Did our antediluvian ancestors look differently from us?

[Basilissa]

Abstract: This essay presents and defends a hypothesis that our antediluvian ancestors looked quite differently from us.


Introduction

Let's face it: once people hit forty, our bodies begin to disintegrate. Our hips and knees begin to hurt due to bipedal locomotion, in extreme cases leading to eburnation. Our legs are prone to varicosity. Our teeth decay and begin to fall out. Our eyesight and hearing decline. Our bones turn fragile due to mineral loss, making us prone to bone breakage - and making it more difficult for bone healing. Our spine weakens, including problems such as slipped disks. We start to lose muscles by the pound (making the fat circles around our bellies that much more visible). Basically, the way we are now, we have been designed to live not much more than 50 years. Yet, the Holy Bible tells us that before the Flood, people lived hundreds of years. How do we explain this apparent contradiction?


Methods

My methods include reading the Bible carefully and making conclusions based on it.


Results and discussion

Despite what we see empirically regarding human longevity, the Holy Bible tells us that before the Flood, people lived for centuries. Adam lived 930 years (Genesis 5:5). His descendant Jared lived 962 years (Genesis 5:20). Later, Methuselah lived 969 years (Genesis 5:27).

There are a few possible explanations, how is that possible that these ancient people lived so long:

1) God took time out of His busy schedule to miraculously fix every health problem of Adam and his descendants, including healing every slipped disk and regenerating every fallen tooth, for hundreds of years for each individual mentioned in the Bible. This is not very probable, since God has a very busy schedule and it would be difficult to expect of Him to be at the service of the first people all the time.

2) These ancient people aged just as we age - so basically past age 90 they were all blind, deaf, toothless, and bed-ridden, and continued to live another 800-900 years in such miserable condition. That possibility seems improbable as well, since it would have been a great burden for the young descendants, who would have to be taking care of their bed-ridden parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, and so on.

3) Therefore, the most logical possibility is that our antediluvian ancestors were designed quite differently. This hypothesis is supported by the fact that several of the aforementioned individuals begat their offspring when they were well over 100 years old. For example, Adam was 130 years old when he begat Seth (Genesis 5:3), and he kept begetting more sons and daughters afterwards (Genesis 5:4). Jared was 162 when he begat his first son (Genesis 5:18). Methuselah was 187 years old when he begat his first son (Genesis 5:25). Therefore, they had to stay young much longer than people do nowadays, and had to have different bodies designed to stay young for hundreds of years.

Here is a sketch how they might have looked (source: ):

As this drawing suggests, our antediluvian ancestors might have been shorter and bulkier, with knees bending forward, some extra ribs, and overall bent forward. The ears would have been pointy to improve hearing (more info in aforementioned link).


Conclusions

While this hypothesis can be confirmed only when we find and excavate an antediluvian burial, I believe that I supplied enough Biblical support for the thesis that God designed our antediluvian ancestors quite differently from the current design of humans, which allowed them to live more than 900 years.


Bibliography:

The Holy Bible (obviously)

Olshansky, S. Jay, Bruce A. Carnes, and Robert N. Butler. "If humans were built to last." Scientific American 284, no. 3 (2001): 50-55.
Online: https://eebweb.arizona.edu/faculty/M...n%20design.pdf

[Elmer G. White]

Re: Did our antediluvian ancestors look differently from us?

What a nice study, Miss Basilissa! Who was the male scholar who inspired you and gave you advice? My compliments to him! Now, this is quite a good paper. I could join you as an author, send it to the Journal of Creation of any other high-impact journal and you'd get to co-author a significant keystone article? I see no need for revision except I'd like you to list Prayer as one source of the data you collected.

Mark 9:29
And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting.

1 Timothy 4:5
For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

As for the conclusions, they offer a new, exciting explanation to some fossils that the evolutionists abuse to oppose Jesus. As antediluvian people actually looked like the figure depicted in your post, we now have proof that the "Neanderthals" were just normal, pre-flood men. This is how the evolutionist conspiracy shows them:



They look exactly like the figure in your post. Case closed. In fact, in the ancient millennia-old photograph above we might very well be seeing Abraham, Isaac and Sarah. Isn't that terrific?


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

[Joanna Lytton-Vasey]

Re: Did our antediluvian ancestors look differently from us?

