Is it scientifically plausible to believe that man once lived for centuries?

Question

It is "recorded" in Genesis that a man's life span was once hundreds of years. Given the current life expectancies and what we know about cardiac and nerve cells not being able to replicate themselves, is it logical to take these genealogies literally.

Answer 1

Although nerve and cardiac cells them self cannot replicate, the stem cells that lead to their formation can continuously form new nerve and stem cells and have been shown to do so for the entire lifetime in several experiments.

As for the ability to live for hundreds of years, it may be possible but unlikely as our metabolism level is too high to live extended periods of time. The rockfish can live for over 250 years, but their metabolism is very very slow.

Answer 2

If you are going to cite Genesis, then what do you care about what science has to say? In the past 100 years, life expectancy in the U.S. has increased by about 35 years. This was due to better control of infectious diseases (antibiotics, vaccinations, sanitation), better obstetrics care (1 in 3 women used to die from pregnancy over the course of her life) and improved workplace safety.

So, why would you think living conditions were better in the time that Genesis was written? Antibiotics are an invention of the 20th century. Vaccination and germ theory wasn't around in the time of Moses. Sanitation was throwing crap out into the streets. Childbirth was no easier back then than it is now. That whole thing about Eve and the serpent is a nice story but there is no mention of Eve having children before being cursed by god so you can't compare. And, you are much less likely now to be killed by a pack of raiders from the next tribe over.

And why stop a Genesis? Why not dig up some other faded piece of parchment or other ancient creation myth? Do you think that if you eat ambrosia, you become immortal like the Greek gods? Or we will discard our bodies and become beings of pure energy (some new religions being created now).

This is an example of a universal human trait to romanticize the past. Somehow, it always seems that the current time is a turning point in history. There is change (always for the worse) and uncertainty in the present and the past, by comparison, looks safer, more secure. You've probably heard your grandparents go on about kids today.

So, to people living in tough times, it might have been comforting to know that life could be better only if...

Logic says that life was harsher thousands of years ago and people rarely made it to retirement age. But that doesn't apply if you believe that we were all at peace in the Garden of Eden (right next to Shangri-La, the Easter Bunny's rabbit hole and the Tooth Fairy's castle). One day, you might be old enough to complain to your grandchildren about kids these days and the state of the world and how things were so much better at the beginning of the 21th century (except for global warming, terrorism, avian flu, etc...)

Answer 3

Our recent increases in lifespan are primarily due to better healthcare, advances in medicine and technology and the development of drugs such as antibiotics.

Some people, living particularly on islands have both a slight genetic disposition and a healthy diet needed to sustain a long life.

I can see no reason why somebody in the past can live for centuries without these advancements or condition.

I think its best not to take the bible too literally.

Answer 4

After the fall of man in Genesis humans began to progressively degenerate from the glorified state they once had in the Garden of Eden. That is why our lifespans have progressively decreased. In addition, their diets were far better back then and the nutritional quality of their food was better. They also received a great deal of daily exercise because their societies were agricultural and their environments were nowhere as polluted as ours. We get very little exercise in comparison, our fruits and vegetables aren't nearly as nutritious as they once were, and most of our food is filled with poisons and carcinogens. Our environments are also severely polluted. I'm surprised we live as long as we do these days.

Answer 5

No, it is not scientifically plausible to believe that humans once lived for hundreds of years at a time. Currently, the oldest person to date has been Jeanne Calment, who lived to 122 years. If humans had at one time lived to be hundreds of years old, then we would expect to see some remnant of that longevity in our species crop up now and again.

Answer 6

If the current pollution levels & other factors - deforestation are a threat to mans health & longetivity, if the current lifestyle of the people (eating habits etc) , which is unscientific, is a catalyst for deaths , & if these threats werent present in ancient days , then man could havelived for centuris

Answer 7

Because its "recorded" in Genesis doesn't make it so. Fossils can be dated for age and since genesis was less than 6000 or so years ago, the remains of people from that era could easily be checked for age at death.

Biblical fables were written for downtrodden peasants who needed a boost in their egos so they could believe themselves to be god's chosen people.

Answer 8

Genesis is the only place that's recorded. Moses exaggerated the size of Noah's flood. I'm thinking he exaggerated people's longevity too.

Answer 9

The irony is that the ONLY way for this to be plausible is if you believe in evolutionary theory, and can find some biologically sound reason man has evolved organs far-less hardy than they once were!

Answer 10

something just believed(based on faith) is NOT science.Evolution is NOT part of science.Is BEER part of football? Just putting 2 things together like evolution in a science class does NOT mean it is part of science.SCIENCE deals with things we can SEE and OBSERVE.When a tecaher or a textbook says "millions of years ago.." one needs to ask"how do you know--were you there?"