Missed our chance once, we'll get it right this time.

Was it drought, OR A FLOOD!!

(dramatic music) duh duh duh duh duuuuuhhh (/music)

Humans nearly wiped out 70,000 years ago

Let's say it did happen and the human race was wiped out 70,000 years ago.

It sure makes it interesting to ponder who (or what) would inhabit the Earth today in our place. Would we start again from the beginning and the human race evolve as it did before? Would only insects and animals and fish and fowl be here on Earth today? Would today's human species even exist in any form at all? Or? Or? Or?

If it was a flood, that would have had to occur LESS THAN 6000 years ago - Duh!

Hopefully our replacement species wouldn't have been so conecerned about skin color or language.

Whew. Dodged that bullet. Do you think it was because they quit driving cars? What was their carbon footprint? Must've been enormous. Like, Larry Mohr enormous.

70,000 years ago

lies
the earth is only 6000 years old

It sure makes it interesting to ponder who (or what) would inhabit the Earth today in our place.

A localized drought would have very little effect on the ecology of the planet as a whole -- especially in as little as 70k years.

Hopefully our replacement species wouldn't have been so conecerned about skin color or language.

Posted by Jomama at 2008-04-24 02:23 PM

If Jomama (aka DumbasRocks) is left out of the new species there should be no problem.
You are the only one on here not just concerned, but obsessed -- and I mean obsessed -- with race and skin color. No matter what the topic is you always find a way to bring racism into the topic.
Get a life -- or a psychiatrist -- or both.

Is that because there were only two of us then?

What's a matter, Chris, the fact that I don't blow you kisses on a regular basis piss you off? Wah! Wah! I want everyone to like me but I can't help it if I hate brown people! Wah!

Where'd you live before you came to California?

God hadn't even created people 7,000 years ago let alone 70,000 years ago. This story is just more scientific lies! Somebody water board those Stanford researchers.

~ The evangelical wing nuts

"Let's say it did happen and the human race was wiped out 70,000 years ago."

Well Chris on the positive side for you there wouldn't be any Mexicans around.

Discovery (Or History Channel) had a 2-hour show on recently about what the world would be like after man. I think it may have even been called 'After Man'. It uses the hypothetical that man no longer exists as of right now. No reason why, just that he doesn't exist and goes out to something like 1000 years. Pure speculation, but it was well done, informative and entertaining.

Well Chris on the positive side for you there wouldn't be any Mexicans around.

Hoda lay!

That's right. History has proven that poor white folks are nowhere near as violent as illegal immigrants.

Paleontologist Meave Leakey, a Genographic adviser, asked, "Who would have thought that as recently as 70,000 years ago, extremes of climate had reduced our population to such small numbers that we were on the very edge of extinction?"

We've got to do "something."

Just another bunch of liberal scientists and their lies. 70,000 years, Ha!

If at first you don't succeed try try again..

Yep, ecological weather changes have been occurring in nature for as long as the earth is old, some 4 to 12 billion years.

The difference is are we causing some of the changes now? Any prudent reasonable individual with the smallest of wee minds would know we are a contributing factor.

Now, it begs the question, should we try to correct some of our contributions or should we just continue to say that it is just nature?

This isn't new information, it's just another study confirming it. We knew previously that the human race had a serious brush with extinction. Another factor may have been that as populations grow, they expand over territory. If you have environmental factors causing high mortality rates, or even a nasty illness, such as a virus, you'll have bands of people who become isolated. So you may have very small population tribal groups that die off (if there are no other groups they can merge with). And as a die off happens and people (probably) start migrating back to find larger groups to join, you have exposure to illnesses that may be new to other groups. You may have the pressures competition creates, causing further die off due to fighting.

What's most interesting though is while that's a really small genetic pool, how diverse we've become again in a relatively short span of time in adaptation to our environments.

Or sure you can go with 'and then there was a terrible flood and a ginormous boat', but the truth is far more interesting, and amazing.

Posted by Zatoichi at 2008-04-24 06:19 PM

"Noaa figures show CO2 concentrations rising by 2.4 parts per million (ppm) from 2006 to 2007. By comparison, the average annual increase between 1979 and 2007 was 1.65ppm.