What a lovely essay, Sister Basilisk, and so blissfully concise. I do so hate it when scientific papers take more than about 5 minutes to read.

My only criticism, if I may mention it, is the choice of illustration. That woman is wearing PANTS!

[WilliamJenningsBryan]

Re: Did our antediluvian ancestors look differently from us?

. . . .

As for the conclusions, they offer a new, exciting explanation to some fossils that the evolutionists abuse to oppose Jesus. As antediluvian people actually looked like the figure depicted in your post, we now have proof that the "Neanderthals" were just normal, pre-flood men. This is how the evolutionist conspiracy shows them:

. . . .

They look exactly like the figure in your post. Case closed. In fact, in the ancient millennia-old photograph above we might very well be seeing Abraham, Isaac and Sarah. Isn't that terrific?


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

Thanks for clarifying that Professor White, I've always wondered what happened to the "Neanderthals". I often surmised that they were one of the groups in the Bible (KJV1611) like the Canaanites or the Amalekites that God ordered wiped off the face of the earth.

There are some "scientists" that say that some of us have Neanderthal "DNA" in us, suggesting that there was intermarriage and are reassessing the dates when all this happened:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/deadthings/2017/09/04/new-dates-for-neanderthals-shakes-up-long-held-theory/

This could explain people like George Soros, Harvey Weinstein, and the Democrats.

[Alan Swallows Waiting for Email Confirmation]

Re: Did our antediluvian ancestors look differently from us?

Interesting study, sister. When I was in high school (it was a Christian school), one of my teachers explained how before the flood there was a canopy of water above the clouds (Genesis 1:6) which would have filtered UV rays from the sun and cosmic radiation and would have allowed people to live longer. But during the flood this canopy was destroyed, so after many generations lifespans dropped to 175 in Abraham's day (Genesis 25:7), 120 in Moses' day (Deuteronomy 34:7), 70-80 in King David's day (Psalm 90:10) and about 35 during the industrial revolution. In the early days of this transition, you have people outliving their great-great-great-great-grandchildren, like in the case of Eber and Abraham (Genesis 11:10-32). My teacher also used canopy theory to explain the extinction of the dinosaurs. It kind of makes sense that a water canopy floating in space would filter harmful rays and people would probably live longer - if it didn't didn't also cause runaway global warming or cooling. I also wonder if people during the industrial revolution looked different than us seeing as we live about twice as long as they did.

[Elmer G. White]

Re: Did our antediluvian ancestors look differently from us?

Thanks for clarifying that Professor White, I've always wondered what happened to the "Neanderthals". I often surmised that they were one of the groups in the Bible (KJV1611) like the Canaanites or the Amalekites that God ordered wiped off the face of the earth.

There are some "scientists" that say that some of us have Neanderthal "DNA" in us, suggesting that there was intermarriage and are reassessing the dates when all this happened:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/deadthings/2017/09/04/new-dates-for-neanderthals-shakes-up-long-held-theory/

This could explain people like George Soros, Harvey Weinstein, and the Democrats.

This is, indeed, exciting. Now that we have established that Neanderthals were the antediluvian people with extreme longevity prior to the havoc of genetic entropy due to accumulating sin (Exodus 20:5) , many other issues that secular scientists cannot solve are suddenly crystal clear. Item: we know that only non-African peoples have Neanderthal genes, Africans have none. We also know that Africans are Hamites, and here the evidence is overwhelming as it is Biblical, as follows:

Genesis 9:25
And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.

Thus, Caucasians (and, inexplicably, the Chinese ) still have some glorious pre-flood (Genesis 7:7) genes of vigor and longevity, while God decided not to give the Hamites any. He must have used the intricate techniques of CRISPR, PCR, gene transfer, conjugation and pure miracles to attain this goal. This also proves that God is real, the Biblical® God, as these methods of molecular biology were probably mostly unknown in Noah's time. Thus, He removed all these beneficial genes from the African stock but let us have those few that are required for easy access into Heaven. Obviously, Hamites can do it, too, but they must first cast off the many generations of dastardly sinning (Genesis 20:5).

By simply choosing these suitable data, we have once again proven the utmost and utter accuracy of the Bible. Praise Jesus!



These are human chromosomes. They are not really rainbow-colored but the rainbow is and it was also invented by God during the Flood era (Genesis 9:13).


