Is There Scientific Evidence Supporting the Floor of Noah?

[Fort Fun Indiana]

is an engineering feat modern humans have trouble recreating.

* without years and years of time and lots of slave labor

We could easily recrete them, given these things.

 

[Moonglow]

is an engineering feat modern humans have trouble recreating.

* without years and years of time and lots of slave labor

We could easily recrete them, given these things.

Not without free beer...

 

[james bond]

I don’t spend too much time contemplating the age or origin of the the earth and universe. However I do recognize overwhelming evidence (radiometric dating) that the age of the earth is measured in billions of years by very smart people who study it. In the last 100 years or so man’s knowledge has taken huge leaps. These knowledge leaps have ushered in the computer age and dispelled many old beliefs. But many people just like to believe dumb things, and there is really no harm in you thinking the earth is 6000 years old. Just like there is no harm in believing in Big Foot.

I believe there is a god, and I can believe there is a god while also believing the earth is billions of years old.

Most people don't think about it. I believed Earth and the universe was billions of years old because it was taught to me. It was taught along with how radiometric dating and how uranium decay or radioactive decay works. The latter is testable and we observe a constant decay. What started my questioning it was if it was a fact that the Earth was 4.5 billion years old, then why does the news articles about it always have to mention it. It's a fact. Today, they have bumped it up a skosh to 4.6 billion years old. They will bump it up again in a few years when the James Webb telescope comes online.

That's when I started questioning it because this decay works similar to an hourglass. An hourglass has a constant rate of sand falling down from the top to the bottom. If we know where the sand was when it was flipped over started, then we could figure out how long time had elapsed since it was turned over. The problem with radiometric dating is that no one knows how much sand there was when the hourglass was turned over. Whatever the assumption was made for the presence of uranium and lead, i.e. the parent-daughter isotopes of uranium, then it would affect the results of the age. Thus, assumptions were made over uranium decay so that it would fit a much longer time. If you are wrong with your assumption, then the results become garbage in, garbage out.

As to your last comment about believing in dumb things, it does make a difference of what you believe. For example, if you believe that the Earth is 4.5 or 4.6 B years old, then you may believe wrong things like rock layers bend over long-time with enough heat, pressure, and long-time. No experiment can show that. The experiments do show that rock breaks with enough heat and pressure over short-time. Conclusion: Rocks do not bend?

I was reading about Bigfoot and the FBI this morning. I suppose if you believed in BF, then it's more evidence for your belief. The same if you didn't believe in it. We still do not have a definitive conclusion from the evidence. All we have is the film of it and what type of hairs were found. I suppose it detracts from those who thought it was an ape-type creature, but who knows what that camp will now say.

 

[Moonglow]

I don’t spend too much time contemplating the age or origin of the the earth and universe. However I do recognize overwhelming evidence (radiometric dating) that the age of the earth is measured in billions of years by very smart people who study it. In the last 100 years or so man’s knowledge has taken huge leaps. These knowledge leaps have ushered in the computer age and dispelled many old beliefs. But many people just like to believe dumb things, and there is really no harm in you thinking the earth is 6000 years old. Just like there is no harm in believing in Big Foot.

I believe there is a god, and I can believe there is a god while also believing the earth is billions of years old.

Most people don't think about it. I believed Earth and the universe was billions of years old because it was taught to me. It was taught along with how radiometric dating and how uranium decay or radioactive decay works. The latter is testable and we observe a constant decay. What started my questioning it was if it was a fact that the Earth was 4.5 billion years old, then why does the news articles about it always have to mention it. It's a fact. Today, they have bumped it up a skosh to 4.6 billion years old. They will bump it up again in a few years when the James Webb telescope comes online.

That's when I started questioning it because this decay works similar to an hourglass. An hourglass has a constant rate of sand falling down from the top to the bottom. If we know where the sand was when it was flipped over started, then we could figure out how long time had elapsed since it was turned over. The problem with radiometric dating is that no one knows how much sand there was when the hourglass was turned over. Whatever the assumption was made for the presence of uranium and lead, i.e. the parent-daughter isotopes of uranium, then it would affect the results of the age. Thus, assumptions were made over uranium decay so that it would fit a much longer time. If you are wrong with your assumption, then the results become garbage in, garbage out.

