Long Life Spans: “Adam Lived 930 Years and Then He Died”

[MarcAC]

All of science say's Adam and Eve never and couldn't happen. I.E. It's impossible. That is not scientific theory, it's a fact. It also never happened 6,000 years ago and Eve wasn't created from Adam's rib and Adam wasn't made from dust and clay. This is all pretty basic stuff as far as science goes.

There are many ways to look at Adam and Eve - not all Christians are from the "Literalist Bible Belt, USA".

Here's an interesting theory on an Eve concept - in true Wiki style.

But, here you come and say that because it may be possible to control aging via science, you use this theory to support the above paragraph. Shame on you.

You should read the whole article - then you may stop making false statements. Shame on you. :bugeye:

 

[(Q)]

Funny that ages ago, the normal life expectancy was between 20-35 years. So, we went from 900 years down to 35 and are back up to about 70 or so, due to the hard work of scientists, of course.

Didn't Yoda live to 900 years? Do we see a connection there? hehe

 

[MarcAC]

People simply cannot live that long.

Wow!

In ancient times, disease and poor medical knowledge prevented it except among the rich and the powerful (kings, empeorors, nobility).

Sources? Take a look at the text on Reasons and you may revise your hypothesis.

The only reason people can live into thier 120s nowadays is because of modern medicine, medicine they did not have in ancient times.

How many people live into their 120s "nowadays"? The few icons who live past 120, when interviewed, rarely state they made frequent medical visits. Not to mention they were all born in the 1880s - I wouldn't dare say medicine was "advanced" back then.

Since god does not exist, he cannot "change" human biochemistry to allow longer ages. It is scientifically impossible.

That is as substantial as the rest of the post - amazing.

 

[MarcAC]

...ages ago,...

Well, that hardly says a lot.

 

[(Q)]

Well, that hardly says a lot.

Oh, I see now, you were actually serious. hahahaha

Here's something for you to chaw on from wikipedia for life expectancies:

Neanderthal, 20
Neolithic, 20
Classical Greece, 28
Classical Rome, 28
Medieval England, 33

 

[Laika]

MarcAC,

Not to mention the little fact that the days were shorter and possibly the oribtal (Earth) year.

Why do you think this, and what are the causal mechanisms? I assume you're not talking about the Moon's increasing distance at the expense of Earth's rotation speed, as the difference 6000 years ago would have been negligible.

 

[Gordon]

There seem to be a lot of jibes and assertions in this discussion without factual support.

A few comments. Hapsburg is wrong and right. it is not individual maximum ages that have changed in recent recorded history. There is a woman from the 18th. century who is buried in my local church and who died aged 104. Disease etc. caused the mean life span to decrease at some periods in history just as AIDs and other diseases are doing currently in many African countries but the individuals concerned still have the potential to live to great ages and some do but just many less than in the West so the mean is lower. We have no evidence for the incidence of disease thousands of years ago and its effect on life spans.

It is interesting that the age given in the Bible for the reduced lifespan is 120 years which seems to have been about right for a very long time as a maximum age.

Dogmatic statements that it is not scientifically possible that people could live to extreme ages of 900 years or so are simply false. There is no way that science can prove what happened at that time. From your own knowledge, background and culture you are free to believe what you choose but science cannot prove it one way or the other.

The simple facts with this debate as with all origins debates is that people generally start as believers in God or not. If you believe, you are likely to have faith that God created everything and of course an omnipotent God can by definition do anything. The alternative is a process whereby all that is in the universe, material and otherwise, comes into being by random processes acting on totally material objects. You have to work out how information, emotions, music etc. came into existence from the chance interaction of molecules of which they are not made.

All of this requires faith (more I would say for the latter scenario) but let us not believe that there is any direct scientific evidence for either version. (You can't exactly repeat the process experimentally in the laboratory!)

There is a lot of indirect evidence but the conclusions as always will be based on the evidence taken with the basic assumptions of the person concerned. No atheist will accept any form of evidence that God might exist by definition, or he could no longer be an atheist so all data must be examined against the basic concept that there can be no God. Clearly a Christian, a Jew or a Muslim would start with a very different assumption and would interpret the same indirect evidence very differently.

 

[geeser]

i think it is unfair of you to lump all christains into the same pile
i am very much interested in science
i am very much interested in why religion is so universal
google the phrase "god gene"

google also the words "delusional, crazy, mirage, lunatic." it the same thing.

 

[Gordon]

While the purpose of this scientific research to prolong human life exist, and continues to develop, I much really doubt that only two individuals started the whole human race! Adam & Eve are mythological stories, this is not literal. The bible is not a document of past events, it's stolen stories from many cultures, the Hebrews hardly knew how to read or write, these stories are depicted by others of that era. It's not original, though their document has survived the test of time.

