Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Human Life Span & Evolution
watzimagiga
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 71 (316980)
06-02-2006 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jon
05-29-2006 5:02 AM


Genesis 6:3 KJV "That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years."
Just thought you might want some scripture on the topic.
Funnily enough, Moses is believed to have been born around the middle of the 14th century BCE, and died sometime in the 13th century BCE, with an estimated life of 120 years. Genesis is dated in the 14th century BCE so he wrote it a long time before his death and i dont think he was referring to himself in this verse.
why am I not expected to keep kicking until the year 2956
The physical ends (tips) of each chromosome are named telomeres and after each replication of out DNA these ends shorten. These telomeres protect and stabalise our DNA sequence and as they shorten (with age/replication) the DNA becomes more prone to things such as cancer etc. From this it has been estimated that the maximum (although different depending on individual) age that one can live to is 124 years. I have no idea if this is valid or not, i just read it somewhere (google it- try telomeres).
Yes I also realise that this does also provide evidence against the 900 year old figures in the bible. But you must take into account that the people in the bible are based around a miracle working, all powerful God who is not bound by these minor issues .
Matt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jon, posted 05-29-2006 5:02 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Jon, posted 06-02-2006 9:23 PM watzimagiga has replied

  
watzimagiga
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 71 (317128)
06-03-2006 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Jon
06-02-2006 9:23 PM


Why did God suddenly decide to not let people live so long?
Well I did try to answer that in the scripture in my last post. Here is a translation thats a bit easier to understand.
Genesis 6:1-3 NLT "When the human population began to grow rapidly on the earth, the sons of God saw the beautiful women of the human race and took any they wanted as their wives. Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not put up with humans for such a long time, for they are only mortal flesh. In the future, they will live no more than 120 years."
However every other translation I have read does not tranlate it as "will live no more than 120 years" but as "his days shall be an hundred and twenty years." or something to that effect.
From the translation I gather that the age drop is a punishment to man for sexual sin e.g. taking many wives. This is just from what I can gather.
it was just added by the writers so they could explain why we don't live that long.
Genesis was written by Moses. He is not a liar and would not have said "Then the LORD said" if he was just making up an explanation.
I know in your previous posts you did say about not mentioning the fall. I dont think it was the fall specifically because the life spans only started getting shorter quite a while after Adam. The bible does tell us however that sin causes death. A Biblical explanation could be that as the people of the world became more corrupt and disobedient to God. Then earlier death was a natural result. The belief is held by many christians that the only reason we die is because of sin. If Jesus had continued to live a sinless life he could have lived forever, same with Adam. Man was initially created to live forever, we only die because of sin.
John 10:18 NLT "No one can take my life from me. I lay down my life voluntarily. For I have the right to lay it down when I want to and also the power to take it again." - Jesus
I know I am saying some things as true statememnts not as "The bible teaches that". ( e.g. we only die because of sin.) This is just to save time. Most of what I have said just trying to show how it is understood biblically.
You cant try to explain the lives of biblical people if you dont believe in God. Its like trying to believe Moses parted the Red Sea without believing in God. Im just trying to explain how some christians understand it.
Hope I have helped.
Matt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Jon, posted 06-02-2006 9:23 PM Jon has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by AdminJar, posted 06-03-2006 12:30 AM watzimagiga has replied

  
watzimagiga
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 71 (317137)
06-03-2006 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by AdminJar
06-03-2006 12:30 AM


Why did God suddenly decide to not let people live so long?
I am not really sure of how I could answer this scientifically or in a way that could be tested. I was just attempting to answer his question as to how it is explained biblically.
Im not saying people in the bible lived 120 years, people live 120 years today. We are discussing the claims in the bible that some people lived up to 900 years etc. Im not really aware of any other sources besides the bible that records the people he was asking about living this long, so thats all I have to go on.
I dont think he was asking for a scientifical explanation, he was more asking what bible believers think. Maybe im wrong.
Thanks.
matt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by AdminJar, posted 06-03-2006 12:30 AM AdminJar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Jon, posted 06-03-2006 5:28 AM watzimagiga has replied
 Message 29 by Jon, posted 06-03-2006 5:30 AM watzimagiga has not replied

  
watzimagiga
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 71 (317165)
06-03-2006 6:04 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Jon
06-03-2006 5:28 AM


Okay then, sorry. I misunderstood what you were after.
So, if more sin = shorter lives, than why do Christians claim the world is so full of sin, yet lifespans are continuing to increase?
Not to sure on that. But obviously its not a strict equation as in how much you sin will determine your lifetime. Because obviously there are people who live very sinful but yet very long lives and vice versa. I was just throwing some ideas out there.
Sorry about my lack of evidence. I suppose the scripture from Genesis I gave is about it .
There isn't any physical evidence of longer-living people in the past. All the evidence seems to show that people lived longer in the past.
Umm... What???
Thanks
Matt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Jon, posted 06-03-2006 5:28 AM Jon has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by RickJB, posted 06-03-2006 6:20 AM watzimagiga has not replied

  
watzimagiga
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 71 (317166)
06-03-2006 6:10 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Jon
06-03-2006 5:28 AM


