Longevity

[McCulloch]

Lets go back to the time when life expectancy 8 or 000years.

Methuselah is said to have lived 969 years. While he is the oldest living fellow recorded in the Bible, there are other quite long lived patriarchs: Jared, 962 years; Noah, 950 years; Adam, 930 years; Seth, 912 years; Kenan, 910 years; Enosh, 905 years; Mahalalel, 895 years; Lamech, 777 years; Shem, 600 year.

Is there any biological evidence that humans have ever routinely lived beyond 120 years? Is there any biological evidence that any human has ever lived beyond 200 years?

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 18 by JohnPaul]

Perhaps you misunderstood my last comment and mistook it for a sarcastic insult. I apologize for that. I intended it as a sincere compliment. I like your "dimensional" approach here, and agree with it completely.

I appreciate that, JP -- both the compliment, and the apology. It is very exciting stuff, isn't it?

Just to clarify: I wasn't offended. And did not report a complaint.

Yes, it is exciting. I majored in physics in school, but never finished. I do try to keep up with it at least at a popular level. I believe there is plenty of room for a god lurking in the gaps. Maybe not the vindictive tribal God of the Bible, but still something better and beyond or present knowledge.

Perhaps a better way to look at it, from a dimensional perspective, is that it is WE who exist in the gaps created by God. That if God were a sheet of typing paper, our space-time continuum is a line drawn on the paper.

I am inclined to address the "vindictive tribal God of the Bible", which you have alluded to several times.

I wonder if you might consider that that could be a superficial evaluation.

That is, there's no denying that on the face of it, and by His own admission, He is a "jealous" God; compelled to execute His judgment and wrath on unrighteousness by the holiness of His nature.

But assuming for a moment that His holiness, jealousy, judgment, and wrath are real -- and not just poetic expressions by "tribal" minstrels (I mean, why not? after all -- "it don't cost nuthin'..."), then the question is "why is that so?" After all, we demand at a minimum that "God", or at least our concept of Him, be better than we are. And there are a number of people who seem to lack most, if not all, of those qualities, which are generally deemed to be ugly ones (even -- especially? -- "holiness"; or, as it is generally referred to, "sanctimoniousness"; self-righteousness").

I think a satisfactory explanation can be arrived at, if one looks just a micron or two past the surface (though, as with all things pertaining to God, a full explanation and understanding is beyond our capacity. He gives us the information and understanding that we need; not necessarily all we want to have).

From that standpoint, and starting in media res, so to speak: when Man (Adam) chose to use his free will to disobey God, it sundered his connection with the Divine nature, the way that cutting a rose sunders its connection with the plant that sustains it.

The immediate result was "spiritual death"; followed in short order by depravity of the soul; and ultimately in bodily death.

Now, if we're together so far, imagine this "depravity of the soul" spreading like wildfire throughout a population that still enjoyed a considerable amount of the residual physical perfection instilled in them at the onset (i.e., lack of harmful mutations; good health; amazingly long lives, as is the topic of the thread).

Allow me to interject here that there are two categories of creatures imbued by their Creator with the quality we call "free will". One category is purely spiritual, and exists in the direct presence of God in a way that we can't fully imagine; and the other exists in the 4D physical realm of our space-time continuum. The latter, of course, is us.

Now, one of the consequences of possessing free will, is that it can be misused. That misuse, by supernatural creatures, is a terrifying prospect indeed. And we are told that is precisely what happened; that the Archangel of Heaven (Lucifer) chose himself over God through Pride (the source of all sin); that a third of the "heavenly host" followed him in rebellion, and that as a consequence, we are the prey, pawns, and prize in a spiritual war that wages, unseen, all around us (though its collateral damage is plain to see, from the deception into sin of Adam and Eve, to the deplorable state of the human condition evident all around us).

I cannot imagine the case being better stated than by C. S. Lewis (as is usually the case ), when he provided the illustration that 'the better a thing is, the worse it can be'. I.e., a cow can neither be very good, nor very bad. A dog, better and worse. A man, better and worse still. A supernatural spiritual entity, far better and far worse still.

The bottom line: when man became corrupted, the results were swift and horrible. Within a short time, the knowledge of God passed from his darkened mind, replaced by "thoughts of wickedness continually"; except for a relative few who maintained their faith, and sought truth and righteousness as a result (it is possible to add to this circumstance an intriguing "gene pool" problem implied by the actions of the "Nephalim" in Genesis 6 -- but let's walk before we start running. ).

