></a> </div> <!-- google_ad_section_start(weight=0) --> <!-- IE6/Win TABLE FIX --> <table width=  · Portal  Help      Search      Members      Calendar

Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
InvisionFree - Free Forum Hosting
 Welcome to The 110 Club. We hope you enjoy your visit.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you will be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Once you have registered, please post in "Welcome Center" to request administrator validation.

Join our community!

If you're already a member, please log in to your account to access all of our features.

Name:   Password:


 

 Exceptional Longevity: From Prehistory to the, Present
Track this topic | Email this topic | Print this topic
Futurist
Posted: Jun 12 2012, 05:31 PM


Methuselah


Group: Trusted Members
Posts: 8,045
Member No.: 1,176
Joined: 6-September 11
http://www.demogr.mpg.de/Papers/Books/Monograph2/start.htm
Top
Daniel
Posted: Jun 12 2012, 11:23 PM


Jeanne Calment


Group: Trusted Members
Posts: 1,073
Member No.: 1,099
Joined: 27-March 11
I didn't read much of it, but I was surprised that the number of centenarians has doubled every decade since the 1950's!!

Thanks for posting. I will read the rest of it when I get the time.
Top
Baxi
Posted: Jun 13 2012, 12:02 AM


Ars Longa,Vita Brevis.


Group: Chief Moderator
Posts: 3,859
Member No.: 1,090
Joined: 10-March 11
QUOTE (Daniel @ Jun 12 2012, 11:23 PM)
I didn't read much of it, but I was surprised that the number of centenarians has doubled every decade since the 1950's!!

Thanks for posting. I will read the rest of it when I get the time.

The interesting fact through is that the number of supercentenarians does not increase in proportion to the increase in centenarians.
Top
Futurist
Posted: Jun 13 2012, 12:30 AM


Methuselah


Group: Trusted Members
Posts: 8,045
Member No.: 1,176
Joined: 6-September 11
QUOTE (Baxi @ Jun 13 2012, 12:02 AM)
QUOTE (Daniel @ Jun 12 2012, 11:23 PM)
I didn't read much of it, but I was surprised that the number of centenarians has doubled every decade since the 1950's!!

Thanks for posting. I will read the rest of it when I get the time.

The interesting fact through is that the number of supercentenarians does not increase in proportion to the increase in centenarians.

The SC number has still increased though, if I remember correctly.
Top
Baxi
Posted: Jun 13 2012, 02:02 AM


Ars Longa,Vita Brevis.


Group: Chief Moderator
Posts: 3,859
Member No.: 1,090
Joined: 10-March 11
QUOTE (Futurist @ Jun 13 2012, 12:30 AM)
QUOTE (Baxi @ Jun 13 2012, 12:02 AM)
QUOTE (Daniel @ Jun 12 2012, 11:23 PM)
I didn't read much of it, but I was surprised that the number of centenarians has doubled every decade since the 1950's!!

Thanks for posting. I will read the rest of it when I get the time.

The interesting fact through is that the number of supercentenarians does not increase in proportion to the increase in centenarians.

The SC number has still increased though, if I remember correctly.

Yes but nowhere near to the same extent
Top
Futurist
Posted: Jun 13 2012, 10:23 PM


Methuselah


Group: Trusted Members
Posts: 8,045
Member No.: 1,176
Joined: 6-September 11
QUOTE (Baxi @ Jun 13 2012, 02:02 AM)
QUOTE (Futurist @ Jun 13 2012, 12:30 AM)
QUOTE (Baxi @ Jun 13 2012, 12:02 AM)
QUOTE (Daniel @ Jun 12 2012, 11:23 PM)
I didn't read much of it, but I was surprised that the number of centenarians has doubled every decade since the 1950's!!

Thanks for posting. I will read the rest of it when I get the time.

The interesting fact through is that the number of supercentenarians does not increase in proportion to the increase in centenarians.

The SC number has still increased though, if I remember correctly.

Yes but nowhere near to the same extent

True.
Top
Jared
Posted: Jun 15 2012, 01:48 AM


BANNED


Group: Banned
Posts: 796
Member No.: 1,184
Joined: 20-September 11
QUOTE (Futurist @ Jun 12 2012, 05:31 PM)
http://www.demogr.mpg.de/Papers/Books/Monograph2/start.htm

Interesting, but they got some things about the bible wrong. Abraham was 175, not 275, which destroys their claim that after him the maximum age declined to its present level. Isaac was actually slightly older than Abraham when he died at 180, and certainly much older than anyone alive today.
Top
schumaker
Posted: Jun 15 2012, 07:06 PM


Top Ten


Group: Trusted Members
Posts: 359
Member No.: 1,199
Joined: 26-October 11
QUOTE (Jared @ Jun 15 2012, 01:48 AM)
QUOTE (Futurist @ Jun 12 2012, 05:31 PM)
http://www.demogr.mpg.de/Papers/Books/Monograph2/start.htm

Interesting, but they got some things about the bible wrong. Abraham was 175, not 275, which destroys their claim that after him the maximum age declined to its present level. Isaac was actually slightly older than Abraham when he died at 180, and certainly much older than anyone alive today.

The author isn't actually arguing that the maximum age declined in Biblical times — he's analyzing the history of longevity claims and using the Bible as a source for some of the earliest (and least plausible) extreme old age claims on record. It's true that Abraham's age was recorded as 175, not 275, so he got that part wrong. His point about the overall decline in Biblical ages still stands, though.
Top
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
« Next Oldest | Editorials | Next Newest »
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you

Topic Options



Hosted for free by InvisionFree* (Terms of Use: Updated 2/10/2010) | Powered by Invision Power Board v1.3 Final © 2003 IPS, Inc.
Page creation time: 0.0667 seconds | Archive