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

[Basilissa]

Re: Did our antediluvian ancestors look differently from us?

What a nice study, Miss Basilissa! Who was the male scholar who inspired you and gave you advice? My compliments to him!

Silly me, I forgot to include an Acknowledgements section! My gratitude goes towards three of some of the brightest minds in Freehold, and probably in the whole flat world, who inspire me every day with their in-depth Biblically sound analyses of the empirical evidence: Pastor Ezekiel Bathfire, Dr. Pim Pendergrast, and of course you, Dr. Elmer White!

Now, this is quite a good paper. I could join you as an author, send it to the Journal of Creation of any other high-impact journal and you'd get to co-author a significant keystone article? I see no need for revision except I'd like you to list Prayer as one source of the data you collected.

I agree on both accounts, I would be absolutely privileged to be a second author on a publication with you!

As for the conclusions, they offer a new, exciting explanation to some fossils that the evolutionists abuse to oppose Jesus. As antediluvian people actually looked like the figure depicted in your post, we now have proof that the "Neanderthals" were just normal, pre-flood men. This is how the evolutionist conspiracy shows them:



They look exactly like the figure in your post. Case closed. In fact, in the ancient millennia-old photograph above we might very well be seeing Abraham, Isaac and Sarah. Isn't that terrific?

It is quite amazing indeed! Just to think, that we are looking straight into the eyes of our antediluvian ancestors!

My only criticism, if I may mention it, is the choice of illustration. That woman is wearing PANTS!

That is very unfortunate indeed, it is part of the feminist agenda pushed by the liberal authors of the linked article. (Needless to say, they did not reach the same conclusion as I did regarding our early ancestors; in fact, they don't even discuss the antediluvian longevity issue!).

Interesting study, sister. When I was in high school (it was a Christian school), one of my teachers explained how before the flood there was a canopy of water above the clouds (Genesis 1:6) which would have filtered UV rays from the sun and cosmic radiation and would have allowed people to live longer. But during the flood this canopy was destroyed, so after many generations lifespans dropped to 175 in Abraham's day (Genesis 25:7), 120 in Moses' day (Deuteronomy 34:7), 70-80 in King David's day (Psalm 90:10) and about 35 during the industrial revolution. In the early days of this transition, you have people outliving their great-great-great-great-grandchildren, like in the case of Eber and Abraham (Genesis 11:10-32). My teacher also used canopy theory to explain the extinction of the dinosaurs. It kind of makes sense that a water canopy floating in space would filter harmful rays and people would probably live longer - if it didn't didn't also cause runaway global warming or cooling. I also wonder if people during the industrial revolution looked different than us seeing as we live about twice as long as they did.

That is a very rational explanation but as long as there is no some sort of gravity pulling towards the canopy, it does not explain the apparent lack of bipedalism-related health problems in antediluvians. It jut explains that these ancient people were not getting wrinkly but retained youthful appearance for hundreds of years - but they still would have been bed-ridden due to spinal and lower limb injuries.

Now, if the canopy was so large that it had, in fact, some gravitational pulling, that would also be a very logical explanation why all of these hundreds years old individuals were not bed ridden.

So, here is the question to all of our Creation scientists: can we prove that the canopy was pulling against Earth's pulling, thus stretching our ancestors and preventing these health problems?

And: how differently would the antediluvians have looked if they were being pulled not just down but up and down simultaneously?

[Joanna Lytton-Vasey]

Re: Did our antediluvian ancestors look differently from us?

So, here is the question to all of our Creation scientists: can we prove that the canopy was pulling against Earth's pulling, thus stretching our ancestors and preventing these health problems?

A sort of combination of Intelligent Falling and Intelligent Pulling? This is a question for the men, obviously, but there is an interesting introduction to the subject on the Creation Science forum, here:

And: how differently would the antediluvians have looked if they were being pulled not just down but up and down simultaneously?

You always raise such interesting questions, Sister. My boys have spent a little time thinking about this and drawing diagrams, and suggest that the antediluvians would (a) have been taller than we previously thought, partly as a result of (b) being more erect (in the sense of walking upright) than the illustration provided by the so-called "Scientific" American.