So, if more sin = shorter lives, than why do Christians claim the world is so full of sin, yet lifespans are continuing to increase?
Just realised that the lifespan increase could be attributed to advances in medicine and diet etc, which were not available to previous generations.
Matt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Jon, posted 06-03-2006 5:28 AM Jon has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Damouse, posted 06-03-2006 2:32 PM watzimagiga has replied

  
watzimagiga
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 71 (317368)
06-03-2006 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Damouse
06-03-2006 2:32 PM


Re: huh?
Just cant give a theory and say "you wouldn't understand, you're not christian" because then theres something fundementally wrong with the theory...
Fair enough, but my point was that in evolutionay terms its doesnt make sense to believe that people could have at one stage lived 900 years. Maybe it does, but why would our life spans have decreased so drastically. Surely long life is an advantage.
Matt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Damouse, posted 06-03-2006 2:32 PM Damouse has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Jon, posted 06-03-2006 11:40 PM watzimagiga has not replied
 Message 40 by RAZD, posted 06-04-2006 9:39 AM watzimagiga has replied

  
watzimagiga
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 71 (317782)
06-05-2006 2:19 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by RAZD
06-04-2006 9:39 AM


Re: huh?
How can you tell how old a human was when it died from its fossil? Sure you can tell aprroximatley how long ago it died from carbon dating etc. What method is used to find how long it lived?
In evolutionary terms all you need is old enough to breed. Beyond that no special limit one way or the other is necessary.
But wouldnt the individuals that lived longer produce more offspring so they would pass on more genes to next generation?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by RAZD, posted 06-04-2006 9:39 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by DrJones*, posted 06-05-2006 3:07 AM watzimagiga has replied
 Message 44 by RAZD, posted 06-05-2006 6:49 AM watzimagiga has replied

  
watzimagiga
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 71 (317796)
06-05-2006 3:43 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by DrJones*
06-05-2006 3:07 AM


Re: huh?
As far as I know with the skull we are born with the skull unfused to assist with birth, but then the bones of skull fuse together pretty quickly after that (like a year or so). So i suppose that would be fine for aging todlers.
Im referring more to adults when they are fully developed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by DrJones*, posted 06-05-2006 3:07 AM DrJones* has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by DrJones*, posted 06-05-2006 2:54 PM watzimagiga has not replied
 Message 46 by NosyNed, posted 06-05-2006 4:47 PM watzimagiga has not replied

  
watzimagiga
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 71 (318052)
06-05-2006 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by RAZD
06-05-2006 6:49 AM


Re: huh?
Your bones don't stop growing when you are a toddler or you would never reach adult height.Then after that there are markers like osteoporosis that show age.
Okay, so from birth until full development, say 0-20, we can tell pretty accurately how old the person was at death. This is assuming that in the past, humans developed/matured at the same rate. I would agree they probably did to some extent. However the average age that puberty starts is currently decreasing. I have already explained that I am not really to worried about aging people in this catagory (0-20), as we are talking about adults that lived very long lives.
After the age of 20 (assuming a human is fully developed at 20) we really dont have much to go on to determine their age. They have stopped growing, all their bones are fused. As you say we have makers like osteoporosis, but this occours mainly in women. Also, all it tells us is that they have osteoperosis, it doesnt tell us how old they are. They could just as easily be 110 with osteoperosis or 65 with osteoperosis.
My point is there is not really any way we can tell the age difference between two fossils if they are both fit, healthy and fully developed (they could have both died from a fall e.g. no health problems). This may be wrong, but it is based on the aging methods I have been presented with so far.
How old do you need to be to have 20 offspring? How many can you feed and protect?
Assuming that there is a 1 year gap between each child. Then by the time you have your 20th child, the earlier children would be becoming pretty self sufficient. They would be able to help care for younger ones, or they would be old enough to feed and protect the younger children. Or they could just as easily leave and start their own family. This leaves the long living parents free to continue having children.
Are you trying to say that no matter how old a person lives, there is a cap on how many children they can have. Therefore a person who lives to 60 will pass on the same number of genes as someone who lives to 40? Dont really see how that works.
Matt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by RAZD, posted 06-05-2006 6:49 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Damouse, posted 06-05-2006 6:01 PM watzimagiga has not replied
 Message 51 by RAZD, posted 06-05-2006 8:13 PM watzimagiga has replied

  
watzimagiga
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 71 (318058)
06-05-2006 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Damouse
06-05-2006 5:45 PM


