Longevity, Tooth Wear, and Genesis

[Steve Petersen]

OK, Biblical literalists insist that the lifespans of people shortly after the flood were significantly longer than today. From after the flood until the time of David, longevity in the Bible shows a decrease of age at death from 438 years (Arphaxad's time) to 70 years (David's time.) http://creation.com/temporal-changes-in-the-ageing-of-biblical-patriarchs

Now, anthropologists can use tooth wear as a method of determining someone's age at death to with about a 95% confidence level. http://var-and-evo.biol.uni.torun.pl/03_8.pdf

SO, if people lived a lot longer for 500 to 1000 years after the Flood, shouldn't that be apparent by their teeth? Why has this not been observed?

 

[JackRT]

That's so simple --- they grew new sets of teeth as needed *blink*

 

[AV1611VET]

OK, Biblical literalists insist that the lifespans of people shortly after the flood were significantly longer than today. From after the flood until the time of David, longevity in the Bible shows a decrease of age at death from 438 years (Arphaxad's time) to 70 years (David's time.) http://creation.com/temporal-changes-in-the-ageing-of-biblical-patriarchs

Now, anthropologists can use tooth wear as a method of determining someone's age at death to with about a 95% confidence level. http://var-and-evo.biol.uni.torun.pl/03_8.pdf

SO, if people lived a lot longer for 500 to 1000 years after the Flood, shouldn't that be apparent by their teeth? Why has this not been observed?

Has anyone's teeth been found, whose name is in the Bible, and whose age at death is recorded?

 

[lesliedellow]

OK, Biblical literalists insist that the lifespans of people shortly after the flood were significantly longer than today. From after the flood until the time of David, longevity in the Bible shows a decrease of age at death from 438 years (Arphaxad's time) to 70 years (David's time.) http://creation.com/temporal-changes-in-the-ageing-of-biblical-patriarchs

Now, anthropologists can use tooth wear as a method of determining someone's age at death to with about a 95% confidence level. http://var-and-evo.biol.uni.torun.pl/03_8.pdf

SO, if people lived a lot longer for 500 to 1000 years after the Flood, shouldn't that be apparent by their teeth? Why has this not been observed?

They had diamond capped teeth back then.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Has anyone's teeth been found, whose name is in the Bible, and whose age at death is recorded?

So, is it your opinion that ONLY Biblical figures in that period lived that long?

 

[AV1611VET]

So, is it your opinion that ONLY Biblical figures in that period lived that long?

No.

Let me reword my question then.

Has anyone been found who lived between Arphaxad and David, with tooth decay showing ... say ... 200 years of age?

 

[Steve Petersen]

No.

Let me reword my question then.

Has anyone been found who lived between Arphaxad and David, with tooth decay showing ... say ... 200 years of age?

In the Bronze Age, (about 3000 BCE to 1200 BCE), average age at death was about 26. This covers the period in question (post-Flood to David.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#Variation_over_time

I find it a little funny: as a YEC, don't you believe that ALL humans remains must be less than 6000 years old? Prior to the flood, the Biblical record is that age at death was even GREATER than what we are talking about here.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not talking about DECAY but tooth wear. Teeth wear down as we age.

Fine.

Has anyone been found who lived between Arphaxad and David, with teeth wear showing ... say ... 200 years of age?

 

[lesliedellow]

Fine.

Has anyone been found who lived between Arphaxad and David, with teeth wear showing ... say ... 200 years of age?

That's just the point. All of their teeth would have been long gone, so what did they eat with?

 

[Kenny'sID]

If you believe people lived for several hundred years, then you have to believe their body was able to support that life for several hundred years. Teeth were part of that body, and were no more apt to wear out than the heart, lungs, kidneys, or whatever.

 

[Steve Petersen]

If you believe people lived for several hundred years, then you have to believe their body was able to support that life for several hundred years. Teeth were part of that body, and were no more apt to wear out than the hear/lung/kidneys, or whatever.