As to your last comment about believing in dumb things, it does make a difference of what you believe. For example, if you believe that the Earth is 4.5 or 4.6 B years old, then you may believe wrong things like rock layers bend over long-time with enough heat, pressure, and long-time. No experiment can show that. The experiment do show that rock breaks with enough heat and pressure over short-time.

I was reading about Bigfoot and the FBI this morning. I suppose if you believed in BF, then it's more evidence for your belief. The same if you didn't believe in it. We still do not have a definitive conclusion from the evidence. All we have is the film of it and what type of hairs were found. I suppose it detracts from those who thought it was an ape-type creature, but who knows what that camp will say.

There is more in the world that we do not know than what we know...There may be a God but not how the humans try to describe in any of their books.

 

[rightwinger]

This is fascinating. Gobekli Tepe, an archeological site being excavated in Turkey, is many thousands of years older than the first "known" civilizations, 10,000-8,000 BCE, when Mesopotamian Sumer, the "first," was dated to about 4,000 - 3,500 bce.

The tell includes two phases of use, believed to be of a social or ritual nature by site discoverer and excavator Klaus Schmidt, dating back to the 10th–8th millennium BCE.[4] During the first phase, belonging to the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA), circles of massive T-shaped stone pillars were erected – the world's oldest known megaliths.[5]
View attachment 264090


So there were advanced civilizations occurring five to seven millenia before what has been thought. Some anthropologists surmise these people came from coastal areas that had been displaced by great floods because some of the animals and plants depicted on the pillars are not native to that region.

One thing that is so fascinating to me is that the giant pillars are shaped and arranged so similarly to the megaliths at Stonehenge.

I'm including one link--it is an amazing discovery. Lots of places you can look.
Göbekli Tepe - Wikipedia

The Easter Island sculptures, the pyramids of the Mayans, Aztec, Inca and Olmec, and the pyramids of Egypt along with the great walled palaces they built with massive stones with precision cutting and placement is an engineering feat modern humans have trouble recreating.

Therefore, aliens must have done it

They did.

I don’t believe man could have built the internet. It is much too complex for anyone to construct.

Must have been aliens

 

[progressive hunter]

today it is,,,

Interesting
So you are saying that Mt Everest and other mountains rose from the earth AFTER humans had populated the earth?

is that what you read???

maybe the problem is you,,,


they do find clam fossils on everest, so at one time it wasnt a mountain,,,

Read about plate tectonics and the formation of mountains
There are no human fossils on Everest

your point???

As my original point

The flooding had to be over 20,000 feet to cover the mountains and kill all life

but who said the mountains were that tall then???

 

[idb]

If The faithful truly had Faith they wouldn't feel the need to try to argue their case with evidence.
That's the definition of Faith...you just know it's true...case closed.
Trying to argue science shows an absence of Faith.

That's a good point but, imo, having faith doesn't preclude asking questions.

Also, science resonates with more people today than faith. If science might reinforce faith, it's not a bad thing to bring it up.

Science demands proof.
Faith only requires...well..faith.
They can't debate on the same basis.
Faith can always retreat to "Well, whatever, that's what I believe".
Science doesn't have that luxury.
Faith has certainty.
Science never has certainty and in fact is always searching for proof that its Laws/Theories/Hypotheses are wrong.

Try telling that to Einstein who made fun of the priest for his Big Bang theory.

LOL.

Tell that to the woman who came up with the theory that stars were mostly hydrogen and was laughed at, so much so, she later recanted even though she was right. Problem is, in the scientific world at that time, it was believed that women were not as smart, much like the upstart priest that was laughed at for his theory that was also later proven correct.

Belief causes you to snub your nose at the truth, but it is necessary because belief helps us make sense of a world in which we have no way of proving everything.

But now these things are accepted, right?
Science allows for 'belief' to change as evidence becomes available.
Faith is immutable.