To sum up (and this is already longer than I intended it to be), a holy God MUST express His "vengeance" and "wrath" upon a corrupt and unrighteous creation. Much in the same way that if you were typing a page of the greatest, most sublime truth available to your awareness, and the letters on the page began, of their own free will, not only began to organize themselves into the most vile and deceitful lies; but were intent on spreading this behavior to everything else you had written, or intended to write: your inclination may well be to cast the offending page and characters into the waste bin -- if not the fireplace.

And that is where we are. God destroyed the unrighteousness of men once, in a global flood. And, as part of His perfect plan for universal redemption and salvation, in the face of our continued sinfulness, He on occasion, and as an example for all time, required the elimination of those people who had been thoroughly corrupted by their turning from Him (resulting in all kinds of heinous activity, including child sacrifice to their idolatrous and pagan gods).

It is worth remembering, though, that in no situation did God take the life of the unrighteous. They were all destined to die. He merely took away their time in this plane of existence.

I could go on -- I suppose you'll already consider this "offensive preaching", and not accept a word of it (though to me, it's merely an "expositional proclamation" ) -- but I suppose I should close for now.

This has been fun to type, though...

[JohnPaul]

[Replying to post 21 by Volbrigade]

Volbrigade wrote:

Perhaps a better way to look at it, from a dimensional perspective, is that it is WE who exist in the gaps created by God. That if God were a sheet of typing paper, our space-time continuum is a line drawn on the paper.

A line drawn on paper would certainly be impressed by a Sphere passing through it, but you remember what happened to A. Square when he told the priests about it?

No, I don't consider your post to be offensive preaching. It is an interesting expression of your own beliefs. Now let me express a few of mine.

My beliefs are not as well defined as yours seem to be. My evaluation of the Bible comes directly from a critical examination of the Bible itself. I believe the Bible was written by self-serving priests and imposed on the tribe to secure the priest's own positions of power, and to give the appearance of divine justification for the atrocities committed by the tribe. I believe Jesus was a good man and a revered teacher, but the stories of the Virgin Birth and the Empty Tomb were tacked on to impress new converts. Jesus' "divine" status was best described by himself in the Gospel of Thomas when Jesus said to Thomas: "You and I are both from the same source." Jesus was more advanced, of course, but was the same spark of the True God that exists in all of us, waiting for us to develop it to save ourselves and escape from the flawed materil world to rejoin the True God. The Archon waits to refuse entry to those who are not yet spiritually developed enough, and must return to earth for another reincarnation. The True God does not waste souls. He further refines them.

I admit that I am fascinated by the myth-based ideas of the early Christian Gnostics, which you will consider to be heresy. I do not believe the stories literally, of course, but I think they are a much better interpretation of the Bible than any of the self-serving propaganda invented by the Christians.

For example, the God of the Bible is a defective impostor-god who created a flawed material world and trapped human souls in it for his own amusement, while the True God remained remote and pure. The serpent in the Garden of Eden was an "emanation" of the True God, trying to rescue the trapped human souls by giving them Divine Knowledge. This is supported by Genesis 3:22, which makes it unmistakably clear that Adam and Eve were not evicted from the Garden as punishment for disobediance, as the later Christian invention of Original Sin claims. They were evicted because God feared that the divine knowledge given them by the serpent would enable them to become equal to himself.

The doctrine of Free Will is logically self-contradictory. If God is omniscient, perfectly all-knowing, then he knows the future of every human soul and knew it from all eternity. When he creates a human soul, he knows with perfect knowledge whether that soul will sin and be condemned to hell, or not. It is not necessary to say that God "causes" the future. As pointed out by Maimonides in the 12th century. the fact that he knows it is sufficient to make Free Will a deceptive and malicious illusion.

I am sure your blood is boiling by this time, so I will rest my case for now. Thanks.

[McCulloch]

Moderator Comment

Please review the Rules.
Please try to relate your comments at least tangentially to the question in the OP. The OP asks for biological evidence.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 22 by JohnPaul]

I'm not sure who Mac's comment is directed at, JP -- but I'm pretty certain it's either you, me, or both.

I hope I will be permitted a response to your post, though it probably doesn't relate much to the OP, either. But I see no harm in allowing the conversation to lead where it will. However, in an effort to be in compliance, I will reiterate that the original human genome, as created by God, had no imperfection. That accounts for the longevity of the pre-Flood population. After the Fall, entropy was introduced into the natural order, allowing for harmful genetic mutations. This process was dramatically accelerated in the altered post-Flood global environment, and life spans shrank accordingly, and rather rapidly.

