definite evidence of a Black Sea flood in an article in Am. J. Archeology, I believe Oct. 2001, dating the flood about 7,000 years ago. Another report in the N.Y. Times, Jan 1, 2001 quoting marine biologists as placing the flood at 7,600 years ago. The reason given is glacial melt and then ice dams breaking. There were later reports in 2003 in the houston paper that tried to refute these findings, and I remember a more recent report (source not remembered), in the past year, that again supported evidence of the flood. I'm sure a local but massive flood occurred.

You have a completely different approach to science as I know it: You start with observations, make sure your observations as valid, and built a minimal theory with minimal assumptions. An assumption that a society could do what you suggest with no writing makes assumptions of human beings that have proven to be false for the entirety of our own known history. You're "bridging gaps with god."
> 
> I think you have assumed something here which I never proposed. I never even suggested that they had no written language. Even the 11,500 year old temple has many examples of symbol usage, which when you get down to the brass tacks, is what a written language is, as exemplified by Egyptian hieroglyphs. 
> -We seem to step on each other's toes alot. Mayhaps we both agree to slow down a bit more? -> Yes, I build minimal theories, with minimal assumptions, but I am not 'bridging gaps with God.' Grand Theories based on grand assumptions inevitably lead to an invalid paradigm, because they are not based on evidence. 
> -But what evidence do you actually have? You only have passive references to hindu texts--which are extremely well-known to possess hidden or deep meanings. From my cursory examination of the passage, I see many things that would have a mystical meaning and not so much as something they were recording as actual fact. Especially when the oldest usage of the word "Vimana" simply meant "Temple," also "Fortress." Taken into consideration references such as 360 (degrees in a circle) which also has esoteric meanings in Western Hermetic traditions, I don't see Vimana as being something other than an idea that we must meditate on for faith or wisdom. Or in some instances--simply a sky-chariot of the Gods. You read too literally. -My people had a mythical tale of a creature called the "Baba Yaga." According to you I should take seriously the notion of a witch who lives in a cabin on chicken legs? Or what about the Greek tale of Apollo? You confuse mystical works with scientific explanations. -
> What I asked, and what you failed to answer, is what would happen to the evidence that our archaeologist are looking for? What would happen to concrete, iron, paper, etc. over the course of 10,000 plus years of elemental exposure? The other thing I take into consideration is the question, where do we look? We have no idea, we have no clues other than what came down as myths and legends, which have on occasion proven much more valid than we ever thought possible.(The story of Gilgamesh and the black sea flood)
> -Both of these flood links you have shown have demonstrated massive--localized--floods. Not a "world flood." As for more valid--only through sophistry like what was used on Ezekiel. -As to what would happen to the evidence, this depends on what kinds of materials they used, doesn't it? Assuming they used modern materials, we should have deep open-earth pits for where they mined for metals, we should still be able to find tons of evidence of mass-scale smelting. If they were smart they could have extracted aluminum, which would give us a tremendous amount of evidence as once the outer layers of aluminum oxidize, it'll keep forever. -The story of Gilgamesh WAS Noah's Ark. -But I'm seeing your deeper question to me is, "if there is no evidence to be found, what am I to do to answer these questions?" The problem you have with me--and the rest of science--is that you have your own epistemology which isn't fully congruent with the epistemology of scientists. The writings of the ancients can be used as very general guides, but without physical evidence--you completely cancel out any possibility of science and are left with subjective claims. Science works via foundationalism, everything must be connected to everything else in a chain of logical causation building from base principles. Any claim that cannot be connected into this hierarchical web, is literally out of scope. If you want to change the epistemology of science, you get the fun job of change management. -So we treat this as we should all claims that have no evidence: In an "unsolved" pile that would await some piece of evidence to surface to validate it. If you say this isn't an answer to your question again, than I didn't understand it to begin with. -
> ...What I am doing is not trying 'bridge the god with gaps', but to merely get academic recognition for the evidence that suggest the gaps are larger than we even suspect.-But written words of Vimanas, Christ rising after 3 days, and Alexander dumping stones into the sea don't constitute evidence. All of these come from texts that assert their own validity.