Concentrations now stand at 384 ppm, compared to about 280 ppm before the era of human industrialisation began. "

"some of us"

It's distillation.

This just in ...

The Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) transports shallow, warm water to the north and deeper, cold water to the south. The strength of this circulation, and in particular the amount of heat it transports northward, is thought to have a major influence on climate. Presently, much of the northward surface flow of the AMOC originates as nutrient-rich water from intermediate depths in the South Atlantic, and it has been suggested that those southern waters penetrated less into the north during past cold intervals when the AMOC was weaker. Came et al. present a record of the nutrient content of the northward flow of the AMOC over the past 23,000 years, preserved by benthic foraminifera in a sediment core recovered from near Florida, in order to determine how the contribution of southern water varied since the beginning of the last deglaciation. Their data allow them to document in more detail the changes in ocean circulation during the transition from glacial to interglacial conditions, and to illustrate how North Atlantic deep water formation, Antarctic intermediate water production, and North Atlantic climate were linked over that time period. -- HJS

Paleoceanography 23, PA1217 (2008)

The Atlantic meridional overturning circulation.....

As clear as mud.

"As clear as mud."

Posted by Ray


For you, no doubt.

Now, it begs the question, should we try to correct some of our contributions or should we just continue to say that it is just nature?

Posted by moneywar at 2008-04-24 06:35

They did. Biofuel from corn. Lock up all land from oil extraction. Discourage refinery construction. Mandated fuel mileage efficiency, but not for trucks and SUVs. Expand the fleet of tanks, Hummers, jets and carriers for the ME crusade. I don't think this country can take any more good intentions.

Mother Nature made man believe he can defeat Nature, but Nature hasn't lost yet. Not once in all humanity.

Let's sacrifice our economic well-being to demigod Gore by establishing a carbon credit trading system.

We've got to do "something."

Posted by Johnson at 2008-04-24 05:56 PM | Reply


Gore isn't the one saying this is what's going on. Saying it is Gore is like blaming Paul Revere for the Red Coats coming. Its like blaming a TV news program for the news.

dummY

For you, no doubt.

Posted by Zatoichi at 2008-04-24 07:32

Since you are so smart. What does it say? What is the significance?

Knowing you it says, we're all going to die if government doesn't do something. See my 7:37 post.

Half an hour passed and still waiting for Zat to demonstrate his advertised brilliance.

"we're all going to die"

The sooner the better in your case.

I wonder if some of us humans might just adapt to living with all of these "impurities" and climate change.

We could, we'd just have to leave coastal areas, the southwest and give up much of our farming areas.And we're all tired of the dutch anyways.

No biggie, we can all live on two loaves and three fishes forever.

Yep, ecological weather changes have been occurring in nature for as long as the earth is old, some 4 to 12 billion years.

~ 4.5g. The universe isn't much older than 12g

"The universe isn't much older than 12g"

Posted by goatman

13.7 +/- 0.1

Show me, don't tell me. That determines good writing.

Why don't they show some more pictures. Show us the artifacts that determine this evidence. I need more than just your opinion on this.

Everyone is taking this as fact and yet we don't know what you are looking at to make this determination.

Any prudent reasonable individual with the smallest of wee minds would know we are a contributing factor.

If the earth was 24 hours old, we have about 8 seconds worth of data. Any prudent scientist would not pretend to be able to build a systemic model on so little data.

IT boy reminds us why he's not doing theoretical physics.

1861 John Tyndall, "On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours..." Philosophical Magazine ser. 4, 22: 169-94, 273-85.

1863 John Tyndall, "On Radiation through the Earth's Atmosphere." Philosophical Magazine ser. 4, 25: 200-206.

1863 John Tyndall, "On the Relation of Radiant Heat to Aqueous Vapor." Philosophical Magazine ser. 4, 26: 30-54.

Do try and keep up.

If the earth was 24 hours old, we have about 8 seconds worth of data. Any prudent scientist would not pretend to be able to build a systemic model on so little data.

So all out nuclear war would be transiently and infinitesimally small in the global scheme of things.

That makes me feel much better.

Did you know they dated astroids to determine the age of the sun.

The problem I have with that is those astriods were never part of the sun.

So my determination is the astroids are 4.5 billion years old.
Now can anyone tell me how old the sun is?