That is the "biological" evidence, inferred from what we now understand of molecular biology.

On to your post:

I am sure your blood is boiling by this time, so I will rest my case for now. Thanks.

You're right. It is boiling. But not at as high a temperature as that burning sulfur that should be wafting up to your nostrils (a little levity, just to keep things in perspective ).

My beliefs are not as well defined as yours seem to be.

This is a candid and telling admission -- in fact, a defining one.

Having once accepted the condition of the hyperdimensional, which opens the door to the spiritual, and from there to 'some sort of god': the question then becomes one of what are its characteristics, its plan and purpose, what can we know of it (Him?), etc.

In my opinion, as you examine the totality of the evidence -- natural, scientific, Biblical (and the claims of other belief systems and religions), it leads inevitably toward the God of the Bible as the "True God"; and the Bible as His imparted truth to us.

I'd like to take this opportunity to contrast your remarks in regard to The Archon, with the understanding of the Bible that I adhere to.

I believe the Bible was written by self-serving priests and imposed on the tribe to secure the priest's own positions of power, and to give the appearance of divine justification for the atrocities committed by the tribe.

I think this stance is very difficult to justify. No one in the OT account -- from Adam to Abraham to Isaac to Jacob to Moses to Saul to David to Solomon and beyond -- with the exception of Enoch, and the possible exceptions of Joseph and Elijah -- is exempt from a thorough "warts and all", "feet of clay" treatment -- and that includes the priestly class of the Levites.

It is hard to imagine any document -- but especially one from antiquity -- that could provide a clearer message that (as a lightly-believing friend of mine colloquially put it) "it's all (that is, "the world") bs; we're all f'd up; and don't be greedy".

This uncompromising characterization of the messed-up "heroes" of the Bible (e.g., Rahab? A harlot? Seriously?) does not ensure its historical accuracy -- but it does support it; and certainly doesn't argue against it.

Besides, the unmistakable message delivered, and hammered home perhaps especially in the songbook of worship (The Psalms), is "don't trust men (which includes governments and priests). Trust God."

Jesus' "divine" status was best described by himself in the Gospel of Thomas when Jesus said to Thomas: "You and I are both from the same source."

This is true, of course. But only half true. And "when you take part of the truth, and try to turn it into the whole truth, you make an untruth of the truth."

Jesus, being fully human, did come from the "same source" as Thomas. He inherited his human genome from His mother, which can be traced back to Adam -- same as Thomas'.

But He was conceived by an act of His Father ("Our Father"); the God of Heaven and Earth (now that we understand the technology of conception, the Virgin birth, while still a miracle, is easy to understand in terms of God simply using the available atoms -- mostly carbon? or perhaps a 4D interface of the spiritual substance? Hmmm -- to provide the needed other half of DNA). He is therefore "begotten" not created; the fullness of God dwelling in Him bodily, etc. The death of an innocent good man -- though how you can call a radical activist who claims to be God "good" is problematic -- is a tragedy;

The atoning death of the "Lamb of God" is an achievement; a victory.

Jesus was more advanced, of course, but was the same spark of the True God that exists in all of us, waiting for us to develop it to save ourselves and escape from the flawed materil world to rejoin the True God. The Archon waits to refuse entry to those who are not yet spiritually developed enough, and must return to earth for another reincarnation. The True God does not waste souls. He further refines them.

This is clearly a "works based" religious view which puts the emphasis on man's efforts to become worthy of acceptance by God.

All considerations of truth aside (for a moment) -- I see no reason to prefer this to the Biblical view. It seems here we have a sort of critical Headmaster for God; grading papers at the end of our life on earth, and deciding on a "pass-fail" basis if you graduate, according to standards that are unclear, even arbitrary. Failure to pass the test means a remedial course is which you start over form scratch.

If that is true, then my initial inclination is "no thank you". Besides -- what is the criteria for passing? Is "51% good, 49% bad" sufficient? How can we, as finite creatures, know with certainty, or even confidence, what is considered "good or bad" from the perspective of the infinite?

And not only that -- but what is the purpose of this remedial education of recycling our earthly existence? Why not just create us perfect in the first place? Is the Archon not omnipotent enough to do so?

If I may, I'd like to offer an answer to my own question: because the Archon knows that the redemption achieved by this remedial process will be better than the original perfection.

And this is exactly what we may conclude about God's decision to allow free will, with the foreknowledge that it would cause the Fall of His perfect creation; sin and death to enter the humans He created; and the need for the Cross.