You have a completely different approach to science as I know it: You start with observations, make sure your observations as valid, and built a minimal theory with minimal assumptions. An assumption that a society could do what you suggest with no writing makes assumptions of human beings that have proven to be false for the entirety of our own known history. You're "bridging gaps with god."-I think you have assumed something here which I never proposed. I never even suggested that they had no written language. Even the 11,500 year old temple has many examples of symbol usage, which when you get down to the brass tacks, is what a written language is, as exemplified by Egyptian hieroglyphs. -As for your mention about tracking the details of an airplane, the Vimana's are well documented, and as far as I know, every civilization in which evidence for ancient aircraft have appeared had some form of written language.-Yes, I build minimal theories, with minimal assumptions, but I am not 'bridging gaps with God.' Grand Theories based on grand assumptions inevitably lead to an invalid paradigm, because they are not based on evidence. -What I asked, and what you failed to answer, is what would happen to the evidence that our archaeologist are looking for? What would happen to concrete, iron, paper, etc. over the course of 10,000 plus years of elemental exposure? The other thing I take into consideration is the question, where do we look? We have no idea, we have no clues other than what came down as myths and legends, which have on occasion proven much more valid than we ever thought possible.(The story of Gilgamesh and the black sea flood)-Working in Geophysics, the one thing I am certain of is that we know next to nothing about what actually happens on this earth. Every day, the old theories of mind numbingly slow and microscopic movements are replaced by discoveries of fast, and vast changes(in geological terms). What I am doing is not trying 'bridge the god with gaps', but to merely get academic recognition for the evidence that suggest the gaps are larger than we even suspect.

I could just as easily ask what evidence do you have that it was built by the Egyptians or Babylonians since, 
> > 
> > Reread what I wrote and tell me where I made that claim.
> > 
> You didn't, nor did I intentionally insinuate that you did, though I can see how you would infer that. The question I posed was a rhetorical rebuttal to:
> 
> >What evidence do you have that those builders didn't know trig? 
> 
> Which is to say, we have no evidence that they didn't know trig or geometry, nor that they didn't have a rigorous system for it, nor that Stonehenge was not built by one of the other civilizations. It is all based on assumptions which, at least to me, seem to have some very a fundamental flaw, namely, that despite a profusion of evidence to the contrary in the form of astonishing feats of construction and engineering, we assume that the lack of written documentation means a lack of organized mathematics or an intellectual/cultural inferiority to modern man. 
> 
> What do we do with all the data that doesn't fit? How do we reconcile the enigmas? How do we explain feats of engineering that would otherwise be unexplainable?
> -We admit that the problem is in an unanswered state, and wait for evidence. -> But what happens if we work off the assumption that this is not civilizations first time around the bend? Would that explain the Vimana's, the vitrified fortresses, the model airplanes found around the world, Stonehenge, the similarity between pyramids, the legends of advanced teachers coming to various civilizations, the myths of lost civilizations, etc etc.? 
> -Don't get me wrong--I hold man on a pedestal, so nothing would make me feel better than being able to say "Look, look what we had wrought, earlier and better than when we had wrought it!"-A better picture of this can be made if we look at certain questions. -Name a civilization that was able to become technologically advanced without a written language? Language and the ability to write it are necessary prerequisites for any engineer who sits down to build something. I can do calcs in my head all day, or solve basic equations in my head, but my brain isn't good at multitasking. (No one's brain is.) If we're talking about something as complex as a flying machine, that's quite a bit of things to keep track of. -Then there's the problem of transferring that information from one generation to the next. My method for computing will likely be different from yours; hence why there will be some calculations I'm great at, and you not so much. I would have to find someone who "thinks like me" in order to transfer a lifetime's worth of information, issues, errors, and problems. Writing was invented first for record-keeping to solve this problem as well as taxation and transactions.-My point is, that by looking at all of known history, we have enough evidence to conclude that a written language is required for any feats like what we're talking about. Engineering requires minutiae and details; this is something that the human brain isn't good at. The human brain is good at pattern recognition and visual reasoning. You assert too much to our ancestors. -I work in a software system with 1.5Million lines of code. If you saw the design diagrams for this--I can tell you plainly that no human being is capable of understanding the entire thing. -> One could argue that there is no evidence because we have not found the cities or what have you. But I would ask how long does it take for concrete, steel, iron, copper, and other such materials to be absorbed back into nature? I am not saying this happened, but part of science is having the imagination to think up different scenarios, and then actively working to prove or disprove them.-You have a completely different approach to science as I know it: You start with observations, make sure your observations as valid, and built a minimal theory with minimal assumptions. An assumption that a society could do what you suggest with no writing makes assumptions of human beings that have proven to be false for the entirety of our own known history. You're "bridging gaps with god."