Adam & Eve myth

click

click

Godless

On an evolutionary basis, how many ape like ancestors evolved into humans?
One seems unlikely if not impossible, two would be necessary and of course have even less chance of happening (if you can have less than zero chance) or did this evolutionary 'miracle' happen hundred or thousands of times (probabibilty of this going well below what any mathematician would consider as zero probability).

There is now considerable genetic evidence that (by whatever means) mankind certainly did come from one male and one female, so if we are arguing on the basis of 'science' let us consider what we actually do know scientifically (however little that may be).

If you do not believe that the Bible contains historical records (amongst many other parts: poetry, moral guidance, theology, prophesy etc.) I suggest you may find it useful to actually read it. I am sorry to be a little sharp but this statement can only be made by someone with a very poor knowledge of the book in question. You may choose not to believe parts of it. You may question its historical accuracy but you cannot say it does not contain historical records - That is simply factually wrong!

The statement that the Hebrews hardly knew how to read or write almost needs no comment. It is an historical fact that Israel was one of the greatest powers in the Middle East during the reigns of Solomon and David. You would not make such a rudely arrogant comment about the Greek, the Persian or the Roman Empires which came much later. I would suggest that you are allowing prejudice to overrule sound judgment here.

The fact that other cultures have similar stories (such as a world wide flood for instance) only lends more weight to the basic fact being true but of course legends and myths can change the base truth into something slightly different over the years.

As all the early history is likley to have been passed on by word of mouth until written records of some sort were developed, how do you know whose story came first and so who copied whom? The answer is of course that you do not. Again your prejudices are causing you to make judgements not based on logical intepretation of facts.

The Jueo-Christian biblical versions have the benefit of being much simpler and thus likely to have been less changed. There was also a culture of copying texts without error in Jewish tradition so once the story was written it would not have been embellished or changed in any other way.

In the Book of Job chapter 26 verse 7 it says

He spreads the skies over unformed space,

hangs the earth out in empty space. (Message Version)

This of course is centures ahead of Aristotle's view of the universe and fully in accord with what we now know although it was written about 4000 years ago!

So much for the Hebrews not knowing anything!

Believe whatever you choose. You have a free will (define that in atoms and molecules!) but do not assert that things are fact without or against the evidence.

 

[MarcAC]

...6000 years ago...

I'm not a Young Earth Creationist.

Mechanisms? Same in both... and add solar mass loss.

 

[MarcAC]

Oh, I see now, you were actually serious.

Serious about what?

Here's something for you to chaw on from wikipedia for life expectancies:

Neanderthal, 20
Neolithic, 20
Classical Greece, 28
Classical Rome, 28
Medieval England, 33

Here are two related questions for you to chaw on from common sense:

1. How do they determine the ages at death as opposed to how long the animal lived?
   and
2. If you consider the progression of aging: would it be possible to differentiate between how long a 250 yr old life form that lived for 500 yrs as opposed to a 25 yr old life form that lived for 50 yrs lived?

 

[Laika]

I'm not a Young Earth Creationist.

Mechanisms? Same in both... and add solar mass loss.

Regardless of whether you're a Young Earth Creationist or not, you started a thread about human life-spans, and then you implied that the expanding orbits of the Earth and Moon are relevant in some way. Modern humans didn't exist before about 200,000 years ago, while the Bible refers to individuals who lived no more than about 6000 years ago.

From the figures I can find, it seems that the radius of the Earth's orbit has increased by a few thousands of kilometres due to solar mass loss over the last 4.6 billion years. I am confident that this does not translate to a ten-fold lengthening of our year in the last 200,000 years.

 

[(Q)]

Serious about what?

About people actually living hundreds of years, of course. Surely, you can't be serious.

Here are two related questions for you to chaw on from common sense:

1. How do they determine the ages at death as opposed to how long the animal lived?
   and
2. If you consider the progression of aging: would it be possible to differentiate between how long a 250 yr old life form that lived for 500 yrs as opposed to a 25 yr old life form that lived for 50 yrs lived?

There are a number of accurate methods in determining age at death. And guess what, they all agree with each other.

 

[MarcAC]

Modern humans didn't exist before about 200,000 years ago, while the Bible refers to individuals who lived no more than about 6000 years ago.

All depends on how you read it... but anyway I won't get into that...

From the figures I can find, it seems that the radius of the Earth's orbit has increased by a few thousands of kilometres due to solar mass loss over the last 4.6 billion years. I am confident that this does not translate to a ten-fold lengthening of our year in the last 200,000 years.

There are also gravitational effects from the outter planets, but their true effect is quite debatable I guess.

