Why, if god limited man's life to 120 years, did people live longer?

Welcome to EvC!A couple of points:Other than the bible, what is the evidence for mankind regularly living for over 120 years? How would you determine such an age in an archaeological skeleton? Are there other forensic methods that would provide such information of which I am not aware?Other than the bible, what is the evidence for a global flood? I've practiced archaeology for nearly 40 years, and I have researched many sites dated in the 4-5,000 year range. As the flood is purported to have occurred about 4,350 years ago (according to a large number of biblical scholars), why have I been unable to find evidence of such a massive event? And why have I instead found evidence of continuity of human cultures, fauna and flora, sedimentology, and mitochondrial DNA from before to after that approximate date?This thread is in the Science Forum. You are expected to back up your comments with scientific evidence. Thanks.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

the only thing i can think of is that Gods decrees didnt always take place immediatelyfor example, it was 100 years before the flood arrived after it being decreed. In Gen 5, we see the generations of Adam - Noah, and Noah was 500 years old.then in Gen 6 we get the decree that God would limit mans age, then he also decrees that the deluge would come. The deluge was said to come in the 600th year of Noahs life. Thats a gap of 100 years from the time of the decree to the time of the eventSo, it just shows that a decree does not have to take effect immediately. I think you will find that after the sons of Noah began to have children, those life spans were somewhere around the 120 year old mark ... Sarah for instance considered herself to be of 'old age' at the age of 127 as you mentionshe probably died not long after thatIts also noteworthy to think that, before the flood, humans probably didnt have the disease and illnesses and we have today...many of which are passed along genetically. This could have contributed to their longevity

If that is the case, how do you explain these details concerning the Neanderthal (from Wikipedia):

Or do you believe, as Woodmorappe and Lubenow do, that Homo erectus, H. ergaster & H. neanderthalensis are all products of "super evolution" which occurred after the flood, and most likely after the Babel event (in the last 4,000 years)?If this is the case, you need to explain how these creationists can claim that this type of macro-evolution, which they normally claim is impossible, suddenly occurred several hundred times faster than evolutionists claim, and in reverse!

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Thanks!Ok so we are moving on from the alleged contradiction in the bible (the topic of the thread) to whether or not people in the bible lived as long as it is written.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.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.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.Thanks, and I appreciate your comments.

i have no idea as i've never looked at it and dont know what their claim isbut weren't we talking about pre flood humans??? im not sure why your asking about neanderthals

I think we can keep this to the accuracy vs. inerrancy of the bible and stay on topic. 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. 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. 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.

What I mean is that you are cherry picking bible passages to support your position.

I still don't understand. Do you mean1) I am taking the verses out of contextor2) That I use verses that others quote when stating the same argument?

Religious beliefs and science are not contradictory in my opinion. Just because we can't confirm everything scientifically doesn't mean its not true. Things like the flood and living longer than humanly possible (as we know it) would fall under the category of miracles to me, which are in direct contradiction to science, BUT, if it did happen, any tangible signs left would not contradict science. But we already have one proven miracle in my opinion, creation. Certainly the requirements for life in the universe are realistically insurmountable. Source:
Page not found - Reasons to Believe
Even besides the fact of believing that life was created on accident through the impossible odds, scientists can't create life from DNA when trying to do it intentionally. My only point here is that creation is an example where science is somewhat handicapped in accounting for it. Of course miracles would have to exist for religious beliefs to be true, our realm of discussion here is around the scientific tangible signs left.Thanks for the information. I was wondering how you could tell the age of death of bones, and this gives some clarity to it. I was guessing that type of evidence (cranial suture closure, dental wear, some esoteric changes in ribs and the pubic symphysis)was probably the case. I think it would be most reasonable to assume that if humans did live hundreds of years, they wouldn't age like we do up until our 70's and 80's with grey hair, weaker bones, etc. then continue to live in that state for hundreds of years. The aging would probably be proportional to ours but at a slower rate of decomposition of cells. This is an assumption I know, but if this were the case, that aging was proportional to ours but at a slower rate, would you agree that bone examination would not reveal an accurate age of death?In terms of any scientific evidence for the flood, there is not a absence of geological information. Many creationist works are compiled here:
Answers | Answers in Genesis I know that there are people with blind faith out there, but belief in the bible does not require it. How do two people (one a creationist and one an atheist/agnostic) look at the same information and have these two separate beliefs? Aside from the bias of wanting to believe something is true, the hinging factor must be different things for us. You may say that there is not scientific evidence for certain things in the bible. My findings is that there are things in the bible that are not scientifically accounted for, but that nothing in science contradicts the bible. Where it may seem to contradict the bible is always a matter of interpretation, not an actual fact. Think for example, how the church tried to stop Galileo from rejecting an earth-centered universe; The bible does not contradict a sun centered solar system.William F Albright, an extremely respected Archaeologist proclaimed that "No archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference". Conversely, things that we can definitely test in the bible with science have actually helped confirm biblical accuracy as science has improved. Consider the work done by Oxford Archaeologist Dr. William Mitchell Ramsay, who was against the idea of biblical inerrancy before he studied the holy land for himself and found that in all examined cases the bible was true, even in instances where the writers unapologetically wrote something down that could be construed later as false.If one can't confirm everything in bible, yet can confirm a lot through science, and more importantly doesn't find contradicting evidence, belief is logical and does not contradict science.