I could just as easily ask what evidence do you have that it was built by the Egyptians or Babylonians since, 
> 
> Reread what I wrote and tell me where I made that claim.
> 
You didn't, nor did I intentionally insinuate that you did, though I can see how you would infer that. The question I posed was a rhetorical rebuttal to:->What evidence do you have that those builders didn't know trig? -Which is to say, we have no evidence that they didn't know trig or geometry, nor that they didn't have a rigorous system for it, nor that Stonehenge was not built by one of the other civilizations. It is all based on assumptions which, at least to me, seem to have some very a fundamental flaw, namely, that despite a profusion of evidence to the contrary in the form of astonishing feats of construction and engineering, we assume that the lack of written documentation means a lack of organized mathematics or an intellectual/cultural inferiority to modern man. -What do we do with all the data that doesn't fit? How do we reconcile the enigmas? How do we explain feats of engineering that would otherwise be unexplainable?-We could assume that it is all intuition, guess work, and dumb luck, though I would argue that the degree of sophistication found throughout the ancient world should be an effective enough counter for that. -We could assume that all of the out of place artifacts where the invention of some opium induced mental state of a prodigal artist/inventor, but they are too wide spread around the globe, and too coherent for that to hold much merit.-We could assume that it was E.T. that taught them how to do it, but without any evidence of E.T. life forms, I don't buy it.-We could assume that they were in possession of some form of mental powers that allowed them to move extreme mass, and perform complex equations without the pre-requisite engineering, but having no evidence of such ability, that is a low possibility.-But what happens if we work off the assumption that this is not civilizations first time around the bend? Would that explain the Vimana's, the vitrified fortresses, the model airplanes found around the world, Stonehenge, the similarity between pyramids, the legends of advanced teachers coming to various civilizations, the myths of lost civilizations, etc etc.? -One could argue that there is no evidence because we have not found the cities or what have you. But I would ask how long does it take for concrete, steel, iron, copper, and other such materials to be absorbed back into nature? I am not saying this happened, but part of science is having the imagination to think up different scenarios, and then actively working to prove or disprove them.

I could just as easily ask what evidence do you have that it was built by the Egyptians or Babylonians since, -Reread what I wrote and tell me where I made that claim.->as as far as we know according to the current historical paradigm, they were counted as among the very few to have access to those math systems at the time Stonehenge was erected (between 2800-1600BC)and were quite some distance away from the area under discussion. I am not suggesting that they didn't know trig or geometry, I was sarcastically suggesting that our current historical paradigm is wrong.-I don't know another way to say that. If you study nascent cultures even today, they can explain in non-mathematical language many geometrical truths, and with some of these cultures you can't make the case that they learned it by having contact with other, "more advanced" civilizations. We reason spatially fairly well as a species, and we can discover mathematical truths empirically by trial and error. -You mistake having knowledge of geometry/trig with having a complex and rigorous system based around it. You can do alot with a little; but the greatest feats are reserved for those cultures who made it at least a semi-rigorous system. -And history (like any other science) is purely evidence-based. If you see Stonehenge, you have to assume that the builders had access to that knowledge. However, assumption isn't knowledge, and therefore remains a mystery. The epistemology of history is predicated on what we can know for sure with x degree of accuracy. You might not like how history works in that way, but unless you can find a better method of induction, that's how the machine operates efficiently. -You seem to suffer from the same malady as David, in that you wish the paradigms would change more rapidly. Unless you solve the problem of change management for humanity, this is, and always will be--an uphill battle. Except for a few of us, we seem preprogrammed for certainty--we don't give up our ideas easily.

