Human longevity: Difference between revisions

From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 249: Line 249:
It should be noted that there is nothing known about the human body which would fundamentally prevent humans from having lived that long in the past, or to one day live that long again.[http://www.personalmd.com/news/a1998071403.shtml] Scientists do not know why humans age and ultimately die, although some have speculated{{fact}} that it might be due to the shortening of [[telomere]]s, which could theoretically have been much longer prior to the flood.
It should be noted that there is nothing known about the human body which would fundamentally prevent humans from having lived that long in the past, or to one day live that long again.[http://www.personalmd.com/news/a1998071403.shtml] Scientists do not know why humans age and ultimately die, although some have speculated{{fact}} that it might be due to the shortening of [[telomere]]s, which could theoretically have been much longer prior to the flood.


In (''Genetic Entropy'') John Sanford, PhD references a study performed by Halliday and Watts in 2001 that clearly shows an exponential decay curve which can only be described as "biological". The calculated "line of best fit" is exponential with a correlation curve of 0.94, a very close fit. Sanford observes:
In (''Genetic Entropy'') John Sanford, PhD references a study performed by Halliday and Watts in 2001 that clearly shows an exponential decay curve which can only be described as "biological". The calculated "line of best fit" is exponential with a correlation curve of 0.94, a very close fit. Clearly the writer of Genesis was either a faithful historian or uber-mathematical-modeler. Fabrication of such data would require both a deep mathematical understanding coupled with a desire to show exponential decay. Why would anyone do this, considering that genetics was not discovered until the 19th century and mutations in the 20th century? Cries of "fraud" are not only unreasonable, but realistically why would anyone bother to fit these numbers to an exponential curve? What would it matter? There is no doctrinal nor historical value in such an endeavor. Rationally speaking, the data is real, human lifespans really were extraordinary in the early generation of mankind and have progressively declined via genetic degeneration due to accumulated mutations over many generations. (''Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome'', JC Sanford PhD, Elim Publishing, 2005, pp. 148-149)  
 
{{cquote|We are forced to conclude that the writer of Genesis either faithfully recorded an exponential decay of human lifespan, or the author fabricated the data using sophisticated mathematical modeling. To fabricate the data would have required an advanced knowledge of mathematics, as well as a strong desire to show exponential decay. But without knowledge of genetics (discovered in the 19th century) or mutation (discovered in the 20th century), why would the author of Genesis have wanted to show a biological decay curve? It does not seem reasonable to attribute this data to some elaborate "stone-age fraud". The most rational conclusion is that the data are real, and that human life expectancy was once hundreds of years - but has progressively declined to current values. The most obvious explanation...would be genetic degeneration due to mutation. (''Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome'', JC Sanford PhD, Elim Publishing, 2005, pp. 148-149) }}


=== Josephus on early human longevity ===
=== Josephus on early human longevity ===
creationist
1,008

edits

Navigation menu