It wasn't Albright who said this, it was Nelson Glueck.But Glueck didn't take the Bible at face value, he reinterpreted the text to fit the archaeological evidence. For example, 1 Kings 6:1 says that the Exodus was 480 years before the 4th year year of Solomon's reign, placing it around 1446 BCE, yet Glueck looked at the evidence and reinterpreted 1 Kings 6:1 so that it would allow him to place the Exodus in the mid 13th century, which looked a better option than the mid 15th century BCE in an archaeological context.BTW, strictly speaking, Albright wasn't an archaeologist, he described himself as an 'Orientalist'.As it stands though, the Exodus issue is dead, no one is concerned with the historicity of it anymore, such is the weight of evidence against it.

All available evidence - and that's a very great amount of it - flatly contradicts, for just one example, the order of creation in Genesis 1. Fruit trees most certainly did not precede jellyfish, sharks, or great blue herons. Seed-bearing plants weren't around before the stars and Moon. Birds didn't precede quadrupeds.And I know you're new here, RC, so I'll warn you now: Answers in Genesis usually gets at best snorts of disgust here. Most of their apologetics is what is called PRATTs - Points Refuted A Thousand Times.

---

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

Sorry for the misquote. Albright's quote was "There can be no doubt that archaeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of the Old Testament."I can't speak to Glueck's interpretation of the text, but as it stands every verse needs a correct interpretation, lest the face value interpretation be incorrect. For example, the New Testament genealogies are different between gospels and without the correct interpretation and context (that one lineage was bloodline and the other legal) one would incorrectly state a contradiction.Albright's bio from wikipedia "From the early twentieth century until his death, he was the dean of biblical archaeologists and the universally acknowledged founder of the Biblical archaeology movement." makes me care less about his self description.I would like to hear of the evidence against the exodus (assuming it's not an argument from silence) keeping in mind that the Egyptians would most definitely lack the incentive to record such a strike and embarrassment against them.

I will agree that science has no experience with 900 year old human bones. You are dealing with miracle and belief there, not scientific evidence. I have not found answersingenesis to be a very trustworthy site when it comes to scientific data. The amount of distortion, obfuscation omission and misrepresentation that I have found in their articles for fields that I know well bodes ill for the site as a whole.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Thanks for the warning!Could you provide me material so I can look at the developed argument of the Genesis 1 refutation? Could you provide other examples as well, or refer me to more of the same type of sources?In the interest of science I would want to make sure that there aren't PRATTs on the other side, and get us back my point of two people looking at the same evidence and believing different things (the two different beliefs being it contradicts or it doesn't).

1) Only tangentally.2) Not at all.I'm sorry I'm being very helpful, am I?I'll let wiki field this one. Cherry picking - WikipediaLine breaks added for clarity.It seems from the choice of the order of your bible quotes that you use that you are specifically selecting only quotes that support your position and mixing up the order to further support you assertion that the xian god really meant 120 years till the flood.The two passages appear unrelated (relative to your point) and yet appear specifically cherry picked for the reason of supporting your point.I could have misinterpreted your meaning (if I have I apologise) but I hope this explains my initial (perhaps a little too snarky) comment.