Although I believe you have the ignore button set up for me...



>For instance, the photograph of then petrified remains of a big ship which was made of plywood fastened >with alloy fasteners containing aluminum is a product of archaeology.



No, the photograph of the ship is not "archeology". Archeology is when someone finds the remains of something and then objectively sets out to determine what it was. Just because this *may* be the remains of a large boat does not "prove" anything about a flood, or water levels, or "Mars rain", or Noah, or etc., etc.. Especially considering that the accepted scientific means of determining its age is C-14 dating which you apparently discount entirely. Without using that dating technique as a tool, the remains could be a thousand years old or a million.



>The 200 feet of water is a fact



References please. Water levels have been appreciably higher in the past. Is that what you mean?



>and so is Martian erosion, gravity, astrophysics, laws of thermodynamics



Yep to all of those. Although if you are saying archeologists "discovered them"....???



>Archaeologists discover facts.



Actually, since they were not there, the best they can usually do is "conjecture" about things that they "find". The pyramids exist. Archeologists conjecture, according to the best evidence available, that the Egyptians built them. The majority of archeologists agree. Some do not. Since archeology is not a "hard" science, the best we can do is accept majority opinion on the subject.



>The fact of the petrified high technology ship calls into question our assumptions about the >paleolithic.



You keep calling it a high technology ship, and you keep putting it in the Paleolithic. As I suggested in an earlier post - you really need to re-read the article you posted. I have no idea how your conclusions came from what was posted in that link.



Your agenda seems to be getting in the way of your objectivity.