So, they had no transits at the time Stonehenge and the related monuments were built, yet the monuments for a series of isosceles triangles that "point" to the next site. Many are 100 miles or more away, but GPS co-ordinates show all are accurate to within 100 metres. How do you make a straight line on the ground for over 100 miles without trig and celestial navigation (which supposedly were developed much later according to the modern historical paradigm)?-Well... I know you probably think me boring and predictable, but...-What evidence do you have that those builders didn't know trig? Greek philosophers with the aid of a simple tool called a gnomon (not the sundial version but a stick with a piece of string) used this tool--attributed to Egyptians and Babylonians. One of my favorite mathematicians, Eratosthenes accurately surmised that the world was spherical and calculated the circumference to within 10% accuracy. In Euclid's Elements, he was the first to solidify within the notion of epistemological foundationalism geometry--but many of the ideas he talked about are universal in nature--nearly every known civilization has engaged in the study of geometry. Here you engage in a little bit of your own shortchanging of the ancients. I would say that the structures themselves prove the point that they knew more trig than is credited to them. -History remembers the winners, or at least the first popular author to codify it.

Well, according to the vimanas the ancient Indians knew about 92 of the elements, studied sciences that we consider relatively young, like geology, and had aircraft. You still haven't done anything to explain the facts that don't fit with our modern historical record.
> 
> And they had the rudiments of modern reconstructive plastic surgery... though with wood and leather. THAT we have evidence of. 
> 
> Your point here? That in the absence of evidence we are safe to accept the claims of the vimanas? Safe to consider of course, but that--as with all things lacking evidence--remains in the "mystery" or "doubt" category. Show me a plan, or a wreckage of a machine we can reverse engineer and demonstrate and you'll see me more pliant.-
No the point is that they had no frame of reference to even begin to describe what they were describing according to our modern historical paradigm. It isn't enough to say they dreamed it all up, or imagined it. I will give a clear example of what I mean.-In the Greek myth of Icarus and Daedalous, Daedalous built a pair of fantastic wings for himself and his son. The wings were metal framed, leather harnessed, and covered with wax in which feathers were set. Now in this story, the Greeks had a very obvious frame of reference, birds. The wings were shaped like bird wings, used like bird wings, even contained feathers like bird wings. -
The Vimanas however are different. Where is the frame of reference to describe a missile with atomic fallout? Where is the frame of reference for electromagnetism? Where is the frame of reference for nuclear weapons complete with accurate descriptions of the side effects (radiation poisoning, the heat blast, shock wave, the blinding light)

So, they had no transits at the time Stonehenge and the related monuments were built, yet the monuments for a series of isosceles triangles that "point" to the next site. Many are 100 miles or more away, but GPS co-ordinates show all are accurate to within 100 metres. How do you make a straight line on the ground for over 100 miles without trig and celestial navigation (which supposedly were developed much later according to the modern historical paradigm)?-Visit Meggido in Israel. The tunnel to the spring was started from top and bottom of the hill. The tunnel meets exactly in the middle, as you can tell by the axe strokes. Not off by an inch. The tunnel the Israelis dug from both ends to bring irrigation water from Lake Kenneret to middle Israel was off by 1/4 mile!!!


> It is an established observation that the universe is expanding at a rate of 3x the speed of light, and accelerating. We live in an infinite universe. 
> 
> -Actually, the fact that it CAN expand is proof that it is finite, by definition.