He knew that a redeemed creation would be better than the originally perfect one. For one thing, it can be argued that a fallen world would contain, and require, virtues not needed in a perfect world: patience, courage, selflessness, charity, etc. -- and most of all, faith.

And here we get to the central difference between the Archon theology, and what I consider to be the truth of Christianity.

In the former, salvation must be earned in order to be attained.

In the latter, it cannot be earned at all. God has done it all for us. "Jesus paid it all -- all to Him I owe". All we can do is accept the payment for our debt; accept His gift, through faith in Him. That is a theological statement, not preaching: though I'll admit that we have come to the point where the line gets blurry.

I'm going to leave off here. But allow me to offer this in parting:

it is important to understand what is involved in "the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil".

Adam was created perfect; Eve, his clone (with the addition of a Y chromosome) shared this perfection. They had knowledge only of GOOD. Not evil.

The tree was a test set by God. The test was this: "do you trust Me?" He gave them everything for a perfect life in the garden; but in order for free will to exist, there had to be a condition upon which it rested. A choice to make, to obey or disobey.

An interesting aspect of the story, often overlooked:

Eve was deceived into disobedience by the Serpent. Adam was not there. It is easy to speculate, based on the text, that he immediately knew that something had happened to Eve when he saw her. That she had suffered a catastrophe, which speaks to the loss of "hyperdimensionality" that we have been discussing, and which does indeed relate to the OP.

And then, Adam willingly joined her in her fallen condition.

Did he do it out of love for her? Because He loved her so much, that he couldn't bear to be without her, or for her to be alone in her fallenness? Was there a sacrificial element to the first Adam's fall?

[JohnPaul]

Moderator Comment

Please review the Rules.
Please try to relate your comments at least tangentially to the question in the OP. The OP asks for biological evidence.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

OK, I admit that random expressions of religious beliefs are pretty far removed from the OP, but perhaps not so far. What is meant by "life" and what is meant by "biological" and what is meant by "evidence"? All that is known of life processes indicates that the lifetime of individuals is self-limiting and built into the life processes themselves, but isn't reproduction a major and essential process of life? What is meant by an individual? Do you survive in any sense in your children? Certainly they contain much of your genetic codes, and acquire some of your personality and memories as children growing up. It has been said that humans are nothing more than tools developed by genes to use to facilitate the survival of the genes.

I mentioned reincarnation in my previous post, and Volbrigade mentioned the possibility of transferring a human personality into a machine. Would survival of a human personality, perhaps indefinitely, in a machine or in a series of new bodies qualify as long-lived? Would the testimony of some persons claiming to have memoies of previous lives qualify as evidence?

[JohnPaul]

[Replying to post 24 by Volbrigade]

Hi, Volbrigade,
All the points in your post deserve extensive comment and refutation, but I will try to sneak in only a couple of brief comments here before the Moderators shut this conversation down.

I believe your confusion about the true nature of God can be traced to your confusion of the father-God spoken of by Jesus with the old Hebrew god of the OT. I believe the story of the Virgin Birth was deliberate propaganda devised by the new Christian church to appeal to Jewish converts by keeping their new Jesus-god "all in the family" by claiming he was the "son" of the old Hebrew god.

The Archon preventing the escape of human souls from the material world was a servant of the impostor-god, who wanted to keep the souls trapped under his control. Of course he thought a "redeemed" creation would be better (for him) than the original creation, because it would be more subservient to him and too frightened to try to escape.

EDIT - Incidentally, you missed responding to Genesis 3:22. I have noticed that Christians often conveniently overlook that verse. And what happened to the first woman created in Genesis 1:27? This first woman, created to share dominion equally with Adam, was certainly not Eve. The docile and subservient Eve was created very differently, later in Genesis 2:22. And please don't tell me that one story simply gives more detail of the other. They are different in every important point.

[Goat]

[Replying to post 22 by JohnPaul]

I'm not sure who Mac's comment is directed at, JP -- but I'm pretty certain it's either you, me, or both.

I hope I will be permitted a response to your post, though it probably doesn't relate much to the OP, either. But I see no harm in allowing the conversation to lead where it will. However, in an effort to be in compliance, I will reiterate that the original human genome, as created by God, had no imperfection. That accounts for the longevity of the pre-Flood population. After the Fall, entropy was introduced into the natural order, allowing for harmful genetic mutations. This process was dramatically accelerated in the altered post-Flood global environment, and life spans shrank accordingly, and rather rapidly.