 

[Indeependent]

If The faithful truly had Faith they wouldn't feel the need to try to argue their case with evidence.
That's the definition of Faith...you just know it's true...case closed.
Trying to argue science shows an absence of Faith.

That's a good point but, imo, having faith doesn't preclude asking questions.

Also, science resonates with more people today than faith. If science might reinforce faith, it's not a bad thing to bring it up.

Science demands proof.
Faith only requires...well..faith.
They can't debate on the same basis.
Faith can always retreat to "Well, whatever, that's what I believe".
Science doesn't have that luxury.
Faith has certainty.
Science never has certainty and in fact is always searching for proof that its Laws/Theories/Hypotheses are wrong.

Try telling that to Einstein who made fun of the priest for his Big Bang theory.

LOL.

Tell that to the woman who came up with the theory that stars were mostly hydrogen and was laughed at, so much so, she later recanted even though she was right. Problem is, in the scientific world at that time, it was believed that women were not as smart, much like the upstart priest that was laughed at for his theory that was also later proven correct.

Belief causes you to snub your nose at the truth, but it is necessary because belief helps us make sense of a world in which we have no way of proving everything.

But now these things are accepted, right?
Science allows for 'belief' to change as evidence becomes available.
Faith is immutable.

Like your faith that your coffee won’t kill you?
Like your faith that you won’t get killed in a car accident?

 

[idb]

If The faithful truly had Faith they wouldn't feel the need to try to argue their case with evidence.
That's the definition of Faith...you just know it's true...case closed.
Trying to argue science shows an absence of Faith.

That's a good point but, imo, having faith doesn't preclude asking questions.

Also, science resonates with more people today than faith. If science might reinforce faith, it's not a bad thing to bring it up.

Science demands proof.
Faith only requires...well..faith.
They can't debate on the same basis.
Faith can always retreat to "Well, whatever, that's what I believe".
Science doesn't have that luxury.
Faith has certainty.
Science never has certainty and in fact is always searching for proof that its Laws/Theories/Hypotheses are wrong.

Try telling that to Einstein who made fun of the priest for his Big Bang theory.

LOL.

Tell that to the woman who came up with the theory that stars were mostly hydrogen and was laughed at, so much so, she later recanted even though she was right. Problem is, in the scientific world at that time, it was believed that women were not as smart, much like the upstart priest that was laughed at for his theory that was also later proven correct.

Belief causes you to snub your nose at the truth, but it is necessary because belief helps us make sense of a world in which we have no way of proving everything.

But now these things are accepted, right?
Science allows for 'belief' to change as evidence becomes available.
Faith is immutable.

Like your faith that your coffee won’t kill you?
Like your faith that you won’t get killed in a car accident?

I'm talking about Faith...not faith.

 

[Indeependent]

That's a good point but, imo, having faith doesn't preclude asking questions.

Also, science resonates with more people today than faith. If science might reinforce faith, it's not a bad thing to bring it up.

Science demands proof.
Faith only requires...well..faith.
They can't debate on the same basis.
Faith can always retreat to "Well, whatever, that's what I believe".
Science doesn't have that luxury.
Faith has certainty.
Science never has certainty and in fact is always searching for proof that its Laws/Theories/Hypotheses are wrong.

Try telling that to Einstein who made fun of the priest for his Big Bang theory.

LOL.

Tell that to the woman who came up with the theory that stars were mostly hydrogen and was laughed at, so much so, she later recanted even though she was right. Problem is, in the scientific world at that time, it was believed that women were not as smart, much like the upstart priest that was laughed at for his theory that was also later proven correct.

Belief causes you to snub your nose at the truth, but it is necessary because belief helps us make sense of a world in which we have no way of proving everything.

But now these things are accepted, right?
Science allows for 'belief' to change as evidence becomes available.
Faith is immutable.

Like your faith that your coffee won’t kill you?
Like your faith that you won’t get killed in a car accident?

I'm talking about Faith...not faith.

As an example, Christianity preaches blind Faith while Judaism commands Faith through study.
That’s why so many Jews become scientists.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Like your faith that your coffee won’t kill you?