Hannah (almost 10) interrupted to insist they would also have been flat-footed, though nobody can understand why and, when asked to explain, she could only sob. She has been sent to the prayer closet to consider whether her unsubstantiated claim justified her poking her nose in.

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Re: Did our antediluvian ancestors look differently from us?

It seems to me that the Atheist’s argument “If there is a God, why does He* require threats such as Hell to keep us in order, and if there is a Heaven, why aren't we lining up to go there?” is answered by your argument.

We are “perfectly designed” if and only if we are free from sin. However, mankind (with the exception of Landover) is filled with sin and the evil of sin ages us in the ways described.

Were we like the prophets of old, then 900 years would be the norm.

At the time of the Flood, people lived a remarkably long time: this was the original design. However, we see from Genesis that this gave them greater opportunity to commit sins for longer, and the world and God will bear only so much sin. A Flood was in order. And this is announced in

Ge:6:3: And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

From this Flood came Noah, from whom we are all descended via his sons and their wives. And this was the birth of a new humanity – a humanity whose ability to sin was limited by time to a degree that did not anger God.

So why, you many ask, did God decide to give us this “new body”? Did not “New Coca Cola” fail miserably? The answer is obvious – it is staring us in the face:

Our body is perfect “for God’s purpose” In the old days, before Jesus came to earth, nobody went to heaven, and so God gave us a long time on earth – this is fair and kind. And this gives us the answer! Deep within our soul (that never alters) there is a memory of this time. That being the case, we would feel aggrieved at dying some 780 years early.

God’s solution is simple and elegant and, as you would expect, perfect. As humanity v.2.0.0 ages, the pain, suffering, and simple annoyances of limitation pile upon us

1. to remind us of our sins, and encourage repentance,
2. to demonstrate that God has this Power (John:9:1-3);
3. to prepare us for the grave by making the prospect of death appealing, and
4. to fulfill the prophecy that in Heaven there is no suffering.

It is a great pity that we are not allowed to speak to dead people, because I think that they would provide the final proof of this.






*Note the capital “H” - even atheists do this.

[Pim Pendergast]

Re: Did our antediluvian ancestors look differently from us?

The sceptic might ask many questions about possible complications arising from the long lifespans of our antediluvian ancestors.


1.) Were our "antediluvian ancestors" slower to mature?

And I wonder what your take is on this, Sister Basilissa. This seems a very plausible explanation of what we see in the genealogy of Genesis 5, where no one sired a son before the age of 65. It makes sense that if our antediluvian ancestors lived much longer than we do owing to their superior design, then there would be no rush to reach sexual maturity. They would be fertile for centuries (see point 2, below). While Genesis 5 is silent on the age of the mothers, we know God would never design women to mature faster than men; and "If they're ready to bleed, they're ready to breed", as the saying goes.


2.) Was the onset of menopause delayed?

It must have been. God would not have allowed women to outlive their usefulness by almost a millennium and so spare them the penalty for Eve's sin – pain in childbirth (Gen 3:16). No doubt antediluvian women had larger ovaries than today's women and were born with many times more eggs, the genetic quality of which did not decline as rapidly, as evidenced by the fact that the majority of antediluvian ancestors were not mongoloids but intelligent people capable of building cities (Gen 4:17), farming (Gen 4:20), making music (Gen 4:21), and metalworking (Gen 4:22).


3.) Did our "antediluvian ancestors" have very very very long telomeres?

Well, yes, I think that's a given.


4.) Did our "antediluvian ancestors" go bald or grey around the same time as humans today do?

It is actually possible that our pre-Flood ancestors spent most of their lives bald and grey. There is no shame in this according to the Bible.

Lev 13:40-41
40 And the man whose hair is fallen off his head, he is bald; yet is he clean.
41 And he that hath his hair fallen off from the part of his head toward his face, he is forehead bald: yet is he clean.

2 Ki 2:23-24
23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

Pro 16:31 The hoary head is a crown of glory, if it be found in the way of righteousness.


5.) Why weren't the lives of our "antediluvian ancestors" cut short by cancer?


If you live long enough, you will eventually get cancer. Perhaps canopy theory, which Brother Swallows mentioned, can partly explain why our antediluvian ancestors did not die from cancer at an earlier age. I believe genetic entropy, already mentioned by Dr White, may also help explain this. God created the world perfect. It was very good (Gen 1:31). Before the Fall, there was no death, predation or disease (Rom 5:12). Adam and Eve's genetic makeup would have been perfect. Their cells would have reproduced perfectly, without mutation. But as the generations went by, the quality of man's genes declined and became corrupted, making him more prone to diseases like cancer.


