I think we can keep this to the accuracy vs. inerrancy of the bible and stay on topic.
The human fossil record is not my strong point, but it seems to be yours (you stated you practice Archaeology, I wanted to be one when I was younger), so you can help on this one. Is there a way to test how old someone was when they died from their fossil? Also, please indicate the depth of the fossil records that are available (I'm specifically interested in the quantity and quality of fossils from biblical time periods) Please answer those, but I'll assume that it is possible to tell the age of death from fossils for now.
It is possible to
estimate the age of death with both modern human bones and fossils. There are a number of traits you look for including cranial suture closure, dental wear, some esoteric changes in ribs and the pubic symphysis, etc. I looked at a skull for a local coroner late last week and from my knowledge of local Native American groups was able to age that skull to about 50 years.
Assuming that, I do not have knowledge of any human fossil that proves a man can live past the 120s range. But in light of the lack of clarity surrounding the actual historical dates for the Genesis account, and an incomplete record of fossils, and the fact that we are targeting a distinct set of generations in the bible (by the time we get to Moses life is in the 120 range) and a small set of specifically named people you could probably understand how an argument from silence wouldn't hold a great deal of sway with me.
At the age we would expect from Genesis (ca. 6,000 years or less) we would expect bones, not fossils. And at that age they should be fully modern human.
But the problem I have, and this led to my question above, is what traits would you use for ages of greater than 120 years? Science works with the assumption of methodological naturalism, and once miracles are involved pretty much anything can happen at any time for any reason. Of course there is currently no evidence for miracles resulting in either extant of ancient populations reaching greater than 120 years of age.
In regards to a global flood, I believe most of the earth is covered with sedimentary rock suggesting the earth was covered with water some time in the past. We are also dealing with 150 days here, not a massive amount of time in history, so the accuracy of your findings described would be extremely sensitive to the correct dating of flood and the archaeological sites.
The oldest sedimentary rocks, found in Greenland, are about 3.9 billion years old. The youngest are measured (I think) in more like tens of thousands of years. To claim that sedimentary rocks, spanning these vast time periods, are all the result of a single global flood ignores a huge amount of science.
The flood is dated by biblical scholars at about 4,350 years ago. That is a time period that archaeologists are very familiar with. The flood, if as described, would have been very noticeable and would have resulted in major discontinuities in human cultures, fauna and flora, DNA, sediments, etc. These have not been found.
What has been found, to give one example, is a series floods in eastern and southern Washington that resulted when ice dams at the end of the last glacial period blocked meltwaters in the area of western Montana, then periodically let that water loose as huge floods. We can see the results of these floods, and can both date them and determine their extent. And, they are close to three times as old as the global flood and vastly smaller. We certainly should be able to see a global flood if we can see other such floods both smaller and older from various parts of the globe. (Google "channeled scablands" for more details.)
What it seems to come down to is the >120 year life span and the global flood are both religious beliefs, and neither is confirmed by scientific evidence.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
™ Version 4.2