So, specifically what conditions were different post-Flood to David that allowed their teeth and internal organs to last longer than today?

 

[Kenny'sID]

So, specifically what conditions were different post-Flood to David that allowed their teeth and internal organs to last longer than today?

First, can I assume you are just bringing forth evidence the bible is not true and pointing out what you consider a probability people can't live that long as support for that?

I'm not necessarily saying that's what you are doing but knowing what your real agenda is here can save us all some time...just makes things easier.

On what conditions God Changed, I don't know that anymore than I know how he made even a single one of mans cells out of dust. But I do wonder if any answer there, no matter how convincing, would change your view and at this point I'm doubting that, which in turn leads me to believe all this is about changing the Christians view.

And if all that pans out...why would you want to change our view? Why not just believe what you believe and move on?

 

[PsychoSarah]

OK, Biblical literalists insist that the lifespans of people shortly after the flood were significantly longer than today. From after the flood until the time of David, longevity in the Bible shows a decrease of age at death from 438 years (Arphaxad's time) to 70 years (David's time.) http://creation.com/temporal-changes-in-the-ageing-of-biblical-patriarchs

Now, anthropologists can use tooth wear as a method of determining someone's age at death to with about a 95% confidence level. http://var-and-evo.biol.uni.torun.pl/03_8.pdf

SO, if people lived a lot longer for 500 to 1000 years after the Flood, shouldn't that be apparent by their teeth? Why has this not been observed?

-_- their teeth would have rotted from overuse, since humans typically only have two sets (if you count 12 year molars and wisdom teeth as part of the adult set). Even with modern dental care, toothpaste, etc, and if the teeth of those past humans were twice as durable as our modern ones, they wouldn't last a 400+ year lifespan. Furthermore, people in the past tended to have more rough plant matter and even bones in their diets, which wears down teeth even faster. If one asserts that their teeth were durable enough to withstand those lifespans, then the wear on their teeth would not be reflective of their age.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's just the point. All of their teeth would have been long gone, so what did they eat with?

So the answer is NO?

And if it is, what does that say for "anthropologists' ability to use tooth wear as a method of determining someone's age at death to with about a 95% confidence level"?

 

[AV1611VET]

If you believe people lived for several hundred years, then you have to believe their body was able to support that life for several hundred years. Teeth were part of that body, and were no more apt to wear out than the heart, lungs, kidneys, or whatever.

Correct.

Deuteronomy 29:5 And I have led you forty years in the wilderness: your clothes are not waxen old upon you, and thy shoe is not waxen old upon thy foot.

God didn't create junk.

 

[PsychoSarah]

So the answer is NO?

And if it is, what does that say for "anthropologists' ability to use tooth wear as a method of determining someone's age at death to with about a 95% confidence level"?

I would guess that in calculating that confidence level, remains with no teeth present are not counted in. Obviously, if there are no teeth, a method that requires them to be present is off the table and can't be done at all.

 

[AV1611VET]

So, specifically what conditions were different post-Flood to David that allowed their teeth and internal organs to last longer than today?

Stuff didn't wear out back then, like it does today.

 

[Kenny'sID]

_- their teeth would have rotted from overuse, since humans typically only have two sets (if you count 12 year molars and wisdom teeth as part of the adult set).

No more than their other body parts would have. Now if you believe their other body parts would have worn out too, then you don't believe they could have ever lived that long in the first place, just as, and I hope to be corrected if I'm wrong, I suspect the OP does.

 

[PsychoSarah]

No more than their other body parts would have. Now if you believe their other body parts would have worn out too, then you don't believe they could have ever lived that long in the first place, just as, and I hope to be corrected if I'm wrong, I suspect the OP does.

I explained that scenario in the rest of my post.

 

[lesliedellow]

So the answer is NO?

And if it is, what does that say for "anthropologists' ability to use tooth wear as a method of determining someone's age at death to with about a 95% confidence level"?

If people lived to be up to 1,000 years old, but their teeth lasted only 100+ years, that would be a bit remiss of God wouldn't it?