OK. 150 years of data. That's what -- .0034 milliseconds in a 24 hour model?

Climatologists can't even agree on what makes El Nino occur and it is right in our own backyards every 2-4 years. Yet they think they can build a global climatological model with the very limited data they have?

You can buy it -- I don't.

So all out nuclear war would be transiently and infinitesimally small in the global scheme of things.

Feel free to disagree, but I think a global nuclear war would have a bit larger impact than an increase of .0.75 PPM of greenhouse gas. (using Zat's data upthread)

Lets say, "how do you know? did they write you a letter?"

When are scientists ever going to distinguish between theory and fact?

So my determination is the astroids are 4.5 billion years old.
Now can anyone tell me how old the sun is?

App same as the earth ~ 4.5 gyears

.0.75 PPM =

0.75 PPM

Interesting theory. Got to e-mail this to my anthropology and biology dept. friends

You can buy it -- I don't.

BTW, as I've said before: I don't deny nor confirm global warming -- anthropogenic or otherwise. I treat those who deny it with as much skepticism as those who scream it in the media.

Neither side has near enough data to work with to make a sane determination on the subject. When they figure out El Nino, I'll have a little (not much) more faith in these guys.

"global nuclear war"

suicide

Humans Nearly Wiped Out 70,000 Years Ago...

Musta been the campfires.

Their data allow them to document in more detail the changes in ocean circulation during the transition from glacial to interglacial conditions, and to illustrate how North Atlantic deep water formation, Antarctic intermediate water production, and North Atlantic climate were linked over that time period. -- HJS

Posted by Zatoichi

And... the assumption is.............. all the land masses are now where they were 23,000 years ago and the ocean currents and levels are the same.

Isn't that a little stretch?

All this sicentific data you pull up is a bunch of theories. Good climate data for the earth is only about 50 or 30 years old. Just reciently we have started taking the temprature of the oceans.

All the fancy computer models are only as good as the data that is put into them. The weatherman can't even tell you what is going to happen next week. Our best one year forcast is the farmers almunac. Go figure. Hell, the experts can't even tell where a hurricane is going to come ashore 2 days in advance. Warnings for tornados are measured in minutes, not even hours, much less days.

You sit there and pound on your computer keys warning me that the sky is falling and you don't even know what the damn sky looks like.

"global nuclear war"

suicide


If the earth was 24 hours old, Hiroshima would have been .00000000000000000000000000001 seconds worth of it. So maybe it would be good. You can't predict anything after one small event, Zat.

"All this sicentific(sic) data you pull up is a bunch of theories."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

"y northguy3 a"

More pathetically stupid than Ray flag.

let me guess, Zat. You can't pass an airmens medical any more so you don't give a shit if anyone else ever gets to fly.

How close am I?

You fraud!

Zat doesn't even understand the jargon he posts at 7:16. Then has the balls to criticize me for challenging it.

Annoying! Fraud! Stupid! I'm sure he works in a laboratory, like he says - as a janitor.

Blaming Gore is like blaming Paul Revere for the red coats coming

b-boob


Boob,

for that analogy to be accurate, Climate change would have to be 100% known to be man made...as it was 100% percent that the red coats were coming.


I'd say a better analogy would be the boy who cried wolf

A San Francisco-based scientist says that current solar activity strongly indicates that the earth is on the verge of a new ice age.



"Sorry to ruin the fun, but an ice age cometh," warns Phil Chapman writing in The Australian. Chapman is a geophysicist and astronautical engineer who was the first Australian to become a NASA astronaut.


"The scariest photo I have seen . . . is at www.spaceweather.com, where you will find a real-time image of the sun from the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory [SOHO], located in deep space at the equilibrium point between solar and terrestrial gravity," Chapman wrote, adding ominously that "what is scary about the picture is that there is only one tiny sunspot."


"This is where SOHO comes in," he explained. "The sunspot number follows a cycle of somewhat variable length, averaging 11 years. The most recent minimum was in March last year. The new cycle, No. 24, was supposed to start soon after that, with a gradual build-up in sunspot numbers."


That, he writes did not happen. "The first sunspot appeared in January this year and lasted only two days. A tiny spot appeared last Monday but vanished within 24 hours. Another little spot appeared this Monday. Pray that there will be many more, and soon."