You're quite right though, the current figures (obviously) don't translate into a 10 fold lengthening of human life spans in the past 200k years. The effect may, however, become significant (cumulative) over time, hence my mention of them.

Considered with the article it makes the case for "longer" lifespans worth more than a dismissive glance.

 

[MarcAC]

About people actually living hundreds of years, of course. Surely, you can't be serious.

Look at the evidence, not my intentions.

There are a number of accurate methods in determining age at death. And guess what, they all agree with each other.

Sure. I really believe you know them and how they are applied to fossils.

You clearly missed the point from common sense... or maybe you just couldn't address it?

 

[Archie]

Why do people die?

Or in this instance, why do people die 'young'?

The idea that Neanderthals died younger than modern man because somehow, modern man is 'better' is a pretty weak reed to clutch. Anyone think Neanderthal was 'frailer' than modern man? "Weaker", perhaps? Maybe Neanderthals had a DNA sequence somehow inferior to Cro-Magnon? They were subject to hay fever or influenza or something?

Somehow, I read the implication that primitive man didn't live as long as modern man due to some inherent quality of longevity. If I say it out loud like that, does it sound not as probable? After all, mankind haven't changed in the last – long time – since the last Ice Age or so?

But everyone dies for a reason. Why did people die 'younger' in those days than now?

I suggest there weren't as many diseases in the old days. Modern medicine seems to keep finding 'new' diseases. Old diseases 'adapt' and become 'new'. Bird flu, for instance; is the newest in a series of diseases originating in birds and passed on to humans in some manner. AIDS is another example. Is it so hard to find a time in humanities past when the number and distribution of disease was markedly less? 'Plague' didn't really come into vogue until humans started living in larger cities.

Bad diets kill people. So what's bad about completely organic grown grain, vegetables and fruits? Possibly the amount of food available and storage? Grain lasts a good time at room temperature, if protected from damp and infestation. In the tropics, most vegetables and fruits have a long growing season, so they are available most of the year. By the way, the middle east was at one time a very fertile and green area. So, for a low density population, food supply would not be a big problem.

By contrast, the Neanderthals lived in Ice Age Europe; food scarce, cold as the dickens and crowded together in caves. (This reminds me of the old joke about why married men die younger than their wives; they want to.)

Wars and fighting kill people too. But in a young, uncrowded land, what for?

Old age? People die from being worn out. However, the cause of 'wearing out' varies. Susceptibility to disease and physical defect derives from a degenerated DNA coding. Some 'error' creeps in and finds a home in a localized population. Think Tay-Sachs disease or Sickle Cell Anemia. High blood pressure and heart disease seem to follow a DNA error, as well. Once in a population, the problem seems to stay. However, without those DNA errors, the human body could last a lot longer.

Hypothetically, in a time earlier than writing, the world was more abundant, the DNA 'chart' was clean, diseases were few and not well spread, and people lived too far apart to fight much. Why not live longer?

Oh, I forgot.

No one ever lived that long. I have no idea where the myth gets its ages, but they are utterly ridiculous.

Everybody Knows that can't happen.

 

[(Q)]

Look at the evidence, not my intentions.Sure. I really believe you know them and how they are applied to fossils.

You clearly missed the point from common sense... or maybe you just couldn't address it?

Do you mean the drivel from that creationist website you linked? Surely, you can't be serious?

Would that be the same site you gleaned your common sense?

 

[Laika]

You're quite right though, the current figures (obviously) don't translate into a 10 fold lengthening of human life spans in the past 200k years. The effect may, however, become significant (cumulative) over time, hence my mention of them.

What kind of timespan are you considering then, if not that over which modern humans have existed?

 

[BSFilter]

Im not sure if anyone here is familiar with the ancient Sumerians, who were the first civilization in middle east, very near the cradle of life. Anyway archaelogists have found ancient "texts" from these people that depict that their rulers indeed had lifespans pushing 900 years, and when one was about due, another would come to take his place.

Now this is where things get a little crazy. Archaelogists have also found pictures, stories, etc that these rulers with long lifespans came from "rockets" from the sky, and even suggests that we humans "were created in the image" of these rulers (and also attemps to explain the jump in evolution from ape to man we currently cannot explain).The book I read about this also said the this mysterious race came from a tenth planet in our solar system with a HUGE orbit, larger than plutos, which could help explain the long lifespans. And it was when this planet approached Earth that the great flood occured...etc.

Anyway Im just trying to remember the book I read of the top of my head. If anyone wants to know the name I can find it for them. Its really interesting because the book actually shows pictures that the sumerians drew which clearly depicted rockets in the sky, its crazy.

 

[Gustav]

oh, the nibureans
cool cats if i may say so