Sorry, that's not faith. That's a bet based on evidence. What you are attempting is simply not valid. In fact, you are highlighting the difference between faith and evidence-based determinations.

 

[idb]

Science demands proof.
Faith only requires...well..faith.
They can't debate on the same basis.
Faith can always retreat to "Well, whatever, that's what I believe".
Science doesn't have that luxury.
Faith has certainty.
Science never has certainty and in fact is always searching for proof that its Laws/Theories/Hypotheses are wrong.

Try telling that to Einstein who made fun of the priest for his Big Bang theory.

LOL.

Tell that to the woman who came up with the theory that stars were mostly hydrogen and was laughed at, so much so, she later recanted even though she was right. Problem is, in the scientific world at that time, it was believed that women were not as smart, much like the upstart priest that was laughed at for his theory that was also later proven correct.

Belief causes you to snub your nose at the truth, but it is necessary because belief helps us make sense of a world in which we have no way of proving everything.

But now these things are accepted, right?
Science allows for 'belief' to change as evidence becomes available.
Faith is immutable.

Like your faith that your coffee won’t kill you?
Like your faith that you won’t get killed in a car accident?

I'm talking about Faith...not faith.

As an example, Christianity preaches blind Faith while Judaism commands Faith through study.
That’s why so many Jews become scientists.

As did the Muslims in the good old days.

 

[idb]

Science demands proof.

No it doesn't. It shows you know diddly about it.

Yes it does. It shows you know diddly about it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That’s why so many Jews become scientists.

More because most jews are secular.

 

[idb]

That’s why so many Jews become scientists.

More because most jews are secular.

I hear the claim all the time that stacks of scientists are religious.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That’s why so many Jews become scientists.

More because most jews are secular.

I hear the claim all the time that stacks of scientists are religious.

Well, a quick check of the data shows that isn't true.

 

[idb]

That’s why so many Jews become scientists.

More because most jews are secular.

I hear the claim all the time that stacks of scientists are religious.

Well, a quick check of the data shows that isn't true.

Oh no...now I don't know what to believe!!!

 

[rightwinger]

Interesting
So you are saying that Mt Everest and other mountains rose from the earth AFTER humans had populated the earth?

is that what you read???

maybe the problem is you,,,


they do find clam fossils on everest, so at one time it wasnt a mountain,,,

Read about plate tectonics and the formation of mountains
There are no human fossils on Everest

your point???

As my original point

The flooding had to be over 20,000 feet to cover the mountains and kill all life

but who said the mountains were that tall then???

All of them?

How tall do you think they were?
You think Everest grew 20,000 feet in 6000 years?

 

[james bond]

There is more in the world that we do not know than what we know...There may be a God but not how the humans try to describe in any of their books.

What we know is that God created us in his own image. That means no aliens. He didn't create any aliens in his image, or else he woulda told us.

 

[rightwinger]

Science demands proof.
Faith only requires...well..faith.
They can't debate on the same basis.
Faith can always retreat to "Well, whatever, that's what I believe".
Science doesn't have that luxury.
Faith has certainty.
Science never has certainty and in fact is always searching for proof that its Laws/Theories/Hypotheses are wrong.

Try telling that to Einstein who made fun of the priest for his Big Bang theory.

LOL.

Tell that to the woman who came up with the theory that stars were mostly hydrogen and was laughed at, so much so, she later recanted even though she was right. Problem is, in the scientific world at that time, it was believed that women were not as smart, much like the upstart priest that was laughed at for his theory that was also later proven correct.

Belief causes you to snub your nose at the truth, but it is necessary because belief helps us make sense of a world in which we have no way of proving everything.

But now these things are accepted, right?
Science allows for 'belief' to change as evidence becomes available.
Faith is immutable.

Like your faith that your coffee won’t kill you?
Like your faith that you won’t get killed in a car accident?

I'm talking about Faith...not faith.

As an example, Christianity preaches blind Faith while Judaism commands Faith through study.
That’s why so many Jews become scientists.

I thought that is why so many Jews become comedians