Re: Skeletal milestones
Yes, it makes sense evolutionarily to live 900 years old and not regress, but thats what we're arguing watz. afraid you came over to our side for a bit there buddy.
I was saying that in evolutionary terms it doesnt make sense to say that there was once 900 year old people (which is you argument yes). I was making the point that I cant argue that people lived 900 years in the past, unless God had some factor in it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Damouse, posted 06-05-2006 5:45 PM Damouse has not replied

  
watzimagiga
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 71 (318153)
06-05-2006 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by RAZD
06-05-2006 8:13 PM


Re: Age at Death estimates
Thanks for the info.
Should be good enough to get to +/-10 years eh?,
I agree you could collect a whole number of fossils and put them on a scale from youngest to oldest. We would be able to pretty accuratley age the individuals at the bottom of the scale (based of current development rates). To get an age at the end of the scale is based upon how long they think it would have taken for the fossils teeth to wear. I suppose this gives us a pretty good estimate at their age. What does wear of teeth mean? Do they slowly get filed down and get smaller every time we eat?
so where are all those old biblical type specimens from when everyone lived such long lives eh?
(From one of your previous posts.)
For kicks lets say we found the fossil of a person who had actually lived 800 years (but we didnt know). If we put them on our scale and aged them based on wear of teeth, I am pretty confident that they wouldnt get aged at 800 +/- 10 years. Would this fossil not just get tacked on the end as a person at the old end of the scale and aged at about 80 or so?
Because for a person to live for 800 years, the rate at which their body deteriorates would have to be less than a modern (todays) human. Because if their teeth wore down at the same rate at ours, they would have no teeth by 800 wouldnt they.
What do you think would happen if a fossil of a person who had lived 800 years was discovered? What age do you think it would be given? I would say its highly unlikely that it would be aged at 800.
Matt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by RAZD, posted 06-05-2006 8:13 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by DrJones*, posted 06-05-2006 10:00 PM watzimagiga has not replied
 Message 54 by RAZD, posted 06-06-2006 7:31 AM watzimagiga has replied

  
watzimagiga
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 71 (318229)
06-06-2006 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by RAZD
06-06-2006 7:31 AM


Re: Age at Death estimates
The fossils go back from us to Lucy
You have mentioned lucy a couple of times now. Lucy was not found intact in one place. I read that the bones, including the knee (which showed, she was probably bipedal) were not just found in different areas, but actually at different depths, showing different age of bones. Sorry if this is off topic, just when people talk about lucy I feel I need to bring this up.
It would have to be supernaturally enhanced eh?
Yup, well I have already said that they couldnt have lived 900 years without God being involved somehow.
the rest of the evidence doesn't fit either, the stature of the fossils gets smaller and the braincases get smaller, so you don't have tall noble intelligent people in the distant past no matter how long they lived
I dont see how this is relevant to people living long lives.
You can take any mythological story and start playing games with the evidence and the science to see how it could actually have occurred
Its not really playing games. All im saying is that for someone to live that long, they can't age/deteriorate at the same rate we do. Is that really such a wierd idea?
All I was trying do was answer your question - "so where are all those old biblical type specimens?"
I think I have shown that even if we had one on front of us we wouldnt be able to tell.
"I don't see how anyone can possibly assume that the universe was not the product of an immense intellgence" John Davison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by RAZD, posted 06-06-2006 7:31 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by RAZD, posted 06-06-2006 9:01 PM watzimagiga has replied
 Message 57 by EZscience, posted 06-06-2006 10:04 PM watzimagiga has not replied

  
watzimagiga
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 71 (318508)
06-06-2006 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by RAZD
06-06-2006 9:01 PM


Re: Age at Death estimates
Because it is part of the same {concept\myth\story}
Where does the bible mention anything about the height of the people it mentions? It also does not say that they had larger brain cases than us. So really this isnt really contradicting any of the evidence, because the bible talks nothing about either of these issues.
All you have shown is that we may not know that our "70" year old was really 50 or 90.
I thought we were in agreement on the idea that, if these people who lived long lives deteriorated (wear of teeth etc) at a different rate, we would not be able to age them accuratley (ie we could not tell they lived 900 years). This is important because living that long would not be possible unless they aged at a different rate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by RAZD, posted 06-06-2006 9:01 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by RAZD, posted 06-07-2006 8:08 AM watzimagiga has not replied
 Message 60 by RAZD, posted 06-08-2006 8:11 PM watzimagiga has not replied

  
watzimagiga
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 71 (333569)
07-19-2006 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Jon
06-15-2006 2:57 PM


Re: Age at Death estimates
Yes, this was one of my points earlier in the discussion. Its a good one, and is yet to really have a good answer.
Matt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Jon, posted 06-15-2006 2:57 PM Jon has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024