Why aren't the oldest living people getting any older?
1–10 of 90 posts
Re: Why aren't the oldest living people getting any older?
#2Such a coincidence! Lets see if history can be changed this time around.
Re: Why aren't the oldest living people getting any older?
#3Genesis 6:3
3 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.
AFAIK, all people in recent history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_Calment If this is true, [i]Men[/i] still did not exceed 120 years by 128,99 days. Interpreting the bible is hard, determining as literal and figure of speech is the hard part.
Re: Why aren't the oldest living people getting any older?
#4Genesis 6:3 3 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. AFAIK, all people in recent history ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_Calment If this is true, [i]Men[/i] still did not exceed 120 years by 128,99 days. Interpreting the bible is hard, determining as literal and figure of speech is the hard part.
Jeanne Calment, mentioned in the OP, lived to be 122. But yes, I think most people in the field agree that 120 is roughly our shelf life.
Re: Why aren't the oldest living people getting any older?
#5Because when you mix a lot of random variables together, the variance tends to decrease.
Re: Why aren't the oldest living people getting any older?
#6[deleted]
Re: Why aren't the oldest living people getting any older?
#7Genesis 6:3 3 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. AFAIK, all people in recent history ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_Calment If this is true, [i]Men[/i] still did not exceed 120 years by 128,99 days. Interpreting the bible is hard, determining as literal and figure of speech is the hard part.
In any book composed of random fantasy elements, written by hundreds of authors, it is pretty much inevitable that some bits will, merely by chance, be correct.
Genesis is the same book that puzzlingly fails to mention the big bang, for example.
Re: Why aren't the oldest living people getting any older?
#8Apart from a few fringe people there doesn't seem to be a real great push towards increasing longevity. Average lifespan through better treating illness yes but not much to help those that have managed to dodge everything and make it to 115.
From the little I have read on the subject it does seem like this is one area where we have a long way to go to really make progress as we don't really understand all the variables yet.
Re: Why aren't the oldest living people getting any older?
#9Genesis 6:3 3 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. AFAIK, all people in recent history ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_Calment If this is true, [i]Men[/i] still did not exceed 120 years by 128,99 days. Interpreting the bible is hard, determining as literal and figure of speech is the hard part.
In any book composed of random fantasy elements, written by hundreds of authors, it is pretty much inevitable that some bits will, merely by chance, be correct. Genesis is the same book that puzzlingly fails to mention the big bang, for example.
In the beginning, there was light.
On second thought, do we have to count "the beginning" as the moment of the singularity or as the time when the universe became transparent to photons? Gonna end up with a holy war over that one.
Wait, it's all good. You start out with a dark and formless void, then you get your "fiat lux" afterwards. The Bible was right again!
Re: Why aren't the oldest living people getting any older?
#10Genesis 6:3 3 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. AFAIK, all people in recent history ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_Calment If this is true, [i]Men[/i] still did not exceed 120 years by 128,99 days. Interpreting the bible is hard, determining as literal and figure of speech is the hard part.
In any book composed of random fantasy elements, written by hundreds of authors, it is pretty much inevitable that some bits will, merely by chance, be correct. Genesis is the same book that puzzlingly fails to mention the big bang, for example.
Well (he said somewhat flippantly), in a manner of speaking it does, if one can consider the condensation first of energy (fiat lux) then matter (the separation of the waters) out of chaos to be a pretty decent neolithic understanding of the process. (Not a believer in any sense -- I've actually used this point against 6-day creationists, realising that I was wielding a sort of double-edged sword.)