Archaeologica.org

The maximum lifespan of humans on the planet is 120 years:

that person was the exception and not the rule. if you study obituaries you will see that the age of death is usually inthe 70-80 year range. last i looked wikipedia does not over rule the Bible.

my evidence of course is the Bible since we have no pre-flood documentation to tell us other than that. {which is what faith is all about.}

I grew up in Seattle where the Puget Sound and nearby lakes were carved by glaciers a mile high.

i grew up in vancouver, i know all about this, glaciers were only a few hours from my home. but again, you cite an ice age, i cite God at work...both would leave the same evidence.

There is no more water today than there was back then since we live in a closed system

that i knew also which again leads me to ask where did the water come from to form the ice and glaciers and why was it able to only locate in select spots? water and ice can't think or manuever itself into the positions it wants to be in so how did they come to rest in the polar regions?

i am not saying that certainthings did not happen, i am saying that it may not be the way you think it was.

last i looked wikipedia does not over rule the Bible.

Better scholarship in Wiki!

The maximum lifespan of humans on the planet is 120 years:

that person was the exception and not the rule. if you study obituaries you will see that the age of death is usually inthe 70-80 year range. last i looked wikipedia does not over rule the Bible.

my evidence of course is the Bible since we have no pre-flood documentation to tell us other than that. {which is what faith is all about.}

Arch, thank you for your views on archaeology. Methuselah is quite an exception, isn't he? Apparently his counterparts also had incredibly long life spans:

http://www.omnipelagos.com/entry?n=generations_of_Adam

How do we explain that? The only explanation you can come up with is "The Bible is infallible". Alternatively, my view is based on a testable scientific approach. There are over 6.6 billion people on the planet and I cannot find one over the age of 120 years (if you can, please let me know). Human genetics are the same today as in the days of Methuselah based on analyses of datable skeletal remains, so I respectfully disagree with your faith-based belief in the infallibility of the Bible, and I believe the men who wrote it made a few errors since they were fallible.

The study of archaeology is a science and I don't believe you will serve the interest of many in this forum by filtering all of your comments through a sieve of infallible belief in the Bible that cannot be substantiated by anything other than your own faith. By doing so, you are continuously asking me to prove things that have been orthodox scientific belief for quite some time. I would prefer to leave religion out of discussions that deal with new scientfic discoveries. This is science here, not faith, and the potential for getting into creationist arguments was not what attracted me to this forum.

The study of archaeology is a science and I don't believe you will serve the interest of many in this forum by filtering all of your comments through a sieve of infallible belief in the Bible that cannot be substantiated by anything other than your own faith. By doing so, you are continuously asking me to prove things that have been orthodox scientific belief for quite some time. I would prefer to leave religion out of discussions that deal with new scientfic discoveries. This is science here, not faith, and the potential for getting into creationist arguments was not what attracted me to this forum.

i have heard all this before and now that you have shown your true colors i can deal with you in other ways.

the problem with science and those who adhere to the secular formof that field, is that they feel that be removing data they will come up with the answer. doesn't work that way. in your computaion, you base your conclusion upon an assumption. that act leads you and your reasoning astray.

I would prefer to leave religion out of discussions that deal with new scientfic discoveries. This is science here, not faith, and the potential for getting into creationist arguments

you are the one who raised the question and topic of methuselah, i was questioning the flandarin whatever. the above is another error in secular thinking. you think you can come to the Bible and biblically related areas of science and seek to remove religion. you are way off base

who do you thnk you are that gives you or other secular scientists the right to censor what is talked about and what beliefs are allowed in science or a scientific discussion. you don't own the field nor do you have the authority to limit what is discussed in a topic.

i haven't once done a creationist argument since i returned and if you do not like alternative viewpoints then i would suggest that you are close-minded and a bigot.

you are just like everyone else--you only will play if everything goes your way --- andf that is the attitude of a spoiled child not a scientist. that attitude undermines anything you have said to this point and will say until you change.

arch....chill out a bit. You are preaching.

