Why were our lifespans reduced?

Mastermind · Post by **Mastermind** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 7:30 am

SLP wrote:Lifespans have actually been on the rise for most of recorded history. Osteological and other fossil remains indicate that the average lifespan was much less in the past, not more.

No, survival rate has been on the rise. By OEC accounts, people who lived for a thousand years did so 50-100k years ago.

Believer · Post by **Believer** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 7:49 am

SLP wrote:Lifespans have actually been on the rise for most of recorded history. Osteological and other fossil remains indicate that the average lifespan was much less in the past, not more.

Scientific evidence, for you to discover since you HATE to research anything that has to do with religion, has shown that are life spans are getting less and less after each generation goes by. The Bible states that humans will now live to be 120 years, that has stayed true, I know a "select" few of people have went past that mark, but 99.98% precent of the populations lifespan IS being reduced.

AttentionKMartShoppers · Wed Apr 06, 2005 3:52 pm

Except for your OEC crud Mastermind, I agree with you-for once. Medicine has gotten so you can live longer...but not better. You can be saved from the cancer, the diseases, the organ failure, joint failure, and all such wonderful stuff. Instead of dying younger, around 50, you get to decay while living.

Mastermind · Post by **Mastermind** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 4:44 pm

I don't think a lot of people got anywhere near 50 in ancient times...

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 6:39 am

Mastermind wrote:
SLP wrote:Lifespans have actually been on the rise for most of recorded history. Osteological and other fossil remains indicate that the average lifespan was much less in the past, not more.
No, survival rate has been on the rise. By OEC accounts, people who lived for a thousand years did so 50-100k years ago.

When survival rate increases, lifespan does too. Pretty simple stuff.

As for people living 1000 years, that is just plain nonsense.

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 6:44 am

HelpMeGod wrote:
SLP wrote:Lifespans have actually been on the rise for most of recorded history. Osteological and other fossil remains indicate that the average lifespan was much less in the past, not more.
Scientific evidence, for you to discover since you HATE to research anything that has to do with religion, has shown that are life spans are getting less and less after each generation goes by.

Ridiculously false. A simple google search produces thousands of hits that contradict that silly notion.

The Bible states that humans will now live to be 120 years, that has stayed true,

Chapter and verse please.

I know a "select" few of people have went past that mark, but 99.98% precent of the populations lifespan IS being reduced.

False.

http://www.nbc4.tv/health/1449445/detail.html

Mastermind · Post by **Mastermind** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 9:20 am

SLP wrote:
Mastermind wrote:
SLP wrote:Lifespans have actually been on the rise for most of recorded history. Osteological and other fossil remains indicate that the average lifespan was much less in the past, not more.
No, survival rate has been on the rise. By OEC accounts, people who lived for a thousand years did so 50-100k years ago.
When survival rate increases, lifespan does too. Pretty simple stuff.

As for people living 1000 years, that is just plain nonsense.

No, it doesn't. Men could have a lifespan of 10000 years, but if most of them are dead by 50, then the survival rate is much lower than the specific race's lifespan.

voicingmaster · Post by **voicingmaster** » Tue Apr 19, 2005 7:04 pm

I came up with a theory for the reason a couple weeks ago. Adam, Eve, Seth,...Methusela were the "founding fathers" of humanity. They had to populate earth. You can have a lot more kids in a 900 year lifespan than you could in a 100(if you're lucky) lifespan. So thus, God extended thier lifespans. Allowing them to have more kids than normal. Once there was enough people, God shortened thier lifespans to our lifepsans, so the planet wouldn't over-populate.

Then there's also another theory brought up by some creation scientist. Beta particles go through you 24/7, at this current point in time. If you send small projectiles through an organism long enough, though it may not feel it, it will suffer and eventually die. So, there was a shield around earth, it was in space and shielded the early men(Adam-Methesula) from Beta particles, it was like ice or glass or something. Then, when God saw that man had become wicked, He sent asteroids at the shield and shattered it. This shatter resulted in parts of it coming down in the atmosphere and burning up and melting. Thus creating the flood.

Mastermind · Post by **Mastermind** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 4:42 am

<b>This shatter resulted in parts of it coming down in the atmosphere and burning up and melting. Thus creating the flood.</b>

A shield of ice would not survive in outer space. And where did the water go?

AttentionKMartShoppers · Wed Apr 20, 2005 12:10 pm

Though I don't think there was a hunk of ice just floating in space, because if it were, it would have melted and gone nowhere near the sun, but dissipated and blown away from the sun by the solar wind. But, if there were a water canopy, and if by some freak accident a chunk of ice didn't melt but fell on earth, there's plenty of room for it. The ocean floors sank-making for a lot higher water capacity. Sometimes, Mastermind, you're really good. Other times, you're denser than a block of lead.

Mastermind · Post by **Mastermind** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 12:16 pm

The ocean floor sank to accomodate your theories? Yep, I'm dense.

AttentionKMartShoppers · Wed Apr 20, 2005 12:20 pm

Mastermind....shut up, the ark didn't fly through space, the flood happenned here.

j316 · Post by **j316** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 11:02 am

This past two pages has been like a month of synopses of the discovery channel, with commentary by that dude from amer. idol, the one who doesn't like anyone.

I like the way you guys pick and dismiss years of scientific observation depending on what you are currently trying to prove. Be really cool if you could do that in real life. Actually maybe that is the way it really works, hmmmm.

AttentionKMartShoppers · Thu Apr 21, 2005 1:12 pm

j316 wrote:This past two pages has been like a month of synopses of the discovery channel, with commentary by that dude from amer. idol, the one who doesn't like anyone.

I like the way you guys pick and dismiss years of scientific observation depending on what you are currently trying to prove. Be really cool if you could do that in real life. Actually maybe that is the way it really works, hmmmm.

"That was, by far the worst performance I have every seen."
"You are the weakest link, goodbye."

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 2:41 pm

Whats the avg lifespan of manking at the moment? 70 years? Correct me if I'm wrong but hasnt the average lifespan been increasing at dramatic rates over the last few centuries?