6.) If our "antediluvian ancestors" lived in cities, why did they not die younger due to communicable diseases?

As we saw earlier, at least some of our pre-Flood ancestors dwelt in cities (Gen 4:20). Yet they apparently did not succumb in large numbers to the contagious diseases usually associated with the squalor and cramped conditions of ancient (and even many modern) cities. Perhaps they had stronger immune systems. Perhaps they practised basic sanitation. Perhaps the little microevolution that had occurred since the Fall – before which there was no disease – was not yet sufficient to have created the fatal strains of bacteria we know today.


7.) Why is there no evidence of an "antediluvian population explosion"?

It stands to reason that if humans were fertile for centuries, were not susceptible to early death from disease, and had no access to modern contraception, the earth would have been overpopulated centuries before the Deluge; yet there is no evidence that this ever happened. The Bible, however, does not mention that the world was overpopulated before the Flood, so of course we would not expect to find evidence of overpopulation. Let's not complicate matters by thinking up problems flowing from reasonable conclusions drawn from what God's Word says. If God wasn't worried about the maths when He inspired Moses to write Genesis 5, then we shouldn't be either.


8.) How could humans have changed so much in 6,000 years? Isn't that like a form of evolution?

No. Creationists accept that there was rapid speciation after the Flood, which is nothing like Darwinian macroevolution.

Two questions that are often asked about Noah’s Ark are: how could Noah have fit all those animals into his big ship, and how could only he and seven other people have cared for them? Bill Nye brought up these questions in his debate last month with Ken Ham.

These questions arise from an exaggerated view of the number of animals that were actually involved. God didn’t tell Noah to save every species of air-breathing, land-dwelling animal, only two (and in a few cases, seven pairs) of each kind of air-breathing, land-dwelling animal. The obvious question is: what constitutes a “kind”? Is a kind what we’d today call a genus? A family?

The answer is still being researched, though evidence suggests in most instances it’s the family level. The higher up the classification levels we climb, the numbers of individual animals that Noah needed to bring aboard the Ark becomes fewer. We need to remember that the standard Linnaean system of classification is man-made; it is not God’s system of classification.

According to a recent study, there may be only 137 different mammalian kinds alive today. Add those to the now-extinct kinds, the bird kinds, the reptile kinds, and the amphibian kinds, there may have been fewer than 1,000 . . . . The most-recent research indicates that Noah only needed maybe 2,000-3,000 animals.

Even so, that’s a lot of critters to tend to on a daily basis on the Ark. But don’t forget that humans were still recent creations of God. As such, they would have been very intelligent and resourceful. It’s not a stretch to imagine Noah, his family, and possibly hired labor being able to build all sorts of clever, labor-saving inventions to help in the year-long task of tending to perhaps 3,000 animals.

If the microevolution of Ken Ham gave us all known deadly and disease-causing bacteria and viruses within the 6,000 years since the Fall, and all existing mammalian, reptilian, amphibian and avian species from the 1,000 created kinds aboard the Ark within the 4,300 years since the Flood, then we can safely conclude that the human baramin has also undergone some microevolution in the same period.

This ties in wonderfully with what Dr White was saying about the Hamites lacking Neanderthal DNA and lends weight to the "Out of the Middle-East" theory proposed by the Bible. As humans migrated into Africa after the Tower of Babel, they lost – perhaps by Divine means – some of the genetic information retained by Europeans, Americans, Asians, and Arabs. And microevolution, as we all know, is caused by the loss of genetic information, not the creation of new genetic information.

Sister B.'s study shows us that atheism and evolutionism simply can't stand up to the cold hard facts of Scripture and True Christian™ logic.

[Alan Swallows Waiting for Email Confirmation]

Re: Did our antediluvian ancestors look differently from us?

God would not have allowed women to outlive their usefulness by almost a millennium and so spare them the penalty for Eve's sin – pain in childbirth (Gen 3:16).

Antediluvian women must have had very strong birth canal structure so that things would "shrink back" to normal even after centuries of giving birth. That way childbirth would continue to be painful and a man's duty would at least be bearable.

