Do you believe that human beings lived longer thousands of years ago?

I bet you that fat guy would still outsmart the others.
:)

Animals and even insects (that's the most telling evidence, indicate so) prior to the flood our planet had twice the atmospheric pressure that we have today. The earth was covered with a thick layer of clouds and it never rained. Water would bubble up out of the ground and there was very little temperature variance throughout the planet. under these conditions all things would have a life span much greater than we enjoy now. It was only after Noah left the arc that human and animal life spans began to decrease, we also lost the use of our gall bladder, appendix, and it was either the spleen or tonsils,regardless we lost the use of three of these organs. What did those organs do? How did they function in extending life for hundreds of years, along with the permanent cloud cover on earth shielding us from the harmful rays of the sun.

Actually we didn't lose the use of any organs. They still function normally (as far as anything functions normally.) Until recently, medical science just did not understand what those functions were. They are figuring it out.
Other than that... good answer.

That was in a lecture I heard 33 years from Dr. Joseph Leiberman. He had 5 Medical degrees, I'm certain there have been discoveries since then, I apologize for not being up to date. Thanks for the reminder. swampy

Less medicine, technology, and resources, there's no chance.

Medicine has progressed to keep people alive longer. Thousands of yrs ago people died due to poverty & lack of medical care. Life span was shorter thousands of yrs ago. People take better care of themselves today, Most chronic diseases can be managed. Diagnosing a disease is quicker today so treatment can start earlier. We live longer & healthier than those poor folk thousand yrs ago.

Lacking the medical care we have now they lived much shorter lives.

No. All the archaelogical evidence points to the opposite.

People usually only lived to be like 40 a few centuries ago.

That's a really hard question

not sure, i believe gods word but i dont believe mans distorted version of it and its impossivble to tell the difference, it does hav reasonable esxpliation why we lived longer but still a lil sceptical.

Our body's were made to live up to 200 years. So thousands of years ago most likely humans lived to be 200 or so because the air was cleaner and not polluted or at least very little polluted compared today.

The infant mortality rate pulled the stats down, but fewer people lived to "a ripe old age" than do now. Many illnesses no longer exist, many aren't as life threatening, and drugs and surgeries like by-pass operations and artificial organs let many more live to a normal life expectancy. I'm talking industrialized countries.

My mother had a bad heart. Medically and statistically she was expected to die before she was 45. She had heart surgery at 42 -- and lived to be 74. Would she have lived past 50 anyway? Maybe. Would she have lived to be 74? UNlikely.

Because I don't think they had any cures back then

Old age was your 30's.

The Bible says that nearly ALL of the early peoples before the Flood lived for hundreds of years, including Adam, Eve, Noah, etc.

especially with all the modernized medicine now... i wont be surprise if people become immortal someday

I don't know. Logic says they lived shorter lives due to predators, disease (a minor infection to us would be a death sentence to someone without antibiotics, for instance), brutish living conditions (go out and hunt and chop wood for the fire...you're sick in bed with the flu, awwww, poor baby), etc. But I know people who believe people ate healthier and didn't suffer from heart disease, cancer, and many other maladies that strike modern people (and get rather indignant and take deadly offense if you disagree with them on this).

They didn't have the medicine that we have today

Ancient records, including the Bible said so.

nope.

They know less about hygiene and disease, so they would definitely have live shorter lives.

No way women gave birth at much younger stages which was a more painful and dangerous practise seeing as we didn't have the medicine and technology we ha was common for mothers to die while in labor as well as babies. Also there was diseases and stuff passed on which made humans to suffer all kinds of illness particulary with young children. You were lucky to be healthy. At age 30. By middle aged many people were already dying or getting older. We didn't have cars abd transportation every thing was acconplished by hands or feet. Humans just went through much more. I mean think about it, how we have so much surgery and creams and medicine to help us live healthier. Back in the 1950s a 40 year old woman was considered really old and now look at your average 40 year old.....now imagine a thousand years back!

I meant they lived shorter lives. To bad sodahead doesn't allow people to change their answers.

Too late...too late! You voted yes. Now you're going to be shunned by your peers, just like me. :-(

SHUN THE NON -BELIEVER!!!!


SHHUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUN...

Yes we did.

Proof?
(The Bible doesn't count as proof.)

It does for most, just not for you.

Forgive me for being too intelligent to believe everything I read in books.

I didn't know that the Bible counts as evidence in the scientific community...

did you?


When did this happen... did the scientist all hit their head at once?

yep

Years ago, there were more unknown diseases with no cures. Hygene wasn't considered a big issue either. Plus, the people were unknowing of how dangerous some creatures could be. I believe that they were lucky to reach forty.

Why would anyone think otherwise when history doesn't show anything of the sort?

think about this for a moment.

Thousands of years ago human beings lived much healthier lives by comparison than we do now. Since the human body will last a hundred years or more if maintained well, it's not much of a stretch to think our ancient ancestors lived longer.

They lived different lives. They weren't much healthier, as their level of hygiene was very low.

'Hygiene' is a factor in communal (city/town) living. On the main, people were hunter-gatherers thousands of years ago. They weren't as susceptible to community-acquired infections. Yes, big concentrations of human beings existed, but they were places of commerce. The norm was small groups with similar immune responses among the members of the group. That makes a HUGE difference in longevity. Travel is one of the WORST things you can do from an epidemiological/longevity perspective.

And then there was diet/exercise. Most hunter gatherers could only acquire the minimum daily needs for themselves and their families. Translation, no lard asses back then. Life was hard and the work was tough. No couch potatoes.

Bottom line: human beings COULD and often did live longer even if the average lifespan was paradoxically short. The 'smart' lived long, productive lives whereas the 'dumb' usually fed the local fauna or died untimely deaths via war or some other accident/calamity.

Odd, the life expectancy of current hunter gatherers isn't incredibly long. Look at those still in Africa and see how long they live on average. Your theory doesn't hold up to scrutiny; also remember that nomads were hunter gatherers too.

http://www.marksdailyapple.co...

The problem is in the metric. Life expectancies are calculated on the basis of average or median lifespans. The metrics don't account for the WIDE disparity between 'dumb' people and 'smart' ones. (Those are the rubrics I've chosen for purposes of discussion and should in no way be construed as a statement on intelligence.)

Anyway, those who learned how to master their environment and could figure out ways to get out of the way of being dragged into filthy cities or wars du jour could expect to live very, very long lives. All the others would have enjoyed very SHORT lifespans for the reasons thus far discussed. If half a given population lives to a hundred-twenty and the other half lives to 25, what is the average lifespan of the population gestalt? Seventy-two and a half is the figure I get. See how that number really doesn't describe what was going on in the subject culture in terms of maximum attainable lifespan?

Anyway, the implicit poser here is whether individual human beings lived longer then than they do now. The answer remains yes. That fact may or may not be represented in average life expectancies for a culture gestalt, but then, once again, we're talking about individual human beings.