lucaspa said:
Does that really work? Do the bone structure of the face and DNA of a 20 year old sapiens differ from a 90 year old sapiens? NO! .
Quotes from Cuozzo's book:
"What would happen to our head and face if we lived past 100 years as people in ancient Bible times did. We must never assume a similar rate of change in the past as in the present-that would be uniform thinking-but we can look for overall trends and make tentative predictions while "rates" will always remain in doubt.
Bishara, Treder, and Jacobsen recently wrote in the American Journal of Orthodontics that after the normal growth period for modern man is finished (18 to 25 years) growth still continues in the face and head. They measured the same 15 men and 15 women with precision cephalometric (measurable) x-rays over a time frame of 21 years.
They started out with 175 children enrolled in the study at the University of Iowa in 1946. Measurments were taken semi-annually until age 12, annually during adolescence, once during early adulthood (25 years) and once at mid-adulthood (46 years). They ended up with only 30 adults out of those original children at the age of 46, who had been measured at age 25--15 males and 15 females. The comparisons were then made between the face and head of each person when he or she was 25 and when he or she was 46. The male measurements were calculated to age 25. This is called a longitudinal study. This proved to be very significant indeed.
They stated in their discussion, "Overall, the present findings suggest that age-related changes in the craniofacial complex do not cease with the onset of adulthood, but continue albeit at a significantly slower rate, throughout adult life. With a few important exceptions, these changed tend to be of small magnitude, so that their clinical relevance is somewhat limited, and generally would not significantly influence orthodonic treatment planning. " Therefore while playing down its importance in the plan of treatment for a patient with braces, they affirmed a real growth trend in the adult years"
He goes on to cite an number of studies
"Pfitzner, in Germany, in 1899 examined 3,400 male and female cadavers and found that their heads and faces grew into middle age, 35-45.
To summerize, these studys show little increase in height of the skull, but " Therefore, if can be concluded that with the exception of the females of one isolated indian tribe in the United States, all other groups of peoples studied by the aforementioned anthropologists showed the following: a skull whose proportions changed as it aged with lengths gaining the most, the widths next, and the heights the least"
On the face, out of several studys listed;
"Using 10,000 Irish men..Hooten and Dupertuis in 1951 expressed surprise when they found continued facial growth into the sixth decade"
Another study included 120 skulls of ancient indians from Indian Knoll, Kentucky-finding that the cranial length increased from the younger to the older group among males while the cranial height did not increase.
To conclude:
"Should we make this more personal? Observe a picture of yourself at a younger age if you are an older person. Observe pictures of your parents and grandparents when they were younger and older. The changes you notice are not just soft tissue changes, they are genuine bone changes. If you are over 50 try on a hat that fit you at 20. My Navy officer's cap sits on top my head now and I have less hair then I did when I was 25.
When are the Bible-believing people going to wake up and put two and two together? If there were genuinely old people who lived in the past, don't you suppose they would have undergone the same changes in the face and head that the aforementioned studies have described? If so, where are the remains of these people? Do you think the museums would ever consider this type of reasoning? The answer to the latter question is no, since the museums and secular universities are dominated by evolutionists who do not believe that the Bible has anything valuable to say in the area of science or history."
lucaspa said:
Because all the peoples of the time looked back to a "golden age" when men were mightier and lived longer. Look at the Babylonian, Egyptian, and Greek stories. They all have an earlier age when people lived much longer.
Now, this might reflect a vague oral memory of when they were hunter-gatherers. Agriculture allows you to feed more people on the same acreage, but it decreases the lifespan. The diet is not as varied and therefore tends to lack vitamins, there is more contact with domesticated animals and thus disease, the labor is harder, etc. All this decreases lifespan. So the stories could easily represent an oral tradition from the past when people did regularly live into their 60s as opposed to living to 35.
Care to elaborate on that? Please, be specific.
Again, Cuozzo's explanations have been supplanted by later data. The mtDNA data are clear that neandertals were NOT the same species as sapiens. Therefore there is another explanation for Cuozzo's "data".
"The mtDNA is different in Neanderthals and the reason is very simple. We are devolved humans and they [the Neanderthals] were less devolved than us. Paul's letter (Romans 8).
Also as one ages today his or her mtDna also changes considerably. The older persons in Genesis (300+) would most likely have mtDNA which is different than the younger people. Also new information tells us than mtDNA mutates much faster than previously known rates. Also, the Lake Mungo 3 (Australia)individual,an anatomically modern human, supposedly from 60,000 yrs. ago has different mtDNA than moderns today. "
lucaspa said:
BTW, Cuozzo misplaced the TMJ (how a dentist could do that is a mystery). The original construction is correct. Remember, Pudmuddle, I had to learn some gross anatomy in order to teach it to medical
students.
Not sure which skull you are talking about, but the pic I saw was totally out of joint.
The only skulls I handle are animal skulls and even I can tell when a jaw bone is out of joint.
BTW, I don't claim all of Cuozzo's conclusions are correct, but I think people need to know that there are other conclusions that can be drawn then the common ones, that are just as valid.
Sorry for the long post, and any miss-spellings are mine.