And, let's see you , well actually show evidence for this. It's all nice to speculate, and all that sort of stuff, but , well, where is your evidence for all this. Let's see your evidence, in context , with sources about 'the original human genome', and 'the flood' and 'pre-flood conditions'.

I mean, where is the real world data for all these claims? Can you show that is something more than 'making it up as we go along, without any real world data'??

Until you can do that, it seems sort of pointless.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 22 by JohnPaul]

I'm not sure who Mac's comment is directed at, JP -- but I'm pretty certain it's either you, me, or both.

I hope I will be permitted a response to your post, though it probably doesn't relate much to the OP, either. But I see no harm in allowing the conversation to lead where it will. However, in an effort to be in compliance, I will reiterate that the original human genome, as created by God, had no imperfection. That accounts for the longevity of the pre-Flood population. After the Fall, entropy was introduced into the natural order, allowing for harmful genetic mutations. This process was dramatically accelerated in the altered post-Flood global environment, and life spans shrank accordingly, and rather rapidly.

That is the "biological" evidence, inferred from what we now understand of molecular biology.

And, let's see you , well actually show evidence for this. It's all nice to speculate, and all that sort of stuff, but , well, where is your evidence for all this. Let's see your evidence, in context , with sources about 'the original human genome', and 'the flood' and 'pre-flood conditions'.

I mean, where is the real world data for all these claims? Can you show that is something more than 'making it up as we go along, without any real world data'??

Until you can do that, it seems sort of pointless.

I don't think it's pointless at all!

I think what we believe about our origins could not have a more profound effect on how we live our lives, the value of human life, what sorts of systems and governments are the most suitable, and on and and on.

Now, as you can see, and as you left out of your quote of mine (a curious, and no doubt completely accidental omission -- I reinserted it), the evidence I refer to is inferential in nature.

But so is all evidence for origins. No one was there at the beginning, except God. Thankfully, He has provided us an account. Apparently, you don't believe it.

Which leaves you with two other options:

either the universe, and the life which appears on one planet in it (so far as we know), and the humans that represent the most advanced form of that life, are all the products of some sort of inscrutable cosmic accident, and random processes and events:

or else God directed the process of origin and development, using a method of evolution theorized by those who don't believe in God, as an explanation for origin and development.

I submit that the latter is totally unnecessary; and the former is totally untrue.

In either case, any evidence of either is likewise inferential, and dependent for interpretation on the presuppositions with which it is viewed.

To prove otherwise, you will have to prove. first, that the universe is uncaused; that "once there was nothing, and then it exploded; after that, that amino acids lined up to form peptides and proteins, in just the right order, and with the 100% "left-handed" chirality necessary for life. And then linked together by serendipitous self-replication into an information code for life; and that they then proceeded to construct the first living cells, absent the nano-technology within the cell needed to guide its construction. And proceeded from there to make the nearly limitless number of beneficial copying errors that could transform an amoeba into a worm into a man, over great expanses of time.

Can you show me some "real world" evidence that is not inferential in nature that any of this ever happened, since you don't seem to accept inferences?

[JohnPaul]

[Replying to post 24 by Volbrigade]

Volbrigade wrote:

The tree was a test set by God. The test was this: "do you trust Me?" He gave them everything for a perfect life in the garden; but in order for free will to exist, there had to be a condition upon which it rested. A choice to make, to obey or disobey.

No, no, no! The Tree of Knowledge was an aspect of the True God which grew in the Garden only because the false god could not prevent it. The false god feared it and forbade Adam and Eve to eat the fruit. Their life in the Garden was "perfect" only in the sense that a well-treated slave's life is perfect. All their physical needs were provided. All they had to do was obey the whims of their master. They lacked the one thing which we would consider most important, the freedom to think and act for themselves.

Adam and Eve were deliberately kept ignorant by the false god. It never occured to them to eat the fruit until the serpent urged them to. The serpent did not deceive them. Read his words: "You shall not surely die. Your eyes shall be opened and you shall become as gods." The serpent kept his promise. This is confirmed later in Genesis 3:22 when the false god says "Behold, the man has become as one of us."

Adam and Eve did not die. They suffered physical death, but they had acquired the ability and the freedom to evolve spiritually and eventually escape from the flawed material world and return to the True God. The serpent had succeeded in rescuing them.

[arian]

Good bye Jamesjah, we will miss you! I will miss you, .. another one gone, .. another one gone, .. another one-believer bites the dust.. HUH!

Odon