Why? According to Chapman "there is a close correlation between variations in the sunspot cycle and earth's climate. The previous time a cycle was delayed like this was in the Dalton Minimum, an especially cold period that lasted several decades from 1790. Northern winters became ferocious: in particular, the rout of Napoleon's Grand Army during the retreat from Moscow in 1812 was at least partly due to the lack of sunspots."

Although the rapid temperature decline in 2007 coincided with the failure of cycle No. 24 to begin on schedule is not proof of a causal connection, Chapman warns that it is cause for concern.


"Disconcerting as it may be to true believers in global warming," he explains, "the average temperature on earth has remained steady or slowly declined during the past decade, despite the continued increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, and now the global temperature is falling precipitously.


"All four agencies that track earth's temperature [the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Christy group at the University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems Inc in California] report that it cooled by about 0.7 C in 2007." This, he says is "the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record and it puts us back where we were in 1930. If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over."


Moreover, he says, there is also plenty of anecdotal evidence that 2007 was exceptionally cold, noting that it snowed in Baghdad for the first time in centuries, the winter in China was simply terrible and the extent of Antarctic sea ice in the austral winter was the greatest on record since James Cook discovered the place in 1770.


Chapman wrote that the global warming dogma should be put aside, "at least to begin contingency planning about what to do if we are moving into another little ice age, similar to the one that lasted from 1100 to 1850."

How bad could a new little ice age be? "Much worse than the previous one and much more harmful than anything warming may do. There are many more people now, and we have become dependent on a few temperate agricultural areas, especially in the U.S. and Canada." Global warming, he added, "would increase agricultural output, but global cooling will decrease it. Millions will starve if we do nothing to prepare for it [such as planning changes in agriculture to compensate], and millions more will die from cold-related diseases."


And grim as that outlook is, Chapman predicts that there is also another possibility, remote but much more serious -- the Greenland and Antarctic ice cores and other evidence show that for the past several million years, severe glaciation has almost always afflicted our planet and under normal conditions, most of North America and Europe are buried under about 1.5 km of ice.


This bitterly frigid climate is interrupted occasionally by brief warm interglacials, typically lasting less than 10,000 years.


The present interglacial period we have enjoyed throughout recorded human history, called the Holocene, began 11,000 years ago, so an ice age is overdue. And glaciation can occur quickly: The required decline in global temperature is about 12 C and it can happen in 20 years.


His conclusions: "The next descent into an ice age is inevitable but may not happen for another 1,000 years. On the other hand, it must be noted that the cooling in 2007 was even faster than in typical glacial transitions. If it continued for 20 years, the temperature would be 14 C cooler in 2027."


By then, he writes, "most of the advanced nations would have ceased to exist, vanishing under the ice, and the rest of the world would be faced with a catastrophe beyond imagining."

"All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinders and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead," he writes. "It will be difficult for people to face the truth when their reputations, careers, government grants or hopes for social change depend on global warming, but the fate of civilisation may be at stake."

Global warming, he added, "would increase agricultural output, but global cooling will decrease it.

And those stupid Aussies say global warming has caused a multi-year drought that has cut grain production by 50%.
Maybe they can grow corn in Antarctica.

for that analogy to be accurate, Climate change would have to be 100% known to be man made...as it was 100% percent that the red coats were coming.


I'd say a better analogy would be the boy who cried wolf

Posted by kwrx25 at 2008-04-24 10:03 PM | Reply


Being man made has nothing to do with it dUmmy. The facts are 100% that climate change is coming, just like the Red Coat were coming. It doesn't make any difference if man brought on the change any more than it did if the Red Coats were on horses or camels. How they got here wasn't the issue.

Actually it's a big part of the issue, Gah-hore's message isn't that global climate change is coming. It's that it's Man Made, 100% Man Made, did he mention it's all Man Made climate change that's coming.

that's the difference. I think it's perfectly acceptable to get a dig in on Gore's fantasy movie in the context of a discussion on Climate Change, since it is so full of fabrications. Literally, fabricated shots from a special effects lab.

on to 100% certainty of any sort of climate change. I don't know that you can say that anymore...The growing buzz is a lot of scientists are starting to back off given recent temperature trends and a lack of solar activity. Not saying that it isn't, just that it's getting back to a more rational state of "more science needs to occur before a conclusion" can be raised.