Amen.





Uh...I mean.....


Right On!

arch....chill out a bit. You are preaching

sorry. wasn't trying to do that. i thought i was asking some questions for some information and itmay have gotten away from me.

i thought i raised a valid point concerning the water action needed to make the formations and i expressed that i didn't think that the melting ice would create such a force. i would like to get a response to that if i could. i am curious about it.

why do that when you could have answered the point i raised?

again what about the force of melting ice? how would it affect the currents and the actions of the ocean? would it be strong enough to do what it is credited with doing?

again what about the force of melting ice?

To be honest, you lost me with the concept of the "force" of melting ice.

Surely you have seen ice melt before. It is a remarkably quiet process.

To be honest, you lost me with the concept of the "force" of melting ice.

Surely you have seen ice melt before. It is a remarkably quiet process

that is my point. i originally responded to the quote that talked about rain and humidity; theni get some response about ice which really didn't sound right so i questioned that, then i get these methuselah questions which was followed by a 'sermon' abut how i don't belong and so on...

i was asking cognito about the ice and how its melting would make such a difference in select areas and again i was ignored as he wanted some off topic questioned answered.

i then post more questions, all of which ahve basically gone unanswered eventhough i am just looking for information of this particular phenomenon.

the websites i went to had very little so i was hoping to get some fromthose who were in the know.

so now hopefully someone will address the questions i asked.

Oh brother.
Arch, I don't think these guys are attacking you, simply they are defending their adopted methodology, just as you are yours - hence the Methuselah question which may not relate to the topic itself but certainly relates to your methodology. Hence the digression of this thread as it becomes a discussion about discussion rather than about the subject itself.
Whilst not wishing to contribute to any further digression, I'd suggest this argument is just going to keep going round in circles. Min and Cog (sorry, it is you two isn't it?) are likey to stick to their proverbial guns (which as you might guess reflects where my own sympathies lie) and I'm sure you are likely to stick to yours.

So this might not help, but I'd like to ask a question, and please keep in mind that this is not an attack upon either you or your beliefs.
You would regard the word of your God as infallible - yes?
Said word was recorded in the Christian bible. Regardless of whether or not I subscribe to said word, I understand it was set down by human hand, and irrespective of the validity of God's word, humanity itself is not infallible. Does that sound like a reasonable suggestion?

I've a horrible feeling I may not have helped matters.

Regardless of whether or not I subscribe to said word, I understand it was set down by human hand, and irrespective of the validity of God's word, humanity itself is not infallible.

Good luck with that question, W/A. I will place my $20 on a rigid answer that belies a lack of tolerance. I doubt Archie realizes that his comment about being a close-minded bigot is a projection and I fully expect him to answer in kind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Feuerbach

I studied physics at the University of Washington under Hans Bethe, Max Planck medalist, who would assure anyone that ice is water in a solid form and that the earth is a closed loop system (you'll need to take my word on that one since he recently assumed room temperature).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Bethe

Questions such as "Where did the water come from?" make no sense to me. Although I have answered the question with "It was there all along, but in a different form." Archie keeps coming back, asking me to answer the same question over and over again.

Back on topic, I believe the article originally posted here by Marduk is quite interesting and worthy of further discussion in a rational manner. By the way, where is Marduk? Banned again as a result of arguing with Archie over religious beliefs?

I'll take one crack at this.

Water exists in three forms: Ice....liquid water and water vapor. The total amount of water changes little over time but at any point climate determines how much of it is locked up in ice.

Thus, when we are deep in the midst of an ice age a much greater percentage of water is in the form of ice. As a direct result of that, the level of the ocean recedes exposing the continental shelves to the air and triggering a lot of the discussions we have had about underwater archaeology.

When the ice caps melt the water runs into the oceans thus increasing the water levels. However, even if the ice caps melted completely, there is not enough water to cover the earth up to the mountain tops.

The ice caps can (and do) expand and contract without going into a full blown ice age with a resulting raising/lowering of sea level.