I don't see a problem with thinking of these things seeing as God obviously places such a high priority on them (Deuteronomy 22:13-21). God's thoughts are way higher than mine (Isaiah 55:8-9).

[Basilissa]

Re: Did our antediluvian ancestors look differently from us?

The sceptic might ask many questions about possible complications arising from the long lifespans of our antediluvian ancestors.

1.) Were our "antediluvian ancestors" slower to mature?

And I wonder what your take is on this, Sister Basilissa. This seems a very plausible explanation of what we see in the genealogy of Genesis 5, where no one sired a son before the age of 65. It makes sense that if our antediluvian ancestors lived much longer than we do owing to their superior design, then there would be no rush to reach sexual maturity.

That definitely makes sense. Looking at people today, the upper limit of life is about 120 years. On average, adolescents reach puberty between 10 and 13 years of age, which is 1/12 to 1/10 of their maximum lifespan. For someone living 900 years, 1/12 of the lifespan would be 75 years, which falls very close to the 65 years you mention. Early puberty is directly related to good nutrition, and we can safely assume antediluvians were well fed, since the ratio of number of people to available resources was much more favorable than today. Hence, it does seem safe to assume that antediluvians of both sexes were hitting puberty around 60-70 years old.

2.) Was the onset of menopause delayed?

It must have been. God would not have allowed women to outlive their usefulness by almost a millennium and so spare them the penalty for Eve's sin – pain in childbirth (Gen 3:16). No doubt antediluvian women had larger ovaries than today's women and were born with many times more eggs, the genetic quality of which did not decline as rapidly,

Absolutely. Again, extrapolating from people today, antediluvian women would have been going through menopause at ca. 400 years of age.

It does beg the question, however, whether gestation period was the same or adequately longer? That would make a huge difference in terms of how many children could a woman have in her lifetime! Assuming delayed maturing process, I believe the gestation also had to be longer, probably 5 to 6 years (9 months = 0.75 of a year; x=length of antediluvian gestation; solving the equation for x, gives x=5.6 years).

6.) If our "antediluvian ancestors" lived in cities, why did they not die younger due to communicable diseases?

As we saw earlier, at least some of our pre-Flood ancestors dwelt in cities (Gen 4:20). Yet they apparently did not succumb in large numbers to the contagious diseases usually associated with the squalor and cramped conditions of ancient (and even many modern) cities. Perhaps they had stronger immune systems. Perhaps they practised basic sanitation. Perhaps the little microevolution that had occurred since the Fall – before which there was no disease – was not yet sufficient to have created the fatal strains of bacteria we know today.

These are all great arguments. Also, God may not have invented plagues at that time yet, so basically there were no viruses or bacteria that could affect people, despite living in close quarters with their animals.

7.) Why is there no evidence of an "antediluvian population explosion"?

It stands to reason that if humans were fertile for centuries, were not susceptible to early death from disease, and had no access to modern contraception, the earth would have been overpopulated centuries before the Deluge; yet there is no evidence that this ever happened. The Bible, however, does not mention that the world was overpopulated before the Flood, so of course we would not expect to find evidence of overpopulation.

If we take the delayed puberty and long gestation under account, I believe that solves this apparent paradox.

[Johny Joe Hold]

Re: Did our antediluvian ancestors look differently from us?

All this intellectual stuff explains something simple. We have so much more sin today because sexual urges come earlier. Satan puts sex in peoples' heads before they are ready to control it.

[Brother Gonzalez]

Re: Did our antediluvian ancestors look differently from us?

All this intellectual stuff explains something simple. We have so much more sin today because sexual urges come earlier. Satan puts sex in peoples' heads before they are ready to control it.

Thanks Mayor. The whole thing of a woman talking about equations and the likes was making me nervous.
You enlightened the topic without retorting to such difficult words.

[Pim Pendergast]

Re: Did our antediluvian ancestors look differently from us?

If we take the delayed puberty and long gestation under account, I believe that solves this apparent paradox.

Sounds like this "slow motion" gestation, maturation, and ageing means our antediluvian ancestors would have undergone a long, slow decline in health and vigour. Instead of years or decades, they would have endured perhaps four centuries of failing eyesight and hearing, aches and pains, incontinence and senility. Well, maybe just a century or two for the last ones.