Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I heard she had a sister that died and her dad somehow threw away the wrong birth certificate so she is actually a few years, maybe two or three years younger. They considered her the replacement for her sister and that caused some of the confusion.
The older the record, the less likely it is to be reliable. It also varies by country. There are many that claim to be older, but their age remains unverified.Sounds like someone appealed to written records to verify a truth.
So a 122 year-old-woman's birth certificate would be the least likely to be reliable ... right?The older the record, the less likely it is to be reliable.
Amongst all other birth certificates of people alive, yes. And if that was the only record she had, it wouldn't be enough. She had school records, photos of herself at a young age that showed her ears (which are about as unique as fingerprints), marriage records, tax records, and so on, all of which supported her claimed age.So a 122 year-old-woman's birth certificate would be the least likely to be reliable ... right?
Let's say she had 66 separate documents in her profile, written over a period of 122 years, by 66 different people who came from different continents, languages, and backgrounds?Amongst all other birth certificates of people alive, yes. And if that was the only record she had, it wouldn't be enough. She had school records, photos of herself at a young age that showed her ears (which are about as unique as fingerprints), marriage records, tax records, and so on, all of which supported her claimed age.
No, that type of documentation would be very limited, only 66 records for a 122 year lifespan, when there should be yearly tax records alone that take up all of her working years at a minimum, and her school records should take up every year of schooling? Don't forget the census, and other records. And what weird records, coming from all these different places. If anything, this type of record would make it nearly certain that she was a fraud, and a terrible one at that.Let's say she had 66 separate documents in her profile, written over a period of 122 years, by 66 different people who came from different continents, languages, and backgrounds?
Would that do it?
Then what's this all about?No, that type of documentation would be very limited, only 66 records for a 122 year lifespan, when there should be yearly tax records alone that take up all of her working years at a minimum, and her school records should take up every year of schooling? Don't forget the census, and other records. And what weird records, coming from all these different places. If anything, this type of record would make it nearly certain that she was a fraud, and a terrible one at that.
Now you sound like you're contradicting yourself.And if that was the only record she had, it wouldn't be enough. She had school records, photos of herself at a young age that showed her ears (which are about as unique as fingerprints), marriage records, tax records, and so on, all of which supported her claimed age.
Her records weren't like the ones you describe. Hers were all from her native country of France, and were far more extensive than 66 documents. There are differences between reliable and unreliable documentation beyond just number.Then what's this all about?Now you sound like you're contradicting yourself.
Sounds like you know her pretty well.Her records weren't like the ones you describe. Hers were all from her native country of France, and were far more extensive than 66 documents. There are differences between reliable and unreliable documentation beyond just number.
Know her personally? No, she died the same year I was born. However, she is well known by many people, due to also being the holder of the world record for oldest actor/actress, at the age of 114. I happen to be a fan of film and trivia.Sounds like you know her pretty well.
Okay.Know her personally? No, she died the same year I was born. However, she is well known by many people, due to also being the holder of the world record for oldest actor/actress, at the age of 114. I happen to be a fan of film and trivia.
Of course, some Christians claim that god has limited our longevity to 120 years, per Exodus...
nope, world record for lifespan in humans is 122
I heard she had a sister that died and her dad somehow threw away the wrong birth certificate so she is actually a few years, maybe two or three years younger. They considered her the replacement for her sister and that caused some of the confusion.
Rumors have a habit of being false. I have heard people doubt her age, but the only people that do that don't for religious reasons always mention that one of the holders of the title of oldest person on record besides her was found to be a fraud about 10 years after he died. Also, she never had a sister, and you can't throw away death certificates or a governmental copy of a birth certificate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_CalmentI heard she had a sister that died and her dad somehow threw away the wrong birth certificate so she is actually a few years, maybe two or three years younger. They considered her the replacement for her sister and that caused some of the confusion.
Dr. Gerald Schroeder has an interesting perspective on the Age of the Universe.
http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48951136.htm
In 1959, a survey was taken of leading American scientists. Among the many questions asked was, "What is your concept of the age of the universe?" Now, in 1959, astronomy was popular, but cosmology ― the deep physics of understanding the universe ― was just developing. The response to that survey was recently republished in Scientific American ― the most widely read science journal in the world. Two-thirds of the scientists gave the same answer: "Beginning? There was no beginning. Aristotle and Plato taught us 2400 years ago that the universe is eternal. Oh, we know the Bible says 'In the beginning.' That's a nice story, but we sophisticates know better. There was no beginning."
Dr. Gerald Schroeder has an interesting perspective on the Age of the Universe.
http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48951136.htm
13.772 billion years or 13.82 billion years?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...bble-oldest-frontier-science-space-astronomy/
- In 2012, WMAP estimated the age of the universe to be 13.772 billion years.
- In 2013, Planck measured the age of the universe at 13.82 billion years.
In this link, Dr. Schroeder makes the following assertion:
Does anybody know anything about this survey, for example where it was originally published, and when it was re-published in Scientific American?
It doesn't sound very convincing, does it?In this link, Dr. Schroeder makes the following assertion:
Does anybody know anything about this survey, for example where it was originally published, and when it was re-published in Scientific American?
It seems very odd that leading scientists should say that there was no beginning to the Universe eleven years after the publication of the first paper about the 'Big Bang' cosmology ('The Origin of the Chemical Elements', Physical Review, 1948). The year 1959 was also a year after Allan Sandage had obtained a value of 75 km/s/Mpc (to within a factor of 2) for the Hubble constant, implying that the Universe was about 13 billion years old (again, to within a factor of 2).
It also seems very strange that 'leading scientists' should rely for their belief that the Universe was eternal on the authority of Plato and Aristotle, who cannot have had any empirical evidence in support of their opinion. If these scientists had cited the published 'Steady State' cosmology of Hoyle, Bondi and Gold (Monthly Notices Royal Astronomical Society, 108, 252 and 108, 372) in support of their views, they would have been more convincing.
Thank-you. That is very helpful. I will try to find it for myself.
Nope, but it looks like Schroeder has been using the same story since at least 2002. So the republication in Sciam would have to be before that. Taking a wild guess, it might be this article from 1992, and Google Books shows bits and pieces of it (I assume) as it appears in Sciam's Understanding Cosmology: "In 1959 a survey showed that a majority of astronomers rejected continuous creation, although only a third of those voting actually favored the big bang."
Without more details it's hard to say, but all it really says is that only a third voted for the Big Bang, which is not (necessarily) the same as two-thirds voting for 'it was always there'.
Further Google-fu leads me to think the original publication is:
Science News Letter 76, no. 2 (July 11, 1959)
I think the survey had a total N of 33, so it's not like it was a comprehensive poll of astronomers, anyway.Thank-you. That is very helpful. I will try to find it for myself.
Scientists have a way of rigging votes (Pluto), having pictures drawn (Haeckel), or appealing to the Antichrist Lovers Union to push their agendas (Scopes).Dr. Gerald Schroeder has an interesting perspective on the Age of the Universe.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?