So I'll stick with boy who cried wolf. Eventually the wolf did come...so it works for you too. The only problem for the boy was he cried it so many times falsely that no one listened. So I it actually works even better. I disagree with Gore's science (boy that's being generous) BUT if he's right by pure luck, and Man is warming the globe, he'd better be sure he isn't crying wolf so much now, that no one listens then.

the public is a fickle thing if they think they've been toyed with

Envirofascists,

ASSIGNMENT FOR TODAY

Please go to www.scotese.com or org or something and look at the 4.5 billion year history of temperature on this planet.

Read up on the combination of methods used to come up with this data. He's very forthcoming about this, because he is a professional SCIENTIST.

Look at the temperature chart and see what the temperature context is now compared to the long-run.

Tell me how the temperature changed so much without hummers or even any Bush's.

Tell why warming would be bad, if only it was doing so.


On a side note, I just saw a show on science channel or discovery about supervolcanos...these guys had some evidence that the TOBA eruption, a very large one had dropped a bunch of ash and caused volcanic winter around that time, causing the human DNA bottleneck being described in this article. Not everybody is sure of this...it certainly is not a settled matter, but it is interesting, because we've got one of those types of volcanos under Yellowstone....VERY DANGEROUS globally.

"Good climate data for the earth is only about 50 or 30 years old"

Care to narrow that down a bit, or are you just talking out your ass again?

KWRX25

Again dUmmy---Gore is not a factor in the equation other than to be a bearer of bad news. Whether the fact of global warming is man made or not is only a factor for stupid people like yourself. Even stupid people like GWB accept that mankind is a factor. Gore is no more a factor to global warming than Paul Revere was to the outcome of the Revolutionary War.

To think that dumping millions of tons of pollution into the air, river, and oceans year after year has no effect on the environment is stupid beyond belief. I hate to keep using the word stupid time and again, but unfortunately--you are a moron. Go sit in your car in a garage--turn it on and close the door. See how long in takes to affect the environemt. Let me know the results.

;-)

KWRX25,

Do you understand the cost of what Gore is demanding? Do you understand the complete and utter unenforceablility of it? Do you understand that he is demanding that third-world countries remain that way by deciding not to industrialize, thereby dooming them to uncounted millions of deaths from famine, bad health care, poor living conditions, and high birth rates? Fortunately, they will ignore him, as they already are. Do you understand the hypocracy of that statement? We've already industrialized and enjoy the benefits, but you don't get to because I, AlGore, being of unassailable scientific genius, tell you to?

Who, among the signatories of they Kyoto Agreement, are actually following it? Those are the people who actually pretended to agree with it....they're not following it. They have no intention thereof.... And, nobody important signed it. USA, India, China...they matter...No one else does.

Following Gore's suggestion is not the safe course. It is deadly, unethical socially, preposterous scientifically. Money and societal energy are best spent on things that help, like DDT and new energy sources, not things that enrich the sellers of carbon caps and the political authority of the UN.

The biblical god has been proven beyond any doubt to be a false god. Every story in the bible was stolen from older stories from older religions. Like Gore vs Bush in 2000----get over it.

jonryker

Gore is demanding nothing.

Bob,

I'm an athiest, but if you know anything at all about science, which clearly you do not, you recognize that the notion of a God does not stem from scientific fact, but simple faith that God is there. Therefore, science simply has nothing to say about the existence of God....period. Can't prove...can't disprove. Simply has nothing to say.

This is why there are many very good scientists who are religious.

Where the two meet is when religions make scientifically-testable statements, like, "The world and everything on it was created in 7 days"....This clearly did not happen, as the evidence points out.

However, proof of God's absence or presence is unreachable. Even if he came down and talked to the whole planet, you couldn't prove it was God...could just be some alien we've been unaware of. The fact that he has not done so yet is no proof that he won't tomorrow....Simply unreachable...faith and scientific facts are seperate tracks....which the Envirofascists knew that.....

Bob,

to bring up the word stupid....you're too stupid to even understand what my point was, and I'm unable to dumb it down any further for you...so, your loss.

Jon,

I absolutely understand the impact of the actions Gore says we should be taking to combat something which has not even been proven to be taking place, and if so, how much our actions are influencing it if at all.


BS in Meteorology here, I definitely get it.

Bob,

here's a ball, you can bounce it.

All this talk about global warming. You know, millions of years ago it was a lot hotter than it is now. And life thrived, it flourished.

That was obviously before man, but all this talk of devastation and the sky falling in and all life will die etc is nonsense.

Lots of life died 15,000 years ago during the ice age, though some species adapted and thrived. When it gets hotter some species may die off, others will thrive.

Humans, being fairly resourceful, should figure out a way to live.

There's a whole lot of open land in Canada and Russia up north.

KWRX25,

I believe you.

So, since you know that CO2 emission don't matter, why would you support wrecking industrial economies, preventing 3rd-world countries from industializing, and creating dreadful energy shortages that would drive us all back to medieval levels and create massive global food shortages?

I realize this is an academic discussion, as no one of significance is following Kyoto and no one who hasn't signed it will. Even if it was necessary, it could not be done.

So, what is your rationale for tolerating AlGore?

I'm intersted in this perspective, because Gingrich and McCane have just now jumped on his bandwagon for no apparent reason, unless they just want to poach publicity from his $300 million ad campaign....Perhaps your reasoning would parallel theirs....So, in all seriousness....why?

I think I dumbed down whatever I was saying to Bob to much for rational people to understand.

I in NO way support, tolerate, can stand Al Gore.

Darn, it's a shame the wipe out wasn't complete.

Signed,

The DR Left

"Darn, it's a shame the wipe out wasn't complete.

Signed,

The DR Left"

Posted by ride_on


Darn, I'm a retard.

Signed,

Ride On

As a friend of mine said, "I'm sceptical of the entire GW debate. But I'm more sceptical of the denial position because they don't have much of a position, just a lot of things they throw out to sound like they're disproving the entire idea." I enjoy listening to people who understand the basics, that something _is_ occuring, that man has much more than enough capability to affect our environment. The questions are what exactly is happening, why is it happening, to what extent are humans involved and what, if anything, can they do to avert possibly extensive harm. Not one of these ever brings up Gore or weather or other non-connected issues. The problem is that so many of the deniers do and thus they lose credibility.

The earth's temprature hasn't increased this century so where is the warming? Even if there was some warming, there is no proof at all that it is man made. The earth has gone thru several warming and cooling cycles and they were all before modern man. My damn truck did not warm up the earth after the last ice age.

"The earth has gone thru several warming and cooling cycles "

Yes, it has. And will in the future. The question is, why now? What is causing it? Do we have anything to do with it? If so, can we do anything to temper it? Or we could just say "it isn't happening" and pay big time if it is. Which is why Zat is so dismissive of our continued existence.

Got news for you. The human race WAS wiped out 70,000 years ago. Just ask the DR Satyr what repopulated this dirt ball.

You see Goatman knows just exactly what did repopulate the planet.

This thread was supposed to reapear?

FYI, we've been in a warming trend for the past 10,000 years, ever since the ice age ended.

FYI, we've been in a warming trend for the past 10,000 years, ever since the ice age ended.

So what's a little more matter anyway?

FYI, we've been in a warming trend for the past 10,000 years, ever since the ice age ended.

Posted by bigjohn_1972 at 2008-04-25 05:30 PM |


Gosh--I bet the scientists that have spent their whole lives studying the situation feel foolish for not knowing that. Or maybe you are just so stupid that you think they hadn't considered that scenario. I bet you think they don't know the sun is hot too don't you. Do you think they know that when it rains, plants grow?

Global warming will bring on another ice age--fast. How many of you dummieS can explain how that is true?

NONE? What a surprise. OK--you can go back to playing with your coloring books. Next week--you get CRAYONS!

;-)

Big deal. We will all be dead and the next life form will look at our remains and say...

"What's with all the carbon deposits?"

Certainly God was watching over us. Those 2000 people must have been tough as nails. Puny weeny libs didn't evolve till much later, about 1960.

Bob,

what's your IQ? does it even break into triple digits?

" triple digits "

Not even double digits.

Certainly God was watching over us. Those 2000 people must have been tough as nails.

Adam and Eve up to Methuselah lived for